edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Lee Melissa: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lee Melissa: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17861. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I feel like I am delivering my third reading speech on this legislation from Siberia but perhaps that is because I was wishing I was in Siberia while the previous speaker Raymond Huo was speaking—he lost me after “ni hao”. 
Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson this is the first opportunity I have had to speak since your ascension to the Chair. I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Commerce Simon Power for the tremendous amount of work he has put into this raft of bills we are considering. 
I do not really want to take too much time and I do not want to repeat the comments that previous speakers have made throughout the House—we are all in agreement obviously. But I want to give a view from the ethnic communities. We have all heard far too many stories about investors losing a lot of money. Many Asian communities have lost money. Members of a lot of Asian communities when they arrive in New Zealand because initially they do not have jobs want to invest their life savings into an investment portfolio and many have lost their entire life savings as a result. 
Only a strong economy can provide financial security for families real opportunities for young people safe communities and the high-quality education and health services that all New Zealanders need. In respect of this raft of legislation that has gone through the Commerce Committee I guess I was the layperson on the committee who did not really know very much about the financial sector or accounting. As my learned colleague Katrina Shanks who happens to be an accountant said we thank the advisers who have worked very very hard to go through the options with us and we praise the Parliamentary Counsel Office and everyone who helped us through the process. 
With this legislation—and through an understanding of the basics of investment advice people can trust and informed decision-making—we know we will have regulators with the power to protect and boost public confidence and with the ability to publicly enforce the duties of issuers directors auditors trustees and others involved in financial markets when it is in the public’s interest to do so. That has to be good. I believe that the much-needed confidence in the financial markets will return as a result of the work we have done in respect of the raft of legislation that is before us. I commend these bills to the House. Thank you. 
Financial Markets Authority Bill read a third time. 
Securities Amendment Bill (No 3) read a third time. 
Securities Markets Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
KiwiSaver Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Financial Advisers Amendment Bill (No 3) read a third time. 
Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill read a third time.
Vote: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17845. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by omitting “Reverend Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch” and substituting “Dr Ate Moala of Wellington”. 
Ayes 31 
Ardern S (P) 
English (P) 
Katene (P) 
Shanks 
Auchinvole (P) 
Finlayson (P) 
Lee 
Sharples (P) 
Bakshi (P) 
Flavell 
Lotu-Iiga 
Tisch 
Blue 
Gilmore 
Macindoe 
Turia 
Borrows 
Goodhew  
McClay 
Woodhouse 
Bridges (P) 
Goudie (P) 
Parata 
Young 
Carter J 
Guy 
Quinn (P) 
Teller: 
Dean (P) 
Heatley (P) 
Roy E (P) 
Henare 
Noes 67 
Barker 
Dunne 
Lees-Galloway 
Ross 
Beaumont 
Faafoi 
Locke 
Roy H 
Bennett D (P) 
Foss (P) 
Mackey 
Ryall (P) 
Bennett P 
Graham 
Mallard 
Sepuloni 
Boscawen 
Groser (P) 
Mapp (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Hague 
McCully (P) 
Smith N (P) 
Calder (P) 
Harawira 
Nash 
Street 
Calvert 
Hodgson 
Norman 
te Heuheu (P) 
Carter C 
Horomia 
O’Connor 
Tolley (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hughes G 
Parker 
Tremain 
Chauvel 
Huo 
Peachey (P) 
Turei 
Clendon 
Hutchison 
Pillay 
Twyford 
Coleman (P) 
Jones 
Power 
Wagner (P) 
Cunliffe 
Joyce (P) 
Prasad 
Wilkinson (P) 
Davis 
Kedgley 
Ririnui 
Williamson 
Delahunty 
King A 
Robertson G 
Teller: 
Douglas 
King C (P) 
Robertson R 
Fenton  
Abstentions 1 
Adams (P) 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 31 Noes 70 and Abstentions 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Barker Rick: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barker Rick: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17844. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Not all members are in the House and this amendment has come at a very very late stage. It is so late in fact that the amendment had not been signed or put on the Table when the member had finished speaking. Not all members will be entirely clear about the situation so I want you in order to assist members to read into the record exactly what is happening now and who is voting for what so that members are clear about how to vote. I do not want to stymie this by taking objection to it but I have to say that this is poor process.
