edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:673;Page:19449] 
Thursday 16 June 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 21 June the Government intends to hold the combined 3-hour debate on the second readings of the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill. This debate will be followed by the consideration of two amendments to the supplementary estimates bill by the House in Committee. The Government also intends to make further progress on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will just check with the Minister: when he said “two amendments” does that mean the two clauses that relate to Canterbury or does it mean there is a further substantive amendment? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 My memory is that they relate to Canterbury. If that is not the case I will let the member know.
Woodhouse Michael: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19583] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
English Bill: Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — Third Reading 
English Bill: Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19567] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill be now read a third time 
.
McClay Todd: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
McClay Todd: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19474] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19499] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran to clause 23C be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (2): 
(2A)The Minister must when making a decision under subsection (1) take into consideration section 69A of the Telecommunications Act 2001.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 247 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 2 be agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Tuvalu—Speaker Parliament 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Tuvalu—Speaker Parliament 
[Volume:673;Page:19503] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Rt Hon Sir Kamuta Latasi Speaker of the Parliament of Tuvalu is present in the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the delegation in the Speaker’s gallery also be welcomed. 
The Rt Hon Sir Kamuta Latasi accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — Tuvalu—Speaker Parliament 
Visitors — Tuvalu—Speaker Parliament 
[Volume:673;Page:19503] 
Tuesday 21 June 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Tuvalu—Speaker Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Rt Hon Sir Kamuta Latasi Speaker of the Parliament of Tuvalu is present in the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the delegation in the Speaker’s gallery also be welcomed. 
The Rt Hon Sir Kamuta Latasi accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Tolley Anne: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
Tolley Anne: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
[Volume:673;Page:19447] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer I gave to question No. 11 earlier today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: In answer to a supplementary question I indicated that I understood that the Ministry of Education had called one of the meetings in the neighbourhood. I have now found that that is not correct. Ministry officials attended one of the meetings. The meeting they called was with just the principals of the neighbouring schools and the chairmen of the boards of trustees.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19586] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:673;Page:19449] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 21 June the Government intends to hold the combined 3-hour debate on the second readings of the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill. This debate will be followed by the consideration of two amendments to the supplementary estimates bill by the House in Committee. The Government also intends to make further progress on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
Calvert Hilary Jane: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Calvert Hilary Jane: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19443] 
HILARY CALVERT (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hide Rodney: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19439] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hide Rodney: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19430] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 6 agreed to.
Macindoe Tim: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Macindoe Tim: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19435] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19443] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 7 agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19422] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I accept that Mr Chairman but you will understand that it is not the Chairman’s job to be suggesting how an entire party votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is correct and I have apologised that it was interpreted in that way. 
The question was put that the following amendment as amended in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit the definition of  
humanities 
 and substitute the following definition: 
(2) 
humanities 
 includes languages and in particular te reo history religion philosophy law classics linguistics cultural studies Maori studies media studies art history film and drama. 
Amendment as amended agreed to. 
Clause 5 as amended agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19421] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I want to reassure the Committee that I had a quiet word with the member in the chair the Hon Pete Hodgson and took my guidance from the words that he actually explained to me. I accept the concern.
Ross Jami-Lee: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ross Jami-Lee: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19421] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to the proposed amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert “literature” after “linguistics”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
The Chairperson declared that the outcome of the vote was unanimous. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.
Borrows Chester: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19420] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Ross Jami-Lee: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ross Jami-Lee: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19429] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tolley Anne: Points of Order — Amended Answers to Oral Questions—Question No. 11 to Minister 
Tolley Anne: Points of Order — Amended Answers to Oral Questions—Question No. 11 to Minister 
[Volume:673;Page:19423] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to correct an answer that I gave earlier today. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member should do that after we have reported progress. We cannot actually do that in the Committee of the whole House. The member will have to be quite sharp in that 5-minute period to do that.
