edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bennett David: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13504] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call—probably a little bit longer than the Maori Party call—about the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s taken longer than Hone’s speech. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is longer is it not? Basically this legislation opens up the way for New Zealanders returning home to bring their retirement savings with them. That portability of retirement savings between New Zealand and Australia has been a longstanding problem; we are addressing it now so that New Zealanders will find it easier to return home and will find that they can actually bring those savings with them and enjoy them in their time in New Zealand. 
The bill is part of the plan for the economic growth of New Zealand but it is also part of making it easier for New Zealanders to come home to make New Zealand their future. This bill is important for those reasons and for many others. The remedial matters provisions also deal with KiwiSaver and other areas. We look forward to the bill passing through this House and the success that it will bring as New Zealanders come home under rules that accommodate their return.
Boscawen John: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Boscawen John: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13503] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and take a call in the debate on the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill. I speak as deputy leader of the ACT Party. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill. 
The last comments we heard from the Labour speaker Stuart Nash were that he was astonished and disgusted that the Government increased GST. 
Stuart Nash 
: No that Mr Key said he would not and he did. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: He said he would not and he did? Mr Nash is astonished and disgusted that GST has increased. 
I absolutely have to laugh whenever I hear Labour members talk about electricity cost rises and people struggling. Every single member of the Labour Party knows that had Labour been re-elected at the last election we would have had Labour’s emissions trading scheme and electricity prices would have risen by 10 percent. 
Hon Member 
: Not that old theme again. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: What do we get from Ruth Dyson? She said: “Not that again.” I remind Ruth Dyson and every single member of the Labour Party—and I will continue to remind every single member of the Labour Party and every New Zealander—that prior to the last election Labour passed an emissions trading scheme— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I mentioned in a previous intervention that in a third reading speech one can refer only to what is actually in the bill. I remind members of Speaker’s Ruling 117/4 and I will quote so it is very clear about what I said earlier: “On the third reading of a bill a member cannot discuss—(1) Any matter not included in the clauses of the bill; (2) a clause that was ruled out of order by the Speaker; (3) the merits of an amendment proposed by the member and ruled out of order in committee;”—and that was the case with Mr Nash. I bring the member back to the substance and purpose of the bill which is very clear. Material in passing can be mentioned but it cannot form the substantive part of the debate. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I was not intending my call to be a long one. 
I draw members’ attention to the commentary on the bill which sets out the number of changes being made to the emissions trading scheme in this bill. My understanding is that those provisions still apply. 
The point I wanted to make is that I hear the debate from the Labour members about people struggling under rising electricity prices but no one in this House and no New Zealander should be in any doubt whatsoever that if the emissions trading scheme had not been amended rather than a 5 percent increase in electricity prices we would have had a 10 percent increase. That is a fact. The real issue is why electricity prices are rising at all. Thank you.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13489] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to refer you to  
Hansard 
 Volume 660 at page 8723 where Mr Phil Goff sought the leave of the House to table a DVD in which the Prime Minister was discussing GST. That leave was put to the House there was no objection and the document—the DVD—was tabled under your ruling.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13485] 
9. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: What recent announcement has he made about the blue cod fishery in Marlborough? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced the start of public consultation on the Marlborough Sounds Blue Cod Management Group’s plan for reopening the fishery. The fishery was closed in October 2008 for 4 years due to sustainability issues and it is not due to reopen until 1 October 2012. However in March last year I asked the group to develop a sustainable management plan for this fishery to enable it to be reopened sooner if possible. It has now reported back with a number of specific recommendations and it is seeking public comment on these over the next 6 weeks. 
Colin King 
: What were the objectives of the Blue Cod Management Group? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I support lifting or relaxing the closure early so that we can start fishing for blue cod again when we know that it is sustainable. It is important to me though that any management plan would see the fishery opening either wholly or partially sooner than 4 years; would be easy for fishers to understand; would be straightforward for the Ministry of Fisheries to police; and would require some sort of reporting so that the success of the opening can be monitored. The members of the Blue Cod Management Group did an awful lot of work and an awful lot of consultation and on behalf of the community I thank them for their work. I look forward to the community’s response to the proposals.
