edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11381] 
8. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister for Senior Citizens 
: Which goals and actions of the Positive Ageing Strategy does Budget 2010 not contribute towards and why? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 Budget 2010 is good news for recipients of New Zealand superannuation and therefore contributes towards all 10 goals of New Zealand’s Positive Ageing Strategy. In addition to receiving an income tax cut recipients of New Zealand superannuation will be fully and permanently compensated for the increase in GST from 1 October 2010. This means that people who receive New Zealand superannuation will get a considerable increase in their after-tax income. I suggest that the member goes to www.taxguide.govt.nz and clicks on “I receive New Zealand super or veterans pension” the large blue square two down on the left if he wants to see how much better off recipients of New Zealand superannuation will be. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can he therefore tell the House how Budget 2010 contributes to objective 3.2 of the Positive Ageing Strategy: “Provide adequate assistance towards the cost of local authority rates.” when it has slashed $58 million from the rates rebate scheme which could have helped thousands of senior New Zealanders remain in their homes and live comfortably and securely? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The matter of rates rebates will continue to be available to all New Zealanders. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can he therefore tell the House how Budget 2010 contributes to the second goal of the Positive Ageing Strategy of “Equitable timely affordable and accessible health services for older people” when the Government has not given district health boards enough funding to even stand still so they will inevitably have to make further health cuts that will include home help services for the elderly which have already been slashed up and down the country? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Thanks to the very good leadership by the very good Minister of Health Mr Tony Ryall this Government has given the biggest share of GDP to health of any Government ever. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can he therefore tell the House what fight if any and what leadership he showed and whether he put up on behalf of the seniors of New Zealand who because of this Budget and other Government measures are now facing a $5 a week increase in their power bills increases in the cost of their food increases in petrol costs and in doctors’ bills and a long cold winter under this Tory Government? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Unfortunately the member appears to have his facts wrong; I suspect he read the Budget upside down. The fact is that this Government has made significant improvements in the amount of funding that superannuitants will receive.
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11385] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document showing that there has been a $20 million cut to the Primary Growth Partnership funding over a 4-year period. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member mind telling us what the document is? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The document is a Budget assessment by a research unit and I am sure that the Government will want to challenge that document and check it for itself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document is from a research unit. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11376] 
3. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How large is public sector spending relative to the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 There are several components of public sector spending: departmental spending and entitlements and additional spending by State-owned enterprises and Crown entities. This is all consolidated into the total Crown accounts. Local government is also a significant part of the economy. When all those elements are included total public sector spending to June 2009 was $93 billion. That was just over 50 percent of GDP. That figure has increased from 41 percent of GDP—or by $31 billion—in the past 5 years. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How will Budget 2010 address this growth in public spending? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The growth in public spending from 41 percent of the economy to 50 percent of the economy in the past 5 years is clearly unsustainable and some of it was irresponsible. Budget 2010 has kept within $1.1 billion for new operational spending and we are shifting $1.8 billion of low-priority spending over the next 4 years from low-quality and back-office programmes to front-line services and more effective public programmes. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Is the Minister aware of any plans to further increase public spending? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Despite the unsustainable and in some respects reckless increase in public spending over the last 5 years I have heard several ideas that would increase public spending without any matching increase in productivity. Hiring about 3000 more Wellington-based bureaucrats and extending a range of public spending on low-quality programmes with no regard for the debt that it would incur are ideas from the Labour Opposition. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Minister aware of data from the State Services Commission that shows that the public sector decreased in size by 25 percent from 1989 to 2008 and has remained largely static as a percentage of the total workforce during that period including being the same percentage when he was first appointed as a Minister as it was when Labour left office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member can pick any numbers he likes—[ 
Interruption 
] Well his 1989 numbers will include a very large New Zealand Rail and a very large New Zealand Post Office which had large numbers of people working for them and the Labour Government of the time decided they were far too big and decided to shrink them. The fact is that along with most of the New Zealand public we believe that much of the spending under the previous Government was reckless and ineffective and we are fixing that problem. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave to table a document provided by the State Services Commission that shows that the number of people employed in the public sector has been static as a percentage of the employed labour force. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Wong Pansy: Budget Debate 
Wong Pansy: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11391] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11392] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:663;Page:11373] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 In response to the first question I tell the member that it will be within the period of time set down by the Standing Orders. In respect of the second question I tell him that I have recently been made aware of some discussions that have been occurring in select committees; I have been listening carefully to the advice I have been receiving on that issue.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:663;Page:11373] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House next week will continue to debate the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill and take time to complete the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Volume:663;Page:11373] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I ask the Deputy Leader of the House two questions: firstly which week does he expect to finish the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill’s second reading; secondly is he aware of some concern amongst select committees on the part of a few of his chairs with regard to a change of practice as to the acceptance of questions from Opposition members for the estimates process?
