edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19145] 
4. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps did the Budget take last month to achieve faster economic growth based on higher savings exports and productive investment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Budget set out several more balanced steps. In the Government’s programme we tilted the economy towards exports savings and investment. In particular the Budget mapped out a faster path to a healthy Budget surplus by 2014-15 while continuing to protect the most vulnerable New Zealanders but encouraging the shift of people and capital from the domestic sector and the Government-funded sector to the export sector. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How will Budget measures that reduce future Government borrowing help to support jobs and faster growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has been willing to grow its borrowing through the recession to help protect New Zealanders from the sharpest edges of that recession and maintain consistent investment in infrastructure and public services. However too much debt can be a bad thing. In the future reducing the need for Government borrowing will support jobs and growth by keeping interest rates lower for longer. For instance floating mortgage interest rates are at their lowest levels for more than four decades. This has put hundreds of dollars a month extra into the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders. Of course in the economic cycle interest rates are likely to rise but good Government fiscal policy could keep them lower for longer. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Following the Budget what reasons are there to be optimistic about the outlook for the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are many reasons to be optimistic in addition to the achievements of the Government. Our terms of trade are at 50-year highs. Our exchange rate with Australia is at a 20-year low. Households are increasing their savings. Because of significant tax reform we now have a highly competitive taxation system. We have been promoting a continuous improvement in our regulatory systems. The public sector is becoming more efficient. We have almost completed the reregulation of our financial system so that investors can have confidence in it. All of those factors will help to underpin a growing economy. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What reports has he seen that support the Budget’s direction? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Just more good news on that front. Probably the most impressive reports were mentioned in this House last night when the Hon Nathan Guy read out the vox pops from the  
Kapiti Observer 
 which were without exception positive about the direction of the Budget. This backs up the business confidence surveys which have become quite positive in the last few weeks. I have to say I am more cautious than the bounce in business confidence is but it is promising.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19142] 
2. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What engagement or consultation was undertaken with tangata whenua in preparing the Government’s submission to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and what was the response from tangata whenua on the proposal to extend New Zealand’s maritime boundaries? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I am advised that New Zealand’s submission to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in 2006 was a highly technical document presenting scientific data relating to the depth of sediment and geology of underlying rock on the seabed. Its purpose was to demonstrate how the legal definition of the continental shelf in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea applied to the specific geological features of the seabed beyond 200 miles from New Zealand. For that reason no consultation with stakeholders occurred. Now that decisions have been made by the commission the Government will ensure that the relevant Orders in Council are passed in the coming months. At that point responsibility for administering the rights arising will pass to a range of domestic agencies. The Government would expect them to conduct appropriate stakeholder consultations at that time. 
Rahui Katene 
: What consideration has been accorded to New Zealand’s compliance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi in negotiating maritime boundaries with countries with which New Zealand’s continental shelf overlaps including Australia Fiji Tonga and potentially France? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am advised that officials have not yet commenced boundary negotiations with Fiji Tonga or potentially with France. However a maritime boundary was successfully negotiated with Australia in 2004. Updates on that negotiation were included in the list of treaties under negotiation that is always placed on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website and circulated in hard-copy form to affected parties including Maori groups every 6 months. Information was also included in regular newsletters published by Land Information New Zealand. No matters were raised with officials by interested parties during the course of those negotiations with Australia. 
Rahui Katene 
: What are the implications of the new extended continental shelf for the customary owners of the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am advised that the process I have described will not change customary rights to the foreshore and seabed.
Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport Senate 
Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport Senate 
[Volume:673;Page:19141] 
Wednesday 8 June 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport Senate 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport of the Senate of Australia led by Senator Glenn Sterle is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport Senate 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport Senate 
[Volume:673;Page:19141] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport of the Senate of Australia led by Senator Glenn Sterle is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Hayes John: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hayes John: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I will make a brief contribution on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill as probably I am the only person in the House who has actually had a close working relationship with the Security Intelligence Service over a long period of time—but not as long as my friend Keith Locke who has been on their books since age 11 and he is much older than me. 
