edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8739] 
4.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports regarding New Zealand’s public pension system and retirement savings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As I mentioned earlier I have received a report from the OECD calling for an increase in the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. I have ruled this out but the report was endorsed by Mr English the Opposition spokesperson on finance. I have also received reports showing that in 1998-99 the floor for New Zealand superannuation was cut from 65 percent of the average wage to 60 percent by the then National Government of which Mr English and Mr Ryall and others were a part and restored to 65 percent in 2000 by the incoming Labour Government. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Has he seen any reports suggesting New Zealand should completely cede its economic sovereignty to Australia and unnecessarily expose our exporting and agriculture sectors to fluctuations in world mineral prices among other things beyond our control? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed I have. I have seen a suggestion from Mr Key that we should adopt a common currency with Australia. Actually that has never been on offer. What is on offer is adopting the Australian currency. This would mean that we would be highly influenced by the very much larger increase in minerals prices than has occurred in New Zealand’s agricultural prices over recent times. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can he tell the House what successive Labour-led Governments have done to protect New Zealand superannuation into the future? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In 2000 we restored the level of New Zealand superannuation. We also established a superannuation fund that along with our prudent fiscal strategy has made us one of the best-placed nations in the world to tackle the challenges of an ageing population. On 1 July this year the KiwiSaver scheme comes into force which will make it easier for New Zealanders to save to supplement their retirement income.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8737] 
2.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports advocating an increase in both the GST rate and the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen a report from the OECD that amongst a number of unhelpful suggestions suggests that we should increase the rate of GST and cut New Zealand superannuation either by raising the age of eligibility or lowering the level of indexation. Mr English subsequently endorsed that report. I can assure the House I have no plans to increase the rate of GST or to change the age of eligibility or indeed the indexation requirements for New Zealand superannuation. I call on all members of the House other than Mr English to endorse that. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has he seen any reports on when proposals such as those in the OECD report were last implemented? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As Mr English has just said that that was a stupid idea I should note that in 1998-99 the New Zealand Government of the day of which he was a member cut national superannuation from 65 percent of the average wage for a married couple to 60 percent of the average wage for a married couple. One of the first things the incoming Labour Government did was to restore the level of New Zealand superannuation to 65 percent.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Hon Henry Robert Lapwood OBE 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — Hon Henry Robert Lapwood OBE 
[Volume:638;Page:8735] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 26 April 2007 of the Hon Henry Robert (Harry) Lapwood OBE who represented the electorate of Rotorua from 1960 to 1978. He was a senior whip from 1970 to 1974 and Minister of Tourism and Minister in charge of Publicity and of the Government Printing Office from 1975 to 1978. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Obituaries — Hon Henry Robert Lapwood OBE 
Obituaries — Hon Henry Robert Lapwood OBE 
[Volume:638;Page:8735] 
Tuesday 1 May 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Obituaries 
Hon Henry Robert Lapwood OBE 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 26 April 2007 of the Hon Henry Robert (Harry) Lapwood OBE who represented the electorate of Rotorua from 1960 to 1978. He was a senior whip from 1970 to 1974 and Minister of Tourism and Minister in charge of Publicity and of the Government Printing Office from 1975 to 1978. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Bennett David: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
Bennett David: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and  State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8812] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Minister of Transport made some comments there that were not the case. The Waikato— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet ruling on a point of order. I say to the member that is a debating point which I am sure he knows very well. 
Report noted.
Vote: Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8897] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 37 
Auchinvole (P) 
Dean  
Mapp  
Wilkinson   
Bennett D 
Foss(P) 
McCully(P) 
Williamson (P) 
Bennett P (P) 
Goodhew 
Peachey  
Wong(P) 
Blue(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Blumsky  
Groser  
Roy H (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Henare  
Ryall  
Carter J (P) 
Hide  
Simich(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Smith L 
Clarkson(P) 
Key(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Coleman(P) 
King C (P) 
Tremain(P) 
Teller: 
Collins(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Wagner  
Guy  
Noes 84 
Anderton (P) 
Duynhoven   
Kedgley(P) 
Sharples   
Ardern  
Dyson(P) 
King A (P) 
Smith N (P) 
Barker  
English(P) 
Laban(P) 
Soper(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
Locke  
Stewart  
Benson-Pope (P) 
Fenton  
Mackey(P) 
Street  
Borrows  
Field(P) 
Mahuta 
Swain(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Finlayson   
Mallard(P) 
Tanczos  
Brown(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mark(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Flavell  
Moroney 
Tizard(P) 
Burton  
Gallagher   
O’Connor(P) 
Tolley  
Carter C (P) 
Goff(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Turei(P) 
Chauvel(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Harawira(P) 
Parker(P) 
Turner(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hartley  
Peters(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Connell(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Copeland   
Hayes(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Worth  
Cosgrove(P) 
Heatley  
Rich(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Dalziel  
Horomia  
Roy E 
Donnelly(P) 
Hutchison   
Samuels  
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Jones(P) 
Shanks(P) 
Hughes  
Motion not agreed to.
