edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2559] 
2.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What advances in the UK - New Zealand Air Services Agreement have been made to allow Air New Zealand to secure a second daily service to London? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yesterday Air New Zealand announced plans to launch a second daily service between Auckland and London Heathrow Airport. That is as a direct result of the air services agreement and the market access opportunities secured by the New Zealand Government following an agreement with the United Kingdom last year. It is very good news for New Zealanders for our tourism industry and for Air New Zealand. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House over what period the negotiations were conducted? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Constant efforts were made over 6 years including efforts at ministerial level and in negotiations led by the New Zealand Ministry of Transport until open access was achieved last year. Noting the welcome the House has just accorded my colleague Minister John Hill I regret to advise that Australia has yet to achieve such open access.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2557] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 2 May priority will be given to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill the Education Amendment Bill the Criminal Procedure Bill the Coroners Bill the Historic Places Amendment Bill and the first readings of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill and the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill. Wednesday of the first week is of course a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 If I am not mistaken some of those bills are yet to be tabled—or will we have some days where we wait for those bills while dealing with other matters on the Order Paper? But in any event I notice that the Order Paper currently has some 22 Government items on it but only three are advanced by current front-bench members. The rest are being advanced by Ministers who are currently further back in the rankings. Can the Leader of the House indicate whether that is an indication of bigger things to come for some of the fellows sitting further behind him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. It indicates that we are making good progress on the programme.
Visitors — South Australia—Minister of Health 
Visitors — South Australia—Minister of Health 
[Volume:630;Page:2557] 
Thursday 6 April 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2.25 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
South Australia—Minister of Health 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon John Hill Minister of Health for South Australia is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish to welcome him.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2557] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think we are all aware that the Prime Minister is temporarily delayed on matters of hospitality towards the Premier of China. It would seem to me to be appropriate that the first question is delayed until she can come to the Chamber and I so seek leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2557] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. It indicates that we are making good progress on the programme.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2557] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 If I am not mistaken some of those bills are yet to be tabled—or will we have some days where we wait for those bills while dealing with other matters on the Order Paper? But in any event I notice that the Order Paper currently has some 22 Government items on it but only three are advanced by current front-bench members. The rest are being advanced by Ministers who are currently further back in the rankings. Can the Leader of the House indicate whether that is an indication of bigger things to come for some of the fellows sitting further behind him?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:630;Page:2557] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 2 May priority will be given to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill the Education Amendment Bill the Criminal Procedure Bill the Coroners Bill the Historic Places Amendment Bill and the first readings of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill and the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill. Wednesday of the first week is of course a members’ day.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — South Australia—Minister of Health 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — South Australia—Minister of Health 
[Volume:630;Page:2557] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon John Hill Minister of Health for South Australia is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish to welcome him.
Duynhoven Harry: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1257] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 that the committee finally report on the bill by 10 March 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1248] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is asking leave for himself to ask a question. Whether Mr Locke answers is another matter. The member has sought leave from the House to ask Mr Locke a question. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Mark Ron: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1248] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 That is true and I understand that. I am seeking the leave of the House to ask Mr Locke and for the House to allow Mr Locke to answer this question: why if he is so concerned—
Locke Keith: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Locke Keith: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1248] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I understand it members cannot seek leave on behalf of another member. That is well-established in the House. One cannot seek leave for another member to do something; one can seek leave only for oneself. That is well-established.
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1248] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand the member’s dilemma when it comes to being able to interject but the member well knows that he cannot interject from where he sits because of the effect on the microphones and I accept that. But the issue he is raising now is really a debatable matter and of course that issue can be taken up during the course of the debate. The member can seek leave— 
Ron Mark 
: I can seek leave for the member to answer that question? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes the member can certainly seek leave for him to answer that question. Is he so seeking leave? 
Ron Mark 
: Yes I am.
Mark Ron: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1247] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I am going to ask you through this point of order may take a little time but I hope you noted that I actually waited until the honourable member had concluded his speech rather than interrupt him. 