Metiria Turei 
: Dull! 
JOHN HAYES 
: Never mind; at least he is polite unlike his rude colleague in the front seat. 
In my experience the 200-odd people who have made up the Security Intelligence Service at any one time over the last 7 or 8 years—and the last 25 or 30 years—are actually a great bunch of people. They have been really well led by people such as Don McIver Richard Woods more recently and at the moment a constituent of mine Warren Tucker. It is worth recalling when we think about this legislation that in fact up until 1956 in this country the police did the work of the Security Intelligence Service. Then between 1956 and 1969 the Security Intelligence Service operated without any legislative base whatsoever. Since 1969 we have had legislation. It has been reviewed on a few occasions and because technological change has outstripped the old law we are in the process of revamping the legislation again. 
I would just like to say to people like Keith Locke and to other colleagues in this House that the bread and butter of the Security Intelligence Service is in vetting public servants which is quite important as we remember that a couple of years ago the Ministry of Defence’s chief scientist unfortunately slipped through the cracks. Why does the Security Intelligence Service vet public servants? Because we want to have a system that we know is operating with integrity so that the community can have a certain amount of trust in it. People who are checked in this way include those who work in defence and foreign affairs and senior public servants. The Security Intelligence Service runs three offices—in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch—and aside from the main bread and butter the job is primarily collecting intelligence working on threats to our community and making sure that those threats are disrupted. When we have the Rugby World Cup we do not want an event to cause us some concern or damage during that occasion. 
One other point I would like to make is that the Minister in charge of the Security Intelligence Service cannot name somebody or direct the service to follow a particular person of the Minister’s choosing. The system has a great deal of integrity. We have the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and from my experience over a long period of time I can say we can be very comfortable with the work the service does. We can be very proud of the work it does and we can see that it is a system with impartiality integrity and a great deal of thoroughness. Thank you.
Hide Rodney: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hide Rodney: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (ACT—Epsom) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT Party I rise to support the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill but first let me pick up on Mr Keith Locke’s presentation. There have been a lot of puzzles around Parliament in my time here and one of the more pleasant puzzles has been Mr Keith Locke. He is a very reasonable man and quite sensible. He has spent his time here in Parliament as we have just heard being highly critical of the Security Intelligence Service and its intrusive powers over ordinary citizens. Yet Mr Locke by his very politics has supported and given succour to the most oppressive and repressive regimes known in the 20th century—regimes that ran complete police States. I just do not understand Mr Keith Locke. I could understand his having concerns about the SIS if he were an anarchist or a hard-core libertarian but given Mr Locke’s politics his ideology and the regimes that he supported around the world it is very very tough to sit through one of these criticisms of our own SIS and suggest somehow that it is not given proper democratic oversight and does not operate within the rule of law. 
I turn to the bill. The ACT Party supports it. It does not change the framework within which the SIS operates or the principles under which it does its business. What the bill does do is simply update the legislation—keeping those principles and maintaining that framework—for the modern world. This is a modern world where we have technology that can track people without having to follow them a world where we have mobile phones and a world where we have the internet email and cyber-crime. In fact the current legislation as I understand it was designed and thought of when  
Get Smart 
 was popular on TV. That is how out of date our current legislation is. So all this bill does is to bring our legislation up to date whilst keeping the principles that have been tried and tested and found to be true. For those reasons this change has the wholehearted support of the ACT Party. I continue to wonder about the puzzle that is Mr Keith Locke. Thank you.
Ardern Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Ardern Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:16662] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is always a privilege to follow the previous speaker Dr Prasad. 
We are here today because 70 percent of New Zealanders support the direction that the John Key Government has taken. So for the 30 percent of the House who have been putting up a debate against that direction tonight I say that this is what the John Key Government has proposed for its work programme going forward. [ 
Interruption 
] Seventy percent support the current economic direction of the John Key Government. 
