edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peters Winston: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Taxation (Depreciation Payment Dates Alignment FBT and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2097] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 My colleague the Minister of Revenue has covered the main part of the bill. I want to concentrate on the two Supplementary Order Papers that were in my name and in the name of my party New Zealand First in respect of the racing industry. 
In essence this is a red-letter day for all three sections of the racing industry in this country. The Supplementary Order Papers set out to change the taxation regime from a headline rate of 20 percent down to 4 percent for racing—the same rate as for casinos. Racing is of course New Zealand - owned while most casino ownership is foreign. How this situation has lasted so long is beyond me but we are about to rectify it and hopefully by 1 o’clock on Monday the Governor-General will have signed off this legislation and it will be a fact. 
The second thing we set out to do was to provide a fair internationally competitive depreciation regime for New Zealand stallions down from 4 years to 2 years. There is a different regime for mares so that a horse starting at age 3 will be totally depreciated by age 8 and a mare starting at age 8 will be totally depreciated by age 9. That is dramatically different from the current law and is internationally competitive. Alongside that we have other plans but they do not require a statutory framework. 
I thank the racing industry the thoroughbred industry the harness industry and the greyhound industry in respect of the changes that they have argued for over a long long time and that are now to become a reality. It is a pity that my colleague Keith Locke mentioned the length of time that the Security and Intelligence Committee sat for. He does not seem to understand that it is not the time spent that matters but what is done during that time. We have set out to change the shape of racing in this country in order to make the industry far more competitive and to give it a fair go which is something it has requested for a long long time. 
It is great to be able to tell people going home tonight in drive time traffic who have been concerned about the unfair treatment that this industry has received that it can now confront the United States the UK Ireland Australia Hong Kong Singapore and the Middle East with a new regime that will make us competitive for the first time in a very long time. I thank my colleagues in New Zealand First who have supported this policy for so long and who have made it—alongside our supply and confidence arrangement with the Government—a reality. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Vote: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Vote: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:630;Page:2093] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Brown Peter: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Brown Peter: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:630;Page:2093] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There are two lifestyle attributes that New Zealanders value: one is freedom—the freedom to do what they want and the freedom to go where they want—and the other is security. New Zealanders want to feel secure in their homes and secure when they travel. Not too many years ago New Zealanders had both. They could feel free they had total freedom and they were totally secure. That is no longer the case in part because of internal problems and in part also because of external problems. 
New Zealand First sees the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee—albeit it is a relatively small one in a global sense—as being to balance lifestyle choices between freedom and security. The members of this committee are undertaking an important mission. It is important not only for the security of the country but also for the well-being of New Zealanders. 
New Zealand First will support the motion. We do not share the views of the Green member who has just outlined why the committee should not be in existence. We do not share that view at all. We believe that there is an important role for the committee. We do not measure the importance of that role on how often the committee sits or how long it sits for. We believe that there is a function for the committee and that it should be there and should sit and meet as required. New Zealand First supports the motion because we believe that the committee plays an important role in the administration of New Zealand.
Cullen Michael: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Cullen Michael: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:630;Page:2088] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That— 
(a)the Intelligence and Security Committee shall examine the Estimates Vote for each intelligence and security agency (Standing Orders 248 249 250 330 are to be read and applied accordingly); 
(b) the Intelligence and Security Committee shall examine the Supplementary Estimates for each intelligence and security agency (Standing Orders 248 249 250 333 are to be read and applied accordingly); 
(c)the Intelligence and Security Committee shall conduct a financial review of the performance in the previous financial year and the current operations of each intelligence and security agency (Standing Orders 248 249 250 335 336 are to be read and applied accordingly); 
(d)no select committee shall examine an intelligence and security agency; 
(e)a bill or other matter relating to an intelligence and security agency may be referred by the House to the Intelligence and Security Committee (Standing Orders 248 249 250 251 252 275 276 285 286 287 288 289 291 292 294 295 296 are to be read and applied accordingly); 
(f)the Clerk shall allocate any petition relating to an intelligence and security agency to the Intelligence and Security Committee (Standing Order 361); 
(g)for the purposes of this order— 
‘intelligence and security agency’ means the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Security Bureau; and 
‘Intelligence and Security Committee’ means the Intelligence and Security Committee established by section 5 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996.  
