edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Barker Rick: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barker Rick: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12230. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The House is in Committee for the consideration of the debate on the performance in 2008-09 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises. The debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported by select committees. A total of 3 hours is allocated for the debate. The debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to the performance in the 2008-09 financial year and current operations. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises they wish to debate. The first entity I understand members wish to debate is the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12229. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What support is the Government providing for New Zealand’s hosting of the 2012 Triathlon ITU World Championships Series grand final? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government yesterday announced that $900000 has been allocated from the Major Events Development Fund to enable Triathlon New Zealand to host the 2012 Triathlon ITU World Championship Series grand final in October of 2012. There will of course be associated tests at this event in late 2011. Triathlon is the fastest-growing sport in New Zealand and local triathletes regularly do well in international events. Around 4500 triathletes and supporters are expected to come to New Zealand for the grand final. Triathlon New Zealand’s feasibility study estimates that the event will have an impact economically speaking of about $30.9 million on the New Zealand economy—and who knows who else may be motivated to give triathlon a go if it all looks pretty good. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What other major events has the Government— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member but I could not hear that question. A little more reasonableness with interjections please. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What other major events has the Government supported recently? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government has provided funding for a number of major events including the 2012 Volvo Ocean Race stopover the American Express Queenstown Winter Festival 2010 the 2010 New Zealand International Festival of the Arts and the 2013 UCI BMX World Championships. They provide a pipeline of events that will maintain New Zealand’s major events profile and enhance New Zealand’s reputation as a host capable of presenting events in a very substantial way. They will provide television coverage of our country and will contribute to the promotion of New Zealand and that will help others to see New Zealand as a visitor destination.
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12225. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will any legislation replacing the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 contain a clause preventing the Maori owners of sections of the foreshore and seabed held under customary title from charging or attempting to charge other New Zealanders for access to the beach? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Cabinet has not yet made final decisions on the content of the draft legislation. It is not for me to prejudge Cabinet deliberations and of course one must pay close attention to the detail of the legislation. What I can say is that public access in on and over the public foreshore and seabed will be guaranteed subject to authorised limits such as for public health and safety reasons. For example no one reasonably expects the public to have unfettered picnic rights at naval bases. 
David Garrett 
: How will the Maori ownership of sections of the foreshore and seabed differ from NgaiTahu’s ownership of the bed of Lake Ellesmere vested in the tribe under section 168 and following sections of the NgaiTahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 which has led to NgaiTahu charging eel fishers 8 percent of the value of their catch? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In the case of NgaiTahu that was a statutory vesting under the settlement Act of 1998. Customary title will be awarded under the replacement to the 2004 legislation and public access will be guaranteed.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12223. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What steps are being taken to make prisons safer and healthier for staff and prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that from 1 July next year all prisoners in New Zealand jails will be banned from smoking. About two-thirds of prisoners smoke and this exposes staff and prisoners to serious harm. Research into the air quality in prisons shows that staff and prisoners can be exposed to 12 times the level of second-hand smoke that is in the home of an indoor smoker. The policy will also mean that there is no need for prisoners to have lighters or matches. These have been used to set fire to bedding and to light balls of paper that have been thrown at corrections staff. Our hard-working officers deserve better than that and I fully support the introduction of the ban. With this photograph I show the House an example of just what can happen in a prisoner’s cell when there is access to lighters and matches. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How will the introduction of this policy be managed to ensure it is successfully implemented? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: There will be an extensive 12-month campaign prior to the introduction of the ban to encourage staff and prisoners to give up smoking. This campaign will be led by the Department of Corrections and supported by the Ministry of Health and the Quit Group. The campaign will include information education on smoking and support to quit smoking. Prisoners will also be offered an 8-week course of nicotine replacement patches. All youth units in New Zealand prisons have been successfully operating as smoke-free environments. Smoking is also banned in police station holding cells and secure mental health facilities. I have every confidence that the Department of Corrections will implement this policy successfully.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12219. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What recent announcements has he made about increased support for victims of crime? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 This morning the Minister of Police and I were pleased to announce the commencement on 1 July of a number of initiatives for victims of crime including on-the-spot safety orders for victims of domestic violence implementation of the $50 offender levy enhanced support services for victims of homicide and sexual violence and new information resources for victims of crime. 
