edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6776] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to refer for rather unusual reasons to clause 251 “Power of entry and search of craft”. I do this for a couple of reasons. One is a sad reason. I recall when I was Associate Minister of Immigration going to Auckland Airport to meet—I ask members to forgive me; I forget the designation of this individual—Carl Manning who sadly is no longer with us. He was a superb public servant a person who was taken from us and his family earlier this year. He was a person whom I rated when I was Associate Minister as someone who could have gone all the way in respect of his career. 
Mr Chairman before you ask me I will relate this meeting back to the bill. I recall visiting Auckland Airport as I was wont to do—although I think Ms Thompson the then deputy secretary of the Department of Labour did not like me going around and asking officials what they thought; it could have been hazardous to their health. I visited the airport and asked Carl Manning what he thought needed to be changed—and I suspect this change may have originated from Carl Manning. I did this with the Minister’s leave; he was generous enough to allow me to ask the officials a question and I did. Carl Manning told me that apparently way back in times gone by immigration officials could not search a ship. Everybody else could search a ship. The Customs Service could search a ship the police could search a ship and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all could search a ship. But even if it was docked at the harbour the poor old immigration officials could not without a series of permissions search a ship if they felt there was nefarious or illegal activity going on in respect of immigration. I remember sitting and having a coffee with Carl Manning scratching my head and trying to work out why this had occurred. I think he did give me from his history a rationale for it. So to go on the record Mr Chairman with your indulgence I wanted to mention that. 
More important I wanted to pay tribute to Carl Manning and to extend belatedly my sympathies to his family. This guy was initially in charge of the border at Auckland Airport. He was also in charge of some pretty heavy-duty crisis situations and I know he was respected by the department at the highest level. As a border control officer he demonstrated integrity and legitimacy in terms of the operation and execution of his duties. We talk about the powers of the officials at the border and Carl Manning exercised incredible integrity and professionalism in every case that he dealt with. Indeed he was not afraid to make the tough decisions. But he was a person in my view whose opinion one could always count on and have huge confidence in when it was put before one. In this short call I wanted to place on the record in this Chamber my sadness at Carl Manning’s passing. The department and the country have lost a superb public servant who exhibited all the good things that are reflected in the ability that we give our immigration people to exercise their powers at the border.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6773] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 7 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 7 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6773] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 238 is ruled out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6773] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to omit clause 234 be agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6773] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 231 be agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6772] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 195 be agreed to.
Locke Keith: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6770] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I want to finish explaining my amendment to clause 238 in Part 7 on the issue of special advocates. I think those members who have followed criminal trials particularly the David Bain case which was one of the most recent will be able to understand how complicated it is to get to the bottom of what happened. Often context is everything. In that case David Bain and his lawyer conversed about the context of the case and the Crown evidence. It went to and fro more witnesses and evidence came forward etc. and it was very difficult to get to a resolution. We can see the problem with special advocates who are appointed by the Government and represent a complainant in an immigration case. The special advocate gets all this classified information and does not quite know the truth or falsity of it or the context of it and needs to ask some questions. Perhaps those questions will be put in an indirect form so as not to disclose the sources of the classified information but the special advocate needs to get more of a context of that information to properly represent the complainant in an immigration case. That is all the amendment is about. We just have to trust the lawyer appointed by the Government not by the complainant in these particular cases. 
Finally I will explain a bit further my amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 31 to omit clause 234 “Restriction on appeal and review” so that appeals may be taken in cases involving classified information. Clause 234(1) states: “No appeal or review proceedings may be brought in respect of classified information” under the Act. Clause 234(2) states: “no appeal lies and no review proceedings may be brought in respect of—(a) a determination of the Minister” using classified information. That is out of bounds. It may not be done in respect of “(b) the form or content of a summary prepared”—that is the summary of the classified information or in respect of “(f) a decision to withdraw update or add to the classified information.” None of that is subject to review. My amendment would at least allow a review to take place. In any case new subclause (2A) has been inserted and it is a good clause. It states that no appeal under section 219 may be brought before the tribunal unless the tribunal has issued its final determinations. That means one can get to the end of a process but there can be some appeal or review process beyond that point. I think that is important for justice.