Parker David: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8889] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 One of the issues that might be reviewed is the concern expressed by Mr Copeland who is a gentleman in this Parliament whose opinion I respect that the effect of this legislation will be to prevent parents from uplifting their children and putting them in another room to have time out. I disagree with the member as to his interpretation of the legislation and I think when the legislation falls to be reviewed in future years his interpretation will be shown to be incorrect. 
In my opinion it is clear that the nature of many different relationships implies a level of physical contact that does not amount to an assault. I will give just two examples of that that I think prove the point. Firstly when people go out on to a sporting field they have far higher levels of physical contact tackling each other in rugby or hitting each other with cricket balls than the level of physical contact applied when a parent removes a child from a room. Yet no one suggests that the act of tackling in rugby is a technical assault. It is not; it is actually a level of physical contact for which consent is implied from the conduct. That is the sort of thing the chief executive will look at when reviewing this legislation because if it were to be wrong it would be reviewed. 
I suggest to Mr Copeland another illustration which is slapping a friend on the back. Again that is not an assault; that level of physical conduct is permitted in a relationship. I think the courts would find it very easy—even apart from the discretion the police have not to prosecute—to find that the level of physical contact a parent might have removing a child is actually an acceptable level of physical contact and would not amount to a technical assault. So I am quite confident that if that did become an issue—and I do not think it will—section 6 would prove a means to resolve it. Thank you.
Tolley Anne: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8889] 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise to take a very quick call and speak to this amendment from Minister Benson-Pope. National will be supporting the amendment. Earlier today we had speeches about our leader John Key and the Prime Minister and Sue Bradford brokering an agreement that parked politics to one side and negotiated a deal that although some of us might think is less than perfect is at least a better option for New Zealand parents. 
It is clear that prior to today many New Zealand parents were unsure of how what was proposed by Sue Bradford would work. Many debates in this House made it clear that MPs were unsure how the bill as proposed and as proposed to be amended would work and I am clear in my own mind that come tomorrow many New Zealand parents will still be unclear how this bill will work. I have no doubt there are MPs in the Chamber tonight who share those feelings. So it is appropriate that we build in to what we pass tonight and in 2 weeks’ time an opportunity to have a review of how the bill is actually working. 
We have reached an agreement that provides some protection in the law itself for New Zealand parents from being prosecuted by the police but this bill does not contain anything that will provide protection from investigations that may follow from Child Youth and Family. I guess that the fear of many good parents is that if they are reported to the police and are not prosecuted the police will advise Child Youth and Family and that agency will bring an investigation down upon the parents’ heads. That is something we will have to watch and see. I know from the work I have done in the past with Sue Bradford that it is not something she wishes upon good New Zealand parents either. This amendment that the Minister has put in will allow us to give the bill when it becomes an Act a reasonable amount of time to be put into practice. We will actually see how it works in practice do a full review and report back to this Parliament so that we can judge whether in fact we need to do any fine-tuning to give protection to good parents who are doing a very difficult job. 
I speak on behalf of National members who will be supporting this amendment.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8889] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1. 
Noes 5 
United Future 2 (Copeland Turner) ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Clause 5 agreed to.
Officer Presiding: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Officer Presiding: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8889] 
The CHAIRPERSON 
: There were two amendments to clause 5 but only one is left as the amendment put forward by Mr Borrows has been withdrawn. The amendment from Rodney Hide to omit the clause is ruled out of order.
