edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:176. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What recent announcements has the Government made on progress towards digital switchover? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Last month I announced details of the Government’s Going Digital Targeted Assistance Package. To keep watching TV all New Zealanders need to go digital by getting FreeView Sky TelstraClear or similar by the end of 2013. Over 80 percent of Kiwis have already done so and are already enjoying more channels better pictures and new services. However the Government recognises that a small group of people need financial physical or technical help to switch over. Our targeted assistance package is focused on those most likely to be in genuine need and will directly help elderly people on fixed incomes and people with disabilities to make the transition to digital television. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What are the benefits of the switch to digital television for New Zealand?  
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: As we move further into the digital age the digital switch-over will deliver more enhanced reception and better picture quality as well as freeing up radio spectrum. The total economic benefits from this are estimated to be around $2 billion over 20 years.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:179. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What recent steps have there been to promote New Zealand citizenship as a successful settlement pathway for migrants? 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise that on Monday His Excellency the Governor-General as part of his first Waitangi Day programme hosted a citizenship ceremony at Government House in Wellington. I was delighted to play a part in the event as 24 people from 19 countries became New Zealand citizens. Having the opportunity to welcome new New Zealanders who have chosen to make Aotearoa their home was a fitting way to mark our national day. 
Melissa Lee 
: Why do people apply for citizenship rather than remain on permanent residency? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: Becoming a citizen—[ 
Interruption 
] When they are ready! Becoming a citizen shows that a person has made an indelible commitment to making New Zealand their home and it shows the rest of the world that they are proud to call themselves a Kiwi. For one 9-year-old boy at Monday’s ceremony becoming a citizen means the chance to one day become an All Black. New Zealanders as a group are intensely proud of our distinct identity traditions values and culture which are reflected and bound in the notion of our citizenship and the rights and responsibilities it brings with it.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:174. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What reports has he received on how much rates increased nationally in the decade since the Local Government Act 2002 and how does this compare to the previous decade? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Average rates increased by 6.8 percent per annum since the big changes were made in a whole series of local government laws in 2002. In the previous decade rates increased by an average of 3.9 percent per annum. It is noteworthy that if rates had gone up at the pre-2002 rate householders would today be paying $500 a year less in rates and the economy as a whole would be spending a billion dollars a year less in rates. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How does the 6.8 percent national average rates increase compare with other components of the Consumers Price Index over the last decade? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Rates have gone up by more than any other component of the Consumers Price Index. The 6.8 percent annual increase in rates compares with a CPI overall increase of 3 percent food of 3.8 percent transport of 2.6 percent clothing of 0.1 percent furniture and appliances of 0.1 percent and housing costs of 5 percent. The only cost increase that is nearly as great over the past decade is energy costs which have increased by 6.5 percent per annum although I note that in the last 3 years that energy price increase with the reforms made by my colleague Gerry Brownlee has dropped to just 3.3 percent per year. The Government is working on a package of reforms for local government to ensure that those ongoing large increases do not continue.
Norman Russel: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:253. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the second reading of the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. This bill at its heart addresses some of the detail around the tax treatment of incoming and outgoing foreign investment. It does this in a way that basically works from the principle that it wants to establish a level playing field with regard to the treatment of incoming and outgoing foreign investment. I actually think that is a bit of a mistake. We will be supporting this bill because it makes minor amendments some of which are improvements.  
The reason I think it is a mistake is this reason: when you look at the most recent Inland Revenue briefing to the incoming Minister what it talks about is what is going on with regard to incoming investment into New Zealand. Essentially most incoming investment coming into New Zealand is looking to access the New Zealand domestic market. If we think of the banking sector the banking sector is not a launch pad for an export industry in New Zealand; it is just foreign investment coming in because it wants to access the New Zealand domestic banking market. If we think of telecommunications it is pretty similar. It is dominated by overseas foreign investors coming into New Zealand in order to access the domestic market. So those investors are coming into New Zealand for their own reasons. There is nothing particularly in it for New Zealand necessarily although they can add something to the New Zealand economy but those domestic markets will exist regardless and they will attract those foreign investors. That is fundamentally why they come here.  
The second reason why foreign investors are coming in here is to access resources particularly land but other kinds of resources as well that New Zealand has because those resources are important to their global business model. So the treatment of incoming foreign investment needs to be separated from the treatment of outgoing foreign investment. We do want to make it easy for New Zealand - based firms to invest and prosper overseas so some of the changes that have been made in this bill attempt to do that. 