Tisch Lindsay: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6767] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on Part 7 includes debate on clauses 169AA to 239A and schedule 2.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6767] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6767] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6762] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6762] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6760] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Let me contribute to this debate by saying how easy it is for a refugee to be tricked into telling a mistruth. This is an honest straight story from my own experience. It is those same two guys I mentioned in an earlier speech. When I got to the ship the captain assured me they were Liberian. He had no written record and he had no reason to mislead me. He was a Chinese national who spoke perfect English and he told me they were Liberian. They were not. The two guys in question had papers to say they were Rwandan. The papers came from a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office in Libreville the capital of Gabon. They were not Rwandan. 
The reason they carried papers to say they were Rwandan was that when they fled their country Cameroon and crossed the border to get away from the secret police they spent 6 months in Gabon. The secret police came after the six of them. One of them disappeared the other five fled and two of those five ended up in Port Chalmers Dunedin. Before they fled they went to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office in Libreville and were advised to be Rwandan because Rwanda was hot. Do members remember? So they got Rwandan papers with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees certification that they were from Rwanda their names etc. and carried the papers with them to New Zealand and presented them to me. They then said through an interpreter “We are not Rwandan.” I was pretty confused. So back again through the interpreter the cop I was telling members about I came to a deal. I said I would back these guys if they did two things: never run away and always tell the truth. That deal was struck on the night I got them off the ship and they have never broken it. 
The next morning the first question I asked them was their nationality. Through the interpreter again they said “Cameroonian”. I gave them the subscriber trunk dialling for Cameroon—0237. I told them if they had a phone number of anyone at home—these guys had been missing for 9 months altogether—they could ring someone and tell them they are still alive and here are the digits they need to get into their country. They rang the number and I waited in the next room. Of course all hell broke loose with the joy from one of those guy’s mothers. 
That is how I learnt their nationality and that they had told the truth even though they had papers telling me something else. That is how easy it is to make a mistake when someone is a refugee and I say to the Minister that I think this is wrong law and we should abandon it.
Locke Keith: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6759] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise in support of my Labour colleagues in terms of the Minister’s amendment. I think it is very bad to have a subjective term such as “good faith” scattered throughout the Supplementary Order Paper. There are a couple of factors that I think we need to bear in mind and they follow on from what David Parker said. 
One thing to bear in mind is that when refugees make their applications they are often desperate. They see it as a matter of life or death for them and their families—sometimes wrongly but that is often the attitude. As anyone who has been involved in this field knows they sometimes embellish their applications. Refugees in that situation could be seen as operating in bad faith and they could easily be swept aside if this Supplementary Order Paper goes through in its present form. I think that refugee authorities generally take into account the fact that one does not hang everything on whether a person says something that is not entirely true. 
The other factor is that there is unfortunately—partly through the wrongful efforts in my opinion of a previous member of this House Winston Peters and his party—a widespread prejudice against refugees. I was brought up in the tradition that Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany etc. are people who have suffered and need our support comfort and compassion. But there is because of the efforts of certain politicians a feeling that somehow refugees are spongers. There is not a full understanding of what refugees are and how we must support them. 
The case the Minister just quoted is interesting. It is a case I know quite intimately. When that case was put on the Refugee Status Appeals Authority website in February the lawyer for the person involved made it quite clear and went to the media to clarify the situation. The lawyer made it clear that many people who knew that person—workmates parishioners priests the lot including myself; I did not make a submission but I can testify about this person—testified that the person was a genuine Christian convert. The people who convinced me the most were his workmates because he had no reason to try to convert them to Christianity. He is one of the most religious people I have ever met and he could quote the Bible backwards. 
That report on the Refugee Status Appeals Authority website does not mention that every single person who knew him and testified for his conversion to Christianity said he was a dedicated Christian. Nobody made a statement to the contrary but the Refugee Status Appeals Authority did not even mention that. In my opinion an injustice was done in that respect although he now has refugee status for other reasons. 
