edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1920] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a second time.  
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Bill read a second time.
Copeland Gordon: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Land Transport Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1917] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill primarily to reiterate the comments I made on the first reading of this bill. I think it is helpful to go back and refresh ourselves as to why this amendment bill was introduced by the Hon Harry Duynhoven. 
It came about of course because of a bill that Parliament had passed last year—with a measure of hysteria around crime and punishment—without picking up the fact that its passage would bring to an end the employment of a group of people who had committed crimes many many years ago but who had since gone on to lead crime-free lives as drivers of buses taxis etc. The particular group of people that was brought to the attention of the House at that time—in January actually—consisted mainly of those who had been convicted of offences of a carnal knowledge type many many years ago. They were men who had gone on to have happy marriages and happy families since that time and some of them had gone on to marry the woman they had committed the original crime with. Effectively that bill last year when we think about it had retrospective application to historic events. It brought to an end the employment of those people in the industries they were involved in even though they had driven buses or taxis for many many years and as I say had otherwise led blameless lives as good citizens of this country. That was the mischief we set out to fix. 
I would like to signal at this stage that United Future will support the Supplementary Order Paper proposed by the Government to the bill that has been reported back from the select committee because we think it actually completes the job in that regard. Otherwise we have done if you like half the job; we have half apologised and we have restored justice for half of those involved but not for the other half. I think the distinction between the two is too arbitrary and therefore United Future will definitely support that Supplementary Order Paper. 
 When it comes to the Supplementary Order Paper from the Hon Jim Anderton of the Progressive party I signal at this stage that United Future will not be supporting it. A judgment has to be made and I think his amendment is possibly just a step a little bit too far. Every party here I think with goodwill has endeavoured to make that judgment. It is not a simple straightforward matter as to where the line should be drawn. We think the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper draws the line at about the right place. 
So I signal our support for the second reading and our intention to support the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Minister for Land Transport Safety when we get to the Committee stage.
English Bill: Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 15 March 
English Bill: Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 15 March 
[Volume:629;Page:1909] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation relating to comments I made in the House yesterday. In the course of asking a question regarding the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology I made a statement that left the impression that a number of senior staff in the polytechnic had benefited personally from Government payments for the COOL IT programme. In fact only one member of the senior staff of Christchurch Polytechnic was in a position to benefit personally and I will just quote from the Auditor-General’s report on the matter. The Auditor-General stated: “CPIT allowed Ms Buck”—being Ms Vicki Buck—“to be put in a position which gave her the opportunity to use her CPIT-funded time resources and position to enhance the value of her private financial interests in BSL.” It is unfortunate that I did leave the impression that other staff members may have benefited and I hope that this corrects the record.
Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 15 March 
Personal Explanations — Question No. 5 to Minister 15 March 
[Volume:629;Page:1909] 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 5 to Minister 15 March 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation relating to comments I made in the House yesterday. In the course of asking a question regarding the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology I made a statement that left the impression that a number of senior staff in the polytechnic had benefited personally from Government payments for the COOL IT programme. In fact only one member of the senior staff of Christchurch Polytechnic was in a position to benefit personally and I will just quote from the Auditor-General’s report on the matter. The Auditor-General stated: “CPIT allowed Ms Buck”—being Ms Vicki Buck—“to be put in a position which gave her the opportunity to use her CPIT-funded time resources and position to enhance the value of her private financial interests in BSL.” It is unfortunate that I did leave the impression that other staff members may have benefited and I hope that this corrects the record.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:629;Page:1904] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through all its remaining stages of the Land Transport Amendment Bill 
. This is done in order that finality can be achieved as quickly as possible to give certainty to those people who are affected directly by the provisions of this bill. 
