edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:669;Page:15991] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will make a number of points. First the way in which urgency has been conducted this year has been designed to give the Business Committee a great deal more input into when urgency occurs and what is to be covered during that time. But that does not take away from the fact that we are a very busy very active Government which has a very active programme. The Speaker more than anybody will be aware that the House is due to rise shortly for a 7 to 8-week adjournment. Therefore when we come back there will be a Prime Minister’s statement and much of February will be taken up in the reply that is made to that statement. So we need to get a whole lot of first readings done in order to get those bills to select committees. There is nothing wrong with doing that. I think most New Zealanders would be rather shocked to hear Labour complain about having to work for more than 17 hours a week in the House. We think that that is not enough time; that is why we are taking a few extra hours.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:669;Page:15991] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did answer those questions. I answered them in very straight terms. I am sorry if you did not understand what I said but I gave the senior whip an answer to the question that he asked. The fact is that the House is going into an 8-week adjournment. We think doing a bit of extra time ahead of that is not a bad idea. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the whole House for my stupidity.
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Second Readings 
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:669;Page:15852] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a second time. 
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill read a second time.
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Second Readings 
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:669;Page:15852] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill recommended by the Electoral Legislation Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Question agreed to.
Harawira Hone: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Second Readings 
Harawira Hone: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:669;Page:15842] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I note that when the police reviewed election spending a few years ago they decided that there was not a case to look into with the Maori Party because we did not spend anything near the cap. We simply do not have enough money so we rely heavily on face to face getting out and about and talking to people. We do not even think about the big spends that the two major parties campaign with. Like the Greens we are happy to see that some limits have been agreed to primarily for the two major parties—and ACT of course. Those are the only parties that can afford to spend the kind of money that people think of in terms of major political campaign spending. 
I am grateful that limits have been proposed. We are grateful that there is greater transparency. We are grateful that there is greater clarification around election advertising and we will be supporting this legislation. Thank you very much.
Borrows Chester: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Second Readings 
Borrows Chester: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:669;Page:15843] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support obviously of the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill which have been a long time coming. Those of us who were part of the previous term of Parliament can recall the fractious nature of the select committee debates on electoral finance and advanced voting. As a part-time member of the Electoral Legislation Committee I am very pleased to have witnessed a much more cordial relationship across the parties. Maybe it was because those events were not so recent so nerves were not so wrought. 
Suffice it to say that every party in this House has a little bit of baggage. Transparency and openness tend to render the scars visually no matter who gets up and says it first whether it be the Green Party the Labour Party the National Party the ACT Party or any other party for that instance. I am pleased to see that we have an accord and that people are looking forwards rather than backwards. 
I look forward to the smooth transition of these bills through the House. I thank those members of the select committee for the way that they engaged in an honest and open way. I congratulate the chair Amy Adams who did a fantastic job of steering it through. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Tabling of Documents — Pike River Mine West Coast—Tragedy 
Tisch Lindsay: Tabling of Documents — Pike River Mine West Coast—Tragedy 
[Volume:669;Page:15833] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Waikato) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two letters. The first is a letter received from the European Parliament entitled “Pike River: mark of respect by European Parliament”. The second is a letter of response penned by Charles Chauvel chair of the New Zealand - European Union Parliamentary Friendship Group. In seeking leave I note that the mark of respect is the first occasion that the European Parliament has responded to a New Zealand tragedy in this way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16053] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the words after “Committee” be omitted. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16009] 
15. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 on behalf of  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill? 
CHESTER BORROWS (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee) 
: 
 The committee has received six submissions on the bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I could not hear him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I understand it the answer was that there were six submissions on the bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of his answer that only six submissions have been received on that bill is it the committee’s intention to call for further submissions in order to make sure that a wide spread of public opinion is received? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: No.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Outcome of Ministerial Resignation 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Outcome of Ministerial Resignation 
[Volume:669;Page:15833] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Darren Hughes seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision of the Prime Minister not to reappoint Pansy Wong as Minister for Ethnic Affairs and Minister of Women’s Affairs. The absence of action on the part of a Minister or the Government is not a particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised under Standing Order 380. Furthermore on 16 November I declined to accept an application for an urgent debate on the resignation of Pansy Wong as a Minister on the grounds that the issues that led to her resignation were not ones to which ministerial responsibility attached. That situation has not changed. The application is therefore declined.
