edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Chauvel Charles: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13724] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to make some brief comments about the changes to KiwiSaver made in Part 3 and also to direct some comments to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 167 at least in as far as that Supplementary Order Paper will make changes to the KiwiSaver scheme. The changes proposed on the Supplementary Order Paper will assist to make sure that KiwiSaver does work as intended and to the best effect. 
Dr Smith is quite right; we did hear some very compelling submissions on KiwiSaver at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The select committee proposed a number of changes to the legislation and recommended for example allowing employees who contribute to KiwiSaver schemes to phase in their minimum 4 percent contribution starting at 2 percent on 1 April 2008 and arriving at the full 4 percent as late as 1 April 2011. To be consistent that option is to be offered to members of complying superannuation schemes as well and that is obviously a commendable move. I note that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions last week issued a statement welcoming in particular that change and asserting—I think with a degree of justification—that the KiwiSaver improvements will help those on low incomes. It was speaking in particular about that recommended change and I think that will encourage what is already a spectacular rate of KiwiSaver uptake. 
Just having a look at the other changes recommended by Supplementary Order Paper 167 in this area I note there will be good consumer protection measures that will require complying superannuation funds to ensure that their fees are not unreasonable. This requirement already exists for KiwiSaver schemes. The Government actuary will be empowered to monitor any fee changes to see whether they are unreasonable so there is a good prudential oversight regime that will be introduced. These changes will see the introduction of a public register of complying superannuation funds so that everybody can see whether a specific scheme will attract the relevant KiwiSaver benefits. So the changes mooted will increase transparency and make what is already an excellent scheme an even better one.
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13723] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to Part 3 clauses 200 to 275 with new clauses 276 to 545 therein on Supplementary Order Paper 168. The debate on this part includes schedules 1 and 2 and new schedules 3 to 5 also set out on Supplementary Order Paper 168.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13723] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13723] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13723] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Papers 167 and 168 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 2 be agreed to.
Bennett David: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13722] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on this bill because when we talk about the implication of putting penalties on people who do not file GST or other returns simply for the sake of having a mandatory penalty it smacks of a Labour - United Future - Progressive Government that has no comprehension of what it is actually like to be in business. These people have never been in business. They have probably never filed a GST return—apart from for a union. For them to now put in a mandatory penalty just for the sake of it shows their comprehension of what it is like for the people who actually earn the money that pays the wages of those members who sit on that side of the Chamber and tell them what to do through tax bills such as this. 
The Minister has come back and made a valid point that there will be some discretion within the 12-month period and that people’s history in relation to the filing of returns will be looked at. That is fair enough. That is what happens now. The Inland Revenue Department looks at people’s history of filing returns. If they have a history of being a good filer of tax returns then it will sometimes waive the penalty let them get away with it and say they made a mistake. That would be the appropriate approach and the department does that now. It looks back over the past year at one’s filing history. 
What is the purpose of putting on a $50 mandatory filing fee? Why put on a $50 or $250 mandatory fee for people who fail to file on time? The only purpose can be that the Government wants to sting hard-working employers in this country. It wants to hold business back and it wants to increase compliance costs—to be the bane of hard-working New Zealand business people basically. The Labour Government wants to restrict and compromise the ability of those people to carry on their own approach in their businesses. There is no need for an extra filing fee for late filing. The Inland Revenue Department still can use discretion and that should be sufficient. There is no need at all for these fees. The Government should take a call on this issue and explain why it wants to introduce these fees. There is no good rationale to do so. It is merely another attempt to put more compliance costs on to small business and it shows that the Government lacks any comprehension of what it is like to have a small business and have to file GST and other returns on a compulsory basis over a number of months in a year. 
I encourage the Minister to take a call and explain the rationale for introducing these fees.
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13722] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clauses 184 188 and 191 are out of order because there may be an impact on the fiscal aggregates and they were lodged with less than 24 hours’ notice. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to the proposed amendment to clause 151(4) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 168 in his name be agreed to: 
to number the paragraph being inserted after section 33A(2)(d) as “(db)”.