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8888] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I would like to thank Mr Brown from New Zealand First for his inquiry. I think it is great that he really wants to understand what he is voting on here tonight. Of course some members did not have the advantage of sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee which looked in detail at the bill. 
The purpose of this clause is to correct an anomaly that would be left if we did not pass it in that when the law changed in 1989 and removed the ability for teachers to administer corporal punishment in schools because of the current section 59 of the Crimes Act it was left in there that the parent or guardian of a child could still come into a school and punish the child in the school. This anomaly has meant for example that although some of the Christian schools such as Tyndale Park Christian School Carey Baptist College Wainuiomata Christian College and some others I think at times have had a practice—and still do—of having teachers administer corporal punishment inside the school which is totally outside the law in some cases they still have a practice of calling parents in to administer physical punishment within the school for infractions of the school rules. 
I am certainly committed to seeing that anomaly rectified. We would like all children at schools in this country to receive the same protection in the law and to have the same right to be free of violence when they are at school. It is absolutely essential to this legislation that we get rid of this anomaly which we see as a totally repugnant practice by putting forward this clause here. Otherwise we would be left with a very strange little situation whereby parents could come into a school use physical punishment and have the defence of reasonable force. I hope this explanation is enough to satisfy members’ understanding of this provision.
Brown Peter: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8888] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek some clarification on clause 5 possibly from the member in the chair Sue Bradford. It is New Zealand First’s understanding that it is just a technical clause that is necessary to make the bill function and that if it is not approved the bill will not function. It is quite important for New Zealand First to have that confirmed. As the member and the Committee will know by and large New Zealand First is giving split votes on this bill all the way through but what we as a party are trying to do is to get the best piece of legislation possible. At the end of the day come the third reading we will allow our members a conscience vote and each of us as individuals will make up our minds which way to go but we want to know whether it is essential that this clause is in the bill and what it does. We are not fully au fait with what it does. We did not have a member on the Justice and Electoral Committee and we would appreciate the member giving us just a brief overview so that we can vote appropriately. 
We are pleased to have supported the last amendment to the bill the one in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne. We would have much preferred Chester Borrows’ amendment; we thought it was far superior. 
Rodney Hide 
: So did I. 
PETER BROWN 
: So did Rodney Hide. 
Hon Member 
: Strange bedfellows! 
PETER BROWN 
: It is a bit unusual is it not? Some unusual things happen in this place from time to time. But we believe that that amendment to clause 4 has made a significant difference. We do not totally share the view that Rodney expressed. We think it is essential to clarify where the police stand and what is expected of them—not only for the police but for the average caring parents out there who might for one reason or another smack their child for the purpose of correction and think all hell is going to descend on them. We voted for the amendment to clarify that clause in the interests of New Zealand having workable legislation. 
We now seek some advice from the member in the chair as to exactly what clause 5 does so we can assess whether we should vote for it or against it. I hope that clarifies our position. I look forward to Sue Bradford explaining briefly what it is all about.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8887] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 3 
ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8887] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
New Zealand First 3 (Brown Mark Peters); United Future 2 (Copeland Turner); ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 4 (Donnelly Paraone Stewart Woolerton); Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 107 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne be agreed to.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8887] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
Ayes 9 
New Zealand First 5 (Brown Mark Paraone Peters Stewart); United Future 2 (Copeland Turner); ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; New Zealand First 2 (Donnelly Woolerton); United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Gordon Copeland be agreed to: 
to add to new section 59(3) the words “but for the avoidance of doubt every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of ‘time-out’ taking a child to a ‘naughty-mat’ or similar. Such actions do not for the purposes of this Act constitute correction.”
Simich Clem: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8886] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question was that clause 4 stand part. We have a number of amendments before we put the question. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Rodney Hide be agreed to: 
to add “and correction” to the heading to new section 59; 
to insert “ subject to subsection (4)” after “Every parent of a child and” in new section 59(1); 
to add “; or” to new section 59(1)(d); 
to add to new section 59(1) the following paragraph: 
(e)correction.; and 
to omit new sections 59(2) and (3) and substitute the following new sections: 
(2)The use of force for a purpose specified in any of paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) is unreasonable if— 
(a)it involves conduct prohibited by an enactment creating a criminal offence other than an offence under— 
(i)section 194 (assault on a child or by a male on a female); or 
(ii)section 196 (common assault); or 
(iii)section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 (common assault); or 
(b)it causes or contributes materially to harm that is more than transitory and trifling; or 
(c)any weapon tool or other implement is used; or 
(d)it is inflicted by any means that is cruel degrading or terrifying. 