Debate interrupted.
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:173. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does the Government consider it important for its transport spending to be cost-effective and provide a good return on investment? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes. 
Phil Twyford 
: Has the Minister read his incoming briefing which shows in figure 10 on page 22 the trend for cost-benefit ratios of approved State highway projects over the past few years and is he concerned with the trend that graph shows of increasingly poor quality investment? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and no. 
Phil Twyford 
: Can the Minister confirm that in the 2007-08 year before the current Government came to power over 75 percent of State highway expenditure was on projects with high cost-benefit ratios but by 2009-10 less than 10 percent of State highway expenditure was on projects with high cost-benefit ratios and is he concerned by this trend? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In answer to the back part no. What I do know is that if this country had people like Mr Twyford around in earlier times perhaps even in the Vogel times this country would still be walking around on dirt tracks. 
Phil Twyford 
: At a time when the Government is cutting back spending left right and centre can the Minister explain why ever-increasing amounts of money are being spent on State highway projects with ever-lower returns on investment or will he take a more sensible and balanced approach than his predecessor Steven Joyce? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will agree with him that my predecessor Steven Joyce was an excellent transport Minister and I am happy that the standards he set inside the Ministry of Transport will be continued under my watch. Might I just say that if benefit-cost ratios were all-important  then you would have to ask why David Shearer does not support the western ring route in Auckland because that has a very good benefit-cost ratio.
Smith Lockwood: Address in Reply 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Address in Reply 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members before I call the next member I must say I feel I have been remiss twice. I should have made clear to any viewers and listeners that we are embarking on a set of maiden speeches and that they are of some real significance. Secondly I apologise to the member who has just completed her speech that nor did I ring the 5-minute bell which I will do to let members know that when they hear the bell they have got another 5 minutes—it is not that they should finish then. But I congratulate Tracey Martin that she did not go over time at all despite my having failed to ring the bell.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions Effect on Supplementary Questions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions Effect on Supplementary Questions 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:168. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The issue is the member must now reflect on the question being asked. The question being asked is whether the Minister of Broadcasting agrees with a statement made by the Prime Minister. That is all the question is. I will have to listen to the supplementary questions as they come up but that is what the question asks and the supplementary questions obviously have to relate to why the Minister of Broadcasting might agree with the Prime Minister or might not agree with the Prime Minister. But that is what the question asks.
Brownlee Gerry: Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the suspension for the dinner break to be delayed to allow for the conclusion of all maiden speeches on all days on which they are scheduled from Wednesday 8 February 2012 to Thursday 16 February 2012. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions Effect on Supplementary Questions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions Effect on Supplementary Questions 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:168. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that the issue the member has raised is an issue of order and it is an issue that is not uncommonly a matter of concern in this House. But I think the member must accept that just as questioners often may try to pin a question to a certain Minister—maybe the Prime Minister—and try to apply certain tactics to achieve that it is the Government’s responsibility in terms of which Minister answers a question. That is I think accepted except should—as and the member has already alluded to this Speakers’ rulings 151/5 and 151/6 point out and as I think I have also reiterated in this House—a question be transferred away from a Minister who was the only Minister who could possibly have the information necessary to answer that question. That would be unacceptable. That is also I think accepted. 
In this case what thought has to be given to is if the intent of the questioner was to ask about appointments then the primary question needs to be focused exactly on that and it is the reality that the responsible Minister should be the Minister who answers it. Trying to use a tactic to get at that process may or may not be helpful. On this occasion I must rule that I believe that there is nothing untoward in this question having been transferred to the Minister of Broadcasting. The question simply asks whether the Minister of Broadcasting agrees with a statement the Prime Minister made. That is the question. I will have to listen to the supplementary questions as they arise but that is the substance of that question—whether the Minister of Broadcasting agrees with a statement the Prime Minister made. I realise this is a difficult issue. I realise that trying to direct questions where questioners want them directed is not always easy but my best advice would be—not that the Speaker should be giving advice—that if the substance of the question is serious the question should really be based on that substance and the responsible Minister has to be the one whom it is addressed to. That is by far the safest way to get questions answered by the responsible Minister.