Motion agreed to.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1897] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We welcome its approach in aligning tax measures particularly for small businesses thereby reducing their compliance costs. We think it is a common-sense approach that has been needed for some time and we are glad to see it now being enacted.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1887] 
12.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: How long has she been aware of the complaints surrounding care provided by Focus 2000? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister for Disability Issues 
: The Hon Ruth Dyson the Minister for Disability Issues received a complaint in August 2005 about an incident that had occurred 3 years earlier regarding a client who was being supported by Focus 2000. This matter was forwarded to the appropriate Minister. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister for Disability Issues seriously expect New Zealanders to believe that although very serious allegations involving deaths maltreatment and abuse were documented as far back as 2002 she did not find out for over 2½ years? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I repeat that the complaint was received in August 2005 but it was about matters relating to service and should have been referred to the Minister of Health. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister been made aware of any other complaints concerning disability issues? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: She is aware of the deep concern within the disability sector regarding comments that advocating for disabilities is too PC and divorced from the mainstream. These comments were made by the “PC Eradicator” Dr Wayne Mapp. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What did the Minister do when she was made aware of allegations that two people had choked to death unsupervised while under the care of Focus 2000; or did she do nothing? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: If in fact the Minister received those complaints. They are service matters that would have been referred to the Minister of Health. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I ask again: is two people choking to death while under the care of Focus 2000 a service matter? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The member is referring to a matter that I have absolutely no knowledge of but from the way he refers to them they pertain to services. I say again that the matter would have been referred to the Minister of Health. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What did the Minister for Disability Issues do about the complaint that a resident with Focus 2000 was chased by a caregiver fell out of a wheelchair which resulted in a fractured jaw and was not taken to the hospital until 3 days later—clearly a clinical matter? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I repeat: the Minister received one complaint in August 2005. If the member has another complaint I suggest that he refer it to the appropriate Minister. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What has the Minister for Disability Issues actually done about the wide number of complaints regarding Focus 2000; and why is it that only after those incidents were splashed across the media her Government is taking even the minimal interest? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I understand there is currently an audit and review under way pertaining to Focus 2000 and that is being undertaken by the Minister of Health.
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1883] 
9.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: What is the Government doing to support volunteers? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 The Government is serious about supporting volunteers and it adopted a formal policy on volunteering in 2002. This week is Volunteer Awareness Week and many of my colleagues are acknowledging the volunteer contributions in their communities by visiting volunteer groups and participating in activities such as speaking at volunteering awards ceremonies. This Government acknowledges that volunteers in sectors such as conservation the emergency services the arts culture and heritage and the social services all contribute to our sense of well-being and national identity and strengthen our communities. 
Tim Barnett 
: What work has the Government undertaken to support the voluntary sector and how does that relate to volunteering? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: Since 2001 we have had a dedicated Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector and have established an office to address issues affecting the sector and raise its profile within the Government. We have invested in Volunteering New Zealand and in nine volunteering centres from Auckland to Otago. We have also established the Charities Commission and invested a substantial amount of funding into the sector including $12 million per year towards the Community Organisation Grants Scheme which supports the work of over 3000 local organisations and $6.5 million for volunteers in sport and recreation.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1881] 
7.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What is the Government doing to increase opportunities for young people? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 In addition to over 8000 Modern Apprenticeships the removal of interest on student loans for all students resident in New Zealand and the building of a confident future for young New Zealanders the Government has launched the Youth Development Partnership Fund and 12 projects across the country have been funded that will help more young people build confidence become active in the community and help them into training education or work. The fund aims to be responsible to the emerging needs and opportunities for young people by partnering with territorial authorities. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister tell the House what types of projects are eligible for funding from the Youth Development Partnership Fund? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Of course. A range of projects have been supported throughout the country. Essentially the fund supports projects that are new and innovative; that have a final outcome; that have a strong involvement with and support from other agencies and youth-focused community groups; and that are in partnership with territorial authorities.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1880] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I note with this question as per the two previous questions that the Minister is not present in the House. It is a very specific question about a conversation he had. I seek the leave of the House to set aside the question until Mr Chris Carter is in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Strange that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member please just ask the question without comment.
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1879] 
5.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: When he announced “more good news for 1 April” in a media release on benefit changes why did he omit to mention the abolition of the special benefit from that date? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 My announcement in “more good news for 1 April” was about the cost of living increase in benefits and student allowances. It was not about the replacement of the special benefit with temporary additional support. 
Sue Bradford 
: What steps if any is the Minister taking to make sure that people who are new to the benefit system after 1 April this year will be able to survive given the reductions in income that will occur when special benefits are cut? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: First of all I think it is important to stress that beneficiary families have already received an increase in assistance from Working for Families of on average around $32 per week in the first year of that package. They will get a further increase of $10 per week per child in April 2007. I also assure the House that the announcements that were made about the grandparenting of current entitlements have not changed. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Are these cost of living changes to benefits and student allowances in addition to the increases announced in the Working for Families package? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes and I am pleased to say that already 196500 families receive family assistance from the Inland Revenue Department or the Ministry of Social Development with an average weekly payment to working families of $108. Changes involving targeted tax relief from 1 April will see an estimated 85000 additional middle-income families become eligible for family assistance tax credits. That brings the total number of New Zealand families benefiting from the Working for Families package to 348000 families. 