In 2011 the Government will focus on two key areas. We will build foundations for a stronger economy and build better results from the Public Service sector. I think those comments just strike fear into the hearts of Labour members. We will build better results from within the public sector. Their mates the guys they employed the thousands of people who were put on the payroll under the Labour Government will be asked for the first time in a number of years to front up and say how they will do better without coming back to the Government for more money. 
We listened to a number of speakers from the other side of the House and it is interesting to note that one in particular gave a life story of hardship and oppression in her childhood. She rounded it off by saying that the National Government intended to make things worse for people like her. Members make those comments in a way that suggests they are unique and have the total franchise on growing up poor. They make comments about those kinds of things as though they are the only ones who have knowledge of what it is like to come up on the lower socio-economic side of the track. I just inform the House that one or two of us on this side have been in those circumstances ourselves. 
I have not heard but I have waited throughout this debate to hear it what those members are going to do about those circumstances going forward and how they will fund the social policies that everybody in this House wants to see: more social policy in the low socio-economic area. How will they do that? The only answer I have heard from speaker after speaker is that they will charge more taxes. A number of those members have been school teachers; thank goodness they were not mathematics teachers because they certainly cannot count. When they do the sums on those figures they will find out that there is no way they can fund the type of social spending they are talking about without growing the economy. 
Debate interrupted.
Calder Cam: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Calder Cam: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:16592] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 This Government is committed to helping and protecting the most vulnerable in our society and creating an environment where all New Zealanders can dare to dream our dreams unlock the potential that lies within us all and achieve our goals and aspirations in a better society. We have a considered logical plan to grow our economy. We are delivering world-class infrastructure to unblock the arteries of the economy and we are demanding better more efficient public services. We have introduced a number of regulatory changes to make it easier to do business and we are fostering better skills in the workforce and a research climate that encourages innovation. We are pursuing an ambitious free-trade agenda led by the very able Minister of Trade to my right to expand our markets for our products and we have introduced a growth-friendly tax system that rewards effort. Alongside that we are hauling back on new spending allowances and confronting the challenges of lifting our national savings rates so that we can reduce our debt to overseas lenders—a fiscally prudent economically literate plan. 
Contrast our plan with the Labour spiral of spending promises costed so far at $5 billion and still climbing steadily towards the stratosphere. Although many New Zealand families are being prudent being careful with their money and paying down debt Labour is talking of doing exactly the opposite. It is behaving fecklessly recklessly and irresponsibly. Where is the money coming from? So far the search for answers to this fundamental question has been singularly unrewarding; no answers have been forthcoming because Labour does not have an answer. How will Labour grow the economy? Labour is offering a pot-pourri of policies made on the hoof; it is a case of fruit-loop thinking leading to fruitcake policies with absolutely no sound economic foundation. Maybe that is an explanation for why Labour would remove GST on fruit and vegetables even though this policy has long been discredited even by its own caucus as a meaningful intervention at any level let alone as a driver of a nation’s economy. 
What exactly is Labour’s mechanism to encourage economic growth? Sadly it is a continuation of Labour’s old tax borrow spend and hope philosophy that served New Zealanders so poorly in the past. Perhaps it is using a carrot and stick philosophy: reduce GST on carrots and whack with a big stick—in the form of increased taxes—many of those helping to create jobs. Labour’s recipe of loose spending more borrowing and higher taxes is a clear contrast to this Government’s responsible programme to keep debt under control promote savings and get the economy working faster to create a better society for all New Zealanders. 
I would like to talk about education. Education is at the root of our belief in the need to unlock the potential that lies within all New Zealanders. We have never spent more than we are spending now on education.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:670;Page:16592] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members of the Opposition are in a difficult position here because the normal procedures of the Maori Affairs Committee have been severely truncated. We have only one House in this Parliament and therefore we are reliant on good select committee procedures in order to get good law. What remedy do I have but to ask questions about those poor processes? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill has been reported back to the House the member will have ample opportunity I am sure during what I am sure will be significant debates in this Chamber to raise all the concerns that he has about that.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:670;Page:16591] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members the three questions to members set out on the question paper are now out of order. The questions relate to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill and are addressed to the chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee. When the questions were accepted at 10.30 this morning the bill was before the Maori Affairs Committee. The bill has now been reported to the House and is no longer before the committee. 