Mallard Trevor: Address in Reply 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Address in Reply 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:220. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think a number of us want to congratulate now—because we did not want to disrupt the debate earlier—the maiden speakers while they are in the House. I seek leave of the House to adjourn now until 7.30 p.m. because I think any speech would be pretty disruptive now. I seek the leave of the House to adjourn until 7.30 p.m. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the debate to be interrupted and the House suspended until 7.30 p.m. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions Effect on Supplementary Questions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions Effect on Supplementary Questions 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before we get on to the first question I would like to raise with you in advance of question No. 11 to allow you to give the matter some thought a question—and it will take me a minute to get to it—and it is effectively whether the breadth of supplementary questions is restricted as a result of the transfer of a question. 
As I have indicated to your office there is a degree of concern at the transfer of question No. 11. We are not asking for the longstop provisions that are outlined on page 558 of the third edition of  
McGee 
 to be brought in—I think those are the ones particularly Speakers’ rulings 151/5 and 151/6—because we do not think that necessarily they apply in this case although it is close. I also say that given the fact that the Government has a right to transfer we accept there has to be a wording change in order to make sense of the fact that it is Mr Foss and not Mr Key answering the question. 
But the quote that is given which is the basis for the question says “the vast array of appointments we make.” The Prime Minister indicated that it was the question of who “we” applies to when the question was transferred from the Prime Minister who chairs the appointments committee and chairs Cabinet and therefore is responsible as he has indicated for a broad range of appointments. He I think referred to New Zealand Post. Certainly he did refer to diplomatic appointments of Mike Moore—an area in which Mr Speaker I am sure you have some interest. We could and were intending to raise other appointments because of the nature of the quotation which would be available if the Prime Minister was answering—for example the appropriateness of the appointment of Sir Wira Gardiner to head the consultation process. What I am seeking is an assurance from you that Opposition— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members know they must not interject. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it a point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a point of order that has been raised. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: What I am seeking is an assurance from you that Opposition supplementary questions will not be restricted to broadcasting matters and broadcasting appointments as a result of the decision of the Prime Minister to transfer this question.
Upston Louise: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:227. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I would like to take just a brief call as the final speaker in this reading of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. Obviously it will not be as capable as Jacqui Dean’s three efforts at this speech so I do want to acknowledge her determination in speaking on this bill.  
I want to take a moment to congratulate those who have given their maiden speeches today because maiden speeches really give you the opportunity to talk about what is important. In my own maiden speech 3 years ago I talked about how important it is that we back our police. So this particular bill the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill is yet another example of how important it is to this side of the House that we back our police and that we give them—and also our corrections staff—the tools and the safeties that they deserve in the important work that they do for each and every one of us every day.  
One of the things that I attended in my first term as the member of Parliament for Taupo was the 10th anniversary of the death of Constable Murray Stretch in Mangakino. It is really important that we do whatever we can to make sure that we are able to send a very clear message that any derogatory actions or assaults on police are taken into consideration. Also there are those who are working in the Tongariro/Rangipo Prison. It is always interesting when you attend a medal ceremony to see the length of service that they put in for us up and down this country and it is our duty to do what we can to keep them safe. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time.
Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:174. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: What according to the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit was the average total shareholder return of Genesis Meridian Mighty River Power and Solid Energy over the last five years and how does that compare to the average cost of borrowing to the Government right now? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 The Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit (COMU) estimates that the weighted average total shareholder return of the four energy companies over the last 5 years is 18.5 percent. This does include major non-cash items one-off items revaluations and changes in accounting methodology. It includes for example the 521 percent revaluation of Solid Energy which the Prime Minister spoke about earlier and also the $600 million one-off sale of Southern Hydro. So that figure is unusable. A better summary is the weighted average dividend yield of the 2007-11 years which is 4.1 percent. COMU advises that the average cost of Crown borrowing over the last year is 4.5 percent. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How is it fiscally rational for the Government to sell assets that earn 18.5 percent in order to avoid taking on debt that costs around 4 percent? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think what the member needs to be clear on is that that is not a valid comparison. The 18.5 percent includes a whole lot of one-off items significant changes in accounting policy in the way that these valuations are determined and a number of non-cash items. So these are not strictly comparable in the way that he is seeking to present it.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why did the Government’s Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update book the revenue from the asset sales while not taking into account the forgone dividends? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: My advice to the member would be that I think the best response to that would be when the Budget Policy Statement is released. I think the Prime Minister said that would be on 16 February.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he saying that he disagrees with COMU when it stated that it is moving to the use of total shareholder value as the key measure of company and portfolio performance? Is the Government accepting that assessment or is it rejecting it? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well the Government accepts it in the sense that it is moving towards total shareholder funds but the number of these years over 5 years do not use methodologies that are exactly comparable. It is inconceivable that the value of Solid Energy could go from sort of $475 million one year to nearly $3 billion the next and not be attributed to accounting changes. Over time the measurement of total shareholders’ funds will become a more comparable figure but currently the changes in methodology the frequent non-cash items and the number of one-off items mean that that figure is not comparable in the way that the member seeks to use it.