Hawkins George: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hawkins George: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13491] 
2. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Social Services Committee 
: How many submissions did the committee hear on the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill? 
KATRINA SHANKS (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee) 
: 
 Technically the bill is no longer before the select committee but I can inform the House that 10 submissions were heard. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: How many oral submissions were not heard by the select committee and what was the reason for that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that asking how many oral submissions were not heard can be a logical question. If they were not heard orally they were not oral submissions. The second part of the question is out of order because the reason that the submissions were not heard is not the chair’s responsibility; it is a matter for the committee. I therefore have to rule the question out of order.
Hawkins George: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hawkins George: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13491] 
1. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Social Services Committee 
: When will the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill be reported back to the House? 
KATRINA SHANKS (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee): 
 The committee’s report on the bill was presented this morning. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Why did it take over 2 years for the committee to reach a decision? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a matter for the chair. The decisions of the committee are not the responsibility of the chair.
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13491] 
5. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What initiatives has the Accident Compensation Corporation undertaken to improve rehabilitation rates and what reports has he received on the success of these programmes? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Over the last 18 months the corporation has been working very hard to improve rehabilitation rates with more effective triaging of claims; specialist case management such as the Recover Independence Service; and the National Serious Injury Service. New services have also been developed to improve rehabilitation outcomes such as Stay at Work and Better at Work and the comprehensive vocational rehabilitation service. Those changes have delivered a dramatic turn-round in rehabilitation rates across all of the accounts of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) which consistently show improvements at the 3-month 6-month 9-month and 12-month rehabilitation reporting times. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How do those rehabilitation rates compare with the record of the last 6 years? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: When I look at the 6-month rehabilitation rate it shows a decline from 86 percent in 2004 to 85 percent in 2005 84 percent in 2006 83 percent in 2007 and 82 percent in 2008. Over the last 18 months we have been able to undo at least 4 years of that trend with a 3 percent improvement in those rehabilitation rates. I point out to the House that a 1 percent change in the rehabilitation rate changes the liabilities by $500 million. That is one of the reasons we have seen such a dramatic turn-round in accident compensation finances. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How confident is the Minister that ongoing improvements in rehabilitation rates can be achieved? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am confident because the board the management and the staff of ACC throughout New Zealand recognise how important rehabilitation is to both claimants and levy payers. All members of this House should welcome the improved rehabilitation which enables people to get back to work and get their lives back to normal after an accident and that is why I think everyone in this House should congratulate ACC on the significant improvements.
Gilmore Aaron: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Gilmore Aaron: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13507] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 One would think from listening to the rhetoric from the member Brendon Burns that the Labour Party was not supporting the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill but it is. This is a great bill in terms of putting in place some incentives for those people who have come home since the election to bring their savings that have been in Australia to New Zealand. Thousands of people have decided they want to come to New Zealand under a John Key - led Government. This bill is a little step in the right direction to help enhance that for those people and we think it is a neat thing. 
I will touch on some of the rhetoric from Labour members. They read out a press statement espousing the views of Ernst and Young. I used to work at Ernst and Young. Those views were not the views of Ernst and Young; they were the views of one partner within Ernst and Young. There is a disclaimer at the bottom that says they are not the views of Ernst and Young they are the views of Jo Doolan. I am surprised that that was not mentioned. 
This bill takes some wonderful steps in the right direction. The Minister of Revenue talked about the great provisions in relation to gift duty. People who donate artworks to local authorities can do so free of gift duty and that is a good thing. It is a good thing for wealthy people who want to donate bits of valuable artwork to local authorities because the paperwork and the taxation will be less and that is a step in the right direction. 
The other good thing we talked about was the imputation credit pooling that has been put in place in Supplementary Order Paper 157. That was a good Supplementary Order Paper it was put forward and voted on and I am very supportive of it because it helps some of the financial sector restructuring that is necessary post the recession. Those are all good steps in the right direction. 
