edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:654;Page:3958] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill.  
Earlier this afternoon when the Budget was delivered the Hon Bill English indicated there would be a postponement or deferral of the tax cuts previously anticipated due to the difficult economic circumstances that the country finds itself in. Further it has been signalled on a number of occasions and indeed today again in the Budget that there will be some changes to KiwiSaver most particularly the removal of the provision for mortgage deferrals. It is worth noting that very few people have opted for that opportunity. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is usual and I think it is a requirement of the Standing Orders that when an urgency motion has been moved a reason is given for why urgency is required. The Minister did not give any of those. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The extraordinary pedantic nature of the Opposition sees me back on my feet. Can I just say that anyone in this House— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Points of order are heard in silence. The member took a point of order and the Minister is responding to the point of order. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The matter was notified to the Business Committee on Tuesday. It was notified to the Business Committee that we would be taking urgency to give effect to budgetary matters. I just outlined what those budgetary matters were. The fact that Mr Mallard and his colleagues might have no memory from Tuesday to Thursday is not my concern. I have now given the House the reason: it is to give effect to budgetary matters. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If he had done that the first time we would have been fine. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Excuse me. No the member only has to give reasons for the urgency. He does not have to say why it is urgent; he just has to give reasons. That is all. The member alluded to the fact that it was in the Budget. He was compliant in my opinion from the beginning. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Forgive my innocence of the knowledge on this but is there a required advance notice for a bill before urgency—that it should be tabled a certain number of hours in advance? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order and innocence is not a matter this House considers very often. I say to the member that a bill put on notice is required to be on the Table for 3 days. If it is moved under urgency it is tabled immediately after the urgency motion. National has complied exactly with the Standing Orders.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:654;Page:3958] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill.  
Earlier this afternoon when the Budget was delivered the Hon Bill English indicated there would be a postponement or deferral of the tax cuts previously anticipated due to the difficult economic circumstances that the country finds itself in. Further it has been signalled on a number of occasions and indeed today again in the Budget that there will be some changes to KiwiSaver most particularly the removal of the provision for mortgage deferrals. It is worth noting that very few people have opted for that opportunity.
Smith Lockwood: Budget Statement — Budget Debate 
Smith Lockwood: Budget Statement — Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:3940] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable Prime Minister I remind members that this is a very robust debate and that is healthy but I urge members not to accuse members across the House of having done something because that leads to disorder. I remind members of that.
English Bill: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3929] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Bill read a first time.
English Bill: Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
English Bill: Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:654;Page:3929] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2009 and supporting information (B.7). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3929] 
Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Budget 2009 Executive Summary the Budget 2009 Speech the Fiscal Strategy Report 2009 the Economic and Fiscal Update 2009 (B.2 and B.3) the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2010 (B.5) the compilations of information supporting the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2010 (B.5A Volumes 1-10) and the departmental statements of intent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Bill read a first time.
Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:654;Page:3929] 
Thursday 28 May 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Appropriation (2008/09 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2009 and supporting information (B.7). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14834] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Henare Tau: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14834] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14831] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. The Government Administration Committee has dealt with this bill quickly and competently and it has undertaken very carefully a consideration of the issues raised by submitters. I approve of the amendments proposed in the select committee’s report. I am confident that the bill will help to ensure that New Zealand provides an outstanding Rugby World Cup event next year. 
The aim of the bill is to grant the consents and regulatory approvals essential for the smooth running of the activities related to the Rugby World Cup and for the facilities that will support this event. It is extremely important for New Zealand to host this event successfully and to take all the opportunities offered by such a large-scale event which will in turn bring prosperity and opportunities to the business community and the chance to show the world that New Zealand is capable of holding such an event successfully. 
Hosting an event on such a scale which will see 85000 overseas visitors and tens of thousands of New Zealanders attending games and watching the Rugby World Cup from different zones will bring lots of challenges. Therefore it is crucial that we have special legislation set up to enable the event to be a success and to ensure that we make the most out of the opportunities it brings. The administrative secretariat support to the Rugby World Cup Authority will be provided by the territorial authorities of each district in which an application is made. The ability to grant approval by the Rugby World Cup Authority will expire on 31 October 2011. All approvals under this bill are temporary and will expire no later than 31 December 2011. 