Although the questions were properly accepted this morning they are now out of order. A question to a chairperson of a select committee must relate to a matter for which the committee has charge. I refer members to Standing Order 370(1) and Speaker’s ruling 149/2. 
Questions ruled out of order.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:670;Page:16591] 
12. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What would the top rate of tax need to be to implement a $5000 tax-free threshold reverse the Government’s spending cuts remove GST from fresh fruit and vegetables; all while not increasing New Zealand’s debt track any further? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Such a rate is very difficult to calculate because in theory at least the rate we would need to strike in order to raise $1.55 billion would be around 58c to 60c in the dollar which would be the highest rate in the world. Of course if we struck that rate we would get many times over the rash of avoidance that occurred when the previous Government put up the top rate to 39c in the dollar. I suspect that Labour would not be able to go to 50c in the dollar and that it would have to put up tax rates right across all income ranges in order to pay for the $5000 tax-free zone. That is before we get to raising tax to pay for all the other promises in addition to those two. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: How would that required tax rate compare with taxes around the world and in particular in Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The comparison would show it to be the highest tax rate in the world. If we have learnt one thing in recent years it is about the mobility of income and the ability of people to organise their affairs in order to avoid paying a top tax rate. Even the highest personal tax rate in the world would not be anything like enough to raise the revenue required to fund the tax-free zone. In fact Labour would have to increase tax rates right across the income range to pay for that promise. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Has New Zealand ever had tax rates at that level; if so what were the comments of the Government of the time that reversed that figure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon Annette King 
: It was 66c under Muldoon. Under a National Government it was 66c. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is exactly right. It was 66c in the dollar and that was progressively reduced to 33c in the dollar by the Labour Cabinet of the time of which Phil Goff was a member as well as a strong advocate of reducing the top tax rate for all the reasons that I have just said. If we put a tax rate at 66c in the dollar hardly anyone would pay that and that would undermine the integrity of the system. What Labour would have to do to pay for the tax-free threshold would be to lift the tax thresholds for all working New Zealanders and that would mean they would not be better off.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:670;Page:16589] 
10. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has she received regarding the effects of the 90-day trial period on job creation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have seen a report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that concluded that the trial period increased hiring from small employers by 6 percent above expectations. During tough times in the labour market trial periods are helping Kiwis to get into jobs. 
David Bennett 
: How many jobs has the trial period helped to create? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Heaps. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has estimated that 13000 New Zealanders have jobs they would not otherwise have because of the trial period. That is 13000 New Zealanders. These findings are consistent with earlier research from the Department of Labour. I expect the number of jobs created to grow as the trial period becomes available to larger employers from 1 April this year. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is it not true that the conclusion from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that the fire-at-will law appears to be working is based on only 6 months of raw data showing that hiring has declined less in small firms than in big firms; if so does the latest increase in unemployment mean the fire-at-will law has stopped working? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think it is fairly obvious to everybody that the trial period is working and is creating jobs for New Zealanders. It is giving New Zealanders opportunities to get their foot on the employment ladder which they might not otherwise have been able to do and it is giving businesses the confidence to take on people whom they might not otherwise have employed.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:670;Page:16586] 
8. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What major developments in primary sector innovation has he recently announced? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Last week I announced a further round of successful bids under the Government’s Primary Growth Partnership which will see $107 million invested in the aquaculture wild fish and timber industries. In less than 17 months the Primary Growth Partnership has delivered close to half a billion dollars of investment in the primary sector. When it comes to boosting economic growth through innovation this Government is taking real action. 
Shane Ardern 
: What type of work will be funded under these latest projects? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The latest round of successful bids includes a $52 million project aimed at transforming New Zealand’s aquaculture industry through selective breeding a $51 million programme to develop improved wild fish harvesting technology and a $2.5 million project to explore alternatives to methyl bromide. These projects collectively demonstrate the wide scope of innovation that is being funded by the Primary Growth Partnership. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why is the Government making such a major commitment to primary sector innovation? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: This Government is absolutely committed to improving export performance and primary sector productivity through science and innovation. The $475 million invested by the Primary Growth Partnership so far demonstrates our firm focus on lifting economic growth and getting our tradable sector back on track after a decade of neglect by the previous administration.