Roy Eric: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17844. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Are any further members seeking the call? We need a copy of the amendment to be tabled and signed. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. After the vote on voices can I call for a personal vote? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member firstly needs to table the amendment and we have not had that done yet. We will then follow process. I will wait for the amendment to be tabled before the Clerk. It is in order and there are no further amendments. I will put the question on the amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Given that there is an amendment to the motion I declare that there will be a personal vote.
Hughes Gareth: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17843. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party wishes to take a brief call in support of the Abortion Supervisory Committee appointments: Professor Dame Linda Holloway and the Rev. Patricia Ann Allan who have been nominated for reappointment and Dr Tangimoana Habib who has been nominated as a new appointment. Those women have a very responsible job under section 14 of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977. This job includes licensing institutions and certifying consultants. I will not outline all the responsibilities under section 14. Suffice it to say that as well as other duties the committee has a reporting function and its reports are carefully studied by the protagonists on all sides of the debate. 
The Green Party has no reason to challenge the existing members of the committee and from what we have been able to judge the new nominee has a strong background in vital issues—notably improving Maori health status particularly in terms of breastfeeding. We are hopeful that her concerns about whanau and the well-being of mothers and children will assist the committee in its work. 
A percentage of people will always oppose abortion from their ethical perspective. However there are other ethical perspectives and human rights issues to be addressed and the supervisory committee plays a vital leadership role on this issue. More information and safe options for contraception are essential and it is fitting that those professional women continue the important work of the 1977 Act. The Green Party caucus members are unanimous in supporting this motion.
Chauvel Charles: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17842. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As the Minister of Justice said the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 requires there to be an Abortion Supervisory Committee. Section 10 provides that it is to have three members two of whom are to be medical practitioners and that those members are to be appointed by His Excellency on the recommendation of the House. Under section 11 of the Act the members of the supervisory committee are to hold office for up to 3 years. 
The Minister’s motion on the Order Paper proposes the reappointment of Professor Dame Linda Jane Holloway of Dunedin and the Rev. Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch to the committee. Professor Holloway is to be chairperson of the committee and an additional member Dr Tangimoana Frances Habib of Hamilton is proposed to be appointed. As we have heard from the Minister Dr Habib is proposed to replace Dr Rosie Fenwicke and I would like to take this opportunity now to acknowledge the service of Dr Fenwicke on the supervisory committee over the period of Dr Fenwicke’s term. 
I will say one or two words about the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act. It is a poorly drafted Act. It is antiquated. Litigation over its provisions has been frequent especially in recent years. The legislation contains what to a contemporary ear are offensive terms—for example the title of section 4 “Administering Contraceptives to Mentally Subnormal Females”. It is widely agreed that the legislation needs to be modernised and administered as a health statute rather than a justice one which was the paradigm at the time in 1977 when the legislation was framed. I certainly personally welcome an updating of the law and I hope to see that some time during my service in this House. 
Meanwhile I congratulate Professor Holloway and Rev. Allan on what is effectively a thankless task: embarking on service on the Abortion Supervisory Committee. I confirm on behalf of the Labour Opposition that our members were consulted some time ago by the Minister as to his proposed nominees on both the reappointments and the fresh appointment of Dr Habib. The Opposition knows of no reason to object to the appointment and the reappointments that have been proposed. Although as is the tradition members on the Labour side will have a conscience vote as to the names proposed given the consultation from the Minister and the lack of any knowledge of objection to the qualifications of the persons proposed I anticipate that there will be widespread support on this side of the House for the names proposed. 