If we add an amendment like this which adds a subjective element like good faith where are we going with that? It could create terrible problems. Thank you.
Delahunty Catherine: Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
Delahunty Catherine: Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6720] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tena koutou katoa. Tena koutou Te Arawa iwi and hapu katoa. In acknowledging the travellers who have come so far and are still travelling on this journey towards resolution the Green Party supports the second reading of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. We appreciated Dr Pita Sharples’ historical korero regarding the whenua of Ngati Wahiao - Tuhourangi and Ngati Whakaue. It is very important to acknowledge the issue that Dr Sharples raised about the bill not being a Treaty settlement but a vesting law based on transferral of assets to their rightful owners. 
As a Pakeha I acknowledge that these matters belong to tangata whenua. It is through their generosity that the land itself in this case has also been given some reserve status. But I also feel whakama speaking about these matters when I do not know the place intimately as tangata whenua do. If we do not know how the land is how it smells at dawn and how the rivers run we do not understand what we are talking about when we talk about the return or the transfer of assets. Many of us grew up knowing very little about the realities for mana whenua of places such as Whakarewarewa. We went for our holidays and we enjoyed the visit but we did not even know how to pronounce the names. We learnt about the eruption of the maunga Tarawera without understanding the displacement effects not only of colonisation but also of the eruption and the complexities that it has led to. So it is really important that we now do some learning about these issues. I see these bills as opportunities for Pakeha to do some learning and to do some listening so that we understand a little about what people have been through in this country and what they are trying to achieve through these negotiations and engagements in terms of their whenua. 
I tautoko the Labour MP Mita Rirnui in regard to the issue of Tuhoe and the Urewera forest of which I also have a little knowledge and the importance of ongoing work to find positive ways to address issues of ownership and relationship. As we know justice delayed is justice denied. So we tautoko this bill through its second reading and we look forward to supporting it through its third reading. We honour all of the people on the Maori Affairs Committee both the current and the past and all the MPs who have been engaged with the bill but mostly the people themselves who continue to work through their issues. It is through a negotiation outside this place that the issues of mana whenua land and how it should be managed will be settled between the parties. It is not the role of us as Pakeha to decide on these matters but merely to offer our support to positive process. We support this bill through its second reading. Kia ora tatou.
Henare Tau: Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
Henare Tau: Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6718] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will not take up much of the House’s time. Suffice it to say that I support the second reading of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill and I support the job the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Maori Affairs Committee did. I congratulate Te Ururoa Flavell and John Clarke for their hard work in trying to get a couple of the sides together. I also acknowledge the representatives of the Pukeroa-Oruawhata Trust and Te Kotahitanga o Ngati Whakaue and those who represented Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust. 
I leave for the last my views about Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao but I put them in this light. As someone who is Ngati Hine-Ngapuhi I am Ngati Hine through and through. I whakapapa to Ngati Hine but I also whakapapa to Ngapuhi. Just because one is bigger than the other maybe in genealogical ties that does not mean the other organisation cannot have its place in the sun. Ngati Hine and Ngapuhi are moving this coming weekend to break away from one another. I hate to use the words “break away” because how can someone break away from an ancestral tie? One might establish a new regime but certainly someone cannot break away from his or her genealogical ties. My wish is that Tuhourangi would put in a comma in reference to Ngati Wahiao. I hope that one day that tie will move by and that the people there will realise that the issue was about nothing more than placing the mana where it would do the most good for both Tuhourangi and Ngati Wahiao. To me the argument was never about one being put over the top of the other; it was always about identity whakapapa and people generally wanting to be who they were just as lots and lots of people want to be Ngati Hine but not necessarily stop being Ngapuhi—if members understand what I mean. 
Hon Dr Pita Sharples 
: No! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The member does not understand? Well that is the Maori Party. 
I finish by saying that for any transfer of goods or services that the Crown can make happen must happen as soon as possible. To have to wait around for the economic development but not to have any tools to do the job is a bit much to expect of people. For the local people at home and those at Whakarewarewa I hope the transfer of assets can open up some new doors or avenues to economic development. Thank you.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6711] 
11.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Why is the Government undertaking a review of safety in the adventure tourism sector? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Recently there have been a number of concerning cases in the adventure tourism sector. Tourism is critically important to New Zealand and we must do all we can to ensure visitor safety. Tourists and New Zealanders expect that high standards will be in place from adventure operators and it is timely to take a broader look at how well the industry is meeting its safety obligations and at what it could do better. 