My point of order is a matter on which I seek your guidance. I know that the Standing Orders demand that interjections should be rare reasonable and as our former colleague the Hon Geoff Braybrooke used to say hopefully witty. I also understand and accept the ruling that makes it impossible or difficult if not outlawed for members of the House who are in close proximity to the member on his or her feet to interject whilst he or she is speaking. You in fact brought me to order during the previous speech. Herein is my dilemma. Interjections themselves are not outlawed and it is possible through interjection to challenge members who are speaking on the points they are making or indeed to pose questions to them so that they may if they wish address those questions during their speech. If one is lucky enough not to be seated in as close proximity to the speaker as I am to the member who has just resumed his seat one can do that. However the ruling of the House is such that members who are in close proximity to a member on his or her feet are denied the opportunity to get their questions across through interjection. Had I not been required to sit where I am I could have done that but because I am sitting here I could not interject and therefore get my question across. 
So my point of order is that through you Mr Assistant Speaker I seek leave to have Mr Locke answer this simple question: if his party was so affixed to and so supportive of the clean slate legislation and the points he has just made right now why did his party through its clean slate legislation specifically stop offenders—people convicted of minor convictions such as carnal knowledge—from being clean-slated? They took charge of the minor misdemeanours like smoking marijuana—and we know why that is—but they did not address carnal knowledge which is the very problem we now face in the House and which they whitewash themselves of.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:629;Page:1236] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Government order of the day No. 1 the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement be postponed until after Government order of the day No. 2 the first reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:629;Page:1236] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Government order of the day No. 1 the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement be postponed until after Government order of the day No. 2 the first reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:629;Page:1233] 
11.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women's Affairs 
: Is she satisfied with the results of the stocktake of membership of all State sector boards and statutory committees by gender recently completed by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 Yes the stocktake identifies that at the end of 2004 women represented 41 percent of the total Government-appointed membership of those boards. That compared very favourably with the most recent data identifying that women represented only 16 percent of New Zealand Alternative Market companies’ board membership and a mere 5 percent of that of NZX-listed companies. 
Sue Moroney 
: What are the benefits of appointing women who have the relevant competencies to governance positions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Emerging trends in international research are indicating a positive correlation between diversity in board membership and strong company performance. That is because having a wide range of perspectives brought to the board table broadens the ability of a board to identify risks and opportunities. The more narrow the range of perspectives the greater the risk a board will not anticipate potential risks and opportunities. That is the danger in surrounding oneself with a group of yes-men. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is the Minister aware of any barriers to increasing the participation of women in governance positions in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: A risk would arise if the Ministry of Women’s Affairs were abolished. That would mean the disbanding of its nominations service which has been effective in deepening the pool of talent from which board members can be drawn. If anyone has to look for reasons why such a policy might make a party scary to women voters that would be a good place to start.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:629;Page:1215] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the financial review debate to be held on Tuesday 4 April notwithstanding Standing Order 338(5). This was a subject of agreement at the Business Committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. It will be followed.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:629;Page:1215] 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the financial review debate to be held on Tuesday 4 April notwithstanding Standing Order 338(5). This was a subject of agreement at the Business Committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. It will be followed.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1215] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to completing the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement the first reading of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill and the second readings of the Securities Legislation Bill and the Education Amendment Bill. On Thursday the first item of business will be the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1215] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to completing the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement the first reading of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill and the second readings of the Securities Legislation Bill and the Education Amendment Bill. On Thursday the first item of business will be the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Contempt of the House 
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Television New Zealand—Contempt of the House 
[Volume:629;Page:1215] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from John Key and Shane Jones raising as a matter of privilege the action taken by Television New Zealand in relation to its chief executive following evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is suggested that this action could amount to a contempt of the House in that the chief executive may have been punished on account of that evidence. 
From the material sent to me it is apparent that Television New Zealand has acknowledged that its actions could be interpreted as a contempt and has apologised for not considering this aspect of its action. I am also aware that the chief executive has reiterated his intention to pursue a personal grievance against the company notwithstanding its apology. However that is a private matter between the chief executive and the company with which I am not concerned here. 