Power Simon: Business of the House 
Power Simon: Business of the House 
[Volume:670;Page:16577] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the House to sit on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 16 February 2011 following the State luncheon in honour of the Prime Minister of Australia. Prime Minister Gillard will address members at 11 a.m. that day and in this regard I also seek leave for select committee meetings to adjourn at 10.45 a.m. until the conclusion of questions for oral answer. I further seek leave for the bell to be rung at 10.50 a.m. for 2 minutes to summon members to the address to be given by the Prime Minister of Australia in the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:670;Page:16577] 
Wednesday 9 February 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the House to sit on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 16 February 2011 following the State luncheon in honour of the Prime Minister of Australia. Prime Minister Gillard will address members at 11 a.m. that day and in this regard I also seek leave for select committee meetings to adjourn at 10.45 a.m. until the conclusion of questions for oral answer. I further seek leave for the bell to be rung at 10.50 a.m. for 2 minutes to summon members to the address to be given by the Prime Minister of Australia in the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Vote: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16420] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:669;Page:16440] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 In accordance with discussions held this afternoon at the Business Committee I seek leave for the House to now rise until the next sitting day. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16440] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand Labour 41; Progressive 1. 





Motion agreed to.
Carter David: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter David: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16440] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That the Social Services Committee consider the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 6 May 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).
Carter David: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter David: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16440] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I seek leave to amend the date for the Social Services Committee to report the bill from 28 February 2011—as indicated in Minister Bennett’s speech of 24 November—to 6 May 2011. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that change from 28 February to 6 May 2011. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Woodhouse Michael: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16439] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I have much to say about the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill and I am very grateful to the whips for allowing me to take my full 10 minutes on it! I think all members will be better off because of that. In commending the bill to the House I just mention the same point that the member Mrs King talked about and that is the 28-day backdating. I have had a couple of cases come through my office involving challenging situations of deceased spouses and people not really wanting to do those sorts of things within 28 days. This bill is a very good victory I think for common sense and I commend it to the House.
McClay Todd: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
McClay Todd: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16436] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure on a Tuesday evening to speak in support of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. The reason it gives me pleasure to speak at this time is that the National Government is committed to certainty and security for older New Zealanders. Indeed we have been working hard over the last 2 years to cut red tape and reduce regulations. We are easing the burden for older New Zealanders so that they can get the assistance they are entitled to. After 2 years of a National Government this bill is further evidence of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that superannuitants and veterans pensioners receive their full entitlements. We are making sure that older New Zealanders especially following bereavement are not forced to fill out application forms and go through more bureaucracy or bureaucratic processes. We are making sure that older New Zealanders receive their full entitlement so that they do not suffer unnecessary financial hardship. I know that all of the members in the House believe that this is good news. 
Over the last 2 years the National Government has delivered an extra $71 a fortnight into the pockets of New Zealand superannuitants and that was completed this year. It has already delivered a double boost of tax cuts to superannuitants this year by both increasing the amount of and cutting the tax on New Zealand superannuation. 
In my electorate office we have a number of superannuitants who come to us. Often there is concern because they are not sure what they are entitled to. In many cases we are able to provide them with assistance. But the good news in respect of this bill is that for people entitled to a living alone allowance it will be backdated to the very day they should have received that entitlement rather than from that date only if they apply within 28 days. When pensioners or those on a veterans pension lose their loved one that is a time of difficulty when they would certainly have many other things on their mind. When this bill enters into force those people will be able to receive their full entitlement from the day they are eligible for it not just if they apply within 28 days or otherwise from the day they apply for it. 