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16007] 
5. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 Twenty-two submissions have been received on the bill. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How many submissions were received after the due date? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: None so far. We have one that has asked to be received and permission has been granted. That submission is due by the end of this week.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:669;Page:15828] 
7. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: What examples can he give of families claiming social assistance for which they are not entitled and what has this Government done to stop this abuse? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I am aware that 9700 families have been using losses from investment properties to reduce their family income and to increase their Working for Families entitlements and that some families who structure their financial affairs through trusts are also claiming Working for Families tax credits despite earning substantial incomes. For example a family whose trust-owned company earned over $700000 a year in taxable income was able to claim $12000 in Working for Families tax credits. Working for Families tax credits are intended to support families in genuine need not to boost the incomes of wealthy families like those. Therefore the Government will change the law later this week to extend the definition of “income” for Working for Families purposes to prevent such abuses continuing. This will make it fairer for middle-income New Zealand families in particular and for the taxpaying public which foots the bill for these social assistance programmes. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Is the Minister aware of other examples of families unfairly claiming Working for Families tax credits? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Yes. I am also aware of other examples of families with substantial economic means reducing their family income by placing their investments in their children’s names. I have been informed of a family with parents who earned about $36000 a year but with children who had a combined investment income of nearly $90000 a year and that family claimed $13000 in Working for Families tax credits. Another family’s children earned over $150000 a year in investment income yet that family was still able to claim more than $4000 in Working for Families tax credits. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What does the Government intend to do to make Working for Families fairer? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I said in my primary answer that legislation will be passed later this week to broaden the definition of “income” for Working for Families. The new income test will include trustee income major fringe benefits and the income of overseas spouses. It will also apply to the parental income test for eligibility for student allowances and the community services card. The principle is simply that parents should not be able to receive different levels of assistance depending on how they structure their affairs to maximum advantage because that is simply inequitable unfair and wrong.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:669;Page:15825] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology and asks—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. I ask both front-benchers please to show some respect to the questioner.
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:669;Page:15831] 
11. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: What steps has Land Information New Zealand taken to help in the rebuilding of Canterbury following the 4 September earthquake? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 The Government has just granted $850000 to Land Information New Zealand so its experts can start the important work of resurveying parts of the region damaged by the 4 September earthquake. New Zealand’s survey control system is made up of physical markers known as a geodetic network. The network provides surveyors with accurate information about the area’s topography. The Canterbury earthquake caused significant disturbance to that region’s geodetic control network making it incredibly unreliable. With the resurveying done repair work on important infrastructure such as roads water waste water and sewerage networks can be carried out effectively with the correct information about the land. The surveying work is important because it will not only help local authorities to rebuild key infrastructure but also inform them about changing drainage patterns and flood risks. 
Amy Adams 
: How will this help residents of Canterbury whose land has been damaged by the quake? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The resurveying work will help determine property boundaries which will help ease homeowners’ stress and reduce any potential property disputes. The work will help homeowners in their rebuilding as currently some work is being delayed due to a lack of accurate data following the quake. In other words the earth is not where it used to be.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:669;Page:15830] 
9. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What recent actions has the Government taken to improve the welfare of pigs in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Last week I was pleased to issue a code of animal welfare for pigs. The new code which is now in effect will limit the use of sow crates from 2012 and will prohibit them completely from 2015 while also placing new limits on the use of farrowing crates. The code confirms New Zealand’s position as a world leader on animal welfare and positions us at the forefront of efforts internationally. 