(3)Subsection (2) does not limit the circumstances in which force used for a purpose specified in any of paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) might be found to be unreasonable. 
(4)Nothing in this section justifies the use of force towards a child in contravention of section 139A of the Education Act 1989.”
Hughes Darren: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8885] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an extract from the  
Daily Chronicle 
 where Mr Guy says that this legislation goes too far takes away a last resort from parents and says that education not legislation is needed; also a further article criticising Labour for allegedly whipping its members of Parliament into voting for a piece of legislation they do not support. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Okeroa Mahara: General Debate 
Okeroa Mahara: General Debate 
[Volume:638;Page:8845] 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) 
: 
 I refer to a comment made by the member for Whanganui Chester Borrows. Chester Borrows is a former police detective and as far as I know a qualified lawyer. Given his background I wonder what his definition of the truth is and what his definition of “stolen” is. I feel blest along with my colleague Hone Harawira that when I was at the other end of the baton or the tohutohu I did not encounter someone who had such a definition of “stolen” which then automatically assumes a guilty verdict. 
I listened at length to the previous speaker the member for Napier Chris Tremain. I remember being in this House when that member made an impassioned presentation using a very famous Maori proverb that goes something like this: “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata.” 
[ 
What is the most important thing in the world? It is people it is people. 
] 
If that member actually believed what he said and in the meaning of the proverb rather than merely uttering it hoping everyone would get the deeper symbolism from it—which he did not—then I cannot understand why he is supporting his leader’s stance on the debate about Working for Families. 
When he uttered the proverb there was some kind of understanding or perhaps belief that he knew what he was talking about. But it is obvious that he did not have the faintest clue of the deeper symbolism. [ 
Interruption 
] That member from Westland would not know either. 
There is a strong rumour suggesting that Maori were better off or would be better off under a National Government in coalition. That kind of rumour in my view deserves or requires an informed analysis. Having done that all I can say is that such a notion is absolutely politically fraudulent—nothing more nothing less. It is fraud. 
 When we take into consideration the Leader of the Opposition’s latest move to scrap the Working for Families package in favour of tax cuts for his rich mates we see that this could only mean serious damage in our communities—across the political sector as well as the cultural sector. It is estimated that there would be 160000 New Zealand whanau including Maori who would lose about $50 per week. As another example currently a Maoriwhanau earning $52000 per year with three tamariki and a mortgage is eligible for around $246 per week under the Working for Families scheme. Under a National Government that family would face a loss of some $80 per week. 
I need therefore to ask a question. That question is whether we are here in this House as elected or mandated MPs to think about the “we” or to think about the “me”. If we think about the “me” we are talking about having a developed social consciousness about what we do and about our concern for others.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8833] 
11. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied that the current regulatory regime for the real estate industry offers sufficient protection to consumers? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No I am not. The regime for the real estate industry needs a major overhaul. The latest example is that of a Hamilton real estate agent who was warned by the Commerce Commission and also fined the paltry sum of $750 by the industry for breaching its code of ethics who cost John and Caitlin Ottaway at least $35000. This individual was yesterday named by Harcourts as the top sales consultant for the central region. Harcourts describes the individual as “one of the most highly principled ethical individuals that we work with.” This level of praise for this individual shows that the senior leadership in the real estate industry is completely out of touch with reality and that the industry is overdue for major reform. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reforms does the Minister envisage for the industry? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The industry currently has the privilege of self-regulation. I gave the industry two chances to clean up its act under its own steam and at its own expense. Both times the industry’s proposals fell well short. At the end of this month I will be releasing the Government’s preferred options to clean up the industry and drive the so-called land sharks who are ripping off good decent people out of it. Those real estate agents give the majority of hard-working honest real estate agents a bad name. The reforms will deliver open transparent accessible fair and effective discipline and complaints processes. They will revamp licensing training enforcement and industry standards and above all will deliver robust reliable and inexpensive consumer protection. 
