edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8857] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Judicial Matters Bill. The purpose of the bill is to introduce measures aimed at maintaining and enhancing public confidence in the judicial system. The principal provision is to amend the Judicial Conduct Commissioner the Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 and the Judicature Act 1908; to increase the statutory limit on the number of Associate Judges of the High Court at any particular time from six to nine; and to allow for the proper investigation of matters that may lead to the removal of a judge. 
The Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner provides the public with a transparent and accessible judicial complaints process. This bill establishes the new Office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor-General after consultation with the Chief Justice of New Zealand on a recommended appointment. The deputy commissioner must deal with complaints in respect of which the commissioner has decided he or she has a conflict of interest. The bill covers complaints about judges of the Supreme Court the Court of Appeal the High Court Associate Judges of the High Court and coroners. This bill gives the commissioner power to take no further action in respect of a complaint if the complaint is deemed unjustified. The reason could be as follows: the complaint has been resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction; the complaint although genuine and made in good faith is based on misunderstanding; or a lack of enough information into the conduct of a person to form an opinion. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s office receives approximately 100 complaints a year. Of those approximately 80 percent are dismissed. In the commissioner’s annual report to Parliament he noted that the most common reason for dismissing a complaint has been that the complaint seems to arise from the complainant’s disagreement with the judge’s decision rather than from the judge’s conduct. To conclude I say that this bill will increase the limit on the number of Associate Judges of the High Court which in turn will improve the judicial system. I commend this bill to the House.
Boscawen John: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Boscawen John: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8852] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I do not wish to speak a great deal on the Judicial Matters Bill but I make it quite clear that the ACT Party will be supporting its passage through the House. One question that we would ask relates to the proposal contained in the bill to increase the number of Associate Judges of the High Court from six to nine. Of course associate judges used to be Masters of the High Court. Masters or—now—associate judges are responsible for doing a lot of procedural issues. They look at cases coming up schedule hearings deal with timetabling and issue orders in respect of cases before they come before a High Court judge. We have spoken a lot in the last 10 days about the importance of economic growth and giving the country the turbocharger that it needs. It seems to the ACT Party that rather than increasing the number of associate judges from six to nine we should perhaps be looking at 12 or 15 or an even bigger number. We should be doing everything we can to oil the wheels of justice to ensure there is speedy access to justice and that parties that want to have their cases adjudicated can do so quickly and efficiently. The ACT Party certainly believes that that would add to the economic growth of the country. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill. Thank you.
Chadwick Steve: Points of Order — Domestic Violence Reform Bill—Leave to Refer to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Points of Order — Domestic Violence Reform Bill—Leave to Refer to Justice and Electoral Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:8844] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for order of the day No. 45 the Domestic Violence Reform Bill to also be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Goodhew Jo: Child and Family Protection Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Child and Family Protection Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8843] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Child and Family Protection Bill. New Zealand has a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect children and families from violence and abuse. However issues have been identified with current legislation that restrict the ability of the State to protect the welfare and best interests of children and their families. Therefore I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Quinn Paul: Child and Family Protection Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Child and Family Protection Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8843] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 As this is the first opportunity I have had to address the House this year I extend New Year greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and your office. I also extend greetings to my many friends on the Opposition benches. I have spoken to many of them but there are some I still have to get to. So I give New Year greetings to all members. 
As the last speaker in this debate on the Child and Family Protection Bill it falls to me to capture if you like the threads of the debate bring it all together and sum up. I thought I would start by reiterating so that everyone in the House understands what this bill does. This bill amends the Domestic Violence Act 1995 the Care of Children Act 2004 the Adoption Act 1955 and it makes consequential amendments to two or three other Acts. Its purpose as many speakers have canvassed in their presentations to the House is to focus on providing greater protection for child victims of family violence in the home ensure the courts can act to protect children and families from all kinds of violence and abuse and address the risks of children being wrongfully removed from New Zealand. 