Shane Ardern 
: What feedback has the Government received on the new code? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The new code has had overwhelmingly positive feedback. My office has received a large amount of correspondence praising the Government for its decision. Even Save Animals from Exploitation has publicly praised it as “surprising” “unprecedented” and a “reason to congratulate a Minister of Agriculture”. This move plus legislation toughening the penalties for animal welfare offences and the substantial increase in funding for animal welfare activities in Budget 2010 is a clear indication of just how important animal welfare is to this Government.
Goff Phil: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
Goff Phil: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
[Volume:669;Page:15818] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document in which the then Prime Minister Jenny Shipley said that hearings on the Security Intelligence Service amendment bill would be open to the public. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of the document? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The document goes back to 6 February 1999; it was in the  
Press. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It goes back some years. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
[Volume:669;Page:15818] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is entering into debate on the issue. I do not think the House should do this. The facts of the matter are that the member was concerned and he raised a point of order about a question he had lodged that was not accepted. The advice I have received was that the principal reason for its not being accepted was that the bill is not before the committee and therefore there is no business for which the chairperson has charge or is responsible. No question can be taken on the matter under those circumstances.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
[Volume:669;Page:15818] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For future procedures in the House to avoid part of the confusion we have just seen it would be useful if the chair of a committee did not in advance state and determine his position—
Key John: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
Key John: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
[Volume:669;Page:15818] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I might be able to help clarify the matter. The Intelligence and Security Committee is established by legislation in such a way that it requires the unanimous support of committee members for a position to be adopted. Therefore the position of holding the hearings in public would have to have unanimous support. As chair of the committee I will not be supporting that position and therefore it will not have unanimous support.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
[Volume:669;Page:15818] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I confess to the honourable member that I was unaware of this situation. I probably need to take some advice on the matter. 
Rt Hon John Key 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the right honourable Prime Minister before I rule on the matter.
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
[Volume:669;Page:15817] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on an interesting procedural question. This morning I submitted a question to the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee on whether the hearings on the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill will be secret. My question was turned down on the basis that the bill is not yet before the committee. Normally I would think that an acceptable response except that yesterday the chair of the committee publicly said that the hearings would be secret which indicates that the committee has discussed this matter. In that situation it would be warranted that the chair of the committee answer my submitted question. I seek your guidance. I understood that the essence of the issue is that if a matter has been discussed and a decision made within a committee then the chair of the committee can respond on behalf of the committee.
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16006] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I seek leave to table this photo of Vera Wilson taken today by her son Murray as she was being forced to leave her home in Taihape and move to Feilding to be separated for the first time in her marriage from her husband by a locked door—the face of health cuts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last comment was not helpful. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial and Prime Ministerial Responsibility 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial and Prime Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:669;Page:15817] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On Wednesday 24 November I indicated to the House that I would reflect further on issues raised relating to Ministers’ accountability to the Prime Minister in terms of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and the extent to which the Prime Minister is answerable to the House. Standing Order 369 sets out that questions may be put to a Minister relating to the public affairs with which a Minister is officially connected or any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible. In practice a wide view of the concept of ministerial responsibility is taken but there must be an official connection. Ministers operate in a number of different capacities as set out in the  
Cabinet Manual 
: in a ministerial capacity within a particular portfolio in a political capacity as a member of Parliament representing a constituency or a community of interest or in a personal capacity. 
Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour in these capacities under the  
Cabinet Manual 
 but the Prime Minister is answerable to the House only where there is an official connection. The Prime Minister is answerable for whether he retains confidence in his Ministers their performance as Ministers and how they manage conflicts of interest in their ministerial roles between their personal interests and their public duty. The Prime Minister is not responsible for action taken in a non-ministerial capacity such as as a party leader or as a member. Nor is the Prime Minister answerable for actions taken by Ministers in a purely personal or private capacity. It can be a hard distinction to draw. 
Although questions will not be ruled out simply because they have a party or personal connection I will rule out questions that ask the Prime Minister to take responsibility for actions or statements that are not taken or made in a ministerial capacity or that ask the Prime Minister to give an opinion on such matters. An opinion that is sought from a Minister must relate to a matter for which the Minister is responsible.