This motion essentially repeats the motion moved at the start of the last Parliament by defining a number of roles for the Intelligence and Security Committee that essentially mirror those of a parliamentary select committee and this of course is a parliamentary committee set up under statute rather than under the Standing Orders of Parliament. So in other words the committee carries out the estimates functions supplementary estimates functions and financial review. It may consider bills referred to that are within the appropriate scope of the committee and petitions that deal with Intelligence and Security Committee matters. Obviously this is the appropriate range of work for this particular parliamentary committee and I think again that it shows that progress has been made in terms of opening up but carefully the work of the intelligence and security agencies to parliamentary scrutiny.
Vote: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
Vote: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
[Volume:630;Page:2088] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
Dunne Peter: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
[Volume:630;Page:2088] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I have three very brief comments on the actual motion: firstly United Future will be supporting it; secondly we have that notwithstanding absolutely no confidence whatsoever in the ability of Mr Hide to make a contribution to anything constructive let alone to the work of this committee; and thirdly we note with sadness and disappointment the bad judgment of Dr Brash in nominating him.
Cullen Michael: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
Cullen Michael: Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership 
[Volume:630;Page:2081] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 8 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 this House endorse the following as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee: 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen and Rt Hon Winston Peters nominated by the Prime Minister under section 7(1)(c) of the Act; and 
Rodney Hide nominated by the Leader of the Opposition under section 7(1)(d) of the Act. 
This motion creates the Intelligence and Security Committee under the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996. The committee is a parliamentary committee but not a select committee. However under Government notice of motion No. 2 it acts very like a select committee for a range of purposes as it mirrors the Standing Orders in relation to the functions of a range of select committees. This process is laid down clearly in statute. 
The committee consists of the Prime Minister who after consultation nominates two other members; and the Leader of the Opposition who after consultation nominates one other member of the committee. After consultation the Prime Minister is nominating myself as Deputy Prime Minister and the Rt Hon Winston Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Leader of the Opposition Dr Brash is nominating Rodney Hide the leader of the ACT party. Traditionally this debate is not very long because obviously it would not be considered appropriate by and large and the House has never accepted amendments to the motion that would in effect override the processes undertaken respectively by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in that regard. 
The committee performs a very useful role. I might say with my Minister of Finance hat on—rather more than Dover Samuels I have considerable trouble over which hat I am wearing at various times at the moment—that I find the work the committee does is quite helpful in terms of getting a deeper insight into what the intelligence and security agencies spend their money on. Also I might say that with almost no exception I can think of those appointed to this committee have been aware of the obvious need for discretion around some of the matters that are discussed within the committee. So it is with those very few comments that I have moved Government motion No. 1 on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Field Taito Phillip: Points of Order — Question No. 12 to Minister 
Field Taito Phillip: Points of Order — Question No. 12 to Minister 
[Volume:630;Page:2069] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Not in those words. Not in the words that Dr Lockwood Smith used. 
 What I did say—referring to his questioning not only today but yesterday with his insinuations in relation to my integrity—was that I would invite him to repeat them outside the House so that I could challenge the comments that he is making inferring on my integrity by his line of questioning. I said to him: “Say that outside the House.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have asked the member whether he said it to the honourable member. It is certainly an allegation of disorder. If a member has acted in a disorderly manner or threateningly in any way he should withdraw and apologise. So I ask the member whether he acted in a way that was disorderly and threatening because if he did he must withdraw and apologise. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: I withdraw and apologise Madam Assistant Speaker. But I would like to make it clear— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No. You must be seated. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I invite Dr Lockwood Smith if he has any question in relation to my integrity to say it outside the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member that is not a point of order.