I am told that there may be another name floated in the debate. If that is the case then I can confirm that there has been no consultation with the Labour Opposition over any such name. I would be surprised if members on this side of the House were to support any such late nomination in the absence of such consultation.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17825. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I can advise the shadow Leader of the House that that matter is currently under consideration by the Minister in charge of the bill.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17838. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What are the risks to the Crown in holding State-owned enterprise shares that he was referring to when he gave evidence to the Finance and Expenditure Committee in February 2011? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I recall raising the issue of risks in the context of a discussion about the Government bond rate and the return on State-owned enterprises. The Crown faces the same range of risks as any owner of any commercial company: the need to change prices; fluctuating demand for their product; changes in costs such as the changes in the oil price at the moment; changes in the exchange rate; competing against better technology; and changes in the supply and demand of the products they buy and the products they sell. They are all risks of owning a commercial company. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When he referred to the risk both then and today does he regard the risk profile of the assets as positive or negative? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is not a matter of whether it is positive or negative; it is whether it is in a technical sense properly priced. The benchmark is what the Government borrows money at which is 6 percent. When we own companies we expect to make a return of higher than 6 percent to reflect the fact that there are more risks in running a company than in lending to the Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he therefore think an average 17.5 percent total return over the last 5 years is a reasonable return for this type of asset? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will make a couple of comments about that. The first is that those returns are based in some of those years on dubious valuation methods. Secondly if the returns were actually 17 percent based on sound commercial valuations those returns would look excessive. But the previous Government allowing electricity prices to rise by over 70 percent in 8 years might explain why they made such big returns. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Pursuant to that supplementary answer is it therefore his view that the energy company assets are overvalued in the Crown accounts? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those are matters of some contention; different people have different views about the valuations. What we do know is that the Government is proposing a mixed-ownership model where a lot of those issues would be determined by the market rather than by politicians.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17836. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on the Victoria Park Tunnel road of national significance? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is an amount of giggling here. We did not all hear Tau Henare’s interjection; I wonder whether you would like to repeat it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure the House does not want me to repeat it. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Good news! I visited the Victoria’s Secret—sorry; Victoria Park construction site this morning and I am pleased to report to the House that Aucklanders will begin to benefit from the Victoria Park Tunnel in November this year well ahead of schedule. The $340 million Victoria Park Tunnel project will increase the capacity of State Highway 1 between the Auckland Harbour Bridge and Newmarket one of the country’s most important freight and commercial routes and the last major bottleneck of the central motorway junction. It is great to see that the whole programme will be completed in February 3 months earlier than planned. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How has the Government’s commitment to infrastructure spending boosted confidence in the construction sector? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government’s funding pipeline of $10.7 billion of State highway funding over 10 years has provided a secure funding pipeline which has given contractors the confidence to continue investing in their people and machinery and to complete projects more quickly. This has sped up the construction of a project that may in fact never have happened if the previous Government had cut back on its State highway funding as it had planned to do. I am pleased that this confidence is flowing through to a number of projects which are now being delivered even earlier than scheduled. Last week I announced that the Hobsonville motorway will be completed 6 months ahead of schedule. Last year the southbound part of the Newmarket Viaduct opened early and the Manukau Harbour crossing also opened early.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17836. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Transport— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: “Tupperwaka”— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How is Linda Lovelace these days? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House had better come to order.
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17834. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What recent progress has the Government made towards its aspirational goal of settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 On Saturday the Government signed a deed of settlement with Ngati Makino. The deed sets out commercial redress the return of culturally significant sites marae restoration and revitalisation and social service development. Ngati Makino’s claims relate to the New Zealand Wars and the Bay of Plenty confiscation the operation and impact of native land laws and the Crown’s land purchasing techniques as well as 20th century issues relating to public works and scenic reserve takings. 
Simon Bridges 
: What other progress has the Government made towards its aspirational goal of settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: On 12 March the Crown signed a deed of settlement with Ngati Rereahu in respect of the Maraeroa A and B blocks. Also in March the Crown signed a deed of settlement with Ngai Tamanuhiri in Turanga and initialled a deed of settlement with Ngati Manuhiri in Tamaki. Since the last election and with the support of the Maori Party the Government has reached almost 100 significant settlement milestones including 21 agreements in principle and 16 deeds of settlement. That represents great progress especially compared with the previous administration’s average of less than 1.5 settlements a year. [ 
Interruption 
] Because of the noise I will repeat that important figure. I think it is important that the House know that that figure was less than 1.5 settlements a year.