All those issues have been adequately covered during the course of the debate certainly by my colleagues on the Government benches and by some minor contributions from the other side of the House. I want to correct the record because a number of Opposition speakers have focused in their presentations on their disappointment at the lack of action in this area and they have criticised the Government. 
The previous speaker my very good friend Steve Chadwick made a contribution that I was somewhat disappointed with. I enjoy her company. She has a lot of offer but one of the things she has not yet realised—along with all the members on that side of the House—is that the National Party is the party of Government. We are not implementing Labour Party policy. We are here to implement National Party policy and just because the stuff that Labour likes is not happening does not mean we are doing a bad job. I think that Labour members need to come to grips with the fact that we are doing what the people voted for us to do which was not to carry out Labour policy. 
This bill builds on the excellent work that has been achieved last year in terms of law and order under the leadership provided by the Minister in charge of this bill the Hon Simon Power. Let me mention some of that work. The Government has passed the Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and of course amendments to the Sentencing Act. A suite of other law enforcement measures have also been passed under this outstanding administration led by the Prime Minister. 
So I reject the accusations that have come from the other side of the House about this bill. I look forward to hearing submissions on it and making sure that it progresses through the House. Thank you.
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8836] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8878] 
12. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did he declare his interest in Jackson Mining when any Cabinet papers concerning mining in the Department of Conservation estate were discussed; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Jackson Mining is an Australian company that does not currently operate in New Zealand and to the best of my knowledge has no plans to do so. There cannot therefore be any conflict of interest between my shareholding and any decisions the Government may make in relation to exploring options for new mining on Crown land in New Zealand. But for the member’s benefit I advise that I sought confirmation from the Cabinet Office this morning and I have been advised that a conflict of interest does not arise in this case. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why has he declined my official information request seeking details about which Ministers have declared any conflict of interest; and does he still stand behind the argument that it would take too long? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and because that has been a longstanding policy. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can he assure the House that his other overseas investments are not investing or considering investing in New Zealand? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. I am more than happy for anyone to read my pecuniary interests. I own some shares in a company called The Little Nell which happens to be a ski-in ski-out resort in Aspen—and I doubt that it will be doing much in New Zealand anytime soon. I own some Bank of America shares that used to be Merrill Lynch shares. They were converted over there and because of my long-term contract with Merrill Lynch from when I was employed there it is hard to transfer them. But to the best of my knowledge the Bank of America has no operations in New Zealand. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: As a shareholder how was he not aware that Jackson Mining merged last year and sold its non-uranium interests? Was he simply not advised? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There was the small technical issue—I have been busy running the country. But I am the first to admit it was a bit sloppy. I bought the shares in 2001 and the last time I looked at them from memory was 2007 or 2008. At the time they were trading at 3.5c and when I offered them to my son who was 12 at the time even he did not want them.
Guy Nathan: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Guy Nathan: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8836] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8828] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yes I was. I was referring to any political party that wants to oppose the consideration of these things. It is exactly as I have said it. But I also said— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you; that is enough. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. He has withdrawn and apologised.
Graham Kennedy: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Graham Kennedy: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8828] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The first point I was making was that there was a factual assertion that there had been a Labour-Green administration. That is factually incorrect. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is a debating point and we will not entertain it further. It is not a point of order. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: Thank you for that clarification. The second point I was going to raise was that the Leader of the House declared explicitly that those who availed themselves of certain minerals but who criticised their extraction from the earth were hypocritical. I ask for a clarification as to whether he was referring to any political party in that respect.
Graham Kennedy: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Graham Kennedy: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8828] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In full flight the Leader of the Opposition made a couple of comments one of which at least is factually incorrect and one that he may wish to correct. On the first occasion he referred to the previous Labour-Green administration. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to inform the member that that is a debating point; it is not a point of order.