Blue Jackie: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Blue Jackie: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:240. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the first reading of the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. This bill is about improving rules around the collection storage and use of personal information while making sure that there are safeguards to protect an individual’s right to privacy. It is a very important bill and I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice on bringing this bill to the House.  
This bill is in part a response to the Law Commission’s review of the Privacy Act with regard to information sharing. The report showed—it was a very comprehensive report—that agencies here and now can actually share quite a great deal of information but that that was not the reality and was not the practice; rather there was confusion and misunderstanding. This bill will certainly aim to clear that up and provide other measures to help protect vulnerable people particularly children.  
It is vital that this bill is fast-tracked in order that vulnerable people and children are protected. Every year an average of 10 children die at the hands of people closest to them and the people they love and trust. Between 2008 and 2009 over 13000 children under 5 were admitted to hospital for conditions that could have been avoided and almost 1300 were admitted because of assault neglect or maltreatment. Quite frankly too many are being hurt and abused. We must ensure that no vulnerable child slips through the cracks because departments cannot or will not talk to each other and share information. And I would like to congratulate the Minister for Social Development Minister Paula Bennett on her green paper. It has been very well received. In the forum that I attended there were many constructive comments made. The green paper is about testing ideas and opening up the discussion on child abuse and neglect.  
There is no doubt that the current information-sharing regime needs to be urgently reformed. We must ensure that vulnerable people and children are protected and ensure that information is linked across departments. That will be one way that we can ensure that no one falls through the cracks. Of course there will be many other spin-offs and benefits. There will be a team approach rather than a siloed approach across departments which can only benefit the clients and the staff. It is about taking an all-inclusive and a holistic approach and inevitably there will be better service delivery as duplication and double-handling are avoided. This bill strikes the right balance ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect a person’s right to privacy and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Collins Judith: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:247. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill be reported back to the House by 15 June 2012. 
Motion agreed to.
Obituaries — Richard Francis Walls QSO 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Obituaries — Richard Francis Walls QSO 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 8 February 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Richard Francis Walls QSO 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I regret to inform the House of the death on 30 October 2011 of Richard Francis Walls QSO who represented the electorate of Dunedin North from 1975 to 1978. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 08 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the suspension for the dinner break to be delayed to allow for the conclusion of all maiden speeches on all days on which they are scheduled from Wednesday 8 February 2012 to Thursday 16 February 2012. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Draft transcript - Wednesday 23 May 2012 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Wednesday 23 May 2012
Parker David: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am trying to assist the House. I do not think it has been called as it needs to be for the Committee stage and the third reading to be part of the same debate.
Chauvel Charles: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:566. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am sorry. I just want to point out that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) has been the subject of exhaustive consultation between the parties and on that basis the Labour Party is supporting the motion. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Robertson H V Ross: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:566. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Further leave Mr Speaker that the bill be read by the Clerk as a Statutes Amendment Bill rather than having to read out all those different third readings. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that that be agreed to. It is agreed. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The question is? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say aye to the contrary no the ayes have it.  
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) read a second time. 
20 bills formerly part of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time.
Chauvel Charles: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:566. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I confirm that the Labour Party supports the passage of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) in the manner that has been agreed to by the House. I particularly want to record that this bill has received exhaustive scrutiny by the Government Administration Committee. It has made several amendments which I think improve the bill and make sure that it is as a Statutes Amendment Bill should be—uncontroversial and dealing with matters that are technical. So on that basis the Labour Opposition will support the motion.
Borrows Chester: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:566. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time and a third time 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I concur with that. The Hon Trevor Mallard sought leave of the House for those two debates to be taken as one. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Three debates. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Three debates. So it is the second reading the Committee stage and the third reading.