Hereora Dave: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13722] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Chauvel Charles: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13721] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13714] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to respond to the points that have just been made because I think the spin that has been placed on the events of the last couple of years by Dr Smith does not accurately reflect the position. Let me rehearse the situation as it occurred and I speak with some long-term interest in this having been the Minister of Revenue at the time the original voluntary disclosure disputes and penalties regime was put in place over a decade ago. When I returned to this portfolio after the last election the issue of the way in which the voluntary disclosure rules and unacceptable position rules were working was raised with me. The upshot was that in a similar piece of legislation to this last year I introduced what I said at the time was an interim measure—that we would work on a detailed solution which is the solution contained in this bill. 
So I do not accept the proposition that what we did then we are now correcting because it had not worked. What we did then was put in place an interim solution recognising all the way through that a more detailed solution would emerge and that solution is contained in this bill. The consequence of that in terms of the commencement dates aside from any administrative complexity that going back to 2006 might give rise to is that the dates more appropriately take effect from the time of the passage of this legislation or in relation to the provisions of clause 188 from the time of the Budget announcement in May this year. 
I acknowledge that Dr Smith has put forward his amendments and I acknowledge the fact that he had the courtesy to come and discuss those with me sometime yesterday. I appreciate that. I had officials consider those amendments and give me some advice about them and we are satisfied that a couple of issues arise. Firstly there are practical difficulties with the timing change; there are revenue implications that are potentially significant. The second issue is that we are not persuaded that the situations he sets out in particular with regard to clause 188 are in fact desirably changed by legislation or not even provided for in the current provisions. So we are not disposed to support those amendments but I acknowledge the way in which he brought them forward and I appreciate the fact that he had the courtesy to alert me to them in advance and enable us to give some consideration to them. But I put on record that the genesis of this is not a recognition that what we did last year failed; the genesis of this is that what we did last year was to say that there was an interim regime pending the development of more final rules which are given effect to in this bill.
Hughes Darren: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Hughes Darren: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:644;Page:14063] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are still several party leaders who are to speak to this motion and the Labour Party and National Party have an additional speaker as well. We have consulted the other parties and on that basis I would seek leave for the House to continue sitting beyond 6 p.m. and then to lift once this motion before the House has been put. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection so that course will be followed.
Brownlee Gerry: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:644;Page:14058] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take the opportunity to explain to the Deputy Prime Minister that had I given him the box of chocolates I would be terribly fearful he would want to kiss me. 
Chocolates by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:14055] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral Finance Bill the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Bills read a third time.
Tizard Judith: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Tizard Judith: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:14051] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 Mine was not a reflection of age; it was merely a comment. The member’s reflection was intended to be insulting and derogatory to older people. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I accept that. Thank you for raising the matter.
Hide Rodney: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Hide Rodney: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:14051] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I think that the Standing Orders actually require Mr Hodgson to be upset. I am sure he is actually quite flattered by his great success. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think you are right but I thank the Hon Judith Tizard for raising the matter. I do not think the comment is offensive to the House. It does not help matters in the House but the person who is the subject of the comment is the right person to raise an objection to it if he or she wishes. Of course Ms Tizard you finished off almost in the same vein as Mr Finlayson by casting a reflection as to age.
Tizard Judith: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Tizard Judith: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:14051] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not want to interrupt my colleague but I bring your attention to an intervention made by the member who is about to take a call Christopher Finlayson. He cast a comment to the Minister suggesting that he was a grandfather. The last time that sort of comment was ruled out of order in this House Sonja Davies had been abused by an Opposition member in a human rights debate. The member had said: “Go on Granny. Have a go.” That was ruled as being offensive. I urge you to ask the member to withdraw and apologise. Apart from anything else the comment is ageist and I believe that the member is probably older than the Minister he was trying to insult by calling him a grandfather.