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11430] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that sets out the statistics on the spending on walkways and cycleways which disproves the Prime Minister’s last answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of the document? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The source of the document is a summary of Budget 2008 and Budget 2010 as they apply to cycleways and walkways. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Who prepared it? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It was prepared by my office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought but the dilemma is that this information is in Budgets and is readily available to members of the House. I do not think that we should be doing that.
Visitors — Timor-Leste—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
Visitors — Timor-Leste—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
[Volume:663;Page:11425] 
Tuesday 1 June 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Timor-Leste—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that His Excellency Dr Zacarias Albano da Costa Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11383] 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by her statement “Much of our attention has also been focussed on the economic downturn and exploring means to help protect workers and businesses from the sharp edges of the recession”  and if so which Budget 2010 initiatives will help to achieve that? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Absolutely. It was a very good statement made back in March 2009 but actually we are no longer in a recession—tough times yes but recession no. Budget 2010 has set this country on the path to greater economic growth and workers and businesses now have greater confidence in the future. Our talented Minister of Finance has overseen the biggest and fairest reform of our tax system in 25 years and Kiwi workers are the big winners. 
Darien Fenton 
: How will the Budget 2010 decision to allow young workers hired through the Job Ops scheme to be fired within 90 days with no right of appeal against unfair dismissal help protect those already vulnerable workers? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Feedback from employers and others on the Job Ops scheme has been incredibly positive. The only request was that it be more flexible. It now is. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is it fair that employers can receive a subsidy of up to $5000 through Job Ops—presumably in recognition of their help in bringing down youth unemployment—but then can fire those subsidised workers within 90 days with no fear of an appeal against dismissal? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Questions about the funding policy of Job Ops are better directed at the Minister for Social Development and Employment. But I understand that that has been taken into account. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Finance told Maori business leaders at a post-Budget breakfast on Tuesday that the best answer when he is asked what is in the Budget for Maori is 179000 new jobs over the next 4 years; and what strategies has she employed to ensure that Maori are actively targeted to gain these 179000 new jobs? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. The department has developed partnerships with iwi to develop and analyse local and national labour market information including the development of a set of interactive labour market tools. However we expect all New Zealanders to benefit from our prudent financial stewardship of our economy. 
Darien Fenton 
: How will removing the redundancy tax credit—which was designed to ensure that workers made redundant through no fault of their own would not end up having to pay a higher level of tax—help to protect those workers from the sharp edges of the recession? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: That tax credit as I understand it was created because of questions of unfairness in Labour’s high tax rates. That problem has now been addressed by reducing tax rates and indeed lowering all tax rates.
Motions — Samoan Language Week—Recognition 
Motions — Samoan Language Week—Recognition 
[Volume:663;Page:11425] 
Motions 
Samoan Language Week—Recognition 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I seek leave to move without notice and without debate a motion relating to Samoan Language Week 2010. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: O Talaleomalie o le Alo o le Tui Atua aua ua ii le Manu ae logo i le vateatea aua le vaiaso Faapitoa o le Gagana Samoa. 
