edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:666;Page:13776] 
10. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he believe that New Zealanders who have concerns about overseas ownership of New Zealand land are racist? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Prime Minister believe it was wise for the Minister for Land Information Maurice Williamson to say that opponents of land sales to foreigners are racist? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I believe that the Minister was using humour. That humour may well have backfired and I think that is the way it should be considered. 
Hon David Parker 
: Are the Japanese the Americans the Canadians the Chinese and the Australians who all have restrictions on the sale of their land to foreigners racist? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have responsibility for those countries. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Land Information’s ability to make a wise decision on the Crafar farm purchases by overseas interests when the Minister thinks that opposition to overseas land sales is in large part racist? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am confident that the Minister in due course will be presented with a recommendation from the Overseas Investment Office one way or the other. No one knows what will be in that recommendation. He is an intelligent Minister and I believe that he will follow that recommendation through and consider all the merits of the case.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:666;Page:13776] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I should have done this at the end of my question No. 8. I seek leave to table the letter from two individuals whom I had not heard of before—David Bishop and Allan Day—to the Minister of Education that she received by email yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. 
Hon Member 
: Have you got permission? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess the onus is on the member seeking to table the document. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection.
Bridges Simon: Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13829] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I would have and I almost have some sympathy for David Garrett and his Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill except for this inconvenient truth—and no I am not talking about Al Gore’s climate change movie—that good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. In saying that or in trying to argue something along those lines David Garrett sounds a little bit like Chicken Licken who thought that the sky was going to fall in. We all know the story of Chicken Licken. An acorn fell on his head—not a lamington I say to Mr Boscawen—and ultimately after going off scaremongering to Goosey Loosey and Henny Penny and the like he was eaten by Foxy Loxy. So I am not sure if there is a moral in that for Mr Garrett but that is a bit what this is like. The truth of the matter is that good parents are not being criminalised for a light smack; the sky has not fallen. 
The Government is not at all complacent in this area. We took the referendum that this country had very seriously. There were reviews and reports by people such as Peter Hughes the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development; Howard Broad the Commissioner of Police; and Nigel Latta who is very well known to New Zealanders. They looked through the policies and the procedures in this area and researched extensively. What they found in the end is exactly as I have said: good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. The law is working and they reinforced that view. We also have in this country a situation where the Government has invited police to report on a 6-monthly or an annual basis for the next 3 years on the operation of the law in this area. They will be doing that. But I come back to what they are finding and what the reports and reviews have found: good parents are not being criminalised. If we were to find that and if the sky was to fall—and I do not think that it will—this Government is open to looking at things. But we believe that the law is working as intended. We want to give parents the assurance that a National-led Government will continue to monitor the way the law is being implemented but I say to Mr Garrett that the truth is that good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. I think that will long continue.
Hide Rodney: Motions — Black Ferns—Women’s Rugby World Cup Victory 
Hide Rodney: Motions — Black Ferns—Women’s Rugby World Cup Victory 
[Volume:666;Page:13763] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party rises with the rest of New Zealand to congratulate the Black Ferns. Like the rest of New Zealand and this Parliament the ACT Party supports all sportspeople men and women— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I know that it is confusing for Darren Hughes but we support all sportspeople men and women particularly our world champions who show what New Zealanders are capable of.
Hipkins Chris: Motions — Black Ferns—Women’s Rugby World Cup Victory 
Hipkins Chris: Motions — Black Ferns—Women’s Rugby World Cup Victory 
[Volume:666;Page:13762] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 On behalf of the Opposition may I join with the Government—[ 
Interruption 
]— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has barely uttered a word. That level of interjection is totally unacceptable. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: On behalf of the Opposition may I join with the Government in extending our congratulations to the Black Ferns on their fourth consecutive victory at the International Rugby Board’s Women’s Rugby World Cup. The Black Ferns had some emphatic victories during this year’s competition setting a clear path to the finals with huge wins over South Africa Australia and Wales in the pool matches and a convincing victory over France in the semi-finals. But last Sunday the Black Ferns once again did all New Zealanders proud with their 13-10 victory over England in the grand final. 