Hide Rodney: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Hide Rodney: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:14049] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I am happy for Ms Pettis to be calling out. It is the only opportunity Labour gives her in this House.
Simich Clem: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Simich Clem: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:14049] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Ms Pettis has been rather vocal. I have tried to caution her but she is sitting in her right seat. She is replacing the senior whip. But in the position of senior whip she should set an example which is to enable orderly debate.
Tolley Anne: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Tolley Anne: Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) Electoral Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:14049] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A number of Labour members of Parliament have moved from their seats and have been constantly barracking throughout a number of speeches. I just draw that to your attention. I did not want to interrupt the previous speaker.
Benson-Pope David: Tabling of Documents — Ferguson Lecture 2006 
Benson-Pope David: Tabling of Documents — Ferguson Lecture 2006 
[Volume:644;Page:14038] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the Ferguson Lecture of 2006 by Marion Maddox. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tabling of Documents — Ferguson Lecture 2006 
Tabling of Documents — Ferguson Lecture 2006 
[Volume:644;Page:14038] 
Tabling of Documents 
Ferguson Lecture 2006 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the Ferguson Lecture of 2006 by Marion Maddox. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mallard Trevor: Personal Explanations — Personal Comments—Erin Leigh 
Mallard Trevor: Personal Explanations — Personal Comments—Erin Leigh 
[Volume:644;Page:14037] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 On 22 November in response to two questions I made comments in relation to Ms Erin Leigh. On reflection I now believe it was not wise to make those comments. I apologise to her.
Personal Explanations — Personal Comments—Erin Leigh 
Personal Explanations — Personal Comments—Erin Leigh 
[Volume:644;Page:14037] 
Personal Explanations 
Personal Comments—Erin Leigh 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 On 22 November in response to two questions I made comments in relation to Ms Erin Leigh. On reflection I now believe it was not wise to make those comments. I apologise to her.
Urgent Debates Declined — Capital and Coast District Health Board—Governance Changes 
Urgent Debates Declined — Capital and Coast District Health Board—Governance Changes 
[Volume:644;Page:14028] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Governance Changes 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of governance changes at Capital and Coast District Health Board. I have also received a similar application from Heather Roy. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However not every announcement by the Government can give grounds for a debate. There must be an element of urgency whereby the matter must take precedence over other business. The announcement was made on 13 December 2007 by the Minister of Health and the Leader of the House informed the House of this by way of a ministerial statement. Both Mr Ryall and Ms Roy took the opportunity to debate that matter in the House at the time. 
The Minister has made governance changes but the board is still in place. The board has been given further time to work through the issues. Those issues can be considered by the House in a number of ways in particular through the financial review process. The financial review is currently before the Health Committee and when the committee reports back the issues may be considered by the House in the financial review debate. Both applications are therefore declined.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Capital and Coast District Health Board—Governance Changes 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Capital and Coast District Health Board—Governance Changes 
[Volume:644;Page:14028] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of governance changes at Capital and Coast District Health Board. I have also received a similar application from Heather Roy. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However not every announcement by the Government can give grounds for a debate. There must be an element of urgency whereby the matter must take precedence over other business. The announcement was made on 13 December 2007 by the Minister of Health and the Leader of the House informed the House of this by way of a ministerial statement. Both Mr Ryall and Ms Roy took the opportunity to debate that matter in the House at the time. 
The Minister has made governance changes but the board is still in place. The board has been given further time to work through the issues. Those issues can be considered by the House in a number of ways in particular through the financial review process. The financial review is currently before the Health Committee and when the committee reports back the issues may be considered by the House in the financial review debate. Both applications are therefore declined.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question Time—Ministerial Delegations 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question Time—Ministerial Delegations 
[Volume:644;Page:14028] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Obviously I do not have the data before me and clearly we have finished question time for the year but I give an undertaking to the House that that letter will be available to be tabled at the start of next year so that it will be available for question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hope that satisfies the member.