Sue Bradford 
: What advice on survival will the Minister be giving to people such as sickness beneficiaries who do not have children who manifestly will not have enough to live on after the special benefit is abolished on 1 April? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Government is currently in the process of designing further reforms to benefits and they will be brought to the House at the appropriate time. 
Sue Bradford 
: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the Ministry of Social Development is doing everything it can to tell eligible beneficiaries that they can still at this time access the special benefit until 31 March and that if they are on the special benefit by then their individual entitlement will be secure into the future? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: These changes were announced in 2004. Work and Income does ensure that clients who are affected by changes are very well informed.
Heatley Phil: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Heatley Phil: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:629;Page:1873] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. From time to time members bring to you concerns about parliamentary questions not being answered. I would like to bring to you a concern that I have which has somewhat of a difficult twist and I would like your guidance. I put written parliamentary questions to the Minister of Housing some 3 weeks ago and the answers were returned on 1 March. When I put one of the answers to the media because it was about rental incomes for State house tenants the media went to the Minister about an income for a State house tenant that was $113000 after tax. The Minister told the media at that stage over the weekend that in fact that figure was in question that it was not correct and that he would do some work on it. When I raised this with the Minister after the weekend on the Monday he told me through my staff member that no the figure was actually correct. When I did a general press release a day after apparently the answer to the question was incorrect again. 
I raise this with you because this has caused two problems. First of all it has meant that today I have had to use one of my party’s oral questions to get the real answer from the Minister and secondly and more important I understood that the Minister in answering parliamentary questions was obligated to go to the member immediately he knew that his answer was incorrect and to the House and Parliament immediately he knew that the answer was incorrect not go to the media. I still have not had the corrected answers some 2 weeks from when those written questions were put to the Minister. Could you give me some guidance on this? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. If the member could put down those details for me I can have a look at them to see whether there has been a breach of the rules.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1873] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Committee stage of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:629;Page:1904] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through all its remaining stages of the Land Transport Amendment Bill 
. This is done in order that finality can be achieved as quickly as possible to give certainty to those people who are affected directly by the provisions of this bill. 
Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:629;Page:1873] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. From time to time members bring to you concerns about parliamentary questions not being answered. I would like to bring to you a concern that I have which has somewhat of a difficult twist and I would like your guidance. I put written parliamentary questions to the Minister of Housing some 3 weeks ago and the answers were returned on 1 March. When I put one of the answers to the media because it was about rental incomes for State house tenants the media went to the Minister about an income for a State house tenant that was $113000 after tax. The Minister told the media at that stage over the weekend that in fact that figure was in question that it was not correct and that he would do some work on it. When I raised this with the Minister after the weekend on the Monday he told me through my staff member that no the figure was actually correct. When I did a general press release a day after apparently the answer to the question was incorrect again. 
I raise this with you because this has caused two problems. First of all it has meant that today I have had to use one of my party’s oral questions to get the real answer from the Minister and secondly and more important I understood that the Minister in answering parliamentary questions was obligated to go to the member immediately he knew that his answer was incorrect and to the House and Parliament immediately he knew that the answer was incorrect not go to the media. I still have not had the corrected answers some 2 weeks from when those written questions were put to the Minister. Could you give me some guidance on this? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. If the member could put down those details for me I can have a look at them to see whether there has been a breach of the rules.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1873] 
Thursday 16 March 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Committee stage of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill.
Cullen Michael: Members’ Bills 
Cullen Michael: Members’ Bills 
[Volume:630;Page:2043] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion at the Business Committee earlier today I seek leave for a ballot to be held tomorrow to draw one member’s bill for introduction. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Members’ Bills 
Members’ Bills 
[Volume:630;Page:2043] 
Members’ Bills 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion at the Business Committee earlier today I seek leave for a ballot to be held tomorrow to draw one member’s bill for introduction. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Harawira Hone: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2043] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I first of all would like to congratulate Mr Fairbrother on all the work that I have heard he has done in terms of legal aid for a lot of people who really cannot afford decent lawyers and I also congratulate others who have been involved in that kind of work. I congratulate them all because it is not easy work. 