Often when a contempt has been acknowledged and an apology for it tendered the Speaker will exercise a discretion not to take the matter further. However in this case despite Television New Zealand’s acknowledgment of error I think that a general question of the status of select committee witnesses does arise that warrants the attention of the House. I am therefore not inclined to exercise that discretion in this case. 
Consequently I rule that a question of privilege does arise from the action taken by Television New Zealand in relation to its chief executive following evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Privilege — Television New Zealand—Contempt of the House 
Privilege — Television New Zealand—Contempt of the House 
[Volume:629;Page:1215] 
Thursday 16 February 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Privilege 
Television New Zealand—Contempt of the House 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from John Key and Shane Jones raising as a matter of privilege the action taken by Television New Zealand in relation to its chief executive following evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is suggested that this action could amount to a contempt of the House in that the chief executive may have been punished on account of that evidence. 
From the material sent to me it is apparent that Television New Zealand has acknowledged that its actions could be interpreted as a contempt and has apologised for not considering this aspect of its action. I am also aware that the chief executive has reiterated his intention to pursue a personal grievance against the company notwithstanding its apology. However that is a private matter between the chief executive and the company with which I am not concerned here. 
Often when a contempt has been acknowledged and an apology for it tendered the Speaker will exercise a discretion not to take the matter further. However in this case despite Television New Zealand’s acknowledgment of error I think that a general question of the status of select committee witnesses does arise that warrants the attention of the House. I am therefore not inclined to exercise that discretion in this case. 
Consequently I rule that a question of privilege does arise from the action taken by Television New Zealand in relation to its chief executive following evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16577] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16577] 
Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16577] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2008/09) Estimates) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16577] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all the words after “That” be omitted and the following words inserted: “this House has no confidence in the Government led by Helen Clark because New Zealanders have had to wait far too long to see any changes to personal tax thresholds or any lowering of personal tax rates and over nine Budgets this Government has presided over a decline in New Zealand’s standard of living compared to the rest of the world.” 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: Budget Debate 
Hobbs Marian: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16564] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker I just draw to the attention of the House that the two New Zealand First speakers will be sharing the 10 minutes and the bell will go at 1 minute before each member needs to finish his or her 5 minutes.
Tanczos Nandor: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
Tanczos Nandor: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
[Volume:647;Page:16545] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to have a matter clarified. Mr Peters seems to suggest that someone signs documents on his behalf without his reading them. I wonder if that is how a Minister normally behaves. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order either. The disease is catching.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
[Volume:647;Page:16545] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I noted that the Deputy Prime Minister was on his feet pretty fast to say that Winston Peters was unable to make a ministerial statement outside his portfolio area. But I also note this issue relates to a Russian company investing in New Zealand and Winston Peters is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not the point. It is not a matter of foreign affairs. Everybody knows that.
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
[Volume:647;Page:16545] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters raises an important issue about writing letters to the Speaker to seek an urgent debate because they do have to be in the member’s name. It would appear that we have had a letter go to you Madam Speaker and that the member whose name it is in is unaware of it. He said he thought it was going in Doug Woolerton’s name and not his name. It is odd how he can sign— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is not a point of order. Would the member please— 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please come to the point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: My point is whether the letter was signed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the letter was otherwise I would not have addressed it.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
[Volume:647;Page:16545] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just to clear this matter up—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members will be asked to leave the Chamber. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is exactly as I described it. Some of us Ministers have a stamped signature that we authorise people to use in our absence often for parliamentary questions. That is how this situation arises. There is nothing sinister nothing untoward. I say “Bad luck chaps you are missing out again.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes exactly.