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17830. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received on the latest benefit numbers? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The March numbers have been released today. There are now 331529 people receiving a benefit. The number fell by 12531 during March and was down 3.6 percent on the February figure. Most of that decrease was because of students going back but the number on the general unemployment benefit dropped by 4368 as well. Although it is encouraging to see another drop in benefit numbers I caution against getting too optimistic on the basis of these figures. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Do reports show any improvement for young people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. Reports indicate that young people are beginning to move off the unemployment benefit faster than the overall reduction in the number of people on the unemployment benefit. The number of young people on it decreased by 4 percent in the year ended March and is now 8398 a fall of nearly 2000. Although 4 percent may not seem like much after increases of 66 percent and 187 percent in the previous 2 years it is positive to see that fall. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What reports has she seen on the availability of hardship assistance? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The Government is paying twice as many special needs grants as it did in 2008. In March 2008 $3.7 million was spent on special needs grants; in March 2011 $7.2 million was spent. The amount of benefit advances in March was up by about 30 percent. In March 2008 $7.9 million was spent on advances and forwarded and in March 2011 it was $12.2 million. Although some might think that number is too high and we should not be giving those grants I think it proves that the help is there when people need it. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can she confirm that unemployment benefit numbers showed almost the same drop at this period last year as the latest figures show but then continued to climb throughout 2010 and can she guarantee that will not be the pattern in 2011? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As indicated the March fall was expected as we are seeing students go back and we are also seeing the usual decrease due to seasonal work. What I have indicated is that in previous years we have seen a dramatic increase but in the last 12 months we have seen the figures actually go down slightly. I am hoping we have slowed the flow.
English Bill: Ministerial Statements — AMI Insurance—Financial Support Package 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
English Bill: Ministerial Statements — AMI Insurance—Financial Support Package 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I thank the leaders of the various parties for their support for this unique and extraordinary measure. I reassure Parliament that the Government is not out looking for opportunities for these kinds of arrangements. I want to send a clear message to New Zealand’s commercial sector that only in unique circumstances would the Government contemplate supporting a commercial venture. They should conduct their business and their advice to consumers of their products in the usual method whereby they bear all the risks of the transactions they are undertaking. It is only the sequence of events of two earthquakes in Christchurch that merits the kind of support that taxpayers are offering to homeowners of the suburbs of Christchurch. The Government will endeavour to execute its responsibilities in a way that will ensure the claims are dealt with expeditiously and the taxpayers’ interests are protected.
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — AMI Insurance—Financial Support Package 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — AMI Insurance—Financial Support Package 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 The Christchurch earthquake and its associated events is a rare and extraordinary thing in the life of our country. So too the solutions to the flow-on problems that arise from it are rare and extraordinary as is evidenced by the decision with regard to AMI Insurance. This is not a case where ideological solutions from either the right or the left are appropriate but is one where what is appropriate is the best course of action in the circumstances—85000 policyholders in the Canterbury area cannot be cast to the wind in these circumstances. 
The parallel that I want to draw on which although different in context has relevance in terms of its extraordinary impact is the proper decision that this House made some years ago to bail out Air New Zealand. In that instance the Government of the day could not stand by and let a critical component of national transport infrastructure fail. In this instance the Government cannot stand by and see a large number of residential policyholders in the Canterbury area cast to the lions as it were simply because the pressure on their insurance company has proved to be too great. One other parallel with Air New Zealand which I just caution about in the context of the Christchurch bail-out is that at the time of the Air New Zealand bail-out the Government was confident on the basis of the information available to it that its involvement would be relatively short term and that it would start to withdraw from the level of equity that it purchased over time. In reality that has not happened and I suspect that despite the Minister of Finance’s optimism that this can be a relatively short-term involvement with AMI Insurance that will prove not to be the case as time unfolds. 