Finally I will touch on one thing that seems to be the mantra from Opposition members in relation to KiwiSaver. The Minister of Finance talked about this earlier. KiwiSaver has not actually increased national savings. All that it has led to is a switch in the mixture of national savings. This bill has nothing to do with that. It will help our national savings to increase in terms of the volume of investment that comes from Australia into New Zealand and that has to be a good thing to help our economy grow a little bit better. Thank you.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13490] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not intend to take any further time on this matter today. I have ruled on the matter and that is the end of it. I am happy to give consideration to my ruling today but I do make it clear that a document is a piece of paper. If anyone wants to check the dictionary definition of “document” he or she is welcome to do so. What is more if there is information on a video clip it is easy to get a transcript of what is said on it. I do not want to see this House wasting more time on members’ tabling all and sundry. The House wastes quite enough time on the political point-scoring of tabling documents. That is not what this House is about. This House in question time is about asking good questions.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13490] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not want to prolong things at all but I think the Hon David Cunliffe made a good point: it does go to the question of content. The DVD that has been quoted today as having been allowed to be laid on the Table of the House by the Hon Phil Goff clearly involved the engagement of a politician and therefore was of moment to the House. This CD is a collection of television ads and if people want to see them they should turn on the button of their TV.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13490] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Mr Speaker given that you already have once this year allowed for leave to be sought to table a DVD I would ask that until the issue is considered by you perhaps in discussion you continue to act on your precedent and allow the seeking of leave to table the CD I have given that it has information that it is of use to the House import to members and relevant to the question concerned. If your ruling or the Standing Orders are to be changed we would then do that later but there should be equal treatment by you of all MPs and their right to seek leave to table documents in this House.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13490] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In support of your previous ruling it might assist the progress of the House if in giving further consideration to this matter you consider whether the content of the medium—whether it is a DVD a document or a piece of paper—might advise and inform your ruling. In particular you might consider whether the particular content might not be available to members in any other form—for example a recording or a television clip that might not normally be available to the House. Your consideration might conclude that that would be in keeping with certain legislation that deems that the technology-neutral approach should hold in such matters.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13490] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am happy to talk to the member about it privately but I do not want to take the time of the House on something so trivial. Let me say why. The Standing Orders provide for the tabling of documents on the rare occasion where members of this House would benefit from information being made available to them by the tabling of documents. A practice has developed over the years where members make a political statement in asking a question and when the Minister makes a political statement in return the member seeks leave to table a document to prove that his or her political statement was correct. That is not how question time should be conducted and I am not going to support that kind of approach to question time. I will check for the honourable member exactly when that ruling was made but I do not want to go back to the previous practice. Members will recollect that there have been times when members have sought to table all sorts of things in this House. I have managed to constrain tabling to documents that are not readily available to members. I do not want to see it expanded again with attempts to table DVDs CDs and that kind of thing. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not intend to take the matter further. I will hear very briefly from the Hon David Cunliffe and then Metiria Turei and that will be the end of it.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13489] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am trying to say to the honourable member that the House is getting back into the habit of wasting time on tabling documents. I am trying to get some control over that and I do not want to see the House tabling DVDs CDs or whatever. The Standing Order provides for documents to be tabled for the information of members. If members want to widen that to table other things such as CDs or DVDs they will need in my view to change the Standing Order. That is the way I am interpreting it. If in fact I have today deviated from what I have done in the past I apologise to the House but I believe that I am acting with good intent. 
Metiria Turei 
: Point of order—
Wagner Nicky: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13540] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill and I thank the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peter Dunne for bringing it to the House. This is sensible legislation. It is designed as a response to public concerns about the harm of drugs—in particular P—in our community. 