Chester Borrows 
: What other steps will the Government take to improve support for victims of crime? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Officials will shortly report back to me on a range of options stemming from the public consultation document entitled  
A Focus on Victims of Crime: A Review of Victims’ Rights 
. The options are likely to focus on simplifying victims’ interaction with the criminal justice system and making the system more receptive to victims’ needs. The Government is committed to placing victims at the heart of the justice system. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has he made any announcements on his Government’s complete abandonment of victims and survivors of sexual crime as last week it was revealed that in 6 months only 178 people had been approved for accident compensation counselling and that figure had to be forced out under an Official Information Act request? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I can report that in addition to today’s announcements I am working on a number of initiatives to improve the interaction of sexual violence victims with the criminal justice system. Those initiatives include setting aside additional funding for sexual violence prevention programmes and funding for the survivor advocate role. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Will he appeal to the Minister for ACC to stop this ugly and offensive attack on victims of serious crime who are unable to get the help they need to heal in the aftermath of sexual abuse? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I talk to all of my colleagues including the Minister for ACC about initiatives that the Government is taking in this area. Members opposite might be interested to know that at 3.30 today with a bit of luck I will be having my quarterly meeting with the TOAH-NNEST—Te Ohaaki a Hine—National Network for Ending Sexual Violence—group which brings these concerns to me and continues a very constructive dialogue with the Government.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12215. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
:  
My question is to the Minister of Finance: does he stand by his statement to  
Morning Report 
 on 18 June when he said the $4.8 million appropriated—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes he is quite funny to look at but let us focus on the question Mr English. Can I start again Mr Speaker? There has been an unusual interchange on the other bench; members are a little unsettled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to start again.
Vote: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12285. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Tremain Chris: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tremain Chris: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12259. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The first point that I will raise is that I am surprised that in the middle of a vote we are having this debate. My understanding was that the Speaker’s ruling is that once we have commenced a vote we should continue with that vote. The second point I raise is that there is a longstanding tradition that this speaking number is based on proportionality agreed prior to the debate and that was canvassed. There was plenty of opportunity before the debate to come back and argue the position that members wanted more or fewer calls. We agreed before that National would have 18 and that Labour would have 12.
Quinn Paul: Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Quinn Paul: Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12963. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I was going to canvass a wide range of matters regarding the Legislation Bill but unfortunately the speech of the previous speaker Raymond Huo crept into my speaking time. I could have showered the House with little anecdotes about how exciting this legislation is. Instead because my time has now come I stand only to support this legislation in its first reading. Thank you.
Street Maryan: Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 When I was interrupted on the last day by the adjournment I was talking about the need to take care with this Legislation Bill and the need for the MPs on the Regulations Review Committee who will study it whom I do not imagine will be swamped with submitters to pay careful attention to Part 3 which addresses subordinate legislation disallowable instruments and incorporation of material by reference. Those are things that do not normally come in the direction of MPs on a day-to-day basis except those MPs who have had the privilege of working on that committee. 
The Regulations Review Committee scrutinises regulations that are made by the executive of the Government—that is Cabinet—and it is the only forum by which executive regulations are scrutinised. Normally of course legislation which might be a Government measure would be introduced to the House; we would have a debate on it it would be sent to a select committee and then the public would be invited to contribute submissions on it. Those views would be taken into account by members of Parliament and the legislation would very often be amended accordingly. 
But regulations are passed by Cabinet. They are given to the Governor-General for in this case his assent; an Order in Council is made a council of Cabinet Ministers meets with the Governor-General and the regulations are signed off. Those regulations can appear to be trivial but can have an enormous impact. 
The thing that is important is the level of scrutiny because something can be done that affects the lives of New Zealanders but is not exposed to the scrutiny of Parliament. The Regulations Review Committee and the ability to disallow regulations which is to contravene to—there is only one word for it—disallow or to stop those regulations from taking effect is the only mechanism that is available to the House in order to address what some MP might consider to be an unfairness or some kind of wrong against the citizens of this country. 
This legislation is a fundamental part of our democratic structure and make-up. In that respect it should be attended to with great care and great caution by the members of the select committee considering it. Thank you.