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8828] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The one that I thought the member was going to raise was when the previous speaker called the Greens’ stance hypocritical and that is certainly out of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will give the member with the point of order an opportunity to explain exactly what he wanted but any comparisons of agreements between parties are not points of order; they are debating points.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — India—Sir Edmund Hillary Fellow Lok Sabha / House of the People 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — India—Sir Edmund Hillary Fellow Lok Sabha / House of the People 
[Volume:660;Page:8863] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that Mr Rahul Gandhi MP—the inaugural Sir Edmund Hillary Fellow from the House of the People the Lok Sabha of India—is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8811] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give us an indication as to the status of the Wanganui District Council (Port and Harbour) Bill which is due to come up for consideration as a local order of the day on the next members’ day which I think will be the third Wednesday of this sitting. 
With your indulgence may I just record the sadness of the Labour Opposition at learning the news that Gray Fuller who was a Chamber and gallery officer for our Chamber from 1995—nearly 15 years of service—passed away over this summer adjournment. I am sure all members of Parliament would like to record our sadness and the service that he gave to all members of Parliament.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8811] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Coming to the latter point first I was unaware that the gentleman had passed away. He was indeed a great gentleman and I extend the Government’s condolences to his family joining the shadow Leader of the House in that regard. 
The Wanganui bill that the member refers to is of course a local bill that has been advanced by the Wanganui District Council. It would perhaps be better for him to speak directly to the council to see whether it is its intention that the bill should stay on the Order Paper. I would hope that if the bill remains on the Order Paper it is because there has been a certain amount of other order put in place that might lead to its speedy resolution and its even passage through the House.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8815] 
3. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How would the Government ensure that all income groups are compensated for with any increase in GST? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The impact of any increase in GST on any particular income group will depend on the details of the swap between income tax cuts and a GST increase and how that group is affected by any taxation of property. Certainly in the case of people on benefits New Zealand superannuation and Working for Families payments the Prime Minister stated in this House the other day that there would be automatic adjustments to compensate for any increase in GST. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How would any increase in GST fit within a package of lower personal taxes to help people get ahead and to improve New Zealand’s economic growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand’s economy needs significant improvement and that is why the Government is considering tax measures in the first place. This economy spends more than it earns and its export sector has been in recession for the last 5 years. We want stronger incentives for people to get ahead to save and to invest. We want weaker incentives for people to spend more than they earn and to borrow too much to fill the difference. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Why is the Government considering a modest increase in GST? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is considering a modest increase in GST as part of a package designed to help this economy get up and out of recession and to grow strongly in the future so that we can have higher incomes and better public services and so that the Government’s books are in better order. We want a package that is fiscally neutral—we cannot give away revenue; this is no lolly scramble—but improves the incentives in the economy so we can rebalance it in favour of earning investing working and saving. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Does the need for tax reform have broad-based support? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes it does. The Opposition seems to have discovered in the last couple of days that the Government has been considering changes in the tax system. In fact we ran a very transparent process which was announced last May. In August the Tax Working Group put its first GST scenarios on the website which the Labour Party found yesterday 6 months after they were published. There has been widespread public discussion and I think there is a broad base of support for changes in a tax system that is creaking and more important for changes in an economy that needs to do a better job to realise New Zealanders’ aspirations.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8817] 
5. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What progress has recently been made towards achieving the Government’s goal of settling historic Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Great progress has been made since the House rose late last year. On 22 December I signed agreements in principle with Ngati Whatua o Kaipara and Ngati Manuhiri signalling a breakthrough in the settlement of historical claims in the Tamaki-makau-rau region. On 15 January I signed agreements in principle with the five iwi of the Te Hiku Forum: Te Rarawa Te Aupouri Ngai Takoto— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Very clever people. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —Mr Jones—Ngati Kahu and Ngati Kuri. The Crown has also recognised the mandates of Mana Ahuriri Incorporated and Te Au Maro o Ngati Pukenga. On 25 January I signed terms of negotiation with Ngati Pukenga and I think this work represents real progress. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How does this recent progress fit in with the Government’s commitment to advancing the settlement of historical grievances? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Since the beginning of 2009 the Government has recognised eight deeds of mandate and signed seven terms of negotiation 12 agreements in principle and four deeds of settlement. Although the Government has made significant progress towards achieving its goal of just and durable settlements of historical Treaty claims by 2014 the previous administration achieved the somewhat less than stellar average of 1.6 settlements per year—a pace that would have seen iwi still in negotiations in 2048. [ 