This is very good legislation and I am glad that many parties in this Parliament have committed their support to it. Indeed I hope that all members of this House will support this legislation. It will get out of the way some unnecessary red tape it will certainly remove some of the uncertainty that many of our pensioners suffer from and it will deliver them financial assistance when they very much need it. I commend the bill to the House.
Foss Craig: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
Foss Craig: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16435] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I also commend the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill to the House. I would just like to point out to the House that the apple industry has been doing this exact procedure for quite some time over many many years. In fact if members look at a tray of New Zealand apples over in Europe somewhere and if they look at the barcode they will actually be able to see which forklift moved which pallet of apples and in which packing house. 
Hone Harawira 
: That’s amazing! 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Traceability—that is what it is all about my friend. I commend this fine bill to the House.
Goudie Sandra: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16435] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and speak to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill otherwise known as NAIT which brings the New Zealand primary sector up to speed with most other agricultural producing nations that already have such a scheme in place. I am delighted to see this bill coming to the House and I look forward to its progress through the Primary Production Committee.
Choudhary Ashraf: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16433] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. I will be taking a very brief call as well. The work on this bill started in 2004. Like many bills that have come before Parliament in the last 2 years this bill originated with Labour and this Government is slowly getting around to bringing such bills into the House. 
This issue is very important for the New Zealand economy going forward particularly because overseas customers want to ensure that the food they get from us is of high quality and that the animals can be traced back to the farms. They want to make sure that they are getting the real stuff. 
I know there are concerns. Some farmers are particularly worried about cost increases as a result of this legislation but I am sure that as technology becomes more affordable and is of better quality it will be very important to make sure that the animal can be identified with an ID in the market place. With those few words I commend this bill to the House.
Boscawen John: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Boscawen John: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16415] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding was that that amendment would not come up in this particular part of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have a running sheet here and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 in the name of Hilary Calvert are on it. I tell the Committee that it has been ruled out of order in connection with Part 1 of the bill. The Supplementary Order Paper refers in part to clause 5 and clause 5 is in Part 1 so therefore I had to deal with that amendment now. I have made that explanation so I will now put the question.
Ardern Shane: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Shane: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16433] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill and I look forward to it coming to the Primary Production Committee. 
Looking forward the biggest economic opportunity for New Zealand to grow the economy in the way that the National-led Government wants to grow it is to export high-quality protein products from our agricultural industries. One of the bottom-line criteria in achieving that outcome is to have traceability. We must be able to tick all the environmental social and economic boxes and traceability is a key to that if we are to maintain integrity in the markets. I look forward to the debate on how we will do that when the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is before the Primary Production Committee. I support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Katene Rahui: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Katene Rahui: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:669;Page:16426] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call specific to the clause that relates to members of Parliament with interests in Maori land and Maori land trusts. During the course of the review of the Standing Orders there was debate on the concept of Maori ownership and on whether such land should be declared on the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. This longstanding issue is unique because of the complexity associated with a declaration of interest in jointly held Maori land. 
If we look through the register of pecuniary interests we might come across the names of many Maori MPs associated with various Maori land corporations and land trusts. If we were to look at Mr Horomia for example we would find that he has a beneficial interest in a wide range of trusts—for example “Panikau H2 Mangatuna 3 4 5 7 8 Mangaheia 1B37 Rakiura Maori Land Trusts Tokomaru K4A and K4B1— … Other Maori land incorporations and trusts on the East Coast Wairarapa and South Island—”. I ask how we would extrapolate from such a wide list the beneficial interest that is specific to Mr Horomia as opposed to perhaps hundreds of other beneficiaries. For some of our MPs there might be an additional problem in completing declarations as they may not even know that they have an interest in a Maori land trust. Even when the information is known it can be onerous to identify blocks of land held by such trusts. 
In responding to the review Dame Margaret Bazley concluded that although she could understand the difficulties unique to Maori MPs with interests in multiple-owned land she did not consider that it relieved them of their obligation to declare such an interest. Therefore her recommendation was that Maori land would not be exempt from the declaration but by the same means it was not necessary or reasonable to expect members to identify each individual piece of Maori land by its Maori Land Court block number. 