Points of Order — Question No. 12 to Minister 
Points of Order — Question No. 12 to Minister 
[Volume:630;Page:2069] 
Points of Order 
Question No. 12 to Minister 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A few moments ago during this debate the Hon Taito Phillip Field crossed this Chamber and threatened me that I should accompany him outside. To use his exact words he said that if I had any balls I would go outside and repeat my question. I want to repeat to you Madam Assistant Speaker the question I raised in the House this afternoon. It was this: “Did the report examine any allegations of misuse of the Samoan or Pacific Island immigration quota system and the effects of such misuse on Pacific Island people and the integrity of the Government’s Pacific quota policy?”. At no stage did I mention the Hon Taito Phillip Field at all. I take objection and I think it is a very serious issue when members of this Parliament are threatened in this Chamber by members who seem to have some problem. I think you should take action on the matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to respond. Did he say that to the member? 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Not in those words. Not in the words that Dr Lockwood Smith used. 
 What I did say—referring to his questioning not only today but yesterday with his insinuations in relation to my integrity—was that I would invite him to repeat them outside the House so that I could challenge the comments that he is making inferring on my integrity by his line of questioning. I said to him: “Say that outside the House.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have asked the member whether he said it to the honourable member. It is certainly an allegation of disorder. If a member has acted in a disorderly manner or threateningly in any way he should withdraw and apologise. So I ask the member whether he acted in a way that was disorderly and threatening because if he did he must withdraw and apologise. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: I withdraw and apologise Madam Assistant Speaker. But I would like to make it clear— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No. You must be seated. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I invite Dr Lockwood Smith if he has any question in relation to my integrity to say it outside the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member that is not a point of order.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Question No. 12 to Minister 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Question No. 12 to Minister 
[Volume:630;Page:2069] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A few moments ago during this debate the Hon Taito Phillip Field crossed this Chamber and threatened me that I should accompany him outside. To use his exact words he said that if I had any balls I would go outside and repeat my question. I want to repeat to you Madam Assistant Speaker the question I raised in the House this afternoon. It was this: “Did the report examine any allegations of misuse of the Samoan or Pacific Island immigration quota system and the effects of such misuse on Pacific Island people and the integrity of the Government’s Pacific quota policy?”. At no stage did I mention the Hon Taito Phillip Field at all. I take objection and I think it is a very serious issue when members of this Parliament are threatened in this Chamber by members who seem to have some problem. I think you should take action on the matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to respond. Did he say that to the member?
Field Taito Phillip: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Field Taito Phillip: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2066] 
12.  
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
 to the  
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: What are the main conclusions of the latest Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs report on the effectiveness for Pacific Island people of Government policy? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Acting Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
: The report shows that as a result of initiatives including the Work and Income Pacific Wave strategy there has been a 53 percent decrease in Pacific people receiving the unemployment benefit in Auckland in the last 2 years to June 2005. The report also shows that 140 Pacific people received TeachNZ early childhood education scholarships in 2004—an increase from 37 in 2000—which has strengthened Pacific participation in early childhood education. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: What does the report say about Pacific economic development and what is the Government doing to further strengthen Pacific economic development? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: Government has an increased focus on economic prosperity for Pacific people through initiatives such as the Pacific Economic Action Plan. More Pacific people than ever before are in jobs but we realise there is still more work to be done. It is about turning the one-day stalls at the Pasifika festival into ongoing sustainable economic businesses. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Did the report examine any allegations of misuse of the Samoan or Pacific Island immigration quota system and the effects of such misuse on Pacific Island people and the integrity of the Government’s Pacific quota policy? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: No.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2063] 
10.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to increase the level of support available to the organics industry? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government is providing $1.5 million to Organics Aotearoa New Zealand. 
Dave Hereora 
: Why has the Government increased its level of support for the organics industry? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because it is a small but important sector that is growing especially in the United States and European markets. 
Hone Harawira 
: E aha ana ia hei whakatauingaawangawanga o tona Hoa Minitakuaki mai ko te kaupapa a-moana he wawatanoa iho a ko tonamutunga hei whakakahoreingawhakahiatowhairawa? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What steps will he be taking to address the concerns of his Associate Minister that the oceans policy was just a dream and would undermine economic development? 
] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: When he approaches me on that I will consider it.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Intelligence and Security Committee 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Intelligence and Security Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2062] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting question time but this matter relates to business later in the day. I have had drawn to my attention just a few moments ago that there is a mistake in a series of Standing Orders references in Government notice of motion No. 2 relating to the setting up of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I seek leave for updated Standing Orders references to be substituted at this point so that members will have a chance to check the correct references well before we get to the notice of motion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Question time resumed.