Interruption 
] That is why those members are braying like jackals as I speak. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Is the Minister aware of any instances where new grievances may be created in the process of resolving historical ones; if so how does he propose to address them? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The member alluded to this allegation in an interview on Radio New Zealand National the other week. I say for the benefit of that member that I am acutely conscious of the need to proceed very carefully when dealing with the move from agreements in principle to deeds of settlement. I am particularly aware of the issue that she has raised in relation to Te Tau Ihu. That issue results from intra-iwi differences that go back many years which need to be handled very carefully indeed. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What recent reports has the Minister seen regarding the pace of Treaty settlements? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In my answer to a previous supplementary question I referred to an interview that Ms Street had on Radio New Zealand National where at times she seemed to be arguing that rather than resolving matters in a timely manner the Government should slow down. Perhaps this interview explains why Labour’s record was 1.6 settlements per year over 9 years.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8818] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I apologise Mr Speaker I should have sought leave to table this material after my earlier question. I seek leave to table a graph showing the equity distribution of current tax arrangements It is based on Treasury data presented to and released by the Tax Working Group. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It’s already on the website. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It has not been made available to the House Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not waste time on that. It is part of a document. Leave is sought to table that part of the document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I wish to table some graphs that are particularly on point here from the Tax Working Group. They show that even with full compensation for the increase in GST the massive gain is made by people at the top end of the tax scale and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I see the member has a number of pages. I will not have the time of the House wasted by the member going through a number of pages from a document that is available to every member of this Parliament. I was tolerant when the member first sought leave to table part of that document—and he will sit down while I am on my feet—and that leave was denied by the House. I am not going to have time taken on going through a series of pages from a document that has been distributed to all members. Members have the document. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In taking heed of your ruling Mr Speaker I seek leave to table as a group all of the remaining scenarios produced by the Tax Working Group all of which show a massive gain by people at the top end which would have— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not make a speech while seeking leave to table documents. I will be tolerant. Leave is sought to table this section of the Tax Working Group’s report. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8819] 
7. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Can she provide an update on efforts to manage New Zealand’s growing prison population? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. Last week I inspected the development of a 60-bed container unit at Rimutaka Prison. I am very pleased to report that the project is proceeding on time and on budget. The container cells will provide secure basic and functional accommodation for prisoners at 30 percent less than the usual cost. Due to a lack of planning by the previous Government we needed to move quickly and decisively to ensure that there were enough beds for the forecast numbers of prisoners. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What other steps are being taken to manage New Zealand’s prison population? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am pleased to report that the Department of Corrections is now proceeding to implement double-bunking following a judgment delivered by the Employment Court prior to Christmas. Double-bunking will deliver nearly 900 additional beds later this year and another 104 beds next year. By proactively managing our prison population we are averting the looming crisis that was left to us by the previous administration. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What advice has she received on what effect the amended “three strikes” policy will have on the prison population and is that advice part of the reason that the Minister of Justice Simon Power no longer wants to have anything to do with that policy? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The advice I have had is that after about 5 years we will need about another 50 beds and we can certainly deliver that.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8822] 
9. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What measures has the Government undertaken to help New Zealand aquaculture companies take advantage of emerging offshore opportunities? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Last month I announced the addition of $550000 to the aquaculture market development fund. It is a contestable fund administered on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis. It is available to eligible companies for approved projects. That is in addition to the $600000 announced last year for five projects that are focusing on opportunities to grow the markets in Asia and North America. Investment in New Zealand’s fastest-growing seafood sector will accelerate the industry’s programme to drive growth over the medium to longer term. 