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) 
[Volume:669;Page:15817] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The result of the vote on the question on the closure motion on Part 2 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) was incorrectly announced as Ayes 69 and Noes 59. The correct result is Ayes 69 and Noes 51. The record will be corrected.
Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Outcome of Ministerial Resignation 
Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Outcome of Ministerial Resignation 
[Volume:669;Page:15833] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Pansy Wong—Outcome of Ministerial Resignation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Darren Hughes seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision of the Prime Minister not to reappoint Pansy Wong as Minister for Ethnic Affairs and Minister of Women’s Affairs. The absence of action on the part of a Minister or the Government is not a particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised under Standing Order 380. Furthermore on 16 November I declined to accept an application for an urgent debate on the resignation of Pansy Wong as a Minister on the grounds that the issues that led to her resignation were not ones to which ministerial responsibility attached. That situation has not changed. The application is therefore declined.
Tabling of Documents — Pike River Mine West Coast—Tragedy 
Tabling of Documents — Pike River Mine West Coast—Tragedy 
[Volume:669;Page:15833] 
Tabling of Documents 
Pike River Mine West Coast—Tragedy 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Waikato) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two letters. The first is a letter received from the European Parliament entitled “Pike River: mark of respect by European Parliament”. The second is a letter of response penned by Charles Chauvel chair of the New Zealand - European Union Parliamentary Friendship Group. In seeking leave I note that the mark of respect is the first occasion that the European Parliament has responded to a New Zealand tragedy in this way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial and Prime Ministerial Responsibility 
Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial and Prime Ministerial Responsibility 
[Volume:669;Page:15817] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Ministerial and Prime Ministerial Responsibility 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On Wednesday 24 November I indicated to the House that I would reflect further on issues raised relating to Ministers’ accountability to the Prime Minister in terms of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and the extent to which the Prime Minister is answerable to the House. Standing Order 369 sets out that questions may be put to a Minister relating to the public affairs with which a Minister is officially connected or any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible. In practice a wide view of the concept of ministerial responsibility is taken but there must be an official connection. Ministers operate in a number of different capacities as set out in the  
Cabinet Manual 
: in a ministerial capacity within a particular portfolio in a political capacity as a member of Parliament representing a constituency or a community of interest or in a personal capacity. 
Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour in these capacities under the  
Cabinet Manual 
 but the Prime Minister is answerable to the House only where there is an official connection. The Prime Minister is answerable for whether he retains confidence in his Ministers their performance as Ministers and how they manage conflicts of interest in their ministerial roles between their personal interests and their public duty. The Prime Minister is not responsible for action taken in a non-ministerial capacity such as as a party leader or as a member. Nor is the Prime Minister answerable for actions taken by Ministers in a purely personal or private capacity. It can be a hard distinction to draw. 
Although questions will not be ruled out simply because they have a party or personal connection I will rule out questions that ask the Prime Minister to take responsibility for actions or statements that are not taken or made in a ministerial capacity or that ask the Prime Minister to give an opinion on such matters. An opinion that is sought from a Minister must relate to a matter for which the Minister is responsible.
Voting — Correction—Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Voting — Correction—Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) 
[Volume:669;Page:15817] 
Tuesday 7 December 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Voting 
Correction—Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The result of the vote on the question on the closure motion on Part 2 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) was incorrectly announced as Ayes 69 and Noes 59. The correct result is Ayes 69 and Noes 51. The record will be corrected.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Intelligence and Security Committee—Access to Hearings on New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
[Volume:669;Page:15818] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I—[ 
Interruption 
] The Speaker is on his feet. I have listened to the exchange under a point of order because I was unaware of what had happened. The advice I have received though is that the bill is not before the committee and there is no business for which the chairperson has charge. At this moment I understand that that is why a question was not accepted. I certainly am happy to explore the matter further because I confess that the member has caught me unprepared for this situation. That is the advice I have received: the bill is not before the committee and therefore there is no business for which the chairperson of the committee has charge. Therefore he cannot be questioned on it at this stage.