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19416] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am sorry to have interrupted the member Jacinda Ardern in the midst of her explanation of American studies but she asked me a question when she first got up. I think it was a good question and it is one that I am very happy to answer. The definition of humanities that appears in the original draft of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill was provided by the Royal Society and the Council for the Humanities. Its exact origin is something I have been searching for. I have not been able to exactly identify it but what I have been able to identify is that the selection of subjects there relates to the activities of the Council for the Humanities. So it was never meant to be an exclusive list. Obviously members will note that clause 5(2) begins by stating: “ ‘humanities’ includes languages” and so on. It was never meant to be an exclusive list. It was more that those subjects represented the areas that the Council for the Humanities Te Whainga Aronui has as its work areas and focus. The council was very relaxed as was the Royal Society about the amendment that Te Ururoa Flavell put forward. 
The Education and Science Committee made the decision that highlighting American studies in that way did not seem to reflect the broad nature of the work that the Royal Society undertakes. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can they operate outside the definition? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Absolutely. The answer to that question is yes they can. That is the great beauty of the humanities. Those of us who have studied the humanities know that it is not a definition or a broad grouping of subjects that is in any way restricted. 
I think it is important to clarify that the Royal Society and the Council for the Humanities are both comfortable with where we are reaching with this definition. I hope that National will support the amendment in Te Ururoa Flavell’s name because I agree with both Rahui Katene and Maryan Street. In their speeches earlier they said that the amendment really does “New Zealandise” or “Aotearoaise” this part of the bill. It is very consistent may I say with the Council for the Humanities approach. Te Whainga Aronui is a very inclusive organisation that thinks a lot about its responsibilities under the Treaty and its responsibilities to develop a New Zealand and an indigenous form of the humanities. There is no surprise that they are very comfortable with the idea of this definition. 
One other matter that was raised by a speaker the last time we were here was the question of the role of the social sciences. I clarify that in the current Royal Society of New Zealand Act science and technology includes the applied biological earth engineering information mathematical medical physical social and technological sciences. So the current definition includes the notion of social sciences. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Power Simon: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19416] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Douglas Roger: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Douglas Roger: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19415] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19393] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: I move  
That the Westpac New Zealand Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a private bill promoted by Westpac New Zealand Ltd. To date the bill has been steered through the House by my colleague Craig Foss and it is a privilege to be able to steer this bill through its third reading today. The bill provides the mechanism to enable certain assets and liabilities of Westpac Banking Corporation in New Zealand being principally assets and liabilities of Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand institutional banking business to be vested in its New Zealand subsidiary Westpac New Zealand Ltd. Westpac operates in New Zealand through both a branch the Westpac Banking Corporation New Zealand branch and a locally incorporated subsidiary which is called Westpac New Zealand Ltd. 
Having regard to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s local incorporation policy Westpac Banking Corporation and Westpac New Zealand Ltd have agreed with the Reserve Bank that Westpac Banking Corporation will transfer certain assets and liabilities being principally assets and liabilities of its New Zealand institutional banking business to Westpac New Zealand Ltd. The transfer will reduce the size of the New Zealand branch and will assist in ensuring that it continues to remain below its external liabilities cap both in periods of growth and in market volatility. Importantly the transfer is also beneficial in terms of the Reserve Bank’s local incorporation policy as it will increase the size of Westpac New Zealand Ltd and will consequently allow the Reserve Bank to have greater control over the assets and liabilities being transferred were there ever to be a bank failure event. 
Legislation is the only means by which the designated assets and liabilities can be vested in Westpac New Zealand Ltd efficiently and economically without disrupting the conduct and continuity of Westpac New Zealand’s banking business. The bill also ensures minimal disruption to Westpac’s customers employees and suppliers and given the size of the bank this is extremely important indeed. I wish to offer my thanks to the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for facilitating the smooth and timely passage of the bill through the House and to the officials who appeared before the select committee to offer advice on the bill. My thanks also go to the House for its support for and its detailed attention to the bill. I commend this bill to the House.