Points of Order — Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Intelligence and Security Committee 
Points of Order — Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Intelligence and Security Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2062] 
Points of Order 
Government Notice of Motion No. 2—Intelligence and Security Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting question time but this matter relates to business later in the day. I have had drawn to my attention just a few moments ago that there is a mistake in a series of Standing Orders references in Government notice of motion No. 2 relating to the setting up of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I seek leave for updated Standing Orders references to be substituted at this point so that members will have a chance to check the correct references well before we get to the notice of motion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Question time resumed.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2047] 
2.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many families will benefit from changes to the Working for Families package from 1 April? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 From 1 April three out of every four New Zealand families with dependent children will be entitled to tax credits through the Working for Families package. From 1 April therefore an estimated 85000 extra families will become entitled to those tax credits bringing to about 350000 the total number of New Zealand families eligible for family assistance tax credits under the Working for Families package. 
Sue Moroney 
: How do families know whether they are one of the three in four families eligible for Working for Families tax credits? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Eligibility depends on family income and the number of dependent children. For example a family with one child under 16 could earn up to $69320 a year and still qualify while a family with three young children could earn as much as $93760 a year and still qualify. Families can easily check their eligibility through the Working for Families and Inland Revenue Department websites or by phoning or texting the advertised contact numbers. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why given Labour’s supposed commitment to social equity will the Minister not reallocate the money given to the Working for Families in-work payment so that family support is increased to at least $20 a week for all families including those of the 230000 children dependent on benefit income instead of redistributing more and more taxpayers’ money to the better-off? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As I said in answer to the member’s question last week and can confirm the average weekly amount already received by beneficiary families from the Working for Families components has already increased by an estimated $32 per family. 
Sue Moroney 
: What other countries provide tax relief similar to New Zealand’s Working for Families package? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Most OECD countries provide targeted tax assistance to families with dependent children. Australian families are eligible for a family tax benefit on a combined family income of up to about A$90000 depending on the age and number of children. In the United Kingdom tax assistance to working families is provided through a child tax credit for which around 85 percent of families are eligible. Those countries recognise as does this Government the need to target tax credits where they are needed and not provide tax cuts for the wealthy.
Carter David: Points of Order — Dog Control (Exemption of Farm Dogs) Amendment Bill—Introduction 
Carter David: Points of Order — Dog Control (Exemption of Farm Dogs) Amendment Bill—Introduction 
[Volume:630;Page:2045] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand the Minister of Agriculture is about to make an announcement of the Government’s intention to change the law with regard to the microchipping of farm dogs. To assist Mr Anderton and the Government I therefore seek leave of the House that the Dog Control (Exemption of Farm Dogs) Amendment Bill in my name be introduced and set down on the Order Paper for its first reading. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Dog Control (Exemption of Farm Dogs) Amendment Bill—Introduction 
Points of Order — Dog Control (Exemption of Farm Dogs) Amendment Bill—Introduction 
[Volume:630;Page:2045] 
Wednesday 22 March 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Dog Control (Exemption of Farm Dogs) Amendment Bill—Introduction 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand the Minister of Agriculture is about to make an announcement of the Government’s intention to change the law with regard to the microchipping of farm dogs. To assist Mr Anderton and the Government I therefore seek leave of the House that the Dog Control (Exemption of Farm Dogs) Amendment Bill in my name be introduced and set down on the Order Paper for its first reading. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Auchinvole Chris: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5535] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the title clause of the Securities Legislation Bill. The purpose of the bill is to increase confidence in New Zealand’s capital markets. How can a few words do that? May I suggest phrases like “The buck stops here.” by Harry Truman “My word is my bond.” and “By our work we will be known.” Those undertakings are the sorts of statements that have been used in previous decades by people charged with leading Governments commercial organisations and community groups to provide increased confidence. I would guess that no members in this Parliament—indeed I would guess that few people listening—are unfamiliar with those phrases. They are phrases that would be nice to hear coming from the Government side of the Chamber. 