Bridges Simon: Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 John Armstrong one top political columnist and journalist in this country if not the foremost said of the Legislation Bill in the  
Weekend 
Herald 
 that it was one for “parliamentary geeks” and “possibly the most boring piece of legislation to come before the House in a long while”. Sadly that is probably true. Nevertheless this is even if dull a very worthy and significant bill in the sense that it does go fundamentally to the rule of law—that is law that rules us rather than others. I say that because if we go behind that I mean that we are presumed to know what the law is. It is a fundamental precept of criminal law that we should know what the law is—that is we should be able to find it get hold of it read it and understand it. 
That is not always the case and in fact quite often it has not been the case. Laws are in dusty old tomes in the libraries of the Auckland District Law Society the Wellington District Law Society but perhaps not in the Tauranga District Law Society— 
Amy Adams 
: Do you have a district law society? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well there are not many books there so it is not a particularly good library. 
This bill modernises and improves the law relating to the publication availability reprinting revision and official versions of legislation so whilst the bill may be as John Armstrong says one of the most boring pieces of legislation before the House it nevertheless is a significant one that furthers the rule of law in our country.
Graham Kennedy: Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The stated purpose of the Legislation Bill as I understand it is to modernise and improve the law relating to legislation. It provides greater powers to make available reprint and correct legislation. It will also modernise the legal framework for subordinate legislation and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. It will create a system for revising and updating old legislation to make it easier to change archaic language and to make it more accessible. 
The revision system will come under the direction of the Attorney-General. Specifically it will allow revision to clarify the purpose of legislation. It will allow new overviews purpose sanctions and new titles to be added; Acts to be divided and combined; updates to monetary amounts; and amendments to be made to other legislation affected by revision. The revised legislation has to be in the form of a bill and contain explanation of why it is being revised. The revision needs to be certified by the president of the Law Commission the Solicitor-General a retired High Court judge nominated by the Attorney-General and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel. Changes to how the law is implemented are allowed only where it is expressly provided for in the revision bill. 
The Legislation Bill implements the majority of the legislative recommendations made by the Law Commission in its review in this area. A key recommendation that it does not implement is a streamlined parliamentary process to approve technical changes to legislation. 
The aim of the bill which is to modernise and improve legislation is a laudable one. Ensuring that legislation is accessible to the public is a fundamental aspect of democracy. The majority of these changes are technical and should be supported. The problematic part of the bill is perhaps the revision programme that will allow significant changes to the law and how it is to be applied without parliamentary oversight. This programme will be under the direction of the Attorney-General and although the bills will need to be signed off by a semi-independent panel that is not the same as having parliamentary democratic oversight. 
The Greens support the bill’s referral to the Regulations Review Committee but we may support it no further unless there is a process set up that will allow parliamentary oversight of the revisions bills. We could think for example potentially of the Regulations Review Committee or some other dedicated body to undertake the task. But parliamentary oversight of some kind we believe is still needed and we look forward to a committee discussion on the subject.
Vote: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This debate has concluded. I understand that some parties wish to vote against the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act Repeal Bill so it is my intention to put that as one question and we will take the other three bills as one question. 
Utilities Access Bill Infrastructure (Amendments Relating to Utilities Access) Bill and New Zealand Railways Corporation Amendment Bill read a third time.
Peachey Allan: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peachey Allan: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12959. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to draw to a close the debate of what was formerly the Infrastructure Bill. It is very very important legislation and we need to get it passed through this House so that the country can get on with lifting its national prosperity. 
This is a debating chamber and I want to address some of the issues raised by Opposition members. I was somewhat impressed with the young Green member Gareth Hughes when he spoke. He may not be so impressed when he looks at his  
Hansard  
in the morning but it seems to me that his speech was a ringing indictment of 9 years of failed Labour Government and I give the Green member credit for recognising that. He did not express it quite that way but I am sure that in the years to come when people look at his  
Hansard 
 they will see it for exactly what it was—a criticism of 9 years of failed Labour Government. 
It is also interesting to hear three Labour list members talking about housing. We know that Labour has lost it on housing; the people of New Zealand gave up on Labour a long time ago. Working people no longer see Labour as being their natural party of representation or as having any sorts of answers at all to the issues that New Zealand faces. It was interesting to listen to list member Miss Sepuloni trying to identify with Paula Bennett country—the Henderson Valley and Waitakere. Well I have a message for that member: “Forget it.” The Henderson Valley like other areas of Waitakere is Paula Bennett territory and will remain Paula Bennett territory for one very simple reason: the people there have stopped listening to Labour just as they stopped listening to Labour in Glen Innes which is part of my constituency of Tamaki. They no longer listen because they recognise that Labour no longer has solutions to their problems and that will be demonstrated very very clearly at the general election next year when Miss Bennett will clearly establish maintain and develop the dominance that she has out there in the west. It is great credit to her and a great credit to this Government. 