Talofa lava i Lau Afioga i le Fofoga Fetalai faapea afioga i sui mamalu o le Maota Fono o le Palemene o Niu Sila le mamalu o le tapuaiga o Samoa o loo fa‘afofoga mai. Malo le soifua malo le lagi e mama. 
I move  
That this House take note that Samoan Language Week runs from 30 May to 5 June 
. This is a significant day for the more than 130000 Samoans living in New Zealand as well as those Samoans living in Samoa Australia America and throughout the globe. This House will manifest its support and acknowledgment of this special week through members from across all the political parties using Samoan words and phrases as a way to promote le gagana Samoa which is the third most spoken language in New Zealand next to English and te reo Maori and by so doing encourage greater understanding of the Samoan language and culture and therewith send a strong message that New Zealanders at the highest level of decision making embrace this diversity of language as a strength of our nation going forward. 
Motion agreed to. 
Fa‘afetai ma ia faamanuia mai le Atua i lenei taumafaiga.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11381] 
7. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What work is the Government doing on trans-Tasman mobile roaming? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I and my Australian counterpart Senator Stephen Conroy have released a discussion document dealing with trans-Tasman mobile roaming rates. Many New Zealanders have been caught unaware of the costs of using their mobile phone—in particular data roaming—in Australia. With large numbers of New Zealanders working and holidaying in Australia and vice versa it makes sense to examine whether the markets between the two countries are working effectively in this respect. We are therefore keen to hear the views of users the telecommunications industry and other interested stakeholders on this issue. 
Melissa Lee 
: Why is the Government undertaking this work? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Preliminary work done by both Governments has found that although the features and quality of mobile services are reasonable there does seem to be a lack of consumer awareness of prices and the prices themselves seem relatively high. Trans-Tasman mobile roaming has the potential to bring great benefits for individuals wanting to stay connected and on an economic level for companies doing business across the Tasman as we move further towards a single economic market. However these benefits will not be fully realised if the market is not functioning efficiently.
Roy Heather: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Heather: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11421] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. We note that the purpose of the bill is to improve the way that offences relating to the ill-treatment and neglect of animals are prescribed in the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and to increase the penalties for this type of offending. The ACT Party is very pleased to support this bill along with every other party in the House. Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:663;Page:11442] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for all the provisions of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill to be taken as one question; for members to have unlimited calls of 5 minutes each; for the question on the bill and any amendments proposed thereto to be taken at the conclusion of the debate; and for the motion to divide the bill to be put without further debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11436] 
7. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to improve animal welfare in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Last week I was delighted to announce that the Government will spend an extra $8.2 million over 4 years to boost animal welfare activities. This is the largest increase in animal welfare funding for over a decade and it reflects the importance this Government places on maintaining the highest possible standards of animal welfare. 
Simon Bridges 
: What specific areas will benefit from the extra $8.2 million? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The vast majority of the funding will go to front-line services and will see the number of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry enforcement officers more than double. There is also additional funding for the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and the SPCA and for a major review of the Animal Welfare Act. This is a comprehensive package that in addition to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill will increase animal welfare compliance in New Zealand. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Why has the Minister in the new animal welfare code for 2010 allowed a religious group the right to cut the throats of animals without stunning them first despite Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and scientific evidence that the animals suffer undue cruelty? This poses the serious question as to how this process will improve “animal welfare in New Zealand”. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: If the member is referring to the Animal Welfare (Commercial Slaughter) Code of Welfare 2010 I have not allowed an exemption. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Why has the Minister approved in the animal welfare code one set of rules for the Muslim community which is required to stun animals before slaughter and another set of rules for the Jewish community which is not required to stun animals before they have their throats cut—something that I refused to agree to when I was reviewing the code as Minister of Agriculture? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member is misinformed; I have not done so.
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11384] 
11. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What reports has he received on reaction to the Government’s proposed leaky homes package? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Very very good news actually! Three of the key most affected local authorities—that is Wellington City Council Waitakere City Council and North Shore City Council—last night all voted unanimously to support the Government’s leaky home package. Together these three local authorities account for 31 percent of the total houses affected. Another two major councils affected will be voting tonight. 