I myself have been up to court on many many occasions and only once when I was a teenager did I use a lawyer. Every time after that I defended myself. 
Pita Paraone 
: Did you get legal aid? 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I defended myself. The reason why I defended myself even though I am not a lawyer is because I could not trust the quality of the legal aid lawyers available. So I defended myself. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill with amendment and reported progress on the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Report adopted.
Burton Mark: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2041] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I just want to recap what we have heard from both sides of the Committee Mr Chairperson because I sense a degree of repetition in the debate that I am sure will lead you to the inevitable conclusion shortly. We have heard about the content of the bill and almost universally from members—including the National members—we have heard nothing but acceptance praise or agreement that for the main part the things this bill does around the redesign of financial eligibility changes to the proceedings that are eligible for legal aid the redesign of the payments scheme and so on are all good and all positive. 
The one outstanding matter that seems to stand in the way of the National Party supporting the bill is the remuneration rate. I again urge our colleagues on that side of the Committee to consider that if there are so many things right with the legislation and that the one thing— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Who said that? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Each member that has stood up. With respect I have heard a number of the member’s colleagues acknowledge there are a number of meritorious aspects to this legislation but they take exception to the fact that $165 an hour is not adequate remuneration. That is the top rate. I am minded as I look around the House at the expressions of some surprise that that is the top rate—$165 an hour. 
I simply want to say to the member—and I acknowledge our New Zealand First colleague Ron Mark has raised a very important point—that if members opposite genuinely want to engage in debate around the issue of the top rate of $165 an hour being inadequate they should say how much would be adequate and what the budgetary implications of paying that rate would be. That would then be lined up against all of the other issues those members raised as their priorities. The reality is that those costs have to be stood alongside every other matter that members opposite—and certainly members in the Government—have to determine as matters of financial priority on a daily basis. 
So if members opposite are not willing to support legislation which by their own admission has a great deal of merit because of the single matter of remuneration I would simply invite them to at least front up to the House with some clear numbers as to how much they would be willing to pay and to let us know what other policies that payment would be instead of for that is the choice of any responsible political party that would be Government. How much would those members pay and instead of what?
Burton Mark: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2035] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will make just a brief comment in response to the member who has just resumed his seat. Firstly I acknowledge the points he made highlighting a number of reasons why he could indeed support the bill. I submit to him that he and the National Party should support the bill. Even if I accepted his arguments—which of course I do not in their entirety—as to the shortcomings that he proposes the legislation has they are none the less alongside the things he has already explained eloquently to the Committee good reasons to support a bill that at least even by his own definition advances things in the direction he would generally approve of. 
I therefore fail to see the logic of why the National Party would knock the opportunity to make some progress by its own definition simply because it cannot have everything it wants. I urge the member to have another think and perhaps to discuss with some of his colleagues what is an opportunity to make some progress today and to live to fight another day on those matters that he perhaps is not satisfied with. 
I acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee in relation to the advances made to clause 5. It is a good example of a further insertion in the victims’ claims area to ensure that the principles that this legislation seeks to advance are better met. The bill is improved by the considerable work and effort that the committee has put into it. 
Again I urge the member who has just resumed his seat to have another think about supporting the bill and to look at the advantages of making this progress and there are other matters that we may well advance elsewhere on another day.
Simich Clem: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2033] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on this part includes debate on schedules 1 and 2.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2032] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Green Party 6. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2032] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Green Party 6. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2032] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Green Party 6. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 2(13) be agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2032] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Green Party 6. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2031] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Green Party 6. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2031] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Green Party 6. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2031] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Green Party 6. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2031] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2030] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Green Party 6. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2027] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Green Party 6. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2027] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is obvious that Green Party members want to vote against something but they need to call out at the time because we cannot hear. They obviously want a party vote on this question. So if they could call out a bit louder it might help us. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Could I please ask the Green Party member to stand and call out because I did not hear. I was under the impression that the question was passed. Is the Green Party calling for a party vote? 