I think it is appropriate that we support AMI Insurance in this way. This is one of those rare and extraordinary occasions and this solution should be seen as being precisely in that category.
Roy Eric: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17845. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will make this very clear. An amendment has been moved by the Hon Tariana Turia to omit the words “the Reverend Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch” and substitute the words “Dr Ate Moala of Wellington”. That is the amendment that the House will now vote on and it is a personal vote.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Ministerial Statements — AMI Insurance—Financial Support Package 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Ministerial Statements — AMI Insurance—Financial Support Package 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17828. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. The Maori Party stands in support of the policyholders’ support package for AMI Insurance and we do so in taking a whanau approach. This is about protecting the interests of whanau: whanau in Christchurch and whanau elsewhere who have already faced significant costs from not just the earthquakes but the collapse of finance companies. This measure is about providing a level of confidence to us all that if financial assistance is required the Government will take extraordinary steps to minimise the cost to taxpayers. We will be watching very carefully to ensure that that happens. We are opposed to bailing out the private sector. 
The events emerging out of the Canterbury earthquakes have placed many sectors within our nation under great pressure. Today’s announcement responds to the considerable tension that AMI Insurance has experienced in direct response to the earthquakes last September and in February of this year. It is an unusual situation and from the viewpoint of the Reserve Bank it does not appear to have impacted on the bulk of the mainstream insurance sector only AMI Insurance. 
The Government has described the policyholders’ support package as a last-resort approach kicking in only when the company’s own reserves have been exhausted unless the Crown believes that it is in the public interest to take control sooner. This is about taxpayers supporting other whanau who through no fault of their own have sought support from a residential insurer that now finds itself in a precarious position as a result of two natural disasters on a massive scale. The Maori Party supports the Government in this initiative.
Cunliffe David: Ministerial Statements — AMI Insurance—Financial Support Package 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Ministerial Statements — AMI Insurance—Financial Support Package 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17826. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition supports the need to provide certainty to the 85000 Cantabrians who have been worrying about whether their insurance claims for earthquake damage would be paid out. In that regard the Labour Opposition supports the Government’s provision of up to $500 million as an equity stake in AMI Insurance. The Labour Opposition hopes that the package will provide the confidence and certainty that Cantabrians need. The well-being of Cantabrians and their ability to rebuild their homes and lives must not be put at risk because of financial uncertainty. We understand the extraordinary circumstances of two earthquakes in the immediate region of the domicile of AMI which is New Zealand’s largest domestic-based insurance operation. 
The package must however be seen as a last resort. We noted that the Government has indicated that the $500 million will be drawn upon only as is necessary when all other legitimate claims on equity and financing have been exhausted. Safeguards must be put in place to protect the long-term interests of taxpayers. 
We note that in the Government’s statement what is being provided is “up to $500 million in equity” plus the following statement from the Government: “If losses were to be greater than $500 million the Crown would stand behind the claims.” We will be seeking more detail from the Crown on the nature and extent of this additional exposure and what information has been provided upon it by the company. We note that in the case of another prominent South Island financial institution the Government’s initial estimate of liability was of the same order of magnitude but has ballooned to nearly three times the original estimated amount. We want to ensure that better standards of oversight occur in this case. We put the Government on notice that as part of the Opposition’s support for this step we will expect ongoing consultation and sharing of information in respect of the company. 
Part of the reason for that is that New Zealanders are sick and tired of bailing out the private sector including finance companies which—let us say—in some other circumstances could have been seen as often reckless and/or greedy. Some companies have capitalised on the good times raking in profits but when they started making losses or going bust it has been left up to the taxpayer to rescue them. That is not a precedent we can allow to stand. It sticks in the throat of most New Zealanders. However on this occasion AMI Insurance is in a different situation that has come about through extraordinary circumstances. We accept that action has had to be taken to protect the interests of 485000 AMI Insurance policyholders throughout New Zealand especially those affected by the disaster in Canterbury. Thank you.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17838. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What progress has been made to facilitate trade between New Zealand and the United States? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I have very good news for the House. Just recently an exchange of letters was signed between our ambassador in America Mike Moore and the head of United States Customs and Border Protection Alan Bersin. The extension of the mutual recognition means that New Zealand exporters who are involved in what we call the Secure Exports Scheme will be exempt from a whole range of America’s import inspections. It means that those companies will be about three and a half times less likely to be inspected. The real benefit is that New Zealand is the only country in the world to have this special arrangement. It means we will not only be able to keep our communities safe but also allow our exporters to go about secure and efficient trade between the two countries. 