I support this bill and recognise the huge opportunity that the Rugby World Cup will bring to our country.
Hayes John: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hayes John: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14818] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14814] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14811] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for his comments. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 115/1 which is headed “Putting the question”. I refer the member to the second to last sentence onwards which states: “If there is no closure it is incumbent on members to seek the call to continue the debate if they wish to speak. If members do not call the chairperson begins to put the questions on the amendments and there can be no further debate on the clause.” That is the position we are in and I have so ruled. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14819] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Vote: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14805] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14805] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have an amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 11(1) to omit the words “and the use of chauffeured cars”. The question is that that amendment be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it. [ 
Interruption 
] Let me make it very clear because this has happened often in recent times. If a party wants a party vote it must ask for a party vote. Just saying “Yea” or “Nay” or “Yes” or “No” does not mean that we will have a party vote. If members want a party vote they must call for one.
Bennett David: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Bennett David: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14805] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hayes John: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hayes John: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14816] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14801] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14789] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Governor-General Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Barker Rick: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barker Rick: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14789] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not think the House can take leave for that for this reason. I do not believe that a procedural motion of this nature is divisible. A Supplementary Order Paper itself would be divisible but a motion to give the Committee of the whole House the power to consider and adopt if necessary a Supplementary Order Paper is in my opinion indivisible. It would be inappropriate to seek to have the motion so divided. Either the motion is up or it is down; it is not in halves.
Hayes John: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hayes John: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14807] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 That speech by Trevor Mallard on the Governor-General Bill was 20 minutes of absolute nonsense. I refer the member to Part 2 clause 16(2) which states that if more than one person wants to claim part of the annuity then the total annuity can only be the amount payable to one person—the carrot can be cut only once. So it does not matter whether a person has 10 wives and 15 children the amount is going to be the equivalent of only one annuity which will be paid to whoever is entitled to it and that is not for us to judge. All of the last 20 minutes was a total waste of this Committee’s time and if the member had looked at one little subclause he would have discovered that that was exactly the case. The second point of Part 2 is that it provides for an appeal if there is a squabble amongst people who feel they have a claim against the annuity; the claim can be taken to the High Court. With those words I fully support Part 2 and have nothing further to say on it. Thank you.
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14789] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to divide the vote on this motion because it is clear from the debate so far that there is much more agreement on the relevance of new clause 5A on my Supplementary Order Paper relating to annuities and the term of office of the Governor-General and is support for that amendment to go forward to the Committee of the whole House as a Supplementary Order Paper. So I seek to divide the vote on my motion so that the motion is taken in two parts: the first part to be in relation to the Committee of the whole House considering new clause 4A in relation to the means of appointment of the Governor-General and the second vote to be on new clause 5A in relation to the term of appointment of the Governor-General being 5 years.
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14789] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion that my Supplementary Order Paper 173 be referred back to the Government Administration Committee for consideration before there is a further debate on this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14788] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Previous speakers have spoken about—and I think Trevor Mallard himself did talk about it—my right of reply as the mover of the motion. I consulted the Clerk and found out that technically I do not have a right of reply but given the fact that I was commendably brief in my first speech and given all the issues that have been raised in terms of the course of action to be followed I seek leave to be granted 2 minutes to sum up this debate before the vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for Keith Locke to have 2 minutes in reply before the vote. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14785] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the submission by Dean Knight and Lewis Holden to the select committee on this bill which proposes exactly the two points— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I seek leave to table the second submission referred to by the previous speaker by Derek Round which proposes a method of appointment by 75 percent of Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the tabling of the document by Derek Round. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Tremain Chris: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14783] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Keith Locke from the Greens to let the House know that the Government will not be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper. New clause 4A represents a significant departure from the way that the Governor-General is currently selected. In the new amendment that is being proposed: “The Governor-General is appointed by the Sovereign on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The recommendation must be agreed to by at least 75% of all members of Parliament.” That indeed is a significant departure from where we currently sit. This proposal has not been through a select committee process or even been discussed or debated by MPs in the House. On that basis and for a number of other reasons the Government will not be supporting this recommendation.