Colin King 
: What is the opportunity for the aquaculture industry in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I believe that the opportunities are very very considerable indeed. One thing I have noticed is that in the year 2000 the aquaculture industry was about the same size as the wine industry in New Zealand. In the year 2009-10 the wine industry hit over a billion dollars in its export markets. The aquaculture industry had been about the same size as the wine industry so for 9 years it has been an industry suppressed by the previous Government given no encouragement and asked to operate in an environment where it effectively went backwards. It did not grow in 9 years because of Government policy. Well we are changing that; we are putting a resource into that industry to ensure that it can grow— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What about the unemployment Gerry? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and provide lots of employment particularly for Maori.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8811] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 16 February it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement and on other bills on the Order Paper. It is expected that the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement will conclude on Wednesday 17 February.
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8824] 
11. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will he guarantee that any changes to the tax system in this year’s Budget will decrease inequality in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As the member will be aware the Government has not made decisions in detail on this matter and any measure of inequality will be affected by the actual details. I might say that the Tax Working Group with encouragement from the Government paid a good deal of attention to issues of equality and different measures of inequality as it analysed different scenarios. The part of that analysis that is the most difficult to deal with is the impact of any significant tax revenue from property. By and large property tends to be owned by New Zealanders on higher incomes but none of the current databases can accurately pin down exactly who owns property and has interests in property-type vehicles. So it will be a bit difficult in the end to tell exactly whether inequality has decreased or not. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will he then guarantee that by the end of this term of Parliament the gap between the top 10 percent and the bottom 10 percent of income earners will be smaller than when his Government took office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That would probably depend more on factors outside of a tax package. For instance the speed of decrease in unemployment will make a big difference to the earnings of the bottom 10 percent as compared with the top 10 percent. Equally the continued build up of long-term beneficiary numbers which has been going on for a while has created a group of a quarter of a million people who are locked into very low incomes. If the Government can make progress on those issues then it may be possible that inequality is decreased but that is yet to be seen. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a serious point of order. I contend that the Minister has not sufficiently addressed that question. The Minister— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The Minister and his colleagues earlier blocked the tabling of a number of scenarios any one of which—and all of which—would have conclusively answered the question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Nice try but no. The member will resume his seat. He will not use a point of order like that to litigate further or to further debate matters in the House. That is what the member was doing.
Points of Order — Domestic Violence Reform Bill—Leave to Refer to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Points of Order — Domestic Violence Reform Bill—Leave to Refer to Justice and Electoral Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:8844] 
Points of Order 
Domestic Violence Reform Bill—Leave to Refer to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for order of the day No. 45 the Domestic Violence Reform Bill to also be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8811] 
Thursday 11 February 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 16 February it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement and on other bills on the Order Paper. It is expected that the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement will conclude on Wednesday 17 February. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give us an indication as to the status of the Wanganui District Council (Port and Harbour) Bill which is due to come up for consideration as a local order of the day on the next members’ day which I think will be the third Wednesday of this sitting. 
With your indulgence may I just record the sadness of the Labour Opposition at learning the news that Gray Fuller who was a Chamber and gallery officer for our Chamber from 1995—nearly 15 years of service—passed away over this summer adjournment. I am sure all members of Parliament would like to record our sadness and the service that he gave to all members of Parliament. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Coming to the latter point first I was unaware that the gentleman had passed away. He was indeed a great gentleman and I extend the Government’s condolences to his family joining the shadow Leader of the House in that regard. 
The Wanganui bill that the member refers to is of course a local bill that has been advanced by the Wanganui District Council. It would perhaps be better for him to speak directly to the council to see whether it is its intention that the bill should stay on the Order Paper. I would hope that if the bill remains on the Order Paper it is because there has been a certain amount of other order put in place that might lead to its speedy resolution and its even passage through the House.