David Bennett 
: What groups will be involved in the review? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Many firms in the sector already have comprehensive safety systems and I want to make sure that we learn from their experience by consulting the industry. The Department of Labour will also be seeking input from the Civil Aviation Authority Maritime New Zealand the Ministry of Transport the Ministry of Tourism local authorities and other groups that may be relevant.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6710] 
10.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he believe that communities must be involved in road safety education and activities to help prevent injuries and accidents particularly for children? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes I believe every New Zealander has a role to play in improving road safety. That is why we are currently consulting with the public on Safer Journeys which is the road safety strategy for the next 10 years. It is of course available on www.saferjourneys.govt.nz. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why then is the Minister’s Government cutting funding for community transport safety education programmes in the National Land Transport Programme and what effect will this have on communities that are having to revise school and workplace travel plans cycle-safe programmes drink-driving programmes at-risk driver programmes and safety-belt education programmes and a host of other safety initiatives up and down the country or does he not care? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I understand that the New Zealand Transport Agency under its own initiative has decided to undertake a value-for-money exercise on the demand management and community programmes activity class of the National Land Transport Programme to which that member refers. That class had increases in expenditure last year of 45 percent on the previous year and that year was 23 percent higher than the year before that. I think it is entirely appropriate that with Government funds and road-user funds involved the agency be very careful and ensure that every activity it undertakes has good value-for-money criteria. 
Darien Fenton 
: Can we expect to see further cuts from the value-for-money review that the Minister is conducting in demand management and community education programmes and should communities be preparing to cut the walking-bus programme and other programmes that keep children safe and encourage active and healthier modes of getting to school? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is important that the member does not unnecessarily scaremonger in these matters. The Transport Agency has allocated $120 million for demand management and community programmes over the next 3 years. It is a considerable sum of money and it is important that from time to time the agency reviews that expenditure and ensures that it provides value for money and achieves the outcomes we were seeking. I note that despite the best efforts of the last road transport safety strategy our road toll has not dropped significantly over the last 10 years with the exception of a few months last year and the number of injuries on the road has actually increased. Of course if you keep doing what you have always done you will keep getting what you always got.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6710] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Earlier in question time the Acting Prime Minister questioned whether the facts that I was putting to him were correctly based. This was about cutting English language services to migrants. I seek leave to table a letter to me from the executive director of the Auckland Regional Migrant Services Charitable Trust dated 27 August where she talks about the very significant impact that funding cuts will have on the ability of migrants and refugees to settle by not allowing them to get access to these courses. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6710] 
9.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to further primary sector innovation? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Last week the Prime Minister was able to officially declare a major innovation fund the Primary Growth Partnership open for business. This is an ambitious and far-reaching partnership. It will play a significant role in delivering the step change in economic growth and productivity that New Zealand so badly needs. The Government has made this an absolute priority. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why has the Government made such a significant investment in primary sector innovation in this challenging economic environment? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: We have worked very closely with industry in developing the Primary Growth Partnership. We have put together a board that is already reviewing several applications and we see this as being a potential transformation of innovation projects. The Government has always made it clear that the Primary Growth Partnership should be industry-led and it is for this reason that the industry has been so closely involved in the partnership’s development. I am extremely confident that the Primary Growth Partnership will have good sector buy-in. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: How many research project proposals and of what value had the Primary Growth Partnership received as at 1 September the date the Minister gave to the Primary Production Committee as the time by which he was confident research project proposals would be received? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: As I have just outlined to the House the project was finally launched as open for business on 16 September. It is close to receiving a very significant number of good-quality projects which the board will be able to review and then it will announce funding decisions.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6704] 
5.  