All Kiwis love to see our teams win on an international stage. As expected news of the Black Ferns’ victory quickly hit the headlines in New Zealand and we all rejoiced in it. I do lament however the tendency of our broadcast media to give greater prominence to men’s sport in their schedules than that of their women counterparts. Surely a world champion rugby team is worthy of the same attention regardless of whether men or women took to the field. 
Achieving in sport strengthens our national pride and last Sunday the Black Ferns showed once again that the New Zealand rugby community is the best in the world. But we should never forget the path that led that team there. Once upon a time each of the members of that team would have been perfecting their skills on community sports fields either as children or as young adults. They may well have been coached by mums and dads in local communities or teachers from their local schools. Their success reminds us all that we need to recognise that sporting success often begins at the grassroots level and we should acknowledge that grassroots sports and high performance sports complement each other. 
Once again on behalf of the Opposition I say how proud we are of the Black Ferns and congratulate them wholeheartedly on their win.
Key John: Motions — Black Ferns—Women’s Rugby World Cup Victory 
Key John: Motions — Black Ferns—Women’s Rugby World Cup Victory 
[Volume:666;Page:13762] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice relating to the Black Ferns’ world cup victory. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That this House congratulate the Black Ferns on their outstanding result in winning the 2010 Women’s Rugby World Cup.  
On Monday morning the Black Ferns won an unprecedented fourth consecutive Women’s Rugby World Cup title. In the final at Twickenham they beat England 13-10 despite being down to 13 players for a time. The final was a highly physical game. The Black Ferns showed the immense pride they feel in wearing the silver fern by responding to England’s challenge in emphatic fashion. Coach Brian Evans captain Melissa Ruscoe and the whole team can take great pride in their win. I am sure that all New Zealanders will join me saying how proud we are of them. 
It was a tremendous team effort but I make special note of Otago winger Carla Hohepa who scored New Zealand’s only try in the final. Carla finished as the tournament’s joint top scorer and was later named the International Rugby Board’s women’s personality of the year for 2010. 
Rugby is our national game and one of our most popular sports. It gives us an opportunity to celebrate passion skill dedication teamwork and success—all attributes demonstrated so well by the Black Ferns. They are great ambassadors for New Zealand. They have shown the world just how strong rugby is here and what New Zealanders can achieve when they set their minds to it. The Black Ferns are also great role models for us all. I am sure their achievements will inspire and motivate future generations of rugby players in New Zealand. 
The New Zealand Government and the people of New Zealand are extremely proud of the Black Ferns. We thank them for their outstanding performance at the Women’s Rugby World Cup and we look forward to following their continued success in the years ahead.
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — South Canterbury Finance—Receivership and Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme 
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — South Canterbury Finance—Receivership and Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme 
[Volume:666;Page:13760] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Many questions can be asked about the circumstances that led to South Canterbury Finance going into voluntary receivership—the insolvency that the Minister of Finance referred to in his statement—and they will require answers over the next little while. But there comes a time in events like this where essentially a dose of pragmatism has to prevail. 
The parallel that I want to draw to the House’s attention because it was similar in magnitude was the decision that the previous Labour Government faced over the future of Air New Zealand. A number of questions could have been asked at that time about whether the bail-out was appropriate—[ 
Interruption 
]—and about the circumstances that gave rise to it but the fundamental point was—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask the member to be patient. The fundamental point was there was no credible alternative at that time to the action taken in the broader national interest. I think that is the parallel that needs to be applied in this particular case. The consequences of allowing South Canterbury Finance to fall over without the guarantee being exercised—without providing the assistance that is being made available—would have been far more catastrophic and significant than the cost of enabling the company to continue trading. 
So I think the decision is the correct one on those grounds alone. What comes out in the wash of time about the circumstances that gave rise to the commercial decisions that led to the company being placed in the position that it was are for the future to reveal and appropriate action should follow accordingly. But it was appropriate in this instance based on the parallel of previous circumstances for the Government to act in the way that it did and for it to act as prudently as it did.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Ministerial Statements — South Canterbury Finance—Receivership and Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Ministerial Statements — South Canterbury Finance—Receivership and Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme 
[Volume:666;Page:13760] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
Kia ora tatau e te Whare. Kua tu ake hei waha korero mo te Pati Maori i tenei ahiahi. 
[ 
Greetings to us the House. I rise as spokesperson for the Maori Party this afternoon. 