Borrows Chester: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:566. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.
Mallard Trevor: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for the second reading Committee stage and third reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) to be taken as one question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Horan Brendan: Second Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Horan Brendan: Second Readings 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge Ngati Porou in the House. After all Sir Apirana Ngata would I imagine be very very proud. With each settlement we come together and we cast away that which has divided us and in settlement we embrace that which unites us—our land our water our people our wairua. With each settlement we grow together as a country as a nation and as New Zealanders we all have a vested interest in the success of these bills.  
Now as Ngati Maniapoto I must also declare an interest. I am one of that sprawling brood of Ormsbys and I am bursting with joy that the sacred water of my iwi is to be protected and nurtured to be cleaned to honour the wairua. Recognising and addressing the grievances of all before us tonight is paramount. It has taken New Zealand many years to reach this point. Again I acknowledge all of you—all of us—who are here today because we represent so much more. Together we represent the many who have gone before us the many who cannot be here today. I look forward to working at the Committee stage to ensure that the full intent of these settlements is achieved. As it has taken so long to get to this point and as there is yet a small way to go I do not wish to take more of this time but I endorse on behalf of New Zealand First the progress of these bills in this Whare. Thank you. 
Bills read a second time.
Finlayson Christopher: Second Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Second Readings 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:561. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 These are four very important bills. Dr Sharples has outlined the essence of the bills but because of what I thought was an excellent contribution by Mr Jones and again by Mr Horomia I just want to say that each of the settlements we are talking about tonight raises an important issue concerning water. There are four rivers that are very much part and parcel of the settlements the Mohaka the Rangitaiki the Waiapu and the Waipa and they are all slightly different versions of a genuine and sincere effort by the Crown to involve iwi in the co-governance of those particular resources. They are different models but I believe they are going to be successful and that they are adapted to the particular needs of the iwi and the particular needs of the rivers concerned—more about that in the course of the Committee stage.  
The Maori Affairs Committee has considered these bills it has submitted its commentary on them to the House and I want to thank Mr Henare and his team for the very thorough examination of the bills. I want to thank other Ministers and departments involved in the process. A wide variety of people from across the political spectrum have made some very very important contributions to these settlements over the years. I particularly want to acknowledge Mr Horomia and Mr Jones who always put partisanship to one side and work with this Government on these issues which is the way it should be.  
I also briefly just to show how bipartisan I am want to refer to the negotiators I have been working with: Paul Swain for the Crown with Ngati Porou and Fran Wilde for the Crown with Ngati Pahauwera. What is it about former Labour MPs that they make such very good Treaty negotiators? They are so pleasant to deal with when they have left this place. Some of course I do not think could ever change their spots but others are such very nice people. In fact it is an indication of how nice they are that—again to show how bipartisan I am; too bipartisan for my own good—I have asked Mr Rick Barker an excellent fellow to work for me with Mr Swain in Taranaki.  
Hon Shane Jones 
: Just a small matter of income. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Oh no. It is the quality of the contribution they make. So there we have it. A lot of good work has been done on these bills. Let us get down to the detail in the Committee stage.
Horan Brendan: Ngai Tamanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Makino Claims Settlement Bill — First Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Horan Brendan: Ngai Tamanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Makino Claims Settlement Bill — First Readings 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:548. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a great privilege for me to stand on behalf of New Zealand First. Today is a landmark day. Toitu te whenua toitu te tangata toitu te mana—the land endures the people prevail the mana is secure. These tribal settlements are about the nexus of place people and prestige. They do not guarantee success of their own right but they do acknowledge the debt of history.  
I would also agree with the speakers who have been before me and I would welcome everyone here in the gallery. And I would ask you please to stand because although you are small in number you are immense in presence. You represent the hard work the blood the sweat the tears of all those who have gone before you. You know the hardships that you have endured and your place is special here in this whare raiona—this lion’s den. Here you are.  
I would like to acknowledge Tu Wyllie. I acknowledge Tu as an example of the many people who have done such hard work as he was a former New Zealand First MP. He knows what hard work is about. He knows about loyalty and so I would like to acknowledge him— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Whatever! Talk about something you know about. 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: —unlike some follicly challenged members I know. But never mind; this is not the time for that. What I am saying though is that I am proud to be here and I acknowledge your presence and you are not alone because I see many people here. I see a great presence. If you would join with me and waiata with me: 
E Ihowa Atua 
O nga iwi matou ra 
Ata whakarangona 
Me aroha noa 
Kia hua ko te pai; 
Kia tau to atawhai; 
Manaakitia mai 
Aotearoa 
Thank you.