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19377] 
10. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What action has the Government taken to deliver on its 2008 election promise to “investigate the introduction of an independent disputes tribunal to end ACC’s dual role of judge and jury on disputed claims”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 From 1 July 2011 ACC subsidiary company Dispute Resolution Services Ltd will become an independent Crown company. This was seen as the most effective way to ensure an independent process for handling complaints about ACC’s decisions. It also makes sense as Dispute Resolution Services Ltd now provides dispute resolution services in the telecommunications health and financial services sectors. An efficient independent service will be essential also if the Government proceeds with introducing choice into the work account of the ACC. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: What reaction has there been to the announcement in May that Disputes Resolution Services Ltd will become an independent Crown company? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The announcement has been well received by individuals and organisations across the board in the ACC stakeholder community. Access Support Services claimant representative Tony Gibbons said the moves were sensible and workable while retaining the skills of Disputes Resolution Services Ltd staff. The National Foundation for the Deaf said that for people to have confidence in Disputes Resolution Services Ltd decisions it is important that there is a greater separation between it and ACC and it congratulated the Government on the move. The separation of Disputes Resolution Services Ltd from ACC is part of a progression of sensible reforms with ACC to improve its cost-effectiveness and the service for claimants. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why should New Zealanders believe that his Government is giving accident victims a fair deal when the number of ACC claims being sent to review has practically doubled under his watch the number of elective surgery applications being declined doubled in his first year as a Minister and the number of cases going to the District Court has significantly increased or are these just more examples of Kiwis paying more to get less for ACC as he prepares it for privatisation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Those are a number of incorrect claims by the member. This Government inherited ACC having incurred $7.2 billion worth of losses. Anybody in this House who pretends that no change was desirable just illustrates the financial recklessness of members opposite. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that my question was reasonably wide and had a number of limbs to it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we are not going to go down that track. If the member wanted his question treated more seriously he should not have had the last clause in it. When he makes provocative statements he will get provocative answers. I am not sure how often I have to repeat that. I am sure the member is not a slow learner.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19373] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could raise an issue in respect of question No. 7. The question asks the Minister of Transport: “Were all comments he made on behalf of the Prime Minister in response to Oral Question five yesterday accurate?”. This is not a criticism of the question; it is a point of clarification. I know that the Minister is very keen to answer this question but when he made those comments yesterday he was answering on behalf of the Prime Minister not as the Minister of Transport. To be helpful the question could ask: “Were the comments the Prime Minister made in response to question No. 5 yesterday accurate?” or “Does he agree with the answer that the Prime Minister gave in response to question No. 5 yesterday?” but here I think we are confusing the role of the Minister of Transport in his capacity as answering on behalf of the Prime Minister yesterday. I do not think it matters for the purposes of the Minister’s answer today and I know he is keen to answer the question but I just wondered whether the matter might be considered by you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the point the member makes and he makes a good point. I want to clarify the situation for the House. Today the Minister is being questioned in his role as the Minister of Transport so any supplementary questions relating to the primary question must relate to any transport issues or transport comments made by the Minister in answering oral question No. 5 yesterday The Minister cannot be questioned on any other matters that he may have covered on behalf of the Prime Minister yesterday as the Minister of Transport or at least for supplementary questions to be in order they must relate to transport issues that were commented on in answering question No. 5 yesterday.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19371] 
5. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is his current best estimate of the cost of the sale of State-owned assets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 If the member is referring to the planned sale of a minority stake in four State-owned energy companies to New Zealand investors subject to voters’ endorsement in an election I do not have a firm estimate at this very early stage. However I can say that the Government intends to use its buying power in a market where there are plenty of organisations that seem to be willing to assist in this process and not many other opportunities for them to sell their services. We expect to keep a very tight rein on costs. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the process of selecting commercial advisers or other assistance for the sale process commenced; if so what fees and costs are envisaged as part of this advice? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am advised that a process has begun to get the necessary expertise. One thing that has become clear is that the Government’s intention to sell shares to Kiwi mums and dads is a bit more expensive than a one-off sale to one buyer. But as I said the Government will use its buying power to keep the fees as low as possible.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
[Volume:673;Page:19447] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer I gave to question No. 11 earlier today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: In answer to a supplementary question I indicated that I understood that the Ministry of Education had called one of the meetings in the neighbourhood. I have now found that that is not correct. Ministry officials attended one of the meetings. The meeting they called was with just the principals of the neighbouring schools and the chairmen of the boards of trustees.