Simon Power 
: How many more times will the Minister announce this reform before actually producing a document? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will continue to announce the reform. That member had 9 years to do something about it and did nothing. I will continue to highlight to this House when so-called land sharks like the person I mentioned rip off good honest individual Kiwis and also give every other real estate agent a bad name. If that member does not like it tough! [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the House settle please. We have only one more question to go.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8831] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I seek leave to quote statistics from Statistics New Zealand showing that the average house price over the last 10 years has increased by 60 percent. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document— 
Hon Members 
: No it is not a document. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please clarify—is that a document? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it is a document. Those who do not wish to give leave can voice that now. Is there any objection to leave being granted? Yes there is objection.
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8830] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I have just had some papers delivered to me. I seek leave to table answers from Quotable Value New Zealand’s annual review stating that it valued 145 State houses worth over a million dollars each in 2006. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I seek leave to table answers from Quotable Value’s annual review stating that it valued 124 State houses worth over a million dollars each in 2005. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I seek leave to table the Primary Production Committee’s report on Quotable Value New Zealand confirming that it values million dollar - plus State houses each year. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8827] 
7. Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he received any reports regarding the reduction of fees charged by mobile phone companies being passed on to fixed-calling customers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister for Economic Development 
: Yes I have received deed polls from Vodafone and Telecom specifying their commitments to reduce mobile termination rates and to pass the reductions through to customers. These reductions are from 20c in both cases to 14c for Vodafone and 12c for Telecom. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What options are available to the Government if it is found by the annual audits that either one or both of the companies are reneging on their commitments to reduce termination rates or to pass those reductions on to fixed-calling customers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Deeds provide legally enforceable processes. Rates can be enforced by fixed-line providers while pass-through can be enforced by the Crown and under the Vodafone deed pass-through can also be enforced by fixed-line customers. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that policy settings to put pressure on telecommunications companies to reduce the costs of mobile phone calls are outlined in the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and his Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes page 4 of the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Labour Party specifically refers to this pressure on telecommunications companies to reduce the cost of mobile phone calls.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8825] 
5. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What significant recent announcements has he made for the aged-care sector? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced the largest ever investment in the care and support of the elderly. Most of this will go to workers in the sector. It will enable high turnover of staff to be reduced successful training to be established and expanded and therefore the evolution of a more stable better paid and more skilled workforce. 
Lesley Soper 
: How does the Government intend to ensure that the funding will indeed flow to the workers? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In many respects providers are already keen to lift wages because the labour market is tight. New Zealand has amongst the lowest rates of unemployment in the world. However I have also obliged district health boards to use contractual mechanisms to ensure the money flows as they have in the past. In addition I have stated that the future of the sector lies in collectivity because home-based workers in particular are somewhat isolated. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand First made addressing issues in the elder-care sector a priority in its confidence and supply agreement with the Government and that it is the second time in 2 years that New Zealand First has secured significant funding increases for this sector? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I can confirm both those statements. Indeed it is the third Budget in a row in which there have been significant increases in this sector. I acknowledge and thank New Zealand First for its ongoing support and cooperation in this matter.