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:14778] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see there is a lot more I can really add. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Speaker I think you have gone to something that is important. I think most of us agree that getting this relationship right is important. I ask you though to reflect on one of the reasons underneath it and that is Parliament staying out of cases especially cases that are live. The other question I have is whether an Opposition ever has a role in these matters. As you are aware the motion to which you refer is a motion that is moved by the Attorney-General. The question then is whether the Opposition has any method at all of indicating dissatisfaction with the actions of the court the running of the court and the relationship of the Attorney-General—in this case the Acting Attorney-General—with the court. It is my opinion that the Opposition should be allowed to criticise the Attorney-General the Minister of Justice or the Minister for Courts in relation to their running of the courts and their relationship with the judiciary. I am afraid that your ruling might have taken us one step further away from the right of the Opposition which is very seldom used but which I think should be jealously guarded to say to Attorneys-General either that we agree with them—because most often we will—but also on the rare occasion when we think things have been handled badly to say that we do not. People should have the right to say that even if it does go close. In the end Mr Speaker other than those things done by way of the Constitution Act which is the way of sacking a judge you do go to the Governor-General to ask for our rights to free expression. It is my view that those rights to free expression do go to the right to criticise the administration of the court system. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee but then I want to move on.
Parker David: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Parker David: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:14776] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise two points. First are you suggesting that this application would have been more properly made on 5 November rather than now? I think that if we had made it on 5 November you would not have seen it as a case of recent occurrence because the announcement had been made earlier. That is my first point of order. 
Second I think that it is quite within the powers of this House to try to protect the integrity of our institutions. When a judge of our highest court retires or resigns under a cloud I think that is a matter of public interest that ought to be able to be discussed because we are protecting the institution of the courts and their reputation.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:14776] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement by the acting Attorney-General on 21 October 2010 that Justice Wilson will resign. In ruling on an application for an urgent debate the Speaker has to determine not when an announcement was made but when a particular case of recent occurrence occurs. The particular case must have arisen before the House meets to qualify for a debate. Justice Wilson’s resignation does not take effect until 5 p.m. on 5 November 2010. Furthermore it is a well-established rule that the House does not interfere with any question relating to the administration of justice or the conduct of a judge unless the matter is brought before the House by motion and I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 32/3. Otherwise it is unconstitutional to reflect on or speak disrespectfully of a judge and I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 32/4. This rule cannot be circumvented by allowing an urgent debate to be held. The application is therefore declined.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:14776] 
12. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Why is the Government funding the Energy Spot advertising campaign? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority estimates that each household can easily save 10 percent on its electricity bill by taking just a few simple measures. That works out to savings of about $200 per household or $320 million in savings each year across the whole country. The Energy Spot campaign has been delivering practical energy-efficiency tips to New Zealanders for over 1 year now. Research by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority shows that 62 percent of adults recall seeing the Energy Spot and of those who have seen it 43 percent have taken action as a result. It is about encouraging people to save on energy costs. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What other energy-efficiency programmes has the Government funded? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government is committed to offering practical energy-efficiency programmes that not only help New Zealanders to save on power and fuel bills but also reduce energy demand. Aside from Energy Spot the Government is spending $347 million on making New Zealand homes warmer drier and healthier through the Warm Up New Zealand scheme. The Government has also removed road-user charges for electric vehicles and is providing subsidies for solar hot-water heaters and hot-water heat pumps amongst other programmes.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:14779] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I think you have outlined very well why this debate should not proceed. The strongest point I think that you have touched on is that the Hon Justice Wilson remains exactly that until 5 November. So if we were to engage in this debate at the moment we would be talking about a person who is sitting on the Supreme Court bench and therefore it would be inappropriate. 