Points of Order — Amended Answers to Oral Questions—Question No. 11 to Minister 
Points of Order — Amended Answers to Oral Questions—Question No. 11 to Minister 
[Volume:673;Page:19423] 
Points of Order 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions—Question No. 11 to Minister 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to correct an answer that I gave earlier today. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member should do that after we have reported progress. We cannot actually do that in the Committee of the whole House. The member will have to be quite sharp in that 5-minute period to do that.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19375] 
8. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What reports has he received on recent developments there have been to promote New Zealand literature and culture? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 A number concerning the announcement on 2 June by the German Foreign Minister that New Zealand will be the country of honour at the 2012 Frankfurt Book Fair. This fair is the world’s most prestigious and well-attended international book and media trade fair with about 7500 exhibitors from over 110 countries— 
Grant Robertson 
: See if you can get through without saying anything nasty. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —Mr Robertson—and about 300000 visitors over a 5-year period. The country of honour showcases its culture in a year-long programme throughout Germany culminating in the Frankfurt Book Fair itself. New Zealand will exhibit its arts its creative industries and its stories to international audiences and businesses. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What opportunities does the Frankfurt Book Fair present to New Zealand as the country of honour? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As the country of honour New Zealand also has the opportunity to raise its profile not only in Europe but also throughout the 110 countries and among the hundreds of thousands of visitors who will go to the book fair. It represents a very special opportunity to promote New Zealand literature culture trade and tourism on the world stage. In addition New Zealand will have a higher profile in other areas including education film and digital media than it would otherwise have had given the recent success of the New Zealand film  
Boy 
 not to mention the first instalment of  
The Hobbit 
 which will be released late next year thanks to the Prime Minister because we are Hobbit lovers on this side of the House. This will allow New Zealand to showcase its natural environment and culture. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House will come to order.
Auchinvole Chris: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19362] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill is a balanced well-structured bill that on the one hand provides for protecting New Zealand security and on the other minimises the effect on privacy. It was a pleasure to hear the second reading motion moved by the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson. 
There is a need to update and incorporate new information technology systems and new surveillance techniques. One has only to consider the rapid changes that have come about to see the need for such change. Human rights also have to be protected in balance with security requirements. Again I say that the bill is a balanced well-structured bill that on the one hand provides for protecting New Zealand security and on the other minimises the effect on privacy. Thank you.
Hayes John: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hayes John: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19361] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I will make a brief contribution on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill as probably I am the only person in the House who has actually had a close working relationship with the Security Intelligence Service over a long period of time—but not as long as my friend Keith Locke who has been on their books since age 11 and he is much older than me. 
Metiria Turei 
: Dull! 
JOHN HAYES 
: Never mind; at least he is polite unlike his rude colleague in the front seat. 
In my experience the 200-odd people who have made up the Security Intelligence Service at any one time over the last 7 or 8 years—and the last 25 or 30 years—are actually a great bunch of people. They have been really well led by people such as Don McIver Richard Woods more recently and at the moment a constituent of mine Warren Tucker. It is worth recalling when we think about this legislation that in fact up until 1956 in this country the police did the work of the Security Intelligence Service. Then between 1956 and 1969 the Security Intelligence Service operated without any legislative base whatsoever. Since 1969 we have had legislation. It has been reviewed on a few occasions and because technological change has outstripped the old law we are in the process of revamping the legislation again. 
I would just like to say to people like Keith Locke and to other colleagues in this House that the bread and butter of the Security Intelligence Service is in vetting public servants which is quite important as we remember that a couple of years ago the Ministry of Defence’s chief scientist unfortunately slipped through the cracks. Why does the Security Intelligence Service vet public servants? Because we want to have a system that we know is operating with integrity so that the community can have a certain amount of trust in it. People who are checked in this way include those who work in defence and foreign affairs and senior public servants. The Security Intelligence Service runs three offices—in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch—and aside from the main bread and butter the job is primarily collecting intelligence working on threats to our community and making sure that those threats are disrupted. When we have the Rugby World Cup we do not want an event to cause us some concern or damage during that occasion. 