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has she received on consultation with parents about national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 On Sunday I released a report that included the results of consultation with parents and family members on national standards; 2000 attended meetings and over 3000 provided written submissions. From next year schools will be required to report in plain language to parents on their child’s progress. Parents have overwhelmingly told the Government that they want to know more about their child’s progress so that they can support their child’s learning and this Government will deliver on that. 
Allan Peachey 
: What other feedback has the Minister received from parents about national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Parents strongly support national standards and getting good information from schools about their child’s progress. As one parent said in the consultation round schools need to provide “Honesty plain language and no surprises.” As another parent said “Honest reporting; tell me how he is really doing. I want reality—the good the bad and the ugly.” That is exactly what national standards in literacy and numeracy will provide for New Zealand parents. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Minister explain to the House the effect of her decision to cut by 100 percent next year science advice to schools on national standards for science going forward? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: People in the education sector told me quite clearly during the election campaign that they were sick of the Labour Government which had given them a whole number of initiatives without sufficient resources so we have reduced the number of initiatives and focused the resources on those remaining. National standards in literacy and numeracy are the top priority. They can be taught right across the curriculum—in science geography history or whatever. We are focusing our resources on supporting schools to implement national standards in literacy and numeracy. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that somewhere towards the end of that answer the Minister mentioned science but it was a pretty direct question on the effect on science standards of the 100 percent cut in science advice to schools. That question was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer and it seemed to me that she implied that that programme was one of the initiatives that the Government was not supporting. I cannot ask her to further answer it unless the member wants to ask a further supplementary question.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6701] 
3.  
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What advice has he received about the actions of Waitakere City Council which has decided to stop granting consents for more gambling venues and gaming machines and is its new “sinking-lid” policy likely to have implications for local government policy at a national level? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I am advised that a number of territorial authorities have adopted sinking-lid policies. The Waitakere City Council policy appears to be an example of a territorial authority using the provisions of the Gambling Act to help to achieve outcomes that reflect its own community views and its own circumstances. If this policy is adopted widely by local authorities then it is likely that the number of venues and gaming machines will remain steady and may gradually decrease over time. 
Rahui Katene 
: What work has been undertaken to support councils to continue funding vital community development when they have decided to cease receiving socially destructive gaming revenue in their commitment to address problem gambling? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: In reviewing their gambling venue policies councils need to weigh up the potential benefits and the negative impacts of gaming machines in their districts. Of course councils determine these local policies to suit their own respective communities. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is he aware of the finding of Judge Somerville in the Westport District Court last week who told a Reefton woman that she was a victim of a Government-sanctioned industry that encouraged people to gamble; and what actions will he take to review the explicit connection between Government policy and gambling addiction? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I am indeed aware of those comments. Government policy is governed by the Gambling Act. The Act takes a balanced approach and aims to ensure as far as is practicable that gambling-related harm is prevented and minimised. The number of people seeking help for the high-risk forms of gambling has dropped significantly over the last few years. This suggests that the measures to prevent and minimise harm are working.
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6697] 
1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s external financial position? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today’s data shows that the balance of payments deficit for the year to June narrowed to $10.6 billion or 5.9 percent of GDP in the June quarter. This represents a narrowing of the deficit from the recent range of 8 to 9 percent the record high levels that it has held since 2005. The decline would have been greater than it has been but for the 9 percent decline in the terms of trade in June the largest quarterly fall since 1975 and the largest quarterly fall in export prices since 1951. 
Craig Foss 
: What consequences will the improvement have for the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Pay more for the house in Messines Road. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This is the bit where Trevor yells for the TV camera. 
Hon Member 
: Every day. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes come on Trevor. [ 
Interruption 
] It is the same script. Today’s adjustment is what one would expect during a recession. The falls in imports interest rates and profits are all to some extent temporary and as the economy improves each of them will tend to reverse. The need to rebalance the economy towards investment and exports remains as important as ever. That rebalancing is critical to creating sustainable jobs. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If the Minister is encouraged by the reduction in the financial and trade deficits when can the struggling families who are currently having trouble meeting their power and grocery bills see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel and something extra at the end of the week? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Families particularly those families who are struggling with the loss of jobs must be concerned that despite the best economic conditions in a generation that member’s Government so badly mismanaged the economy that thousands of Kiwis have now lost their jobs. 