] 
When talking about South Canterbury Finance the Maori Party has been trying to put the payout into some sort of context. As other speakers have alluded to just over a week ago around 30000 investors received a taxpayer handout to the effect of $1.6 billion to tide them over after the collapse of Mr and Mrs Allan Hubbard’s finance company South Canterbury Finance. 
Maori have been comparing this unexpected bonus for this one group of investors with the irony of the fiscal envelope offered 15 years ago as part of the grand plan to settle Treaty claims. The fiscal envelope limited the Crown to a total of $1 billion for the settlement of all claims over a period of 10 years. The $1 billion cap to settle all claims for the Maori population which at the last census totalled 643977 people compares miserably with the $1.6 billion payable by the Crown to settle a few unhappy investors. Maori ask why when “Ma” and “Pa” Hubbard go to the cupboard and find nothing there they will suddenly be bailed out by the Crown yet when Maori go to the larder it is so much harder and the best they will end up with is approximately 2 percent of the real value of their claims. 
Professor Margaret Mutu worked out a formula using the 1995 deal in which a Pakeha landowner Allan Titford received $3.25 million in compensation for the 94 acres of far north farmland that was taken off him and returned to Maori. Based on that formula she said that the settlement paid out to date would equal 0.06 percent of what the claims were actually worth. Ngai Tahu’s $170 million was 0.01 percent of the $1192 billion that they would have received under Professor Mutu’s formula and Tainui’s $170 million equated to 0.4 percent. 
We have no argument with the investors. On the contrary we think the South Canterbury Finance experience provides a benchmark from which to assess the financial compensation due to Maori from Treaty settlements. Let us put it all in context: just over $1 billion to Maori of whom there are just over 650000; $1.6 billion to 30000 investors; and $2 billion to Christchurch and the Canterbury area which they will definitely need. The figures here are seriously out of kilter. Tena tatou.
Delahunty Catherine: Motions — Black Ferns—Women’s Rugby World Cup Victory 
Delahunty Catherine: Motions — Black Ferns—Women’s Rugby World Cup Victory 
[Volume:666;Page:13763] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. The Green Party is delighted to join our parliamentary colleagues in congratulating the Black Ferns on their extraordinary fourth successive Women’s Rugby World Cup win. We congratulate all the New Zealand players; the captain Melissa Ruscoe; the coach Brian Evans; and the team staff. Winning the world cup is a fantastic achievement and winning it four times in a row is simply outstanding. We congratulate also Carla Hohepa who was standout player of the tournament and on Monday was named the International Rugby Board’s women’s personality of the year. 
Of course this is not the first time Parliament has moved to congratulate a Kiwi sports team for its awesome achievement on the world stage this year. I am especially delighted today that we are congratulating a women’s team. I hope that the extraordinary success of the Black Ferns will help to promote and encourage women’s rugby and women’s sport in general in Aotearoa New Zealand. 
One thing that makes the Black Ferns’ win so impressive is the limited resources with which they have been able to achieve it. These world champions also hold down full-time jobs and balance their high performance sporting lives with other professional commitments. Their opportunities to practise their skill through club rugby and provincial competition are limited and they must fund-raise intensively. Not long ago I recall buying a raffle ticket to support our world champion Black Ferns. As we look towards 2016 when both women’s and men’s Rugby Sevens will become an Olympic sport I hope that increased gender equality in the sport greater opportunities for competition and more exciting success stories like this one will help to secure ongoing support recognition and funding for women’s rugby here in Aotearoa. 
This team is well named. The mamaku or black tree fern is the tallest and fastest growing fern in Aotearoa and it unfurls to produce a stunning umbrella canopy of fronds. I again congratulate the Black Ferns and everyone who supports them on their stunning achievements. I tell them to enjoy their well-deserved celebration. No reira kia ora wahine toa. Kia kaha. Kia ora koutou katoa.