In company with other members of the 2005 intake I have been privileged to serve in this Parliament just a few days short of a year. What a journey! [ 
Interruption 
] My companions over there have made it with me. It has been like a train journey—sometimes going like a goods train and sometimes going like an express. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Wong Pansy: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Securities Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5534] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I congratulate you Madam Chairperson on becoming the fourth Assistant Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament. We are making history in New Zealand—this is a very historical moment. Last night I was 25 seconds into my speech and I invited the listeners to come back this afternoon to continue listening to it. I welcome back the Chairman who is the properly elected Deputy Speaker of the House. Certainly the Government is in disarray. Only National’s Deputy Speaker is in the Chamber and it is not even 6 p.m. So everybody is rushing away. Well I am glad that National Party members are hard-working and take their part seriously. 
National supports the Securities Legislation Bill which has an aim to increase inspire and enhance the confidence of investors in New Zealand’s capital and securities markets. I have one complaint about the time taken to bring the bill to the second reading and Committee stage. It has been sitting on the Order Paper for a whole year after it was reported back from the Commerce Committee. One of the provisions relates to additional disclosure by investment advisers and in the light of three very high-profile collapses of financial companies the public would have benefited if this legislation had been passed earlier. There would have been greater disclosure requirements of investment advisers. 
I say that because after Provincial Finance withdrew its prospectus to invite people to invest in that company $9.5 million was invested in that company. That shows that a lot of investment advisers out there are not properly qualified or whatever. I hope the Minister will not take as long to introduce the second part of the complementary legislation for registration of those investment advisers. 
I also comment that we passed this legislation to inspire confidence in investors to invest in our capital and securities markets but it will not work. We saw just yesterday the sacking of the electricity commissioner because he stood up to the Government wanted to do his job independently and wanted to inspire confidence in the working of the electricity industry. The Minister said: “No way!”. The Government did not know the answer but it wants to be popular so if the electricity commissioner wants to do his job independently objectively and according to the legislation well that is not good enough for the Minister. So the commissioner was sacked. 
I doubt after we pass this legislation and the Securities Commission wants again to adhere to the legislation whether confidence will be inspired. Once again I ask how with political interference this legislation will be helpful in inspiring confidence.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:634;Page:5533] 
Business of the House 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
I move that Georgina Beyer be the Chairperson of the forthcoming Committee session. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 45. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Business of the House 
Vote: Business of the House 
[Volume:634;Page:5534] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 45. 
Motion agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Business of the House 
Barnett Tim: Business of the House 
[Volume:634;Page:5533] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
I move that Georgina Beyer be the Chairperson of the forthcoming Committee session.
Vote: Standards Amendment Bill Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Standards Amendment Bill Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:634;Page:5533] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Standards Amendment Bill and the Testing Laboratory Registration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bills read a third time.
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5525] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2 (Sharples Turia); United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 47; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Maori Party 1 (Flavell). 
Bill read a third time.
Chadwick Steve: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5519] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am privileged today to welcome Te Arawa here and to take a very short call on what is a very important bill to those in our region. I defer to the strength and wisdom of my colleagues who are going to take calls after me today. They have achieved an astonishing result. 
Today settles a longstanding grievance. The historical account is now on the record and an apology has been made. This should be a really fulsome and happy day but the actions of other parties have granted us only a certain deep sense of satisfaction of a job completed. National has not helped this process. It has left a legacy of bitter division in our community simply for political gain. National members sloganised this issue and our people were hurt. They came to the shores of Lake Rotorua with one banner saying: “We are one people”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: “Our people”? How can you say that? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Well uncle Manu Bennett told us that we are two people walking one pathway and that is the future that this Government epitomises. National members have also impugned the intelligence and dignity of both the negotiators and the Crown and that is a sad legacy of their contribution to this bill. 
The Maori Party too has sought political leverage over issues like the size of the settlement package the mandating process and now this new issue of the “Crown stratum” definition. This activism has left a people deeply divided and has added another grievance that now requires steadfast leadership. That legacy will be sorted out only by the people of Te Arawa and how they vote in the future. 
I acknowledge my colleagues Margaret Wilson who got new energy into this bill and Mark Burton who picked it up. I acknowledge my Maori colleagues on the Maori Affairs Committee who took the response from all the work the committee did out in the community and quietly and steadfastly carried on with the job. I wish the newly formed Te Arawa Lakes Trust all the best in rebuilding these rifts that have been left behind by Opposition parties. I give assurance to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust that this Government with my support as the electorate MP will work on the signing of a memorandum of understanding to make sure that those bodies on the trust do clean up the waters of our beautiful lakes. 