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
[Volume:647;Page:16545] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 A Minister cannot make a ministerial statement on a matter outside his or her portfolio of responsibility. I can assure the member of that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Absolutely—I thought that was obvious.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
[Volume:647;Page:16545] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought. We will deal with the matter. Please be seated. The member has sought leave. He has identified the nature of that leave. This is not a matter of debate; it is a matter for members to judge whether there should be a debate. Is there any objection to leave being taken? Yes there is.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
[Volume:647;Page:16545] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There are a couple of things. I think it is important for the record that the House notes that when a letter is sent to the Speaker it is generally signed by the person in whose name it is. So I am not sure how Doug Woolerton failed to sign a letter that was supposed to be in his name and how Winston Peters’ signature ended up on that letter. I also suggest that although the Minister cannot seek an urgent debate a Minister most certainly can make a ministerial statement.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
[Volume:647;Page:16544] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to have that debate notwithstanding the technical difficulty because I had advised my staff member to lodge it and I was unaware that he lodged it in my name. It was meant to be in Doug Woolerton’s name. However the issue is pertinent relevant and serious and that is why I would like to have it discussed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order—
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Dairies Ltd—Sale 
[Volume:647;Page:16544] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision to allow the Russian company Nutritek to take a controlling shareholding in a South Canterbury dairy company New Zealand Dairies Ltd. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However a Minister cannot raise a matter for debate under Standing Order 380 and Speaker’s ruling 161/2. A debate on a matter of urgent public importance is an opportunity for a member to hold the Government to account. There will be other parliamentary opportunities to consider this matter including the Budget debate today. The application is therefore declined.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16540] 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Veterans’ Affairs 
: What is the Government doing to honour its commitments through the memorandum of understanding to Viet Nam veterans? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) 
: 
 Yesterday we all heard the Prime Minister deliver the Crown apology to Viet Nam veterans. This weekend is Tribute 08 the commemoration weekend honouring Viet Nam veterans and their families. Of the many other things the Government is doing I will highlight but one: the free one-off comprehensive medical assessment of every single veteran of the Viet Nam War. This is under way now because the veterans’ health is of paramount concern. These medical checks will provide essential information on the current health status of Viet Nam veterans as a group. I encourage all Viet Nam veterans healthy or not to register with Veterans Affairs New Zealand and to take advantage of this one-off offer. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What ongoing work is the Government involved with so as to improve services to veterans? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I will highlight just three. Firstly the Government has agreed to establish an expert panel to review the scientific evidence on an ongoing basis and make recommendations on the list of prescribed conditions and the level of war disablement pensions. Secondly the Government has announced the reorganisation of Veterans Affairs as a one-stop shop for veterans. Thirdly the Government is commencing the rewrite of the War Pensions Act.
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16532] 
3.  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What reports has he received on new initiatives for digital development? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I have received a report from the  
Independent Financial Review 
 saying “… it was no surprise to see a more sensible plan than National’s to push broadband in last week’s Budget.” The Labour-led Government’s plan includes a $500 million - plus starting 5-year investment in a 10-year vision of delivering fibre or fast bandwidth to the home the refreshed Digital Strategy 2.0 and today’s announcement of the Digital Development Council. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Given that I am a former Minister I should know the answer to this: what other reports has the Minister seen on the alternative plans for digital development in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The former Minister should be forgiven—there are so many. I have seen one recently that says that National’s plan is “widely dismissed” in the telecommunications sector: “Quite simply National has not contributed at all to the national debate that has reshaped the telecommunications sector in the 9 years that it has been in Opposition. Its naivety and ignorance shows.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What conclusions has the Minister reached in respect to the policy of allowing a monopoly like that of Telecom which has price gouged New Zealand businesses and consumers for the last 18 years without competition despite the fact that Treasury recommended back in 1998 that there be serious competition to Telecom and which further has put $1 million into the National Party’s account? What would be wrong with allowing that company to have a monopoly? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh yes they did. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member makes an important point that the lessons of history appear to be slowly learnt and quickly forgotten.