Craig Foss 
: What other assessments of New Zealand’s external financial position has the Minister seen? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen some quite knowledgable comments from the Hon Phil Goff when the current account deficit was last a significant issue. He said we had got into the habit of borrowing from overseas effectively relying on the savings of foreigners to pay for our consumption and invest in our businesses. Given that Mr Goff identified the problem correctly it is hard to understand why his Government managed to make such a mess of it once Labour got into power. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will the Minister join the Greens Treasury the Reserve Bank manufacturers and exporters in admitting that we need to change the taxation treatment of investment properties if we are to rebalance the New Zealand economy away from debt-fuelled consumption towards productive enterprise? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Treasury and the Tax Working Group are working through those issues and will provide advice to the Government at some stage.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Amended Emissions Trading Scheme Legislation—Availability 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Amended Emissions Trading Scheme Legislation—Availability 
[Volume:657;Page:6697] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 As I told the honourable member last Friday it will be available as soon as possible.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Amended Emissions Trading Scheme Legislation—Availability 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Amended Emissions Trading Scheme Legislation—Availability 
[Volume:657;Page:6697] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have waited for the Clerk to indicate to you whether there are any bills for introduction. I understand from media reports that the House will once again be going into urgency this Thursday to consider the amended emissions trading scheme legislation. I wondered whether the Leader of the House could give us an indication as to when that legislation might be available for the public the media and members of Parliament to consider it before it is debated in the House on Thursday just in terms of good process for our Parliament. Clearly it will not meet the 3-day rule.
Points of Order — Amended Emissions Trading Scheme Legislation—Availability 
Points of Order — Amended Emissions Trading Scheme Legislation—Availability 
[Volume:657;Page:6697] 
Tuesday 22 September 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Amended Emissions Trading Scheme Legislation—Availability 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have waited for the Clerk to indicate to you whether there are any bills for introduction. I understand from media reports that the House will once again be going into urgency this Thursday to consider the amended emissions trading scheme legislation. I wondered whether the Leader of the House could give us an indication as to when that legislation might be available for the public the media and members of Parliament to consider it before it is debated in the House on Thursday just in terms of good process for our Parliament. Clearly it will not meet the 3-day rule. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 As I told the honourable member last Friday it will be available as soon as possible.
Vote: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6098] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6098] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have been on Part 2 for only a little over 30 minutes. It is the substantial part of the bill. It is a bill that the Opposition has not seen it being introduced under urgency. There are other Opposition speakers; Mr Chauvel has just arrived and wants to speak on this part. I think that for a bill that has not been seen by the Opposition and that has not been to a select committee to accept the second Government motion of closure on the main bulk of the bill after a little over 30 minutes of debate is disappointing. I wonder whether you would consider accepting a few more calls given that we are debating this bill under urgency. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I do not need any assistance. There have been nine calls. I try to be as fair as possible. There is not a great degree of divergence of views on this part. I have not been persuaded by a great wealth of new information to accept more calls. I have listened very carefully to the debate. I have made the choice that I will take the closure at this point.
Foss Craig: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Foss Craig: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6098] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the question be now put.
English Bill: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
English Bill: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6104] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The member raised a reasonable issue. Retaining the collective investment schemes as the regulatory impact statement points out would not cause particular issues. There are reasons to exclude them. The investments in collective investment schemes are not actually deposits and only a limited range of collective investment schemes are covered under the existing scheme. Like the other decisions that have been made in the detail of the scheme in each case where there is some judgment to be made the Government has made a judgment in favour of moving towards tighter and more limited coverage. 
Debate interrupted.
English Bill: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
English Bill: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6102] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I will just comment on a couple of questions that have been raised. One has been the issue of reducing the coverage per depositor. Like a number of the other measures this needs to be seen in the context of the Government making it clear that the changes in the deposit guarantee scheme signal clearly a reversion to normal market conditions at some time in the future. It is entirely reasonable that alongside increasing the pricing of the guarantee the Government has moved to reduce the cap on the deposits that it covers. As the regulatory impact statement points out this has the effect of reducing the Crown contingent liability and of course reducing somewhat the fiscal cost of a future default event. It also has the effect that some of the smaller institutions that may be dependent on a few large deposits will have their circumstances altered. That is why we have reduced the coverage—because the deposit guarantee scheme is transiting towards normal market conditions. 