One other point I would like to make is that the Minister in charge of the Security Intelligence Service cannot name somebody or direct the service to follow a particular person of the Minister’s choosing. The system has a great deal of integrity. We have the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and from my experience over a long period of time I can say we can be very comfortable with the work the service does. We can be very proud of the work it does and we can see that it is a system with impartiality integrity and a great deal of thoroughness. Thank you.
Hide Rodney: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hide Rodney: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19360] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (ACT—Epsom) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT Party I rise to support the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill but first let me pick up on Mr Keith Locke’s presentation. There have been a lot of puzzles around Parliament in my time here and one of the more pleasant puzzles has been Mr Keith Locke. He is a very reasonable man and quite sensible. He has spent his time here in Parliament as we have just heard being highly critical of the Security Intelligence Service and its intrusive powers over ordinary citizens. Yet Mr Locke by his very politics has supported and given succour to the most oppressive and repressive regimes known in the 20th century—regimes that ran complete police States. I just do not understand Mr Keith Locke. I could understand his having concerns about the SIS if he were an anarchist or a hard-core libertarian but given Mr Locke’s politics his ideology and the regimes that he supported around the world it is very very tough to sit through one of these criticisms of our own SIS and suggest somehow that it is not given proper democratic oversight and does not operate within the rule of law. 
I turn to the bill. The ACT Party supports it. It does not change the framework within which the SIS operates or the principles under which it does its business. What the bill does do is simply update the legislation—keeping those principles and maintaining that framework—for the modern world. This is a modern world where we have technology that can track people without having to follow them a world where we have mobile phones and a world where we have the internet email and cyber-crime. In fact the current legislation as I understand it was designed and thought of when  
Get Smart 
 was popular on TV. That is how out of date our current legislation is. So all this bill does is to bring our legislation up to date whilst keeping the principles that have been tried and tested and found to be true. For those reasons this change has the wholehearted support of the ACT Party. I continue to wonder about the puzzle that is Mr Keith Locke. Thank you.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19355] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. The bill as has been explained by the two previous speakers amends the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969. As the Leader of the Opposition so clearly stated that statute is outdated and needs further amendment. The bill is about allowing the Security Intelligence Service—or the SIS as it has come to be known—to use electronic tracking devices to undertake its surveillance work and to intercept or collect a range of information. That includes email addresses phone numbers user account identifiers and internet protocol addresses as those have proliferated in recent times. 
The issues canvassed by the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are quite clear. They are issues around terrorism and cyber-security that we must deal with in these modern times. Of course 9/11 was just one turning point in the fight I suppose against terrorists and the way that they operate in various cells using various technologies across the globe. But also there are issues about countering those who smuggle arms those who smuggle drugs money-launderers and those who smuggle people across borders. These types of intelligence and communications which the SIS uses need to be incorporated into a modern bill. 
The privacy and human rights of those who are under surveillance or being monitored certainly need to be respected and protected. To that end the Intelligence and Security Committee inserted a clause to incorporate principles that would underpin the performance of the functions of the SIS so that those human rights would be protected. New section 4AAA inserted by clause 5A outlines some of those principles and it refers to the contribution towards keeping New Zealand secure independent and a free and democratic society. New section 4AAA(1)(c) specifically refers to the actions of the SIS being “in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights standards recognised by New Zealand law”. Clearly those human rights are protected under this legislation. 
I support this bill along with my colleagues. It modernises the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act and it should be commended to the House.
Chadwick Steve: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19351] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not wish to challenge the Chair but I recorded that we started this debate at 4.35 p.m. and it is a 3-hour time-limited debate. We just hoped we would get that last 5-minute call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No we started at 4.32 p.m. on the official record and we finished at 2 minutes past 9. That is why we have closed the debate.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19351] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time for this debate has expired.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19352] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on the performance in 2009-10 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises has concluded. I will report this debate to the House. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19352] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be noted. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Report noted.