The Maori Party is therefore happy to support a somewhat compromised position. We agree that an interest in jointly held Maori land should be declared under this clause but we are also pleased to note that it is sufficient to give only the general location of the land as for other real property rather than the specifics of an individual block. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16420] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Power Simon: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16419] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 To conclude this debate I make a couple of comments in respect of Part 4 and in particular the amendment by Lianne Dalziel to delete clause 54 from the Electoral Referendum Bill. That was well signalled to the Government and we were quite aware that that was Labour’s position. National will oppose Ms Dalziel’s amendment on the basis that we think it is important that the vote on the question of the electoral system that the New Zealand public chooses is between two systems that they have experienced and worked under. Essentially that is the difference between the two positions. 
To say that the negotiations between all parties have not been done in good faith is probably taking it a step too far. To be fair to all parties present in the Committee stage since 3.15 p.m. I have not seen any evidence of that; each party has done what it said it would do. In fairness that is what we are ultimately trying to achieve by Part 4 and these three bills. There may be aspects of Part 4 the rest of this bill and the preceding two bills in Committee that each individual party would rather have done another way. I can assure members of the Committee of the whole House that indeed we would have done some things differently as I know other parties would have having listened to their contributions to the debates this afternoon. 
In the end Part 4 and the rest of this legislation has to do one thing—that is to endure beyond the change of Government where we get ourselves as a Parliament and a country into a situation where a winning political party forms the view that its might makes it right. The concluding point about the Committee stage of this legislation is to ensure that at the very least there is a consistency of approach to how we conduct elections in New Zealand whether it be an MMP referendum or for that matter electoral finance legislation. There are many aspects of this legislation that parties would do differently but the nature of broad consensus for this sort of work to endure is that we all have to come slightly short of what each party regards as an ideal position. To that end National will not be supporting the amendment as tabled by Ms Dalziel. I am looking forward to the conclusion of this debate the third readings tomorrow and Christmas. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 54 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Boscawen John: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Boscawen John: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16419] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 First I will take this opportunity to simply say that the ACT Party will be voting against the amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I assure the National Government and the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice that we will be voting against this amendment. 
A couple of comments from the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel need to be responded to. Given that none of the National members took the call I will respond to those comments. 
Amy Adams 
: Give us a chance. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Amy Adams said to give those members a chance but National has taken just one call I think in this debate—one call since quarter-past 3. We have heard from Lianne Dalziel that MMP is flawed. Well who says it is flawed? Yes some people say it is flawed but I ask what right the Labour Party has to pronounce that MMP is flawed. Who says so? Where is those members’ evidence? Where is the overwhelming evidence it is flawed? 
Lianne Dalziel talked about fixing the problem. Well there is no need for a review and the ACT Party will be voting against her amendment. However Lianne Dalziel raised a very very good point. She has just told the public of New Zealand notwithstanding the consultation and the extraordinary effort the Minister has made to reach agreement—and he has conceded a number of points not least of which is a $300000 limit on the right of free speech—that if Labour wins the next election all bets are off. All bets are off. She said: “We have reached consensus we have reached agreement but if Labour wins the next election we will screw you.” That is exactly what she said. She said that if Labour wins the next election in 2011 Labour will not proceed down the second referendum road unless the Government goes and fixes the system—the system that we do not even necessarily know is broken. 
I put it to National members in the Chamber this afternoon that Mr Power is a gentleman. Mr Power is a gentleman. He has gone along to the Labour members and has consulted with them but I say to my colleagues on this side of the Chamber that they have been screwed. They have been screwed because they are being told this afternoon that rather than trust their judgment allow third parties to campaign for what they believe and put the Minister’s bill through in the way that he had originally presented it they have fallen for a trap. That is one of the reasons the ACT Party strongly opposes the $300000 limit. Let me simply say to Mr Mallard and Ms Dalziel that a further reason for the National-led Government to be re-elected in 2011 is so that it can give effect to the compromised agreement that this bill represents. Thank you.
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16405] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 21(1AA) be agreed to.