P is a very New Zealand problem as we have one of the highest percentages of P users in the world. This legislation is a first step in closing off the sources of precursor substances for the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine. We know that the ingredients for the manufacture of P come both from the reconstitution of legal over-the-counter cold and flu drugs and from the direct importation of pseudoephedrine. This bill reclassifies ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as a class B2 controlled drug so that it is available only on prescription. That will make it much more difficult to obtain over the counter and therefore it will make it much more difficult for P cooks to get ingredients. Right now our police tell us that local pseudoephedrine is found in one-third of all P labs. 
There has been a lot of debate in the community about the loss of these over-the-counter cold and flu drugs and I have even heard of some families stocking up on these remedies because they cannot live without them. But research tells us—and indeed Professor Gluckman the Prime Minister’s chief scientist concurs—that clinical evidence shows that safe and effective alternatives are available. But generally speaking the public supports this legislation because it will greatly reduce the availability of source drugs. At the same time New Zealand Customs Service officers are working hard to close the door on imports of pseudoephedrine from overseas. They are focusing on tightening border controls and are making it much more difficult for P labs to get imported source ingredients. It is true that many New Zealanders are in the grip of P. This legislation will make it more difficult to obtain this drug. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parata Hekia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13481] 
7. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What progress has been made on the Government’s commitment to tackle school truancy? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This Government is committed to addressing school truancy. I am happy to report that focused action and a boost in funding—that is for the Non-enrolment Truancy Service—have reduced the number of students not enrolled in school from 3416 in January this year to 2192 today. That is a fantastic reduction of 36 percent. In addition the time taken to re-enrol students who have not attended school for the past 20 days has also decreased by 14 percent over the last year. This is a fantastic start. 
Hekia Parata 
: What other work is under way to support schools to manage student attendance? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am pleased to advise that last week the Ministry of Education released long-requested guidelines for schools on the management of non-attendance and where necessary the prosecution of parents who fail to ensure that their children attend school. The ministry will also fund schools to undertake such prosecutions where necessary. Schools have been asking for this for years; this Government has listened to them and acted.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13474] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to ensure that we have a smooth run through question time I notify the House that it is the Government’s desire that Dr Nick Smith should answer question No. 5 but his plane is somewhat delayed. I suggest that if he is unavailable question No. 5 replaces question No. 12 and we shuffle everything up the order. I seek leave for that to occur. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? Did members hear that? If the Minister for ACC is not in the House then question No. 5 would be dropped down the Order Paper to the bottom of the questions. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Beaumont Carol: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13473] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will pick up from where my colleague Stuart Nash left off and talk about the question of savings. One area of the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill that we support is the provisions relating to KiwiSaver. KiwiSaver as we know was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It is a good savings vehicle. It has had huge pick-up by New Zealanders. It is obviously intended to supplement New Zealand superannuation rather than replace it but it is an important vehicle to try to lift New Zealand’s savings. 
The previous Labour Government had a very proud record in terms of savings as Mr Nash has indicated. This is unlike National Governments which we can see have over a period of time worked against the idea of building up savings within our economy to our detriment. That is to the detriment of all of us and our children and grandchildren. We do not have the level of savings we need as a country to move forward and to look at lifting our economic performance. That is a huge mistake and I think we should acknowledge it in this Committee. 
This bill makes some provisions for KiwiSaver that will ensure greater clarity—for example with regard to the enrolment of under-18-year-olds. There is perhaps some emphasis by some of the KiwiSaver providers on looking at that particular demographic and the bill will provide some clarity on who has to enrol people who are under 18. It provides for those under 16 to be enrolled by their legal guardians with those who are 16 and 17 co-signing the enrolment. 