Bennett David: Electoral Referendum Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Electoral Referendum Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15869] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on the Electoral Referendum Bill. Most parties in this House have gone through the issues of the different aspects of proportional representation and have talked about the public’s awareness and their desire to have their say on how they are represented in this House. This bill is the practical aspect of giving that option to the public at the next election. 
We support this bill. We will see that it goes through the House and that the public has the option of making their point of view known to Parliament at the nearest convenient time. Thank you. 
Amendments recommended by the Electoral Legislation Committee by majority agreed to. 
Bill read a second time.
Goodhew Jo: Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:15870] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate of all parts of the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill to be taken as one debatable question. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15722] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all the words after “Committee” be omitted. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Smith Nick: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15721] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Environmental Protection Agency bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 March 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I put that question I will put the question on the amendment moved by Charles Chauvel.
Kaye Nikki: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15721] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to make a short but hopefully punchy call on the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. 
The bill is about the environment and it is about better decision-making in terms of the environment. In my view it is very important legislation; it is part of a wider package. We have already passed the first phase the Resource Management Act reforms. We are seeing wonderful progress in terms of the Resource Management Act reforms with faster consenting across the country. This is excellent legislation and I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a first time.
Calvert Hilary Jane: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
Calvert Hilary Jane: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15715] 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party with lukewarm support for the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. ACT supports the bill as far as its referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee but for a whole raft of reasons we are reluctant to take that support any further. 
The ACT Party is all for any legislation that removes pointless bureaucracy and makes life easier for those who wish to get ahead. The bill’s explanatory note makes many good noises such as: “The purpose of creating an EPA is to more effectively efficiently and transparently manage the regulation of New Zealand’s environment and natural and physical resources.” If only! As a rule one does not reduce regulation by creating an extra regulatory body. An additional layer of bureaucracy no matter how well meaning is still an additional layer of bureaucracy. With it comes more paperwork more muddled decision-making and of course more demand for Government funding that could be better spent elsewhere. A case in point: the regulatory impact statement estimates the extra one-off capital and establishment costs to be between $1.8 million and $3.5 million with an increase in annual costs of up to $2.4 million. 
Labour seems to think that having 140 staff will improve the cleanliness of our water and that that number is not enough. So my question asks how many people it takes to make the water clean. My answer—as Labour does not seem to know—is that the water has to want to be clean! 
If this bill were to give truth to its intentions it would streamline the system. That might very well mean getting rid of the regional councils and all the obstacles and complexities that they bring to the table. As the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide showed one can eliminate all sorts of duplicated practices by removing the bodies that create said duplications and that saves ratepayers huge amounts of time and money. Turning eight factional councils into one unified body did precisely that. 
If the Government was truly serious about attacking regulations it would scrap the Climate Change Response Act 2002 which would remove clauses 48 to 64 in a flash. 
When Australia is backtracking on the need for an emissions trading scheme and the United States has rejected a cap-and-trade plan it is a nonsense that New Zealand continues to cling to our pointless scheme. Because of this Government’s stubbornness on this issue we all have to waste our time in the House amending laws to ensure that the right agency is appointing enforcement officers collecting emissions penalties etc. etc. 
ACT is in favour of letting this bill go to a select committee in the interests of democracy but for the reasons specified it would take a great many changes to the bill to convince us to support it any further than that.
Hutchison Paul: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15703] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a very short call on this Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Is the member standing again? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The member is standing again. It is good to see the member sitting in on this occasion. He is the voluble ex-member of—where was it Otaki? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Ex and next. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I do not think so. Amendments arising from inquiry into the 2008 general election are encapsulated in this bill. They will renew and simplify enrolment processes to maximise enrolment and achieve cost effectiveness. 
It is good to see that the Labour Opposition including Darren Hughes Charles Chauvel and even Stuart Nash all recognise the finely crafted job that this excellent National Government has achieved in bringing this bill about. I commend it to the House.