Melissa Lee 
: What benefits does the agreement give to New Zealand Secure Exports Scheme exporters to the United States? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: As I said New Zealand is the only country in the world to have the arrangement with the United States which is a first. I am really pleased. The arrangement is that if our companies—and there are a lot of New Zealand companies; they export about $1350 million to the United States—have joined the Secure Exports Scheme prove they have secure channels and make sure the containers leaving their base have been properly packed inspected and sealed then they will be given very special treatment. The agreement means they will be able to enter the United States rapidly and be way less subject to inspection than companies from any other country.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17825. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I ask the Acting Leader of the House whether it is the Government’s intention to pick up the Opposition’s suggestion of sending the Canterbury legislation to a select committee—if only for a few hours—in order to give people like the regional and city people and the Law Society an opportunity to comment?
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17825. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 12 April the Government intends to introduce and make progress on legislation to respond to the Canterbury earthquake. If time permits the Government will also look to make further progress on bills on the Order Paper.
Douglas Roger: Ministerial Statements — AMI Insurance—Financial Support Package 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Douglas Roger: Ministerial Statements — AMI Insurance—Financial Support Package 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17828. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I have been warning the Government of this moment for the last 2 years. Here is what I said in March 2009: “All this talk of bailouts and the like undermine certainty. It suggests to business that the Government may begin to actively pick winners and losers. But such an approach is a recipe for disaster.” In normal circumstances the Government should not step in and bail out AMI Insurance. Certainty is essential to the operation of the market. Bail-outs undermine certainty by suggesting to business that the Government will start to actively pick winners and losers. In the case of AMI Insurance the company gained a larger market share than it might otherwise have done through offering lower premiums made possible by a policy of limiting expenditure—that is having too little reinsurance. AMI Insurance took the risk and those who took out insurance with it benefited from the risk for a while. It was a risk that did not work. If the Government is going to step in here what about the people in Canterbury who ran a similar risk by having no insurance at all? What is the Government going to do for them? 
The question however is what we do from here. We as New Zealand citizens might just—and I emphasise “just”—be able to go along with the Government’s decision to bail out AMI Insurance but only I suggest under strict conditions. If these conditions are not met then the bail-out in my view at least should not proceed. There need to be two non-negotiable conditions for this bail-out. First the Government must send out an unequivocal warning to all New Zealanders that the Government cannot afford nor will it entertain any further bail-outs. This is it! If New Zealanders want to try to benefit from running a risk they must be prepared to live with the consequences. The Government can no longer afford to pick up the tab. Second the Government must get its books in order. We need for example to get Government expenditure under control immediately. Going slow as we have done over the last 3 or 4 years is no longer possible. To boil it down the way that the Minister of Finance has run the economy over the past 2½ years and the risk that he has been prepared to take are not different in any way from the way that AMI Insurance has run its business. They both lived at the edge— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s agreed time has expired.
Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17825. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 7 April 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 12 April the Government intends to introduce and make progress on legislation to respond to the Canterbury earthquake. If time permits the Government will also look to make further progress on bills on the Order Paper. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I ask the Acting Leader of the House whether it is the Government’s intention to pick up the Opposition’s suggestion of sending the Canterbury legislation to a select committee—if only for a few hours—in order to give people like the regional and city people and the Law Society an opportunity to comment? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I can advise the shadow Leader of the House that that matter is currently under consideration by the Minister in charge of the bill.