Points of Order — Question Time—Ministerial Delegations 
Points of Order — Question Time—Ministerial Delegations 
[Volume:644;Page:14028] 
Points of Order 
Question Time—Ministerial Delegations 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order under Standing Order 369 and Speaker’s rulings 140/4-6. This deals with the issue of ministerial delegations. It has now been some 6 weeks since the ministerial reshuffle yet there is still no official delegation list laid on the Table of the House. Under the Standing Orders we are required to ask questions of Ministers according to their delegations. Speaker’s ruling 140/5 in particular instructs that the delegations should be laid on the Table “at once”. Six weeks later hardly seems to be “at once”. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Obviously I do not have the data before me and clearly we have finished question time for the year but I give an undertaking to the House that that letter will be available to be tabled at the start of next year so that it will be available for question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hope that satisfies the member.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Question Time—Ministerial Delegations 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Question Time—Ministerial Delegations 
[Volume:644;Page:14028] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order under Standing Order 369 and Speaker’s rulings 140/4-6. This deals with the issue of ministerial delegations. It has now been some 6 weeks since the ministerial reshuffle yet there is still no official delegation list laid on the Table of the House. Under the Standing Orders we are required to ask questions of Ministers according to their delegations. Speaker’s ruling 140/5 in particular instructs that the delegations should be laid on the Table “at once”. Six weeks later hardly seems to be “at once”.
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:644;Page:14027] 
12.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: On what date did he first learn of any of the deaths of the three Hawke’s Bay District Health Board patients who died in Hawke’s Bay Hospital while on Wellington Hospital’s waiting list for heart surgery as reported on the front page of the  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
 newspaper on 8 December 2007 and what action if any did he take? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I am advised that the chair of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board indicated in a telephone conversation with the Minister on 13 November that the chair held information relating to deaths in Hawke’s Bay. The Minister indicated this to his officials on the same day. The officials began immediately following up with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. On Monday 19 November both the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and the Capital and Coast District Health Board provided written reports to the Ministry of Health that indicated that actions were already in place to increase access to cardiothoracic surgery at the Capital and Coast District Health Board. 
Heather Roy 
: Why has the Minister’s response to these tragic deaths been to attack me for not passing on details when there is a mandatory reporting requirement for any death of a person on a waiting list? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As far as I am aware the member was claiming publicly to have information that would have been of assistance to officials in any investigation into these matters. As I said to her the last time she asked this question she actually then instigated an Official Information Act request to the hospital board that she claimed she had information on in the first place. That seemed to be entirely inconsistent and not very responsible for a member of this Parliament. 
Heather Roy 
: Is the state of the health system so poor that it takes an Opposition MP and a  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
 journalist Kate Newton to bring such serious failures at Capital and Coast District Health Board to light because the Minister’s approach is to cover up and to attack those who are exposing the truth? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think it is irresponsible of any member of this House to define a hospital to describe a hospital in the New Zealand health system as a “killer hospital”; that is what I think is irresponsible. The Minister acted immediately. There was no delay in that. The reports were made back to the Ministry of Health. That is on the public record. The plans that were made by the Capital and Coast District Health Board have been implemented and more operations are actually being delivered. I must say as a New Zealander that I am proud of the hospital system in this country. My experience and the experience of thousands of my constituents who have gone through it have been universally good. We can expect incidents in our hospitals from time to time—of course we can—but by and large we have an excellent hospital system and we should be proud of it.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:644;Page:14025] 
10.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received regarding the Government’s Campaign for Action on Family Violence? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen reports that say that the campaign has a lot of New Zealanders thinking talking and acting against family violence. Of the 900 people surveyed 87 percent recalled the campaign and of those 94 percent agreed with the campaign message. Over half had discussed the ads with someone and one in five reported taking some direct action as a result. Just 3 months since the launch of the campaign individuals and communities across our country are coming together to say that family violence is not OK. 