The development of infrastructure is essential to New Zealand if we are to lift our national productivity and improve and expand on our future economic growth and long-term prosperity. When we listen to Labour members and Green members we hear that they clearly have absolutely no interest at all in the future prosperity of New Zealand. They choose instead to cling to a few old-fashioned ideas. They are in disarray in Opposition just as they were in disarray in Government. The four bills that now make up this infrastructure legislation are essential for the future of New Zealand. Let us stop the talk let us get down to business and let us get this legislation passed so that New Zealand can move forward.
Bennett David: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12948. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That speech from Labour was a load of rubbish. It was from one of the members who rate themselves so highly Darren Hughes. He should spend more time getting his facts right than his appearance right and then he might be in order. He said that Labour was “in order and ready to go”—“in order and ready to go”. That sums up the Labour Government when it came to transport. It did not actually fund transport. It had all of these plans it said it was going to build these projects but it never allocated any money for them and it never built them. So the member was quite right when he said projects were “in order and ready to go” because they were not funded. It was just a pie-in-the-sky promise that that member and his party made. 
I remember the first term that I was here. We went to Long Swamp that bit of road from Auckland to Hamilton that major bit of construction. Annette King was there cutting the ribbon. She was cutting the ribbon and saying a great Labour Government had built that road. But it was actually started under the previous National Government in 1999. Those projects were started under National. They were completed by the previous Government but they were started by us. That member is completely incorrect in the way that he represented the facts of the past generation of infrastructure build in this country. 
If members look at the future of infrastructure they will see that the State highway network will get $10.7 billion in the next 10 years from this Government—$10.7 billion from this Government. The national grid will get $3.3 billion over the next 5 years—$3.3 billion over the next 5 years. Urban broadband will get another $1.5 billion over the next 10 years. New schools and buildings will be allocated $2.7 billion over the next 5 years. We are spending a total of $7.5 billion over 5 years. Labour members are completely incorrect when they say that we are not investing in infrastructure. We have a plan and we have delivered on a plan. It is not “in order and ready to go”; it is hitting the road now. It is being delivered. The money has been allocated and people are seeing the delivery of those services. As David Carter said there is the southern motorway in that great city of Christchurch. We see the great news about what is happening in Tauranga. We see the Waikato Expressway. We see the completion of the ring route in Auckland. We see a huge investment in rail that was not done by the previous Government which pretended it was a supporter of rail. But when it actually had the chance it did not do anything for rail. Now it is up to us to build a rail network in Auckland 
Labour is a party “in order and ready to go”—contrary to all public opinion and reports in the last week. But those members are all rhetoric. They do not deliver. This legislation is part of our Government delivering infrastructure for this country. We support it being passed through the House.
Carter David: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12943. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture)  
on behalf of the Leader of the House 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral Legislation Committee consider the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 12 November 2010 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). 
Motion agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tremain Chris: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12936. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 The only remarks about the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill in the commentary state that it provides a meaning of the term “funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes” for the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. It then goes on to state—very quietly I might add—“Following the Controller and Auditor-General’s 2006 report on his inquiry into advertising expenditure incurred by the Parliamentary Service in the 3 months before the 2005 General Election …”. It just quietly mentions that an inquiry was done into election spending in 2005. It would be remiss of me if I did not remind the public of how we got into that position and a little bit about that review. 
Members may recall a piece of marketing literature distributed during the 3-month regulated period prior to the 2005 election which had the parliamentary crest attached to it and was therefore paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer. What was written on it went something like this: “ ‘My Commitments to You’ 1. No interest on student loans for New Zealand based graduates 2. 7500 extra cataract operations and 10000 extra major joint operations in the next term 3. Final date for lodging historical Treaty claims by 1 September 2008 and commit to finish all settlements by 2020 4. Increase maximum rates rebate to $500 and increase income eligibility thresholds 5. $1000 kick start for everyone joining KiwiSaver … 6. 5000 extra Modern Apprentices 7. 250 extra community police on the streets”. That was the Labour pledge card paid for by the Kiwi taxpayer prior to the 2005 election. 