Sue Kedgley 
: Yes. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is probably easier when those members call out the vote that they vote “No” and then go for the party vote. At the moment after the vote is taken we then hear they want a party vote. I think they need to call out “No” at the time. Then if they want to abstain they should do that during the party vote process. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Tisch but it is my understanding that the voice does not have to follow the vote. But I think the member has made a good point and I would suggest that the member from the Green Party take note.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2026] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 0 
Green Party 6. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2026] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 19 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 99 be agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2026] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 77D be agreed to: 
to omit from new section FC 24(3) the words “before 1 April 2006” and substitute the words “before 1 April 2005”.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2026] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 77D be agreed to: 
to omit from new section FC 24(b)(ii) the words “the last day of the 48th month” and substitute the words “the last day of the 60th month”.
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2025] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 77D be agreed to: 
to omit from new section FC 23(b) the words “at least 10 years” and substitute the words “at least 5 years”.
Peters Winston: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Winston: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2025] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You had not called for the vote from Mr Anderton’s party yet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes that has been done. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Hang on. That member was raising a point of order smack in the middle of the vote. That is my point. The point he seeks to make he ends up making against himself. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member.
Bennett David: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Bennett David: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2025] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand that one of the rules we have been told of is that voting is to be held in absolute silence. The Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke out of turn during that vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for drawing that to my attention. Members well know that under Speaker’s ruling 63/2: “No other comment at all is allowed.”
Peters Winston: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Winston: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2025] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I seek leave for the amendments standing in the name of New Zealand First and my name to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is not. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to insert new clauses 49BA to 49BAD and new clause 76BA be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
56BAssets with very low tax values 
(1)In section EE 32 the heading is replaced by “ 
Items no longer used or with very low tax values”. 
(2)After section EE 32(1B) the following is inserted: 
“(IC) This section applies when a person in an income year has an item of depreciable property that has an adjusted tax value at the start of the income year of $10 or less.” 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2023] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Very quickly in response I shall point out that the key point here is that the raft of changes being introduced by way of changes to depreciation rules are hugely significant and financially substantial. This package has an all up value of around $1 billion over the 4-year forecast period. So there is a huge shift and frankly a line has to be drawn at some point. 
The member made a comment about the appropriate use of asset registers. The issue that then arises is what the best form of depreciation is to get those low-value items expensed quickly. With straight line depreciation for instance we do not need to have the item added to the register and that has some attraction. 
In conclusion I make the point that I respect what the member is trying to do. The Minister of Finance and I have already had a brief discussion about that issue in a broader context. We will not move on the amendment this evening but the points the member has raised are ones we are certainly happy to keep under review as the ongoing review of depreciation policy unfolds. 
The point I want to stress is that there is a fiscal cost. The Crown is giving away a billion dollars over a 4-year period in these changes. The Crown is happy to concede that very significant beneficial cost in the interests of this package— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It’s a very big tax cut. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member is absolutely right but the point is that at some point the line has to be drawn. Now the line has been drawn where it is at this stage and is something that we will keep under active review. At some point in the future if circumstances permit then it can be addressed.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2022] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I am happy to yield to the member if he will be brief and then we will wrap it up.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2014] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I take a quick call to answer the two points that have been raised by Lindsay Tisch the member who preceded me. Firstly in respect of the definition of brood mare: in short a brood mare is bloodstock that is used for breeding. So the issue of whether it is 3 years old 4 years old or any other age is not really relevant in that consideration. So that deals with the member’s point reasonably succinctly. 
As far as the first set of questions he raised regarding balance dates and purchase dates is concerned it is important to note that Supplementary Order Paper 15 will come into effect on 1 August 2006. So if one takes his example the person who makes the purchase on 31 July will not be caught by the new regime. Flippantly my advice would be to delay the purchase until after the start of the new year. In terms of when the regime is paid to the recipient that is not part of the regime per se; that is for the way in which the recipient organises his or her own affairs. So the Supplementary Order Paper takes effect from 1 August this year and the taxpayer gains the benefit from that time. How the taxpayer’s affairs are organised in terms of his or her balance date will be what determines when the payment is made. So the issue of whether it is 2008 or some other time is to do with the way in which the taxpayer organises his or her own affairs it is not to do with the provisions of the regime that is being introduced. 
So that should give some clarity in respect of the people whom the member was talking about and hopefully the earlier answer addresses his point as well.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2006] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee to have power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. That is agreed to.
Vote: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2006] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill be read a second time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.