Reports — Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Financial Stability Report May 2010—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee; Sittings of the House 
Reports — Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Financial Stability Report May 2010—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee; Sittings of the House 
[Volume:666;Page:13831] 
Reports 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Financial Stability Report May 2010—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee 
Debate resumed from 4 August. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Given that the House has made such excellent progress this evening I seek leave for the House to rise now for the end of the day. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: All members have heard the seeking of leave for the House to rise. Is there any objection? There being none the House stands adjourned. No reira tena koutou tena koutou. Po marie.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:666;Page:13802] 
Sittings of the House 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise for dinner a little bit early to allow my colleague to have a good run at her speech bearing in mind that there are only about 3 minutes until the dinner break. I seek the leave of the House for that to happen. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Goodhew Jo: Reports — Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Financial Stability Report May 2010—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee; Sittings of the House 
Goodhew Jo: Reports — Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Financial Stability Report May 2010—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee; Sittings of the House 
[Volume:666;Page:13831] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Given that the House has made such excellent progress this evening I seek leave for the House to rise now for the end of the day. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: All members have heard the seeking of leave for the House to rise. Is there any objection? There being none the House stands adjourned. No reira tena koutou tena koutou. Po marie.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13655] 
3. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: What is the timeline for submissions on the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 The timeline for submissions on the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill is a matter that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has yet to decide. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Has the committee resolved to hear any submissions on this bill to raise the driving age which was introduced under the previous Labour Government in 2007 before the bill is due to be reported back on Christmas Eve? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The committee has yet to determine any time frame for submissions.
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Beaumont Carol: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13654] 
12. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What situations would be defined as unreasonably withholding consent by an employer under her proposed changes to workers having access to their union in the workplace? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: The draft of the bill does not actually specify those situations. The reason is that the Employment Relations Act 2000 provides guidance as to what is reasonable as stipulated particularly in section 21 of the Act which deals with conditions relating to access to workplaces. There is also a body of case law on these issues which provides further guidance to parties about what might be considered to be unreasonable access. 
Carol Beaumont 
: How much consideration did she give to her department’s advice that the current law is working before proposing to make changes? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There are two points here. The first point is that the Government is fulfilling a campaign commitment to New Zealanders and it is worth reminding the member who asked the question that therefore 45 percent of New Zealanders voted for this policy. Secondly the Minister has had reports of union representatives stopping customers from coming into the workplace disrupting customers in the workplace and tying up workers for hours of productive time. That led to the conclusion that it was absolutely imperative to fulfil our campaign commitments. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Does she stand by her statement in regard to restricting the right of employees to invite union representatives into the workplace: “The benefits while symbolically significant are likely to be marginal in practice”; if so why is she pushing this policy? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There are two reasons. One reason is that we are fulfilling our commitments to the New Zealanders who voted for us on this issue amongst other issues. The second reason is that 10 cases over the past 10 years have gone to the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court—and in one instance the case proceeded to the Court of Appeal—on precisely this issue. 
Carol Beaumont 
: How will her Government’s plans to restrict employees from organising in unions help to reduce the wage gap with Australia by 2025? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Employees are not restricted from joining unions and frankly this issue has no relevance to closing that gap. In fact it will make workplaces more productive and more efficient.
Wong Pansy: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13670] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13666] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 The Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill is a step towards giving confidence to both national and international businesses that any personal information held in New Zealand will be protected. The bill amends the Privacy Act 1993. The intention of this bill is to prevent any information coming to New Zealand from being diverted unlawfully to any other part of the world. In today’s fast-moving world where technology has made it possible for information to travel at phenomenal speed this Government needs to assure businesses in New Zealand that any personal information between themselves and their international partners will be protected with the full force of the law. 
The National Government recognised that in today’s competitive world we need tools and protection to guarantee to clients that their interests are protected when they are dealing with New Zealand businesses. These types of assurances can provide confidence to overseas clients dealing with New Zealand businesses. The amendments to the Privacy Act will increase competitive advantage for our trade between New Zealand and the European Union in particular and other trade partners. 
The Privacy Commissioner and the Law Commission agreed to these amendments. The bill authorises the Privacy Commissioner to prohibit the transfer of personal information outside New Zealand where the information is being routed through New Zealand to avoid the privacy law of originating countries. Clauses in the bill authorise the Privacy Commissioner to prohibit the transfer of personal information from New Zealand to another State if the commissioner is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the information will not be subject to comparable safeguards to the Privacy Act or and would circumvent the law of the State where the information originated. This bill seeks to enhance New Zealand’s opportunity as a trading nation. 