The cost of that promotion was $446000; an additional investment of some $7500 per electorate—$7500 per electorate. It was part of a wider taxpayer-funded campaign in the 3-month period prior to the 2005 general election of $800000 which approximated to an additional spend of $13000 per electorate. I was told time and time again as a new candidate in that election that $20000 was the maximum spend in an electorate. The pledge card went way beyond that. 
The pledge card was blatant electioneering designed to solicit votes from Kiwis by promising to do a range of things in the next term of Government. Let us take the 7500 extra cataract operations in the next term. That was clearly a promotion designed to benefit that party in the election campaign of 2005. It was pure and simple electioneering. It broke the rules it leveraged taxpayer money to provide an unfair advantage and it resulted in legislation being passed following the election to retrospectively approve the spend. It was indeed one of the very low points of the last term of Government. I am proud that this bill seeks to prevent that type of rort from happening again. This is a good thing this is a very good thing and I recommend this bill to the House.
English Bill: Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
English Bill: Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12931. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12931. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill read a third time.Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill read a second time.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12892. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree that but for the strategic asset test introduced by Labour any overseas purchaser of a New Zealand business not including sensitive land only has to have money have run a business show “good character” and not be an ineligible individual under the Immigration Act 1987? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No this test has no bearing on those purchasers as it applies only to investments in sensitive land. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he agree that infrastructure businesses with monopoly characteristics just about always turn a profit and are strategically important to the functioning of the wider economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That may be the case but I suggest that the member review the legislation which I think he may have been in charge of before because the strategic asset test applies to sensitive land not to businesses. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree that it is important that the Government have discretion to decline the sale of infrastructure assets to overseas owners? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has to apply the law as this Parliament has passed it and as reinforced by regulation. Again I recommend that the member review that law because I am not sure that he is representing it correctly. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the conflicting messages that we are getting from the Minister as to loosening the foreign investment rules and from the Prime Minister about tightening them could the Minister please tell the House whether he intends to loosen foreign investment rules or tighten them? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What we have said publicly is that we have been reviewing them with the intent of ensuring that New Zealanders are able to feel that those things they think are important about New Zealand are on the one hand protected; but on the other hand that we accept the reality that in order to have jobs and incomes in New Zealand we need to have foreign investment.
English Bill: Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
English Bill: Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12893. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12892. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What new measures has the Government introduced to improve the efficiency of processing the approximately 50000 consents per year under the Resource Management Act 1991? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government’s new regulations to provide an incentive for councils to process consents in a timely way took effect. In the same way that ratepayers face financial penalties for late rate payments councils now face a financial penalty for the late processing of resource consents. The penalty is a 1 percent discount to the consent applicant for each day over the 20 - working day statutory requirement up to a maximum of 50 percent. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What data has the Minister received indicating deterioration in the performance of councils in processing resource consents? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Over the term of the previous Government non-compliance with statutory time frames grew from 18 percent to 31 percent and over the same period the number of councils granting themselves extensions grew from 3 percent in 1999 to 28 percent in 2008. This means that 59 percent of consents or 29000 consents in 2008 were outside the 20-day statutory requirement. Last year’s law changes limited the circumstances in which those extensions could be granted and these provisions provide a financial incentive for efficiency. This is about reducing red tape so that businesses can get on and create jobs and economic activity to help the recovery.
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12891. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Will he ask the Pork Industry Board if they were aware that Thompson and Clark Investigations was collecting information for them on animal rights campaigner Rochelle Rees by means of a tracking device planted under her car; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I have. 
Keith Locke 
: Could the Minister explain what the answer was and will he investigate the matter further now that the Pork Industry Board has admitted receiving information from Thompson and Clark Investigations on domestic animal rights activists in an email sent today given that some of that information may have come from Thompson and Clark Investigations’ proven use of a covert tracking device against an animal rights activist? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have yet to receive a response to my letter to the Pork Industry Board. But I think that three things are worth remembering: firstly this was a  
Sunday Star-Times  
article; secondly some allegations were made that were not substantiated in that article; and thirdly—this is important—the author of the article was that well-known fair-minded independent journalist known as Nicky Hager. 