Robertson H V Ross: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We have already agreed to that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We can dispense with the Committee stage by leave of the House? We can do that by leave of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We’ve already done it.
Sharples Pita: Ngai Tamanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Makino Claims Settlement Bill — First Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sharples Pita: Ngai Tamanuhiri Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Makino Claims Settlement Bill — First Readings 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:535. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I ask the leave of the House to extend my time to 15 minutes. I actually have cognate bills here with two iwi involved. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well the honourable Minister will know that the House is the master of its own destiny. The Minister seeks leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The honourable Minister has 15 minutes. Pita the bell will go with 5 minutes remaining so that you know.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the right honourable gentleman’s points and it is a fair point of order. The grounds that I envisage would be if the Ministers made a very prompt decision to do something because that would be a case of recent occurrence. But the case must be something that is the responsibility of a Minister and as the right honourable member points out the decision of the judge is not the responsibility of the Minister. The member did put some effort into trying to frame an application to try to bring it to meet the Standing Orders—and I compliment him on that—but it does require a case of recent occurrence involving a Government Minister and that has not happened yet. That was what I envisaged might happen and it has not happened yet.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from Dr Russel Norman and from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the requirement that the Minister for Land Information and the Associate Minister of Finance must reconsider their decision to approve Milk New Zealand’s application to buy the Crafar farms as a result of a decision of the High Court on 15 February 2012 and the outcome and effects of the decision on current Government policy.  
The urgent debate procedure is a means of holding the Government to account for matters that have actually occurred. It is not a means of debating something that may occur in the future. There is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the High Court as I pointed out to the House yesterday so there is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the High Court requiring that the Ministers’ decision be reconsidered. As that reconsideration has not yet happened there is no particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised today. The application is therefore declined.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That would be fine if on all of the occasions the word “given” did in fact refer to something that was immediately spoken and not in fact to an assertion that was made in the first question. It is just one of those things that sometimes can creep in here and makes question time a little difficult. I know the efforts you have made to get better answers to questions.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are aware that I have not been too strict on that issue. I am aware that previous Speakers have ruled that out but the reason I have not followed that pattern is that I find it helpful if members listen to answers given and then in asking a further supplementary question say “Given that answer” or “Given [something the Minister said]” bringing focus to their question in that way. That is why I have not ruled out that kind of preface to a question.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:497. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What progress has he made declaring the Volvo Ocean Race Stopover a major event under the Major Events Management Act 2007? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Very good progress has been made. A paper has been approved by a Cabinet committee and I expect the Government next week to endorse the declaration of the Volvo Ocean Race stopover next month in Auckland. Major events such as these are a significant contributor to New Zealand’s economy so there are a number of protections in the Major Events Management Act. For example—and I pick a random example—as the author of the Act said at the time it was passed “The bill … prohibits the on-sale of tickets at above their face value. As recent events show those who buy up tickets and then seek to sell them at an unfair profit have deprived many Kiwi … fans of the opportunity to attend big events.”  
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why are these kinds of protections under the Major Events Management Act necessary?  
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Event organisers need to be confident that their investment and marketing are not undermined. As the author of the Act said at the time organisers and sponsors make huge financial commitments to make these types of events a reality and clearly they do not want others to free-ride on their investments and trade off their goodwill. Indeed there are those who would advocate these protections be extended to regional events such as—I do not know; speaking hypothetically—Wellington’s Homegrown festival although presumably not in this case the original sponsor of this Act.  
Hon Tau Henare 
: What reports has the Minister received that suggest ongoing behaviour contrary to the intent of that legislation?  
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have received a report as late as this morning highlighting the problem of ongoing ticket scalping for upcoming events taking place in this case apparently from a red-painted ticket sales office in Naenae which is possibly part of a chain of such offices all across Lower Hutt. Notwithstanding that the alleged perpetrator has been quoted in the paper as saying “It’s not what it looks like.” I think in this case it is what it looks like and what it looks like is a clear case of “Do as I say but not as I do.”