Supplementary Order Paper 158 which is in the name of David Garrett from the ACT Party suggests amendments to KiwiSaver. Again it has the sensible suggestion of providing for additional rates at which workers can save in KiwiSaver. Of course we need to acknowledge that in the current environment that is incredibly difficult because people are struggling. As many of my colleagues have pointed out it is tough out there and the Government is fooling itself if it does not recognise that. We have heard spurious figures about wages increases earlier today. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
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:13492] 
3. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: When will the committee hear submissions on the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 The committee has not called for submissions on that bill yet so it is not possible to say when submissions may be heard. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: On what date during the term of the previous Government was this bill to lift the driving age referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I would have to refer back to the minutes to see the actual date but the report-back date of the bill is 24 December. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The chairperson did a very good job of repeating my question back to me telling me what I had asked him. I was still aware of that because it had been just a momentary second since I had asked him. I asked him the date on which the bill was referred to the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that the member asked a fair question but the chair of the committee does not have that particular information with him. It is not unreasonable that he does not answer. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: We do have date just reflecting on it. It was 18 October 2007.
Borrows Chester: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13560] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Limitation Bill. It is great to see again some sort of understanding across the House of the validity of this bill and its worth to New Zealand which we are all here to serve. The bill is another product from the Justice and Electoral Committee and the hard-working and efficient team that exists therein. The key message of the bill is that the goal of new limitations is to provide a defence to legal claims brought after a certain period of time. We have found over recent years that what has generally been a standard limitation period of 6 years is no longer applicable and that a limitation can apply in different ways around the country. For instance in Auckland where it rains a lot boards rot quicker so leaky home situations occur a lot earlier than they do in homes in Christchurch for example where new homes are built under the same building regulations but in a different climate. So it is important for purchasers of homes to have some assurance that if for instance it takes longer than usual to discover a defect in homes they have purchased they will still be able to seek some compensation or damages against the parties responsible. 
During the course of the debate in the select committee a point was raised by the Hon David Parker about long-term delayed reaction injuries and the ability of claimants to access compensation or make claims in respect of those injuries. So the select committee worked with ministry officials to include that issue in the bill and it is another very sound aspect in the bill. I look forward to the debate on the Limitation Bill and I commend it to the House.
Tremain Chris: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13441] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill to be taken as one question notwithstanding Standing Order 333 and for there to be unlimited calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Tremain Chris: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13570] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Limitation Bill to be taken as one question with multiple calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought that the provisions be taken as one debate—that is Parts 1 to 4 the schedule and clauses 1 and 2. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Parker David: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Limitation Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13571] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Attorney-General for those remarks particularly in respect of the different longstop liability periods. I agree that we do not have nor ought we to have the same limitation period applying to absolutely all causes of action. I would say in respect of the two examples that the Attorney-General used that the Family Protection Act of course has a shortened period because one needs to distribute the proceeds of a will and let people spend it or use it for the purchase of a house or use the assets they inherit after a period. Of course when someone dies one generally knows whether one is in the class of people who can make a claim under the Family Protection Act and they are essentially close relatives of the deceased. They know that the deceased has died and therefore they know that if they are going to challenge the will they have a cause of action as a consequence of the death of their relative. So I do not see that as being a good reason or a good comparison with the Building Act. 
In respect of the Fair Trading Act similarly I would have said that most of the claims are things that will be known to a party within that period and if they did not have a right under the Fair Trading Act they would normally have a contractual right or claim which under this legislation would have a longstop liability in case of a lack of knowledge on the part of the claimant or the person who is injured which would actually be the 15-year longstop period. 
Although I accept the proposition that there are some areas where one does have a shorter limitation period I do not see the examples the Minister has given as being good justification for having a different rule from the general 15-year longstop period for building cases. I think those building cases are more similar to the other cases where we do have the 15-year longstop liability period than they are to the likes of the Family Protection Act or the Fair Trading Act cause of action. I again note that under the Fair Trading Act one generally has a contractual cause of action if one did not want to rely upon the Fair Trading Act cause of action. I see it as being more akin to general claims in tort or contract. 
I continue to be of the view that the longstop period for building cases ought to be the same as it is for other cases. There should be alignment. I encourage the Committee to consider seriously the amendment that will be appearing on the floor of the House.