Keith Locke 
: Does he think it is unusual that the Pork Industry Board would reply to me before replying to the Minister on this matter and does he not think it would be quite wrong for the Pork Industry Board to benefit from such unethical covert surveillance particularly given that even the police cannot use a tracking device without a very good reason and a judge’s warrant? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Nothing that the Pork Industry Board does surprises me. I certainly think that the board would be far better to focus on meeting the genuine concerns out there in relation to the consumption of pork products by consumers rather than engaging in this sort of tactic. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the time that it is taking to produce the new pig welfare code—a code that he promised would be delivered last year; if not when will he show some leadership and step in to resolve the pork industry issues? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am disappointed in the time that it has taken to deliver the code. As was mentioned in the House last week we now expect the draft code to be finalised over the next few weeks. It is then a matter of undertaking a peer review before the draft code is presented to me but I gave my commitment to the House that I will process it as quickly as possible. It is worth noting that one of the reasons that it has been delayed is the threat of legal action from the Pork Industry Board.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12891. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting schools to raise student achievement? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced a major new approach to lifting achievement for all students. Firstly experts with proven ability in lifting student achievement will be appointed to work closely with schools and build strong relationships. Secondly the $36 million announced for national standards in Budget 2009 will go towards new intervention programmes being developed for students who need extra support in reading writing and maths over and above good classroom teaching. Lastly I have asked the ministry to redesign its professional development for principals and teachers to make it much more targeted. 
Allan Peachey 
: What feedback has the Minister received on the new focus on lifting student achievement? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I received the following email this morning: “Many principals have felt that the professional development options available to schools have been too fragmented and piecemeal so a revision of the delivery strategy is welcome. I believe that this is in fact the strategy that will change student achievement.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister just quoted from a document. I ask that that be tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to rely on the honourable Minister’s word. Was she quoting from an official document? She says she was not and I have to leave it at that.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Singapore—Minister of Community Development Youth and Sport 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Singapore—Minister of Community Development Youth and Sport 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Minister of Community Development Youth and Sport of the Parliament of Singapore is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Hon Dr Vivian Balakrishnan accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Esme Irene Tombleson QSO CBE 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Esme Irene Tombleson QSO CBE 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 30 July 2010 of Esme Irene Tombleson QSO CBE who represented the electorate of Gisborne from 1960 to 1972. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for her memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Hughes Darren: Members — Speaker—Granting of the Right Honourable Title 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: Members — Speaker—Granting of the Right Honourable Title 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Opposition also associates itself with the kind and generous remarks of the Hon Gerry Brownlee in respect of this recognition being given to the service that you give Mr Speaker not only to the House but to the public and the country. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I humbly thank all honourable members for that. I feel very humble about it.
Brownlee Gerry: Members — Speaker—Granting of the Right Honourable Title 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Members — Speaker—Granting of the Right Honourable Title 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I wonder whether as Leader of the House I might offer you on behalf of the House our best wishes and congratulations on the occasion of your receiving the title of Right Honourable from the Palace. I think that this recognises the importance of the role that you occupy and further adds to the dignity that you have brought to that role—our congratulations Mr Speaker.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12931. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12893. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2010/11) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Visitors — Singapore—Minister of Community Development Youth and Sport 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Visitors — Singapore—Minister of Community Development Youth and Sport 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Visitors 
Singapore—Minister of Community Development Youth and Sport 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Minister of Community Development Youth and Sport of the Parliament of Singapore is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Hon Dr Vivian Balakrishnan accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Obituaries — Esme Irene Tombleson QSO CBE 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Obituaries — Esme Irene Tombleson QSO CBE 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Obituaries 
Esme Irene Tombleson QSO CBE 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 30 July 2010 of Esme Irene Tombleson QSO CBE who represented the electorate of Gisborne from 1960 to 1972. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for her memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Members — Speaker—Granting of the Right Honourable Title 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Members — Speaker—Granting of the Right Honourable Title 
[Sitting date: 03 August 2010. Volume:665;Page:12879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 3 August 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Members 
Speaker—Granting of the Right Honourable Title 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I wonder whether as Leader of the House I might offer you on behalf of the House our best wishes and congratulations on the occasion of your receiving the title of Right Honourable from the Palace. I think that this recognises the importance of the role that you occupy and further adds to the dignity that you have brought to that role—our congratulations Mr Speaker. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Opposition also associates itself with the kind and generous remarks of the Hon Gerry Brownlee in respect of this recognition being given to the service that you give Mr Speaker not only to the House but to the public and the country. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I humbly thank all honourable members for that. I feel very humble about it.