Darien Fenton 
: What additional investment has the Government made to support services that prevent and reduce the impact of family violence? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Our Government has invested heavily in child and family services to ensure that all those who are affected by family violence are supported to rebuild their lives. Additional funding just this year includes a $5 million campaign response fund to support family violence services that are experiencing a higher demand as a result of the campaign over $20 million to boost the ability of community organisations to deliver those services and over $11 million to enhance the health sector response to family violence. Ongoing investment is a key priority and we will continue to work with the sector to ensure that needs are met. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that it is ironic that the excellent advertisements being screened on television as part of the Government’s anti-violence campaign are being interspersed around television programmes that are literally packed full of violence—up to 18 episodes of violence an hour in some programmes—and given the overwhelming evidence that high levels of violence on television increase the culture of violence why will the Government not take action to reduce the amount of violence on television as part of its anti-violence campaign? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think it is important for people to differentiate between violence that is part of a news programme that reflects reality and violence that is part of a drama or other situation. We all must get clear that any real violence particularly that inside a family is not OK.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:644;Page:14018] 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: When will the State Services Commission publicly release its investigation into the engagement of Clare Curran by the Ministry for the Environment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 When the report is completed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen a draft of the report; if so does it detail evidence from the Hon David Parker and from the former Minister David Benson-Pope; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not seen a draft of the report. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister aware of whether the State Services Commission has heard evidence from Heather Simpson or any other ministerial staff to determine the role of the Labour Government in the appointment of Clare Curran by the Ministry for the Environment; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it true that the Labour Government has required that this report is not released while the House is sitting and is determined to have this report released right under the eve of Christmas in order to avoid the sort of scrutiny that it should come under? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No and I quote back to the member his own comments he made on Radio Live on 5 December: “We expect a factual document to get right to the heart of it and I think we have got to give Mr Rennie and those who are putting the report together a bit of space.” That is what they have got. We have not seen the report. The Government has not received it and we have not had input into it in the way the member is implying. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does it concern the Minister that at the time I made my statements Mr Rennie had been on the job for quite some time and in fact had indicated that this would be a report that took perhaps 2 or 3 weeks but it is now well over that time and it therefore looks very much as though this Government has decided that this report will not see the light of day while there is likely to be severe scrutiny of it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. The terms of reference for this inquiry were released by the State Services Commission just over 3 weeks ago on 23 November. I am told there are a number of people who needed to be interviewed and the State Services Commission wanted time to interview and complete the report— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You’re hiding it! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take great exception to that interjection from the member. It goes right to the heart of my integrity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member asking for the member to withdraw that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly am asking him to withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:644;Page:14017] 
4.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What recent progress has been made on Treaty of Waitangi settlements? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Very good progress has been made. On Sunday an agreement in principle was signed with Waikato-Tainui relating to the tribe’s Waikato River claim. Last week an agreement was signed in principle with the Port Nicholson Block Claims Team to settle all outstanding historical claims of Taranaki Whanui (Wellington). The way in which we settle historical grievances in a peaceful and constructive way is something we should be proud of as a nation. 
Dave Hereora 
: What other recent progress has been made in settling Treaty of Waitangi claims? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have signed four agreements in principle in the last 6 months and we are due to sign another one this coming Saturday. Attempts are also being made to put together a comprehensive settlement to the central North Island forest claim. With each of these settlements we move forward looking to the future to consolidate our gains and take full advantage of our growing prosperity. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What formal negotiations took place with other Waikato River iwi who have significant rights to the Waikato River when the Crown was reaching agreement with Waikato-Tainui? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Waikato-Tainui negotiators led a process that covered all other iwi with claims to the Waikato River. Agreement was arrived at in terms of structures that involve those iwi at crucial levels of the proposals. One part of the river where Waikato-Tainui have pretty much exclusive claims is dealt with separately in the settlement but all those other iwi have been involved in the process in recent weeks. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister consider that those discussions are sufficient enough to protect the interests of other Waikato River iwi? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I do. There has been very broad agreement involving a meeting that I was at as well. Of course if any residual issues remain they can be dealt with through the ongoing negotiations towards the deed of settlement and then in the process of the bill proceeding through the House. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware of any concerns from any other Waikato River iwi that they have not been adequately consulted with and that their interests have not been protected in the agreement in principle; if so what would he consider they should do to address that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Any iwi with remaining concerns certainly can approach myself directly as the Minister or the two lead negotiators for Waikato-Tainui Tuku Morgan and Lady RaihaMahuta. But I would suggest that one must not keep looking for some extremely small dissident group. One can find such groups anywhere whether in Pakeha or Maori and they cannot stand in the way of the vast majority consenting to an agreed solution.