Woodhouse Michael: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15696] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I was not going to mention the Mana by-election but as the member who has just resumed his seat Mr Hughes opened the door I am very happy to go through it. I congratulate Mr Fa’fo and I look forward as all honourable members do— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s “Fa’foi”. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Thank you. I look forward as I am sure all members do to Mr Fa’afoi taking his seat in this House. But it was a pyrrhic victory really was it not? We can see it was when we think about all the union resources Labour members used. They were trucking protesters up from Dunedin for goodness’ sake! Of course there is a surplus of them down there. I am sure that Labour could have done without a few because they have had very little to protest about down there. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: How does the member go in Dunedin? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I have not had them outside my office for several months. I cannot think what might be going right but something is definitely going right. The protesters had nothing else to do but come to Mana and protest the Prime Minister and the National candidate. Really as the Prime Minister said it was the best feeling anyone could have coming second; we never thought that coming second would feel so good. The Leader of the Opposition said the by-election was a referendum on the Government. I think actually that it was more of a referendum on his leadership and on the Labour Opposition. Some members of that caucus must be sweating profusely. That does not apply to the good Mr Hodgson; he will not have to worry for too much longer. 
On a more generous note I will pick up on the points Mr Chauvel made. Was that the correct pronunciation? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: This time yes. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Mr Chauvel made some very generous comments about the temporary select committee that was set up the Electoral Legislation Committee. I thought it did an outstanding job. I was not a member of that select committee but like many other members I spent some time on it. It dealt with some really tricky issues on the three bills it was considering. They involved quite substantial changes to our electoral system and I congratulate all the members on the work they have done. 
This bill of course will continue that work. I think it will be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee and I am particularly interested in the Internet capability for e-enrolment that this bill will provide and also the efficiencies that will continue with the merger of the three organisations. I strongly support the bill.
Calder Cam: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
Calder Cam: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15718] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to rise and speak on the Environment Protection Authority Bill. I will speak briefly. This excellent bill establishes the Environmental Protection Authority as a stand-alone Crown agent to perform environmental regulatory functions. The bill is part of our phase-two reforms of the Resource Management Act which contribute to our six-point plan for a stronger economy. The bill does this by cutting red tape and regulations. 
The establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority is yet another election promise fulfilled. It is part of the blue-green vision to grow the economy while protecting New Zealand’s natural environment. We are committed to protecting our environment; it is unique and it is crucial to New Zealand’s future. We have absolutely no truck with the ideas expressed at the time of the Falklands War by Margaret Thatcher who observed: “It is exciting to have a real crisis on your hands when you have spent half your political life dealing with humdrum issues like the environment.” That is certainly not our attitude. 
The Government is committed to the importance of the environment for New Zealand’s future. I reiterate the fact that the Environmental Protection Authority is a strong and independent regulatory authority that will ensure that our environment is protected at a national level. I commend the bill to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15691] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my privilege and honour to participate in the first reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). The purpose of the bill is to amend the Electoral Act 1993 to establish electoral reforms. On 1 October 2010 the offices of the Chief Electoral Officer and Electoral Commission were abolished and their functions were transferred to the new Electoral Commission. The second stage of the reform is the transfer on 1 October 2012 of the Chief Registrar of Electors’ responsibility for the electoral roll to the new Electoral Commission. The purpose of presenting this bill in stages is to minimise disruption to the 2011 general election. 
This bill also includes amendments resulting from the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2008 general election. Democracy is a political system in which electoral representation governs according to the constitutional laws of the land. There have been cases where this process has been challenged. We have to ensure that the democratic process is safeguarded at any cost. 
One of the main recommendations made by the Justice and Electoral Committee was to ensure that an elector’s immigration status could be tested at the time that an enrolment application is processed. There have been several cases of people who have deceived the Electoral Commission with regard to their immigration status. To enable the Electoral Commission to carry out these checks the Department of Internal Affairs has been given the authority to provide information to the Chief Registrar of Electors during the issuing of new passports or the renewal of passports. This change will be implemented from 1 October 2012. 
To assist the public and to bring them into the present day with new technology this bill gives voters the option to re-enrol and to amend their enrolment details online. It will