When it comes to the actions of the Attorney-General those actions of course are open to question any day that the Parliament sits. There is no restriction on asking questions about the activities of the Minister. I do not want to stray into the territory of getting into the debate but I reiterate that while the person concerned sits on the Supreme Court bench it is appropriate for you to take the course of action that you have. 
Presumably if there was some discomfort about that person’s sitting on the bench then Opposition parties are free to pursue the motion option by way of notice on the Order Paper of the House. The Hon Trevor Mallard is right to say that such a thing would be used very sparingly. In the interim a Minister who has been involved in an activity is of course subject to question in this House without I would think the prejudice that might fall upon the individual concerned in this case should that be directed at him as a debate of this nature would be. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon David Parker finally.
Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14782] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. May I just apologise to the member. One of the problems with the sudden method that the member used was that we did not know what the hell he was talking about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There are no points of order for clarification. There are no points of order for lamentable and heartfelt apologies that should have been given before. This is a debate.
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14781] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Governor-General Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 
. The amendments relate to the term of appointment of the Governor-General and the processes of appointment. The reason I have moved the instruction is to clear up any doubt about the relevance of this Supplementary Order Paper to the bill the Committee stage of which is to be considered very shortly. I understand that I am not to debate the Supplementary Order Paper now but one of the two new clauses on it relates to the term of appointment of the Governor-General which relates very directly to the whole question of annuities the number of years of service to qualify for those annuities and the different rates of the annuities. So it is directly relevant to the bill. I think that with a bill called the Governor-General Bill the process of appointment outlined on the Supplementary Order Paper is very relevant. I do not wish to debate it beyond saying that but I am sure that those members who listened to the first and second readings would see that the content of my Supplementary Order Paper is very relevant to this matter.
Norman Russel William: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Norman Russel William: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:14780] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will speak briefly and I am sorry to delay you on this point. I think we have made the distinction between judicial conduct and executive conduct and you have accepted the point that we can question them on executive conduct. I totally accept what you are saying. 
Urgent debates are also about matters that the executive can be questioned about. We have one way of holding the executive to account—through questions in the House—but the other way is the urgent debate. An urgent debate around executive conduct related to this issue seems to me entirely within order and the decision that was made was actually one made of recent occurrence. So I would ask you to look at that part of the issue again separate from the judicial conduct issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the honourable member is saying and I appreciate that point. Of course that can be very effectively addressed through questions; they are one of the most effective ways to hold the executive to account. Obviously I would have to consider any application for an urgent debate on its merits. I appreciate the member’s consideration of this issue. I personally found it quite difficult and I sought quite a lot of advice on it prior to ruling on it. Not being a lawyer myself I wanted to make sure that I did not overstep the mark here. Members have raised important issues that can be reflected upon further in readiness should any event like this ever arise again.
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:14780] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a final point of order and it does not relate to this ruling. Now that this matter has been dealt with—I presume the delegation will within days be finished because it was to deal with this matter only—is there a Minister who is now responsible in the House? I am looking at the Leader of the House as far as questioning is concerned and I ask whether it reverts to Mr Brownlee or whether Ms Collins continues to hold any responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Leader of the House wishes to respond he may. It is not strictly a matter of order but if the member can assist he may.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:14780] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It may be helpful. In the general scheme of things quite apart from this issue a new delegation for Associate Ministers has been tabled in the House today. On this issue quite clearly matters relating to this particular appointment would continue to be the responsibility of the Minister concerned regardless of the moving-on situation that may or may not arise in the future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:14774] 
10. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Is it Government policy to exempt the holders of customary marine title from the application of the Resource Management Act 1991 and provide the holders with the sole right to give or deny a Resource Management Act permission right with no right of appeal or objection against the decision as described in Bell Gully’s newsletter update October 2010 on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Is Bell Gully correct when it states that “… the holder of such a title has the sole right to give or deny an RMA permission right to any other person proposing a development within the area and there is no right of appeal or objection against the decision.” when that is exactly what clause 65 of the bill states; if not why exactly is Bell Gully in its update wrong? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have the greatest of respect for Bell Gully— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —because it is a great firm—but where it possibly went slightly away from the straight and narrow was where it conflated customary interests with customary title and it is trying to treat the two the same. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Is Bell Gully correct when it states: “It is the first time that legislation has been introduced which effectively removes the application of the Resource Management Act … to an … area.”; if he disagrees with that statement from Bell Gully then could he please explain to the House why it is wrong rather than just give the explanation that Bell Gully conflated two concepts. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes it is wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just before I call the Minister I was going to point out to him that he does not have any responsibility for Bell Gully’s statements. But he can of course give an opinion on them which he has already done. If the Minister wishes to repeat it more slowly then he is welcome. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No it is wrong.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:14773] 
9. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by all her statements about subsidies and fee controls in early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will the existing subsidies of $12.45 per child per hour and $11.52 per child per hour for 20 hours’ early childhood education continue to be paid after 1 February 2011? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. The funding changes to $11.12 per hour for the new 80 percent - plus rate. But I stress to the member that that still remains a premium subsidy of a $4.59 per hour - per child difference in funding for 20 hours’ funding from the ordinary other 10 hours in early childhood services. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is the funding for 20 hours’ early childhood education exempt from her wide-ranging review of funding and policy settings for early childhood education which she announced on 7 October? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No but this Government promised to retain the subsidies and fee controls that make up 20 hours’ early childhood services. So we have maintained those fee controls which prevent compulsory top-up changes and we have maintained the subsidy premium the 20 hours’ early childhood services get over and above what non - 20 hours’ early childhood services get. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is she concerned that her funding cuts to early childhood education mean that services such as the Kindergarten Association in Wanganui will have 14 fewer staff to provide quality early childhood education to children when her Government promised to improve adult-child ratios—it was the No. 3 election promise? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to that member that she does not quite understand what cuts mean. Cuts mean taking money from services. In fact this Government added $107 million to early childhood education services this year. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that there are— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the member says what it is showing can we have the source of the document please. 
Sue Moroney 
: It is a media statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is it a press statement? 
Sue Moroney 
: Yes it is a press statement showing that there are 14 fewer— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot do that. We have established rules now—we do not table press statements.
Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14805] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. On that ruling my question is whether only a party that is opposed to the ruling that you have made can call for a party vote or whether any party can call for a party vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a good question. My understanding is that any member with an opposing view has the right to be able to call for a party vote. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “and the use of chauffeured cars”.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:14767] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Housing: what reports—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to both members please I have called Katrina Shanks and I expect some respect to be shown to her.
Kaye Nikki: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Kaye Nikki: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14795] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the Governor-General Bill. Firstly I acknowledge the previous speaker David Parker. I reiterate that it is very important given that this is such a high office that we have transparency in this area. We are here debating this bill because the Law Commission made a number of recommendations in the area of transparency which the Government Administration Committee in this bill picked up. One of the recommendations of the Law Commission was that the provisions in the Civil List Act were very old-fashioned and unnecessarily complicated and no longer supported what we needed which is a much more modern office of Governor-General. 
There are two main provisions that I want to touch on in Part 1 that really focus on greater transparency. The current situation is that the Governor-General’s personal allowance pays for a variety of official functions which we believe would be more appropriately provided within a separate appropriation. Some of the political discussion brought up by previous speakers really emphasised the need to have a separate appropriation. The office is one of the highest in the land and it is really important that we can see what is being spent by the Governor-General and what may be being spent in an official capacity in terms of events. A key part of Part 1 is about separating out that appropriation. 
The second provision which has been mentioned by a number of speakers is about the fact that at present the Governor-General’s salary is exempt from income tax. We know that the Queen started paying income tax in 1993. We also know that the Australian Governor-General and state governors have paid income tax since 2001. That was not something the last Labour Government chose to pick up but I am pleased that we will be putting that through under this Government to ensure—I reiterate Chris Hipkins’ comments—a much more egalitarian situation. I think those are the two key provisions in the bill. There are obviously also other provisions around annuities. 