Bridges Simon: Child and Family Protection Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Child and Family Protection Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8810] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 One of the positive things in my very short time in Parliament has been that although parties in this House are divided on a lot of issues we have nearly always been able to unite against domestic violence. We now have many laws on the statute book against the scourge of domestic violence. I think the explanatory note refers to New Zealand having a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect children and families from violence and abuse. Nevertheless as has been ably said by a number of speakers domestic violence is still a very significant problem in this country. 
Minister Power has already referred to the 6400 children involved in protection orders and applications for protection orders. That number slips off the tongue quite readily but if we think about it we are talking just in the surrounding area where I live about towns of the size or smaller of Waihi Paeroa Katikati and Kawerau. If we think about those numbers we realise that literally whole towns’ worth of children have been traumatised and faced with serious emotional stress that children should not have to be faced with because of domestic violence. 
Debate interrupted.
Norman Russel William: Child and Family Protection Bill — First Reading 
Norman Russel William: Child and Family Protection Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8809] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Greens are pleased to speak in support of the Child and Family Protection Bill. We consider that the continuation of protection orders for children until they are 17 years old is a positive development. We are very pleased with the inclusion of psychological abuse in the definition of violence and that the safety of the child is the key concern for an order of supervised contact. We also agree that it is good to take measures over adoption issues so that New Zealand can ratify the optional protocol: the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. For those reasons the Greens will be supporting this bill.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8802] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
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. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8801] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority 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. 
Question agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Sittings of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:660;Page:8773] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise upon the conclusion of Ms Fitzsimons’ speech. It is likely to go beyond 6 o’clock and I think that the House could extend its sitting by leave on this occasion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You mean rise for the dinner hour? We should suspend for the dinner hour; otherwise we are adjourning the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think that is very good. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to suspend for the dinner hour at the completion of the valedictory statement of Jeanette Fitzsimons. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Auchinvole Chris: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Auchinvole Chris: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8738] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 The National-led Government encourages enterprise rewards resourcefulness and salutes success. The substance of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday will create new opportunities to engage those qualities. I am wholeheartedly behind the Prime Minister’s speech and the direction he has laid out for legislative change in 2010 which will make this country a better place for all New Zealanders particularly after 10 years of economic mismanagement and a global recession. 
Last night I spoke about the opportunities that unlocking the potential for our natural resources will afford. For those who are concerned about minerals recovery there needs to be an awareness that a considerable amount of mining activity is already conducted on Crown-owned land. I can think of Oceana Gold at Reefton of Pike River Coal and of the Stockton mine all on the West Coast and in Buller—an area that is not strange to Mr Speaker—and all involve working on Department of Conservation - supervised land with the Pike River coalfield tunnelling under a national park. Those are all permitted activities. Those who have concerns should take faith from the process of the Resource Management Act which provides controls over the activity. The recently amended Act was strongly supported in this House last year by 108 votes to 13. People can have confidence in the process and should be assured that that is the case. 