Wilson Margaret: Appointments — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Wilson Margaret: Appointments — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
[Volume:644;Page:14013] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am pleased to advise the House that pursuant to section 7 of the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988 His Excellency the Governor-General has appointed Mary Winifred Harris as the Clerk of the House of Representatives for a term commencing on 10 December 2007. [ 
Applause 
]
Appointments — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Appointments — Clerk of the House of Representatives 
[Volume:644;Page:14013] 
Tuesday 18 December 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Appointments 
Clerk of the House of Representatives 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am pleased to advise the House that pursuant to section 7 of the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988 His Excellency the Governor-General has appointed Mary Winifred Harris as the Clerk of the House of Representatives for a term commencing on 10 December 2007. [ 
Applause 
]
Dalziel Lianne: Commerce Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Commerce Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15170] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Commerce Amendment Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 22 July 2008 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Shanks Katrina: Commerce Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Commerce Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15169] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand in the House tonight and talk to the first reading of the Commerce Amendment Bill which National supports. 
This bill is quite complex. When I picked it up this morning I thought I would have a quick look through it to get a feel for it but I realised that it is not as simple as that. The debate has been very interesting. I know that many of the speakers before me including the Minister of Commerce the former Minister of Commerce—Paul Swain—and Simon Power have all had briefings on the bill and have quite a lot of background knowledge. When they got up to speak I learnt so much. It is kind of shocking when one is about to speak to a bill to be sitting here learning about it. But that is one of the great things about Parliament and the process of bills before the House. That is how we learn and much as we think we should know it all when we get here we do not. The opportunity to hear everybody debate legislation is actually quite important. 
I would like to acknowledge the previous speaker Hone Harawira. Although I did not agree with absolutely everything he said it was interesting to hear his viewpoint. That is the great thing about the country we live in the democracy we live in and the Parliament that we have today. 
Again I say it is my pleasure to stand here tonight to talk to this bill. But first I would like to say good evening to all those people in Auckland in peak-hour traffic. They probably have another hour before they get home— 
Nathan Guy 
: And Wellington. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: The same goes for Wellington and those travelling up to Kapiti. I will be joining them shortly in the back of the queue with Nathan and a Labour member from across the Chamber. I say to those people to keep on listening. We have about 3 minutes to go and then we are finished for the night. National supports this bill going to the select committee because hopefully we will see a lot of submissions and get some really good advice from people in the sector. 
Bill read a first time.
Hobbs Marian: Commerce Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Commerce Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15167] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I draw the attention of the members to the level of noise here. I can hear people chatting from the other end of the Chamber. 
Dail Jones 
: So could I. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I did notice the speaker looking round as if he felt just a little bit pressured by the amount of noise. So can we have some consideration for the speakers.
Worth Richard: Commerce Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Commerce Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15163] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 The Commerce Act and the Securities Act are two significant statutes that touch individuals’ business activities and transactional arrangements more closely than perhaps any others. Here we are dealing with far-reaching changes to the Commerce Act in the Commerce Amendment Bill and as the previous National Party speaker said National supports this bill going to the Commerce Committee. 