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8819] 
1. SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on changes to the Working for Families programme and tax rates? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received reports apparently emanating from the Leader of the Opposition that suggest that the improvements to Working for Families announced in late 2005 should be abolished. That would mean lowering the threshold for abatement back down to $27535 and increasing the abatement rate to 30 percent from 20 percent. That would mean that families with a household income of over $27500 would lose out. For example a couple with a joint income of $60000 a year and two children could lose as much as $82 a week and a minimum of $43 a week depending on the age of the children. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the likely reductions in tax rates that could be paid for by cuts to Working for Families of up to $82 per week for a family on $60000 a year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes by reducing that family’s income by between $43 and $82 a week and by rededicating the money so saved from Working for Families to across-the-board tax cuts tax cuts of almost $5 a week could be delivered. That makes a mockery of Mr Key’s claim that no one would be worse off under that policy. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the reports are wrong; and when is he going to explain his own economic management to the country as to why people are going to be paying higher interest rates for longer and why jobs are being exported—when is he going to explain that instead of wasting his time on attacking everybody else’s policy in order to avoid the real issues? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unfortunately even before the last election Mr Key admitted some families would be worse off under National’s policy. As to the matter of the so-called jobs being exported I want to ask Mr English whether it is now National’s policy to reimpose high tariffs and whether it is now National’s policy to oppose free trade agreements. If it is why did Mr Key not announce that in his speech today instead of announcing nothing at all on exporting? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is question time for the Opposition to ask the Government questions. Clearly Michael Cullen cannot answer them so he has asked Bill English some questions. Do we take it that leave is going to be granted for Mr English to give the House a long dissertation on each of those points? I so seek leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Roy Heather: Points of Order — Question No. 7 to Minister 1 May—Incorrect Answer 
Roy Heather: Points of Order — Question No. 7 to Minister 1 May—Incorrect Answer 
[Volume:638;Page:8819] 
HEATHER ROY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It relates to a matter raised at question time yesterday and I seek your guidance perhaps about the right way of going about it. The Minister of Education the Hon Steve Maharey incorrectly answered a supplementary question yesterday when—and this relates directly to the issue at hand—he said that the parents who are involved in a website petition that is currently running do not currently have children involved in the early childhood education sector. That statement is absolutely wrong and I have had an email from the secretary of that group KirstyBamford who has asked me to raise this matter in the House today. She has stated that each and every one of the group of eight do have children of an eligible age and that their numbers are growing daily. She asked why else they would all invest so much time and energy in holding Labour accountable in respect of its broken promise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point. It is of course a matter for debate. The member has raised it but I suggest she raises it in the general debate.
Points of Order — Question No. 7 to Minister 1 May—Incorrect Answer 
Points of Order — Question No. 7 to Minister 1 May—Incorrect Answer 
[Volume:638;Page:8819] 
Points of Order 
Question No. 7 to Minister 1 May—Incorrect Answer 
HEATHER ROY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It relates to a matter raised at question time yesterday and I seek your guidance perhaps about the right way of going about it. The Minister of Education the Hon Steve Maharey incorrectly answered a supplementary question yesterday when—and this relates directly to the issue at hand—he said that the parents who are involved in a website petition that is currently running do not currently have children involved in the early childhood education sector. That statement is absolutely wrong and I have had an email from the secretary of that group KirstyBamford who has asked me to raise this matter in the House today. She has stated that each and every one of the group of eight do have children of an eligible age and that their numbers are growing daily. She asked why else they would all invest so much time and energy in holding Labour accountable in respect of its broken promise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point. It is of course a matter for debate. The member has raised it but I suggest she raises it in the general debate.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of Indonesia—Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives India—Parliamentary Delegation Haryana State Legislative Assembly 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of Indonesia—Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives India—Parliamentary Delegation Haryana State Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:638;Page:8819] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I also have pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Haryana State Legislative Assembly of India led by the Hon Dr Raghuvir Singh Kadian is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would also wish to make them welcome.
Visitors — Republic of Indonesia—Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives India—Parliamentary Delegation Haryana State Legislative Assembly 
Visitors — Republic of Indonesia—Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives India—Parliamentary Delegation Haryana State Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:638;Page:8819] 
Wednesday 2 May 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Republic of Indonesia—Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia led by the Hon AsmanAbnur is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish to make that delegation welcome. 
India—Parliamentary Delegation Haryana State Legislative Assembly 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I also have pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Haryana State Legislative Assembly of India led by the Hon Dr Raghuvir Singh Kadian is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would also wish to make them welcome.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of Indonesia—Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives India—Parliamentary Delegation Haryana State Legislative Assembly 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Republic of Indonesia—Parliamentary Delegation House of Representatives India—Parliamentary Delegation Haryana State Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:638;Page:8819] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia led by the Hon AsmanAbnur is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish to make that delegation welcome.
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8894] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new clause 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 4 (Brown Mark Peters Stewart); Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 4 
New Zealand First 3 (Donnelly Woolerton Paraone); Independent: Field. 
New clause 6 agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8914] 
7.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What agreement with major television broadcasters will the Government announce today and what long-term health gains are anticipated? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 This morning with the Minister of Broadcasting I announced agreement with the two major free-to-air TV channels on a five-point plan aimed at improving food advertising to children by limiting the sort of advertising shown during children’s programming zones. This will help improve nutrition and promote a more healthy lifestyle amongst our children which will promote long-term health gains. 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the essence of this agreement and how does the Minister intend to satisfy himself that it will work? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The essence of the agreement is that only advertisements that meet the new standard can be shown. In addition the television companies will pay for some social marketing campaigns along the lines of Push Play which will help to promote lifestyle changes in general. The Ministry of Health will monitor these changes so that I can learn to what extent they are successful. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One shows that the category of children’s programming that the new announcement will cover is 21 hours on TV2 and 15 hours on TV3. 