Other areas the Prime Minister addressed will guide us into prosperity. The two most important things that a country requires from its tax system are for it to be fair and equitable to all its residents and for it to stimulate economic growth. Tax cuts for all New Zealanders we are told are likely in the May Budget. Tax cuts as is widely recognised are a stimulant for economic growth as they put more money into the hands and indeed into the pockets of individuals to make choices about what they do with them. An increase in GST is being carefully considered. One of the advantages of such an increase is that coupled with reduced income tax it is universal in its effect and in fact it favours savings and investment over consumption. Lower taxes put the right incentives into the economy. A certain degree of consumption is a good thing as that is how businesses grow and develop. It is imperative that the balance is correct. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Do you understand any of this? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Absolutely but I am not sure that member does. GST could disproportionately disadvantage beneficiaries superannuitants and lower-income earners so they will be fairly compensated if GST is raised thereby negating the risk to lower-income earners. There is a lot to like about these ideas moving forward.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8736] 
11. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on the Christchurch motorways road of national significance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that 2 weeks ago I was privileged to be able to turn the first sod on the Christchurch Southern Motorway’s stage one extension. This project was accelerated out of the Government’s $142 million stimulus package and it will employ around 150 people directly as well as create more jobs in downstream support services and suppliers. This long-awaited project will deliver economic growth and improve safety by developing better access from the south of that wonderful city of Christchurch to the central business district and Lyttelton Port. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What else will the road of rational significance deliver for Christchurch? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is an exciting time for transport in Christchurch. Other projects in the package include further stages of the Southern Motorway and the Northern Motorway extension and I am very pleased to report that the first stages of the Western Bypass will also commence construction this year. Christchurch people will now see real progress on that highway development plan as the result of the Government’s $11 billion nationwide commitment to State highway improvements over the next 10 years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the last question I say to the Opposition that an awful lot of noise was coming from the Opposition benches. I will insist on the other side giving more courtesy to their member as she asks the last question than they extended to the Minister in answering that previous one. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know whether you recall it but when Darien Fenton asked that question we could hardly hear the question being asked. I ask you that the rule you applied last year—that you can hear the question—be applied this year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member but the noise got totally unacceptable at that point. I am asking the Government now to extend courtesy to the member asking the next question. That was what I have just asked despite the lack of courtesy the other way round.
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8735] 
9. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard that “I don’t think we can catch Australia” but “there’s a lot of crumbs come off the Australian table we can take advantage of”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No I do not agree with that statement. 
John Boscawen 
: If New Zealand adopts an emissions trading scheme tax and Australia does not does he agree that this would put us at a competitive disadvantage and slow our growth rate relative to Australia’s; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No not necessarily. The Australian debate is pretty vigorous but both sides are proposing to take some action on climate change. Even the actions that Australia’s Opposition is promising involve complicated public subsidies and heavy regulation. It is not at all clear that that would be better than an emissions trading scheme in the long run. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How did it help New Zealand close the income gap with Australia to scrap Labour’s research and development tax credits and the $2 billion Fast Forward fund when a smart Government in Australia was increasing research and development by 25 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Fast Forward fund is a fantasy in the minds of the Opposition members; it never actually existed. The Government replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership. The one difference between the Primary Growth Partnership and the Fast Forward fund is that the Primary Growth Partnership actually has some money that is actually paying for some science. The Fast Forward fund had no money and had not bought any science.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8734] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold this question over until the Minister of Maori Affairs is present to answer this very serious question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8733] 
7. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What evidence does he have that oil and gas production has the potential to lift New Zealand’s economic growth? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 This January I released the latest  
New Zealand Energy Quarterly 
 which showed that New Zealand’s production of crude oil jumped nearly 20 percent in the quarter ended September. That was largely due to the Maari field reaching full production. Production of oil and gas in New Zealand will continue to rise and this season will see the most extensive drilling programme since exploration began in this country. In the year 2008 oil was our third-largest export earner at $2.8 billion. That was a 100 percent increase on the amount in the previous year. Those three facts I think provide the clear evidence the member seeks. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How does the taxpayer benefit from our increasing domestic production of oil? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Crown received approximately $965 million including taxes paid from petroleum production in the last financial year. Of that $543 million was in royalty payments alone. New Zealand produces in excess of 21 million barrels of oil a year. Closing the balance between oil imports and exports is a real benefit to the New Zealand economy and consequently the taxpayer.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8728] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister for Social Development and Employment what action—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to the comment that member has made and I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I understand that. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Hon Annette King. Let us get some rules pretty clear here from the word go. When I require a member to withdraw and apologise there will be not be comment on it afterwards. A comment afterwards indicates that the member was not the least bit sincere in withdrawing and apologising. I ask the Hon Trevor Mallard again to get to his feet withdraw and apologise and not add any further comments. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Annette King. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask the House to settle down. I did not hear that interjection. The member has the floor to ask the question. I have tried to get silence for her and I ask her to do so.