I will make a couple of final comments. I believe the current Governor-General is doing a fantastic job. This bill will not be relevant to this Governor-General because it will kick in in August 2011. I think our country can be proud that we have had a really diverse range of people who have held that office. They have come from a variety of professions. I think it is really important that through this legislation we are updating the arrangements and putting in a much more modern regime a more transparent regime. That ultimately will ensure that the person who holds the office of Governor-General will be able to do so in a way that is both transparent and egalitarian for the benefit of the people of New Zealand.
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14782] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a point of clarification. I think that it is important in order for this discussion to proceed properly for members to know that Supplementary Order Paper 173 has nothing whatsoever to do with republicanism. It is just about the way in which— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is seeking to introduce by way of a point of order material into the debate. There is no such thing in the Standing Orders as a point of clarification. A point is either a point of order about the process of the House or it is out of order. I advise the member that that is out of order.
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Governor-General Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14808] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to follow up Trevor Mallard’s interesting speech on clause 16 in Part 2 in relation to conflicting claims—that is envisaging a situation where there might be more than one person entitled to an annuity. As Trevor Mallard said that reflects that we are in a modern society and it is a modern clause. Not only could there be two spouses in terms of one spouse dying and the Governor-General remarrying but also the provision could take account of divorce. If we look back into the history of the monarchy including Governors-General as part of that it is a history that is averse to divorce. The “until death do us part” part of the marriage vow was not only an intention but also very strongly part of the moral code of society and was very much tied up with religion. So to include clause 16 in this bill is a very modern thing to do. 
Clause 16 gets away a little bit from the strictures of religion that have shaped our constitutional history in some ways in too narrow a manner. Indeed earlier this afternoon we had the prayer that has been read in Parliament for many years. In that prayer the term “true religion” is used. It is a phrase that dates back in the British Parliament to the 1600s. “True religion” means the Protestant religion. The reference to “true religion” is the Protestant religion against another religion—that is the Catholic religion. That is the origin of the prayer we hear in Parliament each sitting day. In the Protestant tradition true religion was associated with a very strong tie against divorce and to marriage for the rest of a couple’s life. Clause 16 in allowing something different is quite progressive. 
Trevor Mallard’s comments about the multicultural element of this clause were quite relevant too. There are various religions with different codes of marriage and divorce. They will be taken into account as part of our multicultural dimension. I think also when we talk about religion moral codes and how they are reflected in this we have to take into account the issue Phil Twyford talked about in his speech. I think he was really talking about the outdated character of the monarchy which the Governor-General is a part of. One of the problems with changing the laws of inheritance which Gordon Brown to his credit wanted to do—and he took the matter to a Commonwealth Prime Ministers conference before he lost office—is that the monarch in Britain is officially the head of the Anglican Church. Therefore Britain cannot have someone who is not an Anglican or someone who has converted to Catholicism as its head of State because that person is not an Anglican. That offends against our human rights laws and our ethos. I think that all relates back to this very modern clause clause 16 which allows for conflicting claims relating to the annuity for spouses following for example the death of the Governor-General. Thank you.
Dalziel Lianne: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18769] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I was very interested to hear comments from the Minister of Broadcasting because a number of us actually chipped at him to provide us with the number of households that do not have access to Sky television at this stage. It will be very useful if he makes a further contribution to this debate for him to actually provide us with a number. Would the Minister like to contribute the number now while I am speaking? 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: You know the answer. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: He thinks that I know the answer—the answer that he would give? I know the answer that my colleague gave and until the Minister provides us with an alternative to it I do not think we have another number on the table. 
I refer to a submission that I quoted from in the second reading on this bill. It is the submission that came to the Commerce Committee from New Zealand directors and editors—the Screen Directors Guild of New Zealand. They also made this point: “We are missing out as a nation if the only values we embrace are short-term commercial values. Many of the intangibles that we value and that make New Zealand special do not have an immediate short-term benefit but this does not mean they are not worthwhile.” I think those words are definitely the words we should bear in mind when we are considering the ramifications of this legislation. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Goodhew Jo: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18764] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Young Jonathan: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Young Jonathan: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18763] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18762] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Vote: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18745] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a second time.