Document not tabled. 
Sue Kedgley 
: The second document is a survey by the Broadcasting Standards Authority showing that most children watch television outside those hours. 
Document not tabled.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8902] 
2.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What progress has been made with making digital television available in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I am pleased to inform the House that free-to-air digital television broadcasting commenced yesterday. The FreeView group of broadcasters launched its satellite service which means that all New Zealanders now have access to free-to-air digital television which provides superior quality reception and better pictures and sound. I hope that over time we will see more channels more content and more services like interactivity made available throughout the country. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Madam Speaker I have been having some difficulty hearing—[ 
Interruption 
]—because of the noise in the Chamber not my own disability. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The level of conversation amongst members on all sides of the House is starting to rise again. If members have urgent business they want to transact with each other would they please take it out of the Chamber. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What advice has the Minister received on the transition of free-to-air broadcasting to digital? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Following a proposal from the group of free-to-air broadcasters I took advice from a range of independent analysts officials of the Ministry of Culture and Heritage the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit the Ministry of Economic Development Treasury and free-to-air broadcasters themselves. That advice told me that it was essential that broadcasters move to digital because analogue broadcasting equipment was becoming redundant and because New Zealanders needed to share the advantages of digital television like countries all around the world. The only bad piece of advice I have had concerns my being disappointed by the constant complaints by the National Party spokesperson on broadcasting who has led the industry to believe that he opposes digital television which is a very real shame. This ought to be something that is shared across the House. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Will the Minister then be taking the advice he was given that he needs to set a date for switching off the analogue signal; and does the Minister realise that unless he takes that advice takes the responsibility and names a date FreeView does not have the chance of attracting an audience and will therefore represent a waste of $104 million of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member knows the advice was the exact opposite. Countries around the world have found that setting a switch-off date is one of the most difficult things to do. Therefore the advice suggested that we set a time frame which we have done of between 6 and 10 years which is exactly what all the broadcasters agree with what the FreeView platform agrees with and what we will do.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers 
[Volume:638;Page:8899] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have spoken to the Minister about the number of questions that are out of time. I understand that his office is in fact attending to that urgently.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers 
[Volume:638;Page:8899] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before the last adjournment I raised an issue in the House about overdue written questions. The Leader of the House undertook to take up the matter. Since that time I can report that—and I asked you about this—I have had 49 questions answered this week by the Minister for Social Development and Employment Mr Benson-Pope. Nine of those questions were 6 weeks overdue three were 5 weeks overdue and the list goes on. But what I am asking is whether it is satisfactory after that length of time to have an answer that states: “I will provide the member with an answer to her question shortly.” That was the answer to 49 questions. In addition I have 22 questions remaining that are overdue—10 of those are 6 weeks overdue and three are 5 weeks overdue. As for the questions that have been answered in that non-answer way I now have to re-lodge them so we will have yet further information going through the Clerk’s Office. It absolutely brings the House into disrepute when a Minister is not taking this job seriously. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have spoken to the Minister about the number of questions that are out of time. I understand that his office is in fact attending to that urgently.
Collins Judith: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers 
Collins Judith: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers 
[Volume:638;Page:8899] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before the last adjournment I raised an issue in the House about overdue written questions. The Leader of the House undertook to take up the matter. Since that time I can report that—and I asked you about this—I have had 49 questions answered this week by the Minister for Social Development and Employment Mr Benson-Pope. Nine of those questions were 6 weeks overdue three were 5 weeks overdue and the list goes on. But what I am asking is whether it is satisfactory after that length of time to have an answer that states: “I will provide the member with an answer to her question shortly.” That was the answer to 49 questions. In addition I have 22 questions remaining that are overdue—10 of those are 6 weeks overdue and three are 5 weeks overdue. As for the questions that have been answered in that non-answer way I now have to re-lodge them so we will have yet further information going through the Clerk’s Office. It absolutely brings the House into disrepute when a Minister is not taking this job seriously.