The Commerce Amendment Bill is very much challenging and high-stakes legislation. The challenge can be seen in the fact that the bill itself is 84 pages long. It is very tightly worded legislation and in many cases there are issues within the clauses on which reasonable people can justifiably hold differing views. I do not doubt it will be the subject of intense and perhaps robust debate. 
When the Minister of Commerce was making her opening comments she said that this bill had “drawn on best-practice regulation” from other countries. I express the hope that in addition to doing that drawing we have actually reflected in this bill such best-practice regulation. A number of philosophical questions have to be debated. Is the regulatory framework appropriate? Is it protective of appropriate interests? Is it sufficiently robust? And finally is it sufficiently practical? 
One of the challenges that the Commerce Committee faces is that the advisers who assist the committee in its determination of the merits of legislation are very much in-house advisers; they are steeped in knowledge I do not doubt but nevertheless are committed to implementing Government policy. I believe that this is the type of bill where there is a clear need to appoint external advisers. Why? Firstly external advisers so often have the necessary practical experience which may be lacking within the ministry and second they set up a foil that the committee can sit in judgment on as to which is the preferred policy outcome. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I heard this argument about another bill today.
Vote: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15156] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Tisch Lindsay: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15154] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I wish to take a short call on the importance of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill for the racing industry. 
The racing industry was caught out when the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry suspended all Australian horse imports. This happened on 25 August 2007 following confirmation of the outbreak of equine influenza in Australia. Prior to this there had been very free trans-Tasman involvement of horses as both countries had been free of all significant equine diseases. Since then the ban has meant that all New Zealand thoroughbred horses that competed in the 2007 Victoria Spring Racing Carnival have been stranded in Australia and have not been able to return to New Zealand to race. More New Zealand horses will be impacted at the upcoming Sydney Autumn Racing Carnival and the Brisbane Winter Carnival unless this bill is passed and the restriction can be lifted. 
Many of New Zealand’s high-quality mares are periodically sent to Australia to be served by visiting international stallions. Most of those mares subsequently return to New Zealand so that their progeny can be reared and sold at New Zealand sales or retained for racing purposes in New Zealand. A large number of New Zealand mares and racehorses have been prevented from returning to New Zealand—approximately 200 plus foals born in 2007. Even when the import health standards are issued the large backlog of horses awaiting transportation means that many of our high-quality mares will remain in Australia for another year and be served by stallions there. 
International trade is significant and underpins the viability and performance of the New Zealand thoroughbred racing breeding industry. In 2007 1900 New Zealand thoroughbred horses with a total value of approximately $145 million were exported from New Zealand and a total of approximately 1500 horses of all breeds were imported into New Zealand. 
This matter affects not only the thoroughbred industry but also harness racing. All New Zealand harness horses that compete in the Interdominion Championship currently being conducted in Victoria would be unable to return to New Zealand to race until the new import health standards were issued so that code is similarly affected by these provisions. 
The New Zealand racing industry is a major contributor to the New Zealand economy as well as to local communities across New Zealand. Racing generates around $1.4 billion in economic activity each year and creates the equivalent of 18300 full-time jobs. On top of that about 40000 people derive their livelihood from the New Zealand racing industry not to mention the accommodation travel fashion and entertainment providers who benefit from the industry’s economic wellbeing. This matter is a major issue for the racing industry. National will be supporting this bill because it addresses those major concerns.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15140] 
12.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What action is he taking to improve funding for New Zealand’s world-class researchers and scientists? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 The Government is moving to a greater proportion of some of our bigger research funding areas from a purely contestable past to a negotiated future. On average the negotiation will deliver funding certainty for 8 years although in some cases it will be as much as 12 years. From 1 July $155 million will be available for this purpose. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why is negotiated funding of this nature important for researchers and scientists? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Negotiated longer-term contracts give researchers more certainty that funding will be available in the long term self evidently. It allows them to focus on outcomes rather than the next funding round. It reduces transaction costs and it improves their ability in the appropriate areas of science to deliver world-class science for our economy and our society.