It is good to be part of this National Government which has recognised the need for this bill which seeks to prevent the malicious acquisition of private information and the use of that information against those who would be identified. This bill ensures that New Zealand’s privacy law meets the expectations of our trading partners by assuring that their privacy will be protected. It will also enable people overseas who are not citizens of New Zealand to access their personal information which was previously not possible. It is my pleasure to endorse this bill which enhances the opportunities for New Zealand businesses.
Bridges Simon: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13664] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 At its broadest the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill shows a Government that takes privacy seriously and that takes international frameworks and cooperation very seriously. I agree with Charles Chauvel—in what was actually a pretty negative petty speech basically—that this bill is pro-business and does a good job there. But I really want to say this bill gives us an opportunity to talk a little in the remaining time that we have about privacy and the issues that we confront with regard to it. 
I think that privacy is a fascinating area and one that this Parliament will have to grapple with even more in years to come. It seems to me that in privacy issues there is always a balance to be struck between freedom of information and expression on the one hand and legitimate privacy and dignity issues on the other hand. We see that countries all around the world are grappling with that. Traditionally freedom of information has come out on top but I think that that is changing as we see technology grow with Facebook and with all those sorts of things. Different countries certainly take different approaches. The Law Commission has put out—as it tends to—a very long and learned paper on privacy I think in 2009. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer says in that paper these are big issues and they are hard. He said “There are difficulties about defining privacy and balancing it against other interests. Rapid advantages in technology also mean that the landscape is constantly changing. Because technology is making it easy to invade people’s privacy the issues raised … are of importance to everyone.” 
This is a very good bill. As I say it shows that the Government takes privacy international agreements and business seriously. I doubt very much whether this will be the last time that we have to seriously debate and negotiate these sorts of issues but it is good to stand in favour of legitimate privacy interests in my call to the House on this bill.
Tremain Chris: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13659] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill to be set down for its third reading forthwith without amendment or debate following its second reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: So in essence there will be no Committee stage and no debate or amendment on the third reading. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13651] 
8. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: Does he stand by his statement that he is “eager to continue making it easier for businesses and consumers to deal confidently in a fair market place” at the Member Forum for Electricity and Gas Complaints Commissioner Scheme DVD launch yesterday? 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How does the Minister think that the Electricity Industry Bill which he praised in his speech yesterday will make it “easier for businesses and consumers to deal confidently in a fair marketplace” when under that bill his Government will remove consumer and renewable energy representatives from their current positions on industry regulatory bodies? 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: When I attended the launch yesterday I was impressed by the commissioners and staff of the gas and electricity complaints tribunal. I doubt whether the changes made in the Electricity Industry Bill which has recently passed through Parliament will in any way negate from the benefit of that tribunal. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How does he think that the Electricity Industry Bill will make it “easier for businesses and consumers to deal confidently in a fair market place” when our largest generator Meridian Energy would not say yesterday how much prices would rise by when the freeze ends in October and when energy consultant Bryan Leyland says the system makes consumers pay four times as much per year without great benefit? 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Let me repeat that having spoken with the chief commissioner of the complaints tribunal yesterday I have no doubt whatsoever that the tribunal is well resourced has capable staff and will do a very good job.
Hipkins Chris: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13639] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call in the final reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. I want to respond initially to some of the comments Rahui Katene made. I can say only that I hope the Minister of Police was not listening to the description of her son’s car because it could end up being crushed given the description she just gave. 
David Bennett 
: You’re allowed a bit of sound mate. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I can just see David Bennett driving down the streets of Hamilton with his boom box on the back of his car. I want to— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: It’s compulsory with your warrant of fitness. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Apparently it is compulsory in Hamilton. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Along with the dice. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Along with the fluffy dice that is right. 
David Bennett 
: Only one though. You are not allowed two. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Only one? That is a very revealing comment. I want to acknowledge once again the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs Heather Roy. I am glad she took a call in this final reading because it is nice to hear somebody on the Government side speak with some knowledge about what the bill actually is and what it does. I was pretty disappointed during the Committee stage that not a single Government member spoke after Mr Boscawen spoke first in the Committee stage. Not a single Government member spoke. Government members did not respond to any of the questions or issues raised by the Opposition. As a result many of those questions still remain unanswered. In fact the only knowledgable speech we got from that side was from the previous Minister who spoke with some knowledge of the bill. Mr Boscawen departed not a jot from the notes his officials provided to him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think that Heather wrote that speech. It was actually quite a good speech. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Heather Roy may well have written the speech that John Boscawen then had the opportunity to deliver. He certainly did not demonstrate that he had any knowledge of the legislation we were debating. 