Someone raised the issue of the BB ratings and the cost to small institutions of getting those ratings. That is not a function of the guarantee. The fact that non-bank deposit taking institutions will need to get a credit rating is a product of the new regulations that are coming through consequent on legislation that was actually passed last year. So the guarantee itself does not cause these institutions to get a credit rating; they have to do that in the next 6 months anyway. In October next year the extended guarantee will pick up and use those credit ratings for the purposes that Parliament intended them for—that is to signal to investors with more clarity the trade-off between risk and return in relation to putting deposits or other investments into these institutions.
Hughes Darren: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6098] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have now come to the title and commencement clauses of this bill. I think it is pretty fair to say we were disappointed by the shutting-down of the debate on Part 2 after such a short time on a bill that we have seen only today and that did not go to a select committee when other Opposition speakers wanted to take a call on it. You have been in the Chair all evening Mr Chairperson and you have sat through debate on Part 1 and Part 2 so you have heard a lot of the debate. Because you have heard Part 1 which influenced the debate on Part 2 I wonder what factors you are looking for here. This debate will be the only scrutiny this bill will get and the bill is an important economic instrument. The Opposition wants to have an understanding of where you are coming from. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: When a bill has not gone to a select committee there is a convention that the debate on clauses 1 and 2 can be slightly extended. Given that as Chair I have to make some decisions about relevancy new material repetition and all of that in the same way as before. But I say again that when a bill has not been to a select committee there is a convention that the debate on the title and commencement date can be somewhat extended. But the debate must still be relevant to the bill.
Huo Raymond: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Huo Raymond: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6097] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Part 2 contains the main seven clauses of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. Clause 5 enables the Minister of Finance to set the eligibility criteria for the extended scheme. This clause is very flexible and broad. However it does not provide the eligibility criteria. Actually the entire bill does not outline the eligibility policy; it merely provides the Minister with the authority to determine eligibility. Based on the broad terms indicated by the Minister at the end of August the key eligibility criteria are likely to be that applicants must be in the current scheme—except for new banks and merged entities at the Crown’s discretion—and they must have a BB credit-rating or above. Collective investment schemes will not be eligible for the extended scheme. 
Labour members have some concerns about this policy. The first concerns the requirement that companies have at least a BB credit-rating in order to be eligible. The problem is that some companies might not be able to obtain a sufficient credit-rating having insufficient scale to meet the requirements of the credit-rating agencies. Secondly it could cause a shake-out in the non-bank sector resulting in further finance company collapses and further losses for mum and dad investors while the big banks move in to mop up customers. Thirdly the banks are able to benefit from the wholesale guarantee without being obliged to contribute to the retail deposit scheme. To that extent it is fair to suggest that big banks may win twice. They pay less in fees and they get a greater degree of the market share at the expense of smaller institutions which will no longer be able to rely on the guarantee and will fall over. 
My having said that we should remind ourselves that the above policy which has caused us such concern has added to the whole range of policy settings that shelter the internal economy at the expense of the traded economy. I was involved in the public hearing of submissions to the multi-party banking inquiry last week. For me listening to the submitters across the board expanded my horizons. Let me quote what was said by Mr John Walley who was representing the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association. It is relevant to what we are talking about regarding the bill: “Banks have grown faster than the surrounding economy indicating wealth transfers from the traded economy to the non-traded economy.” Therefore “the ‘must-trade’ imperative must be at the forefront of our policy design if greater investment and consequently higher growth and productivity in the export sector and ultimately our entire economy is to be anticipated.” 
It is worth noting that in 2008 the banks made consistent growth over time of around $3.2 billion—more than the entire NZX50 less the banks. I quote again: “We doubt this is either healthy or sustainable for our economy.” Thank you.
Goodhew Jo: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6097] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.