Paul Quinn 
: What other reports has he received in reaction to the Government’s proposed leaky homes package? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is fantastic news again. There has been a huge number of inquiries to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and the Department of Building and Housing. Eighteen new weathertightness claims have been lodged already from 103 homeowners in the 10 days since the announcement which is more than the total number of claims received during the entire month of April and there have been 300 inquiries from existing claimants about changing their applications. The good news just keeps on coming.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11441] 
11. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 last year that he has put certain assets into a blind trust that is “so blind I haven’t got a clue what’s in it”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How can that be given that the public now knows that he knows he can access the details through Whitechapel Ltd whenever he wants to by going to the Companies Office website? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is incorrect. I refer him to the legal opinion that I tabled last week— 
Hon Annette King 
: We know who wrote that. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If the member wants to call those lawyers and Bruce Gray QC who peer-reviewed their opinion liars she is welcome to but I suggest that she does it outside the House—and I wish her good luck with that one. I tell her to be brave and go out. I refer to point six of the legal opinion which says “Whitechapel Limited is the trustee of Aldgate Trust and may or may not act as trustee of other trusts.” It is impossible to look at Whitechapel and know whom those assets are held for. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: If I can find what is in his trust on any day of the week by going to Whitechapel Ltd where I find only assets that were in his name at one time and never any other assets in the economy why does he persist with the fiction that he cannot do so? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I am accurate. Whitechapel is a trustee. It is a trustee for the Aldgate Trust but it may also be a trustee for other trusts and it may well have sold those assets. I have no knowledge of that. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the assets held by Whitechapel Ltd concern wine assets dairy assets and real estate assets all of which used to be in the Prime Minister’s name and that Whitechapel Ltd contains no other assets whatsoever? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. Whitechapel is a trustee company. It is a trustee company for the Aldgate Trust as supplied in the legal opinion. As that opinion said in point six Whitechapel may or may not act as a trustee for other trusts. It is physically impossible for anyone to know whom it holds those assets for.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11497] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I am sorry to members for being out of the chair but we have just been working through the amendments. We still have a bit of work to do but although some of the amendments do not agree with Government policy and some of them have been incorrectly drafted the one from Mr Hawkins on the face of it does have some merit and we are working with officials and with colleagues on it. 
The idea as I understand it from reading the amendment and speaking to officials is that as the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is drafted at present the council can require the council-controlled organisations to have meetings in the open. By the way that has always been the case because they are council-controlled organisations but the bill now makes that explicit. The difficulty as I understand from the member’s amendment is that there is no mechanism for the people to have their say. So one can imagine that if there is a board meeting going on people can observe it but there can be no input. The difficulty too is that members of the public would have to be removed obviously if there is anything of a commercial nature. For some of the council-controlled organisations that is not so significant but for others that could be a large part of their board business. 
So it occurs to me at least that if we are going to open up those meetings there needs to be a mechanism by which the public can have direct input into the council-controlled organisations—sort of like at shareholders’ meetings. One can imagine board meetings where the board meets and it has to front up and explain its decision making. But more particularly in a public meeting shareholders can get up and have their say. As I understand it that is essentially what the member’s amendment is attempting to do. Let me give that member an assurance that we are taking his work and his proposal seriously as we are with the other amendments. If members want particular questions answered about their amendments please raise them and we will work through them.
King Colin: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
King Colin: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11370] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak during the second reading debate on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill improves the structures and therefore the enforcement of laws on the ill-treatment of animals. Essentially this bill is designed to bridge a gap in legislation that resulted in a marked number of animal welfare cases being downgraded to ill-treatment of an animal when far more serious crimes had been committed. 