Despite the lack of participation from Government members or perhaps because of it the Committee stage was quite interesting and lively. We heard from Moana Mackey about her car selection criteria which tend to involve the number of cup holders that it has. She did not mention although she mentioned to me afterwards the fact that in selecting her car she did not bother to check whether it had a petrol light. In fact she discovered the hard way that the car did not have a petrol light because it ran out. 
We heard from Grant Robertson about the crossbar rusting issue that he had with his first vehicle that he purchased in Invercargill and about some of the issues he encountered there in respect of change of ownership involving the motor vehicle dealer that he purchased it from. I talked about the five cars I have owned in my period of driving. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Shanks Katrina: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13638] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill this morning. I firstly acknowledge the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs Heather Roy for her commitment to getting this bill through the House and her commitment to the consumer affairs portfolio. I also thank her and the officials for the support and guidance they gave the Commerce Committee which helped the legislation get to its third reading in the House today. 
The Motor Vehicle Sales Act promotes and protects consumer interests. It is obvious that all members agree with the purpose of this bill which is to protect consumer interests especially consumers who are more vulnerable. We want to create an environment of confidence and informed choice. This bill is aligned with the National-led Government’s efforts to reform regulations cut red tape and reduce compliance costs. It is also obvious from the debate that the House agrees with what the National-led Government is trying to do currently in those areas. 
I want to touch quickly on just a couple of things in the bill because there already has been a long debate on the bill this morning. Some of the changes include amending the process for traders renewing their annual registration. These amendments reduce the compliance costs associated with traders’ making annual statutory declarations as part of registration renewal. The legislation also closes a loophole preventing the automatic banning of traders whose registration has lapsed but who are subsequently convicted under the Act for misconduct while registered. It removes the requirement for private sellers at car markets to display a consumer information notice. It eliminates unnecessary compliance costs by removing the requirement for transactions between traders or between traders and wreckers to include display of a consumer information notice. It increases the financial limit at which cases may be heard by the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 to $100000. And it allows the tribunal to award costs for non-attendance of either party to the dispute and allows the tribunal to publish its decisions. 
I commend the bill to the House.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13632] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. Firstly I acknowledge the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs Heather Roy for the work that she did—not just in this portfolio of consumer affairs but also as Associate Minister of Defence and Associate Minister of Education. I know that she was a strong advocate for those portfolios. I also acknowledge my colleague and friend Mr Boscawen who has just left the Chamber for his work on this bill as a member of the Commerce Committee. He is now the Minister of Consumer Affairs and has moved the bill’s third reading. He is a hard-working MP and will be a very good addition to the ministry of this Government and future National Governments. 
I acknowledge the members of the Commerce Committee. I thought we worked well as a committee. The committee was well chaired of course. I also acknowledge the submitters who put forward the very few submissions that were heard orally and the officials for the work that they did in bringing this bill through the select committee process. 
The Minister has already alluded to the main components of the bill but I say this bill promotes and protects consumer interests. In the tough times that we have been through in the recession consumer protection legislation is particularly important and a number of speakers have alluded to that. The issue is about creating an environment of confidence and choice—choice in that consumers want to rely on the information produced by the vendors of motor vehicles and choice in that that they can make their decisions by relying on that information. 
This bill is about the reform of regulation. This National Government is cutting red tape reducing compliance costs and pushing through— 
Carol Beaumont 
: This was a Labour bill. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: No this is actually a National bill which has been moved by an ACT member. The bill is about cutting red tape and the previous Labour Government had no idea about how to do that. One of the policy reform areas is to cut red tape in order to improve the long-term performance of the economy lift our living standards and create jobs. This bill is part of a series of reforms that we have brought to the House. It is being considered under urgency. National is a Government of action. This bill is part of that reform and I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Boscawen John: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Boscawen John: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13610] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 The Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill proposes to amend the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 to improve its operation. The purpose of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales. This measure creates an environment in which consumers have the information and confidence they require in order to make informed decisions. 