Cullen Michael: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:647;Page:16529] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the second reading and third reading debates on the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill to be taken together as a single debate of 12 ten-minute speeches. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:647;Page:16529] 
Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the second reading and third reading debates on the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill to be taken together as a single debate of 12 ten-minute speeches. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:647;Page:16529] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is a matter for both the select committees and the Business Committee. The Business Committee has already extended the report-back date for the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill to 16 June.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:647;Page:16529] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House indicate whether the Government is planning to extend the report-back date on the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill and indeed the Biofuel Bill which are both currently before select committees.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:647;Page:16529] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 June priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and the motion regarding the Reserve Bank of New Zealand funding agreement. Wednesday 18 June is a members’ day.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:647;Page:16529] 
Thursday 29 May 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 June priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and the motion regarding the Reserve Bank of New Zealand funding agreement. Wednesday 18 June is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House indicate whether the Government is planning to extend the report-back date on the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill and indeed the Biofuel Bill which are both currently before select committees. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is a matter for both the select committees and the Business Committee. The Business Committee has already extended the report-back date for the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill to 16 June.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16367] 
9.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on efficiencies in the delivery of education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a report alleging that the number of staff employed in the Ministry of Education has grown at three times the rate of teacher numbers. This discredited argument has been raised in the House a number of times including today by John Key. The truth of course is that the ministry merged with the Special Education Service in 2002 absorbing 1300 staff and with the Early Childhood Development Board in 2003 absorbing 83 staff. Since 1999 the Labour-led Government has employed 6024 extra teachers over and above those required for roll growth more than double the total number of staff employed by the Ministry of Education. These misleading comments from National leader John Key may well disguise his real agenda of slashing teacher numbers to fund his extravagant tax cut promises. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What extra resources were invested in our schools in Budget 2008? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Schools’ operation funds will increase by $171 million over the next 4 years. This is the largest-ever Budget increase to school operations funding since the abolition of bulk funding. We will also fund 10 extra staff who will be working to track truants to get them back to school 15 extra specialist staff to support blind and vision-impaired students and 21 new staff to support children identified in our new Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Programme. Perhaps Mr Key could tell this House as well as the parents of those children how the sacking of these 46 new staff will help to fund his multibillion-dollar tax promises. 
Anne Tolley 
: How efficient is this Government in delivering education services when in 2005 it promised that every new entrant class would have only 15 students to one teacher yet here we are 3 years and another broken promise later and all across the country there are new entrant classes with more than 15 students? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I did not appreciate that literacy was a problem for that member but had she read the Budget she would have seen that we have committed funds to having a ratio of 1:15—another Labour promise fulfilled.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16364] 
7.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What action has he taken to foster sustainable development in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 We have boosted our investment in research and development in last week’s Budget by $205 million over 4 years. This is a large and carefully targeted increase in funding which I anticipate the National Party will vote against later this week. Another change in science is also coming into play. Last month the 15 percent tax credit on all qualifying research and development expenditure by the private sector began and it is predicted to increase private sector investment in research and development very significantly indeed. The National Party voted against that too. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why has the Minister in noting the increase in Budget 2008 of $205 million over 4 years not also advised the House about the more than $700 million of capital expenditure in research science and technology? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is a good question and I apologise for my oversight. It is of course mostly the New Zealand Fast Forward funding of $700 million to be matched by the private sector much of which will increase our research effort in the pastoral and food sectors. National’s leader John Key called that investment—which is the biggest in New Zealand’s history—a gimmick. Later this week National we think will vote against this too.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16358] 
3.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What progress is being made towards a free-trade agreement with India? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 Excellent progress is being made. Last week together with the Minister of Agriculture I met with the Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath and we agreed that after two very positive and constructive meetings on a possible free-trade agreement the study group set up to look at that agreement should make recommendations and report before the end of the year. We also agreed that negotiations should begin shortly after that. In fact Mr Nath expressed the hope that those negotiations could be concluded as early as the end of next year. 
Darien Fenton 
: What would be the value to New Zealand of a free-trade agreement with India? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Obviously it would be an extremely valuable outcome for a free-trade agreement to take place. India is the second most populous country in the world. It has an economic growth rate of about 8.5 percent and an increasing number of people who have middle-class status and middle-class consumption patterns. Although our exports to India have grown significantly they are still small largely because of tariff and non-tariff barriers preventing the entry of our food and beverage exports. The removal of those barriers would create significant new market-access opportunities for our exporters. Even the National Party would have to agree with that. 
Darien Fenton 
: What is the reason for increasing Indian interest in a trade agreement with New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The first reason I think is that we have put a lot of hard work into developing that relationship with India and with the current Minister but also several factors have clearly helped. First is the fact that we have negotiated a comprehensive and high-quality agreement with China and that is clearly assisting our efforts in getting the same sort of agreement with India not to mention Korea and Japan. Second the change in world commodity supply means that far from our high-quality food products being seen as a threat to swamping a market there is a need on the part of countries like India to try to achieve food security. That is clearly helping not only our food and beverage exporters but also other exporters like agritech and biotech industries which can assist countries like India quite strongly.