Tremain Chris: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19318] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I was stuck in the Business Committee. I seek leave that I may speak on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board which I appreciate the Committee has already been through. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We will put that option to the Committee. Leave is sought for Chris Tremain to make a contribution on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. If there are no further speakers on the Waitemata District Health Board I will put the question on that and then we will accept the call on the other. I need to think about that because we did put the question so you will be making a debate without the question being put—OK? I will now put the question on the Waitemata District Health Board. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Leave for the question to be put again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We will deal with this one first. 
Report noted.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19314] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The House is in Committee for consideration of the performance in the 2009-10 financial year and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. 
A total of 3 hours is allocated for the debate. The debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to the entities’ performance in the 2009-10 financial year and their current operations. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. A compendium of the financial reviews available for debate is on the Table. Entities yet to be reported cannot be debated. 
I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises they wish to debate. I understand that the first entity members wish to debate is the New Zealand Tourism Board.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19314] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a second time.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:673;Page:19449] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 My memory is that they relate to Canterbury. If that is not the case I will let the member know.
Henare Tau: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19300] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To say that the Government is in the pocket of some foreign country— 
Clare Curran 
: Company. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —foreign company or country—is not allowed. Members cannot accuse the Government of being in the pocket of somebody overseas—or anybody. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just refer the Hon Trevor Mallard to Speakers’ rulings 51/5 and 52/1. It is not in order to say that the Government has been “dictated to” or has “received instructions” or “directions” or anything like that—to imply those imputations. The member has finished his speech. I was going to ask him to desist.
English Bill: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19293] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19293] 
12. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Acting Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What recent initiatives has the Government undertaken to help New Zealanders control the cost of their power bills? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 There are a number of initiatives led by this Government to increase competition and drive down costs to New Zealand householders. The What’s My Number campaign which was launched a fortnight ago by the Electricity Authority has had an enthusiastic response with over 146000 visits to its website. In a few quick minutes the website tells consumers the estimated potential savings available to them by switching electricity retailers and users can then link to Consumer New Zealand’s Consumer Powerswitch website to organise a switch. 
Jonathan Young 
: What reports has the Minister received on the savings that consumers can make by switching? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The average saving per customer as a result of switching is estimated to be $150 per year. In some instances the savings by switching can be as much as $600. The average number of switches per month now sits at around 30000. Under this Government the time it takes to implement a switch has reduced from 8 days in 2008 to just under 4 days currently. I am delighted to see that so many New Zealanders are using this tool to actively manage their household costs and to encourage electricity retailers to offer better deals. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that average electricity prices have continued to increase rather than decrease following the Commerce Commission’s investigation report released on 21 May 2009 which found evidence of substantial overcharging and uncompetitive prices? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: In the just over 2 years since National came to office prices have risen by less than 14 percent and that includes the effect of the emissions trading scheme. During the 9 interminable years under the previous Labour Government average residential electricity prices went up by a massive 72 percent.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19292] 
11. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement on proposed labour law changes “we are not talking dramatic changes”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will he rule out reintroducing a youth minimum wage; if not why does he think a wage cut would not be a dramatic change for hard-working young people? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No decisions have been made as to what the package will be at this point and there have been no announcements so the member will just have to wait and see. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will he rule out making changes to collective bargaining that would allow bargaining agents such as a human relations manager or even someone from Black Power to charge workers for negotiating non-union agreements or does he think that would not be a dramatic change? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Prime Minister would stress that the Government is looking at practical incremental changes. No decisions have been made and there have been no announcements so the member will just have to wait and see. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does he agree with his Minister of Finance that having a 30 percent wage differential with Australia is a competitive advantage; if so is it his intention to return to past failed National Party policies that drove down wages and productivity in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The response has to be that the past failed policies the member refers to could be only in relation to the previous Labour Government which put the tradable sector of the New Zealand economy into recession for 4 years before the global financial crisis. This Government is putting in place the policy objectives to achieve faster economic growth and we are doing so successfully. Members opposite will see that and they will just have to sit and watch.