Bridges Simon: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13434] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to speak on the third reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. I spoke yesterday about the broader Australian relationship that this bill is a marker of and a facilitator of if you like in that it enables us to keep pace with the ever-closening relationships business deals and so on between us and Australia. I want to hone in not in particular detail on some of the things that this worthy bill does in particular on the area of service. Service of proceedings is perhaps something that most people will not think twice about. In fact it is a very interesting area practically speaking in principle and conceptually. As a law clerk and first-year solicitor I well remember having to serve proceedings by dumping them on people’s doorsteps and the like. I was the principal debt collector for State Insurance in the firm I worked for dealing with car accidents. Some of these cases went across the Tasman—and I am sure it is even more the case now than it was in 2000 and 2001—because people leave the country they move over there and the like. I can remember the kerfuffle that one would have in trying to serve these people and deal with things effectively and then if one got judgment in enforcing that judgment across the Tasman which is another practical part of this bill. 
The bill simplifies arrangements and the processes that we have with Australia in relation to service and in relation to enforcement of judgments. I have talked about some pretty simple examples—you know someone crashes a car and they then take off to Australia. But of course we know that this will be just as important—probably more so—in very complex large business transactions where we as a country and Australia as a country have every interest in keeping the relationships going and deepening those business relationships so that both sides of the Tasman can become more prosperous. Perhaps at first blush this is not the most exciting bill but it is a very worthy bill and it is a marker of the ever-closer relations and mutual success we have with our trans-Tasman partner Australia.
Borrows Chester: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13432] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is an unusual situation when both sides of the House find themselves in agreement on legislation and in agreement on anything I guess. So that is if nothing else cause for us all to reconsider our positions. The work that was done within the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill was very strong. A magnanimous gesture was made across the House in accepting that both sides would be looking again at their positions. 
A very insightful question was asked by the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel. I understand that there is an arrangement as far as recovery of criminal debts by way of trans-Tasman fines is concerned but I am sure that any lack of clarity will be cleared up by the erudite Minister of Justice when he speaks in the “fourth reading” of this bill.
Harawira Hone: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Harawira Hone: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13504] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I am taking just a short call to advise that the Maori Party will be supporting this bill. Kia ora tatou.
Goodhew Jo: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13423] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the parts and clauses to be taken as one question this morning under the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: So you are seeking leave for there to be one debate and one question? 
JO GOODHEW 
: Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for there to be one question. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13422] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. New Zealand has a very special relationship with Australia and this bill will help us to streamline the regulatory regime. The bill will ensure that disputes can be resolved through a cheaper faster and more efficient process. 
Debate interrupted.
Hutchison Paul: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13410] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is indeed a pleasure to speak on the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill. It is an excellent piece of work and it is clearly supported by both the major parties. I was particularly interested in hearing the Hon Pete Hodgson wax philosophical for a moment pointing out that the two major parties agree and have agreed for a long time on the huge value of expediting and ensuring greater trade and greater exports because they are the lifeblood of our country. But I was concerned to hear the Hon Peter Hodgson in some respect excuse the Greens for the stance that they take. I must say that it is some concern to read the Green Party minority view which suggests that the Government theory on trade is flawed. It has been a pleasure from time to time to hear the sonorous if not soporific speeches of Dr Kennedy Graham. But tonight unfortunately we had to listen to the nasal narrative of Dr Russel Norman and that is simply another matter. 
There is no doubt that as time goes on China’s exports to New Zealand will increase in both quality and in price. In fact the other day when I was down in Newmarket one of the furniture manufacturers told me that some of the more expensive Chinese products are actually more expensive than the New Zealand - made ones. So there is no doubt that as time goes on it is very important to have this continual ability to improve our products to have the constant need to keep on our toes to constantly innovate so that we improve our products and to improve our trade. I commend this bill in its third reading to the House.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13411] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3 (Flavell Sharples Turia); Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 7; Maori Party 2 (Harawira Katene). 
Bill read a third time.
Borrows Chester: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13414] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill is a product of the highly efficient Justice and Electoral Committee—a committee that does all its work in good faith and with esprit de corps apart from the days when we do not get on and give each other a slap. But there have been no toys on the floor or anything else of late. 