A statutory review of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act in 2006 identified that its operation could be improved in a number of ways. The Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill introduces changes to the Act to improve its operation and ensure that consumers’ interests continue to be protected in relation to motor vehicle sales. This includes ensuring consumers have access to quality information that allows them to make informed purchasing decisions. The bill also removes compliance costs and red tape for motor vehicle traders private sellers and motor vehicle purchasers. The amendments are in three broad areas: disclosure requirements registration requirements and the operation of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal.
Gilmore Aaron: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Gilmore Aaron: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13610] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to quickly take a short call on the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill; particularly given that is my birthday I do not want to take a lot of time talking. I will touch on a couple of things. This bill fits in very nicely with the prudential security rules being put in place by our Government and it is another step in another sector. A lot of work has been done on trustees and other things but I will touch on one point briefly. Opposition members discussed at length in their earlier speeches the issues around the need for other forms of prudential security outside the insurance sector. Well actually the Reserve Bank is doing that and doing a very good job of putting in place those prudential rules particularly around liquidity rules and self-funding of deposits. I think that is a good thing and we all support that. 
This bill puts in place for the first time in a very long time a set of rules around regulation of insurance companies bringing them all together and that has to be a nice thing. It allows more surety and safety for those people out there all those mums and dads and everybody else for their insurances and their investments in insurance companies to be safer. We are highly supportive of that because it allows a greater step in the right direction to protect those savings and investments and it helps economic growth. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13603] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I say that I have given some latitude to both sides of the House in this debate. This debate is not about monetary policy—that is very clear. If we look at the provisions and the parts of the bill we see it is not about monetary policy. I ask future speakers to bear that in mind. Although one can certainly refer to monetary policy it cannot form the substantive part of the debate. This is a third reading debate so the speeches are not open-ended like in a first reading debate. I also draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 117/4 in particular which says that “On the third reading of a bill a member cannot discuss—(1) Any matter not included in the clauses of the bill;”. That is very important as we proceed. I trust that future speakers will bear that in mind.
Borrows Chester: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13661] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is a shame that there was the odd barb in the previous speaker’s comments because the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill is well supported across the House. It was kicked off under the previous Minister of Justice and completed under the current Minister. It is another sterling piece of work from the Justice and Electoral Committee and I give my thanks especially to the Hon David Parker for the contributions he made. The bill seeks to deal with a number of hurdles to international access to privacy as well as New Zealand’s ability to maintain sovereignty over the information that it discloses. A number of issues were raised and addressed during the select committee process. 
Remedies have been provided to enable foreign nationals who are located overseas to access and correct personal information. The bill also authorises the Privacy Commissioner to refer a complaint to an overseas privacy enforcement agency if the complaint is within the jurisdiction of that authority. It also enables the Privacy Commissioner to prohibit the transfer of personal information outside New Zealand in cases where that information has been routed through New Zealand to avoid the privacy laws of the originating country. The bill further provides for the transfer of personal information outside New Zealand and for prohibitions on the transfer of personal information outside New Zealand. The commissioner’s powers to obtain information have been catered for within amendments that came out of the select committee process. 
I commend the bill to the House.
Guy Nathan: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13591] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that this bill has good cross-party support. It had its first reading in December 2009 and it received 57 submissions 31 of which were heard by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The committee worked particularly well through this process and made some useful refinements to the bill. 
The bill generally focused on licensing and prudential regulation for all insurers carrying on insurance business in New Zealand. All insurers are to be licensed and supervised by the Reserve Bank. They must comply with prudential requirements and the Reserve Bank will be both the regulator and the supervisor. The bill aligns New Zealand with international regulatory benchmarks and expectations. It is a stand-alone measure rather than an adjunct of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. 
The bill’s primary purpose is the promotion of a sound and efficient insurance sector and the promotion of public confidence in the sector which as I am sure the Committee would agree is particularly important. The bill covers all categories of insurers carrying out business in New Zealand: life non-life and medical. All insurers must have a financial strength rating except the very small insurers and the friendly societies. All insurers must have a satisfactory fit and proper risk management programme and life insurers must maintain a statutory fund to protect their long-term policy liabilities. 
As I mentioned before the Reserve Bank will have broad information-gathering powers of supervision including an active role in the management of distressed insurers. The bill has had extensive stakeholder consultation and its purposes and approach have generally been accepted by the industry.