Barker Rick: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barker Rick: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16379. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members before I close the House I am sure you would all like me to say thank you on your behalf to the Hansard reporters the Clerk’s officers the messengers Bellamy’s staff security officials and everyone else. On behalf of the presiding officers I would like to thank all members for their good humour and perseverance. I wish you all a safe trip home.
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16379. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 81 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 18; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
Green Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Young Jonathan: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Young Jonathan: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16378. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I think that a very productive speech should be of high quality and delivered in a short period of time. The previous speaker Grant Robertson failed on both but he did try hard. This is a great bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you very much.
Shanks Katrina: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shanks Katrina: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16376. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I commend the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill to the House tonight. Thank you.
Calvert Hilary: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calvert Hilary: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16376. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill. This bill is a direct result of the confidence and supply agreement between ACT and National. I look forward to seeing this bill pass and the commission begin its work in 2011.
Lotu-Iiga Sam: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lotu-Iiga Sam: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16372. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill. After listening to the previous speech by Lianne Dalziel one would think that member was voting against the bill. The Commerce Committee broadly agreed with the general principles of the direction of the bill although some amendments were proposed tonight that were sent from the union headquarters to Ms Dalziel and went against a lot of what was discussed at the committee. 
This bill is about providing analysis and advice on productivity-related matters in New Zealand. The Productivity Commission will be tasked with bringing that to bear in terms of not just workplace productivity but also issues wider than that. It is about processes and systems it is about technology and it is about people. We listened tonight to the speakers opposite and we heard a lot about social partnerships. But no this is about productivity. We took a general approach to clause 7 “Purpose of Commission” recommending that the clause be amended by adding the words: “having regard to a wide range of communities of interest …”. That would mean that there would not be one model that we would rely on. Everyone agreed upon that yet we had an amendment tonight. 
The committee looked at the functions of the commission and removed the emphasis on regulation. We placed more emphasis on holding inquiries and reporting to the relevant Ministers. The commission will be tasked with more than just workplace productivity. 
The biggest amendment that we considered as a committee was in respect of the terms of reference relating to consultation between the relevant Minister and the commission. It would not include the unions and it would not include Business New Zealand because it is about getting the terms of reference that are important. 
I commend this bill to the House. It will increase productivity and it is another step in the right direction for this Government. Thank you.
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16367. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 24 
New Zealand Labour 20; Green Party 4. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedules agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16367. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 24 
New Zealand Labour 20; Green Party 4. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to insert “Subject to section 12(1B)” at the beginning of subclause (1A); 
to insert the following subclause after subclause (1A): 
(1B)In setting the terms of reference for an inquiry the referring Ministers must first consult with Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions to ensure that the concept of social partnership is embedded in the work of the Productivity Commission.; and 
to add the following subclause after subclause (3): 
(4)Ministers and the Commission shall ensure that terms of reference require a range of models to be used in any research and analysis.
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16367. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 25 
New Zealand Labour 20; Green Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to members there is a very good reason for votes to be conducted in silence. I know it is difficult to constrain oneself when severely provoked. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following paragraphs: 
(c)support initiatives which develop practical productivity projects and provide and overview of the range of tools/models available to maximise multifactor productivity in workplaces: 
(d)run inclusive events/workshops on productivity and have educational tools and other information on its website: 
(e)organise events and other activities as appropriate with the Australian Productivity Commission: 
(f)produce an annual report on productivity.
Young Jonathan: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Young Jonathan: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16366. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think that is a fair question. The question is that the question be now put. Members of that opinion will say Aye of the contrary opinion will say No. The Ayes have it. The question will be put. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Party vote; come on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I gave the member the opportunity to call for a party vote. I said the question will be put. I declare the vote and if the vote is not challenged immediately for a party vote we move on. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
7Purpose of Commission 
The purpose of the Commission is to facilitate policy development practical activities and research which will boost productivity on a sustained basis in order to support the overall well-being of New Zealanders through the development of a high-wage high-skill sustainable economy that delivers benefits on an equitable basis to New Zealanders having regard to a wide range of communities of interest and population groups in New Zealand society.
Shanks Katrina: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shanks Katrina: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16365. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.