Section 28A “Reckless ill-treatment of animals” in clause 5 comes into play between the top offence defined in section 28 “wilful ill-treatment of animals” and the lower offence of just ill-treatment of an animal. The Primary Production Committee agreed that adding this tool to the offences against animals would result in more successful prosecutions of such offences. That having been said I must congratulate the Minister of Agriculture David Carter for two reasons: having the wisdom to reprioritise the funding within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s budget to reinforce the number of animal welfare officers and to strengthen the protection of our domestic animals and farm animals. 
So what does the bill do? It introduces an important category within the Animal Welfare Act one that will result in more successful prosecutions for the ill-treatment of animals. 
Finally I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture David Carter on having the wisdom to make $8.2 million available within the Budget for better animal welfare care. I commend this bill to the House.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:663;Page:11373] 
Thursday 27 May 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House next week will continue to debate the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill and take time to complete the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I ask the Deputy Leader of the House two questions: firstly which week does he expect to finish the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill’s second reading; secondly is he aware of some concern amongst select committees on the part of a few of his chairs with regard to a change of practice as to the acceptance of questions from Opposition members for the estimates process? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 In response to the first question I tell the member that it will be within the period of time set down by the Standing Orders. In respect of the second question I tell him that I have recently been made aware of some discussions that have been occurring in select committees; I have been listening carefully to the advice I have been receiving on that issue.
Carter John: Budget Debate 
Carter John: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11350] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned.
Peachey Allan: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Peachey Allan: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11360] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 The third reading of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill marks the final stage in a legislative process of transferring the assets of the Carter Observatory Board to the Wellington City Council. The council has actually managed the observatory since 2007. 
The decision to transfer the assets from the board to the council was made by the previous Labour Government. However it has fallen to this National Government to oversee the legislative process and it has been a pleasure to do that. The first reading debate was an interesting one certainly marked on this side of the House by passion enthusiasm and insights into how children learn. I was very pleased that members opposite were able to take the opportunity to maybe learn a little bit during that debate. The Education and Science Committee deliberations were interesting marked by cooperation enthusiasm and a desire to get the job done. So we have come to this point where tonight we will pass this bill and the formal transfer will take place. 
I found it interesting that the previous Labour speaker David Shearer decided that this was an appropriate time to raise a whole pile of other agendas and it amazes me how short some of the Opposition members’ memories are concerning the opportunities that Labour had when it was in Government for 9 years to do some of the things that its members now talk about doing. I tell Labour members that talk is cheap. I would have much preferred it—and I think it would have been a far more grateful attitude on the part of Labour—if its members had taken the opportunity to reflect on the work that the Carter Observatory has done in the past and on what that observatory has meant to generations of children who have learnt about the moon the stars the Earth and the universe. It is nothing to do with money in children’s eyes; they have just bright eyes and enthusiasm. 
I commend the bill to the House and urge its rapid passage. I express the hope and the confidence that the Carter Observatory will build on its glorious past and continue to make a very fine contribution to the city of Wellington and to the country of New Zealand.
Peachey Allan: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Peachey Allan: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11356] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11350] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Upston Louise: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Upston Louise: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11368] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in support of this third and final reading of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. If people think about this particular bill and have listened to some of the speakers before me they will probably think that those members should visit the Carter Observatory so that they can figure out what planet they are on. Perhaps it is the “Planet of the Apes”; perhaps it is not this planet at all. 
Before I move on to the bill I will address one comment that was made about the current Government’s investment in science. This Government under the fine leadership of Dr Wayne Mapp in the area of science research and technology is putting real money into science. It is not hot air which is perhaps something else members could see if they visited the Carter Observatory. It might be a useful trip for them. If they look upwards they will realise that pennies do not fall from heaven. It is real money that we are looking for. 
If members think about what they might do if they were to go to the Carter Observatory—I have looked at the great information on its website and yes there is a focus on tourism now but a lot of science education goes on there—they will learn about the big bang black holes the Milky Way and the universe. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: They’ve suffered a big bang. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Yes that is correct. Goodness me those members have fallen into a deep dark black hole. If members went to the Carter Observatory they could look at the Thomas Cooke telescope for star-gazing. I think that perhaps the Opposition needs to do some serious navel-gazing instead. 