Justice today has been done. Te Arawa’s dignity remains intact and the tribe lives on. Kia kaha.
Mark Ron: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5517] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise for taking a point of order at this point in time and on such an important bill but I think that the Standing Orders require me to raise and bring in issues that we feel need to be brought to your immediate attention. 
Standing Order 104 makes it possible for people to deliver their speech in te reo Maori. What I am not sure about—and I seek the opportunity for you to deliberate and to give us an opinion a view or a ruling at a later stage—is this concern. We have just seen a member take the opportunity as is his right under the Standing Orders to deliver his entire speech of 10 minutes in te reo Maori and then to have that entire speech interpreted. One of the problems that creates is that members are trying to understand the debate and gauge whether the speech in itself throughout its content is in compliance with Standing Orders 110 111 112 113 and 114 and especially with Standing Orders 115 and 116 which are frequently where breaches are. For members to know that they need to know in a more timely manner precisely what is being said. 
Madam Speaker my question is whether you can give the House some guidance to ensure that we are all able to understand such a speech in a more timely manner—in order to ensure that we may have an opportunity to interject where we believe that the speech is not relevant is offensive or insulting or contains unparliamentary language—and that we may have a more timely interpretation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think you have made your point. I made the judgment that on this occasion Maori Party members should be given the opportunity to give their entire speech within te reo so that the full understanding of it could be given.
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5504] 
1.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bil 
l Has she received any advice since introducing the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill that the proposed legislation would have a number of negative unintended consequences; if so what are these negative consequences? 
MARYAN STREET (Member in charge of the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill): 
 I am aware that a number of submitters thought there might be unintended consequences which is not the same thing as there actually being unintended consequences. But one such putative unintended consequence was that of the establishment of a list of uninsurable tenants or a blacklist. My bill carries no such intention or implication. It simply asks that non-liable tenants not be pursued for costs in the event of damage being caused by another tenant. 
Phil Heatley 
: What is her response to official statements made by the Government’s Department of Building and Housing that her legislation “will create more problems than solved” that “many people will be uninsurable and will not get accommodation” that “first-time and at-risk renters are particularly disadvantaged” and that “there will be significant compliance costs for all parties”; has she as yet had the courage to tell the Deputy Prime Minister this is yet another small victory for National in the Social Services Committee as the committee has unanimously dumped the legislation even though everyone was there to vote? 
MARYAN STREET 
: I am very aware that the purpose of the bill remains as an issue that has been taken up by the Department of Building and Housing’s current review of the Residential Tenancies Act with the full knowledge and support of the Minister. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Department of Building and Housing’s damning report on Maryan Street’s bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the select committee report recommending that the bill does not proceed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Heatley has been a member of this House for some time. I think it would be useful for you to remind him that the point of tabling papers is to provide information that members of the House cannot otherwise get access to. Seeking leave to table a report of a select committee is a waste of time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is not a point of order but what he said is true.
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5500] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In my answer to question No. 7 I said that we do not provide TVs for prisoners in New Zealand. That is not correct. There are two instances. There are TVs provided in common rooms and in the previously privately owned Auckland Central Remand Prison TVs were provided to every prisoner and they have in fact not been removed. I am not sure whether we are actually charging prisoners in that previously privately owned facility. We do charge in other cells.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5499] 
10.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Communications 
: What has the Government done to improve New Zealanders’ access to Internet services? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 Five Broadband Challenge applications totalling $16.3 million for urban fibre network projects have been approved for Auckland’s North Shore the lovely city of Hamilton Porirua - Hutt Valley Nelson-Marlborough and Christchurch. This $24 million Broadband Challenge fund is to provide seed funding for broadband Internet access as part of our digital strategy to transform the New Zealand economy. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What reports has he seen about the Broadband Challenge announcement? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have seen a number of reports including this statement from Hamilton City Council corporate group general manager Mike Garrett welcoming the $3.2 million of Broadband Challenge funding for that city’s fibre network. Mr Garrett stated: “There is no question that this is great news for Hamilton and it means as a city we can be at the forefront of community led broadband accessibility.” I seek leave to table this media release from the city council of the lovely city of Hamilton. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5499] 
9.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has been made on the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I understand that the bill has been reported back. 