The bill a key priority for the National-led Government will enable New Zealand to work with Australia to create a single economic market to provide a seamless operating environment for business. Enhancing international legal cooperation is also a vital part of this Government’s broader economic reform agenda reducing the costs of doing business in the international market place. Our wonderful Prime Minister John Key emphasised the importance of the single economic market when he outlined the Government’s programme for the year in February saying that we were giving the single economic market new impetus. 
The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill reflects the commitment both the New Zealand and Australian Governments have made to enhance the operation of the single economic market. Australia is often the first stop for New Zealand businesses looking to expand into an overseas market but getting to grips with different federal and state regulations can sometimes be a challenge for us all. The single economic market is about aligning the regulatory environment in New Zealand and Australia so that a New Zealand company can do business in Palmerston Northern Territory as easily as it can in Palmerston North New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
Bridges Simon: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13418] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill is part of a much broader picture. We have very very close relations with our Australian cousins. 
Hon David Parker 
: Except on wages. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: This morning on television and it might also have been in the newspaper there was some navel gazing about whether Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard would be better for our country and our economic relationships. Well that just shows insecurity because the reality is that we have a very close relationship at all levels. 
To answer David Parker’s interjection we stand to benefit the better Australia does and vice versa because we are so close. In recent times we have economically become ever-closer in terms of the movement of peoples and the interaction of peoples and in terms of assets and services. Charles Chauvel talked about the ever-increasing number of property deals purchases and so on that go on across the Tasman not to mention matrimonial issues and the like. That is really where this bill comes into play. It is about making sure that the court processes in each country as we work together keep up with those ever-increasing relationships and interactions. Australia of course will be passing a near-identical bill to this one so that our two court systems as far as this bill goes will be in sync. 
I will quickly read from the bill’s explanatory note: “The objectives of the Agreement are to streamline and simplify the process for resolving civil proceedings with a trans-Tasman element to reduce costs and improve efficiency; and minimise existing impediments to enforcing certain judgments and regulatory sanctions.” For example the issuing of proceedings the enforceability of judgments and the like will be streamlined—made better—between the two countries. 
This bill is an important step towards closer integration between the justice systems of Australia and New Zealand and it is another marker of a very close very secure relationship between our nations.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:13420] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill which focuses on New Zealand’s very special relationship with Australia. With Australia being our biggest trade partner it is very important for us to build cordial relations with that country. The bill will confirm the strong relationship between our two countries. This bill will ensure that disputes can be resolved through a cheaper faster and more efficient process. 
The National-led Government under the able leadership of the Rt Hon John Key is working hard with Australia to create a single economic market that will provide a seamless operating environment for businesses and individuals. New Zealand and Australia have mutual interests in the efficient working of each other’s regulatory regimes particularly those that move towards our having a single economy. This bill will make it easier to resolve civil disputes between parties with connections on both sides of the Tasman. It will benefit both individuals and businesses. Just as with earlier bills it will allow court appearances by audiovisual link and it will also allow for better enforcement of the regulatory regime. 
I join with others in commending this bill to the House on its second reading.
Dean Jacqui: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13410] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 The Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill is an excellent bill and represents a huge opportunity for New Zealand exporting business. My speeches in this debate have focused on the agricultural sector because that is the nature of the electorate I am proud to represent. I conclude my contribution to this debate by saying once again that this free-trade agreement with Hong Kong and China presents New Zealand with an opportunity and it is now up to the agricultural sector to take advantage of that opportunity. I have talked about sheep and beef farmers and I quickly mention our dairy industry which takes up a third of the world’s dairy trade. We are a significant international player in the dairy sector and this free-trade agreement presents a further opportunity for Fonterra in New Zealand. Food is valued by the world. We in New Zealand tend to take that for granted but our food our milk products our sheep and beef products and all the other products we produce are a valued commodity. I say again in commending this bill to the House that this represents an excellent opportunity and builds on the excellent work of the Minister of Trade Tim Groser and the Prime Minister John Key. I commend this bill to the House.