Anyway this bill has the support of the House and I am proud to speak in support of it. It is very simple. It repeals the Carter Observatory Act and dissolves the Carter Observatory board. The Wellington City Council is excited about having this asset so that it can use it to promote its beautiful city and wonderful science hand in hand with tourism. Thank you.
Roy Eric: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11353] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The debate includes debate on the schedule.
Mallard Trevor: Budget Debate 
Mallard Trevor: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11314] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member said David “Farrier”; does he mean David Farrar? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: People know what it is. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Quinn Paul: Budget Debate 
Quinn Paul: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11314] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a graph that was prepared by that eminent researcher and political scientist David Farrier which shows the change in the average tax rates between 2008 and 2010.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11297] 
11. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What commitment has the Government made to improve productivity and security at the border? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Budget 2010 provides $75.9 million in capital expenditure over the next 4 years for a joint-venture border management system between the Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The new system will bring processes together providing improved security and productivity at New Zealand’s borders. Modernising the ageing border management computer system will also deliver significant benefits for industry and travellers. Budget 2010 also provides $5.9 million of capital funding to the Customs Service over the next 2 years to fight the illicit drug trade through enhanced tracking and surveillance equipment. 
Jonathan Young 
: What reports has he received on seizures of pure methamphetamine at the border? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Last week customs discovered 8.175 kilograms of pure methamphetamine worth at least $6 million on the street in the luggage of a tour group arriving at Auckland Airport. The best coverage I have seen of this was in as Paul Holmes would refer to it the “Royal New Zealand Herald” which covered it well. This is the single biggest— 
Hon Members 
: The “Royal New Zealand Herald”? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is what Paul Holmes called it so I will call it the “Royal New Zealand Herald”. This is the biggest single bust of pure methamphetamine at the border so far this year and is one of the biggest ever made. As a result seven Taiwanese people were arrested and have been charged with importing a class A controlled drug. This seizure is an outstanding example of the vigilance expertise and experience of our front-line customs officers.
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11295] 
9. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: How many submissions on the Government’s proposal  
Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond 
 have been received by the Ministry of Economic Development? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 As at 5 p.m. last night there were approximately 35000. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: When he said on  
Morning Report 
 today that he did not have to consult was he not aware of the Crown Minerals Act which requires him to consult on changes to schedule 4? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member needs to understand that I was saying we did not need to consult in this fashion. We have chosen to have a dialogue with New Zealanders and New Zealanders have responded. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: What is his response to 59 percent of New Zealanders who believe that the Government has already made up its mind and is simply going through the motions; and has he heard the saying “When you are in a hole stop digging.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are two questions there Madam Speaker. To answer the second part first I say that if one is in a hole and one is getting a good mineral deposit one should keep going. To the first part I simply say wait and see. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I assure the honourable Minister that I have not had a sex-change operation. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I would expect not; there would have been a statement to Parliament surely. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is just that I am not Madam Speaker.
Heatley Phil: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 25 May 
Heatley Phil: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 25 May 
[Volume:663;Page:11287] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct the income-related rents figure I gave in question No. 10 yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to correct an answer given yesterday. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The figure I should have used was $560 million not $650 million.
Brownlee Gerry: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Procedure 
Brownlee Gerry: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:663;Page:11287] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the third reading of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill to be taken forthwith when it comes up on the House programme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none.
Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Procedure 
Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:663;Page:11287] 
Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill 
Procedure 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the third reading of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill to be taken forthwith when it comes up on the House programme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:663;Page:11287] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the two notices of motion relating to the appointment of auditors for the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to be taken together for the purpose of debate with the questions put separately at the conclusion of that debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 25 May 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 10 to Minister 25 May 
[Volume:663;Page:11287] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 10 to Minister 25 May 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct the income-related rents figure I gave in question No. 10 yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to correct an answer given yesterday. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The figure I should have used was $560 million not $650 million.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:663;Page:11287] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the two notices of motion relating to the appointment of auditors for the Office of the Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to be taken together for the purpose of debate with the questions put separately at the conclusion of that debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.