Judith Collins 
: What advice has he received as to why the Social Services Committee failed to endorse his bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The advice I have received is that one of my colleagues was tied up in another select committee and therefore there was a tied vote. However unfortunately for the member the current Leader of the House had the prescience in 1996 to ensure that such bills were reported back without amendment and the House can subsequently consider them in the Committee of the whole House. 
Anne Tolley 
: Has the chairman of the Social Services Committee admitted to him yet that despite Labour having the majority on the committee the bill was voted down because Mrs Pillay was late that day and has Mr Barnett the senior Government whip admitted that he walked out before the vote thinking everything was under control? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the amendments that had been put are all in favour of the general public we rather thought the National Party would be sensible enough to vote in favour of the bill. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does the Minister ever consult the chair of the Social Services Committee regarding the likely fate of his bills in that committee; if so what advice has the chair given him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure the member does I am sure the Minister does and I am sure members are given good advice. I can assure the member that the bill will be coming to the House a Supplementary Order Paper will be moved in the Committee of the whole House and then we shall find out whether the Opposition will vote against taking back from 28 days to 90 days the benefits within the bill. 
Judith Collins 
: What changes if any have been made to the bill by the Social Services Committee? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: After careful deliberation the bill is reported back without amendment but this is not something we will cry about. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister confident that the bill will pass through its remaining stages or is it likely that his party will forget to have the numbers during the Committee stage as well? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In just over a year the Opposition has had one small victory in one select committee with a tied vote. It has not quite reached the point where those members can say: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5496] 
6.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What initiative is the Government taking to protect whales and dolphins in the South Pacific Ocean? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Tomorrow in Noumea the Associate Minister of Conservation Mahara Okeroa will sign a memorandum of understanding on behalf of the New Zealand Government that will significantly increase the protection for whales and dolphins in our region. For the past 3 years Pacific nations through the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme have been working on the memorandum of understanding which commits signatories to work actively to protect whale and dolphin habitats. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What are the strengths of this new agreement? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: New Zealand is a leading conservation nation like the UK. This memorandum under the convention on migratory species provides an effective alternative to the International Whaling Commission for Pacific countries interested in pursuing whale and dolphin protection. A significant feature of it is that non-governmental organisations can now join providing a united voice on marine mammal issues. I just heard Judith Collins call out: “Boring!”. I support conservation; I thought that member would too. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take offence to that comment. I did not call it out and I do not find conservation boring even if that Minister is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you for clarifying that. That was not a point of order and it was also compounded by the member making a flippant statement. I remind members on all sides of the Chamber that when they are making points of order or when they are asking or answering questions they should stick to the point. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. I understood that the member was clarifying that she had not made that statement and that she did not find the subject boring but found the Minister boring. If she is in fact asking for the Minister to withdraw his comment that she had called out “Boring!” then I would ask him to withdraw it so we can move on. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I do apologise. I thought that voice was unique but it clearly is not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No you will just reply. I ask members to please be silent so we can move on.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:634;Page:5487] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will begin a 3-week adjournment. When the House resumes on 10 October priority will be given to the third reading of the Securities Legislation Bill the remaining stages of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill and the Communications Legislation Bill and the first readings of the Succession (Homicide) Bill and the Arbitration Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:634;Page:5487] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will begin a 3-week adjournment. When the House resumes on 10 October priority will be given to the third reading of the Securities Legislation Bill the remaining stages of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill and the Communications Legislation Bill and the first readings of the Succession (Homicide) Bill and the Arbitration Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — United Kingdom—Deputy Speaker House of Commons 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — United Kingdom—Deputy Speaker House of Commons 
[Volume:634;Page:5487] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons United Kingdom is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left. 
The Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — United Kingdom—Deputy Speaker House of Commons 
Visitors — United Kingdom—Deputy Speaker House of Commons 
[Volume:634;Page:5487] 
Thursday 14 September 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
United Kingdom—Deputy Speaker House of Commons 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst MP Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons United Kingdom is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left. 
The Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.