Moroney Sue: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Moroney Sue: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16315] 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 2 of the Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill. Part 1 was indeed a wide-ranging debate but this part is quite clear. I wonder whether the member could stick to Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It does not matter anyway because the member’s time has expired. Thank you. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Henare Tau: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Henare Tau: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16314] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to ask a couple of questions on Part 2 but before I do so I will comment on what the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard said—about why the National Party does not have an amendment to the Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill. It is pretty obvious. The reason is that the Minister has a financial veto and unless he stands up and seeks leave to suspend that financial veto then we should not talk about it any more. We should not talk about some sort of proposed amendment that National should be putting up; this is the Government’s bill. 
This is a Government bill. I want to ask the Minister whether the Government will borrow in terms of the tax rates set out in Part 2 and whether will it stick by them. In hard times will the Government stick by the rates that have been set out in Part 2? If in 12 months from today oil is US$200 a barrel will the Government stick to these rates? Is there any money left in the coffers for these rates? We have seen before that this Government has not been too forthcoming about the surpluses it has had. People are as my colleague John Carter mentioned facing tough times; people in Waitakere City are now facing a 7.4 percent increase in their rates. Where will their $12 go? Will it be enough for them to pay not only the extras out there but also on top of that for people in the Waitakere City area the increase in rates? 
I want to take just a brief call and I suppose there are three questions. Will we borrow for the tax cuts—the tax rates—in Part 2? Will the Government stick by them? National will certainly stick by them—in fact we will increase them most probably. And what about some relief for those who are facing hard times in the city of Waitakere? It is all well and good to talk about the rates in this bill and about how they will help a lot of people but how will the public and the community of places like Oringi cope? How will they fare in terms of the tax rates before us? I suggest that these rates are not going to do a hell of a lot for the 29000 people who have lost their jobs in the last quarter because to get tax relief surely one must be working and unfortunately those people are not working at the moment. So I ask whether this Government will borrow whether it will stick by these rates and what relief there is for people such as those who live in Waitakere City who are facing a 7.4 percent increase in their rates.
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16311] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have a question: where is the amendment? Where is the amendment from the National Party? National has spent years saying it has a better tax package than the Labour Party has. National members go around the country day after day to say that they have a tax package that is better for the country than Labour’s. There is one part of the bill where an amendment should be moved and it is Part 2. I ask John Key: “Where is your package mate? Why don’t you front up with your package and tell us what you want to do?”. 
I know why John Key has not put an amendment on the Table. The reason is that this Budget is more generous to low and middle income people than what the National Party had in its plan. Why can John Key not be big enough to stand up in the Chamber and admit that? Why can he not say the reason he has failed to put an amendment on the Table is that his amendment would not have cut taxes for low and middle income people; it would have put them up—again. I ask John Key where his amendment is. This is the part. I know he is a relatively young and new member but someone like Lockwood Smith could have briefed him on the point when he should put his amendment in. John Key is not putting in an amendment. That just shows how hopeless and disorganised the National Party Opposition is.
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16348] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The debate has almost concluded. We have heard from almost all the speakers who want to participate in it but we are due to break at 1 p.m. for lunch. I seek the leave of the House to continue the sitting of the House beyond 1 p.m. until we can conclude the third reading of the debate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Simich Clem: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16343] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Labour call is split; there will be 5 minutes for each member with a bell at 4 minutes.
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16322] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Very briefly I think that many members are aware that the Charities Commission has been slower than all of us would have liked in doing registrations. We were concerned that its slowness might stop some organisations that would otherwise be registered as a charitable entity from being able to avail themselves of the benefits of being so registered. So we have created a new category called “tax charity” which effectively says that these organisations have taken reasonable steps that they are in the process of registering and will therefore qualify on that basis after a period of time. It will not harm any organisation in the Hawke’s Bay and it will help those who have been caught up in the slow process. 
Part 3 agreed to.