Visitors — Australia—Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Visitors — Australia—Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:663;Page:11287] 
Wednesday 26 May 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland led by Mrs Jo-Ann Miller MP is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the committee be welcomed.
King Colin: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11353] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Mapp Wayne: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11350] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 The reason I am taking this initial call is that I am very conscious that the Education and Science Committee reported back to the House that it had received three submissions on the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill and also that it did not consider it necessary to make amendments to it. The issues have been well canvassed in the first and second reading and I understand that with the leave of the House we may be able to proceed directly to the third reading after the Committee of the whole House. I am sure the people of Wellington will be looking forward to our expediting the business through the Committee of the whole House and through the third reading. Thank you.
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11288] 
2. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Did he seek advice on any potential damage to Kiwibank’s brand and customer goodwill resulting from its possible privatisation before he told a meeting of business people on Friday that he might consider a partial privatisation of Kiwibank? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: No. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Government done any analysis of the cost of lost goodwill and damage to the business model of Kiwibank if it were privatised in light of the fact that 700000 New Zealanders signed up to Kiwibank on the basis that it is 100 percent New Zealand - owned; if so what has that analysis shown? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept that Kiwibank’s brand is built on its ownership by the New Zealand public and further that any suggestion that the bank may be privatised and inevitably sold to overseas owners is highly damaging to Kiwibank’s brand and value to the Government? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Kiwibank’s brand is built on a range of things including some of the matters that the member raised in his question. 
Chris Tremain 
: What measures has the Government been taking to support the growth of Kiwibank? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The Government has continued the expansion of Kiwibank by allowing Kiwibank to retain all of its earnings for future expansion and not requiring it to pay a dividend to the Government. Over the past 2 years I am advised this has allowed the bank to increase its equity base by over $100 million. As a result Kiwibank’s lending has expanded by over $4 billion during this period. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Was it fiscally responsible for the Minister of Finance to make casual comments about privatising Kiwibank or partially privatising Kiwibank without first checking to see what damage such comments might cause? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: All of the Minister’s comments are fiscally prudent. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Hon David Cunliffe that he should control himself. I have called Dr Russel Norman. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of the potential damage to Kiwibank will the Minister guarantee in this House today that the Government however much longer it remains in power—whether or not it is the Government after the next election—will make no moves to privatise Kiwibank? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The member is getting well ahead of himself. Government policy is that there will be no asset sales in this term of office and if the policy changes the Government will say so and campaign on the issue at the 2011 election.
King Colin: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11363] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure indeed to take a brief call during the third reading of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. Matters have been very well canvassed on the virtues of the observatory its history and things like that. 
In Wellington it is important that the Carter Observatory remains in that space of importance as an educational tool and as a tourist attraction. It would be a shame if after all the efforts and history of the observatory which has been running since 1938 it was to slowly but quietly slip under the radar screen because we would lose the piece of history it has contributed to Wellington and to New Zealand. 
I certainly encourage everyone to get on the cable car trolley up to the Wellington Botanic Gardens and become familiar with that piece of history known as the Carter Observatory. We should keep it there for education and for tourism. When the ladies are in Wellington they should think seriously about whether shopping would be better than a trip up to the Carter Observatory. 
Let us look where we have gone. Back nearly 100 years ago the observatory fulfilled a function. Science has moved on but science still remains very much a centrepiece of education. On that basis it gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11294] 
7. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 last year that he has put certain assets into a blind trust that is “so blind I haven’t a clue what’s in it”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can he confirm that that means he cannot have a conflict of interest regarding those assets because he does not know and cannot know whether he still owns those assets? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That would be my interpretation of it yes.
Goodhew Jo: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11370] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 The Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill is very good. It should not spend any more time in the House. I am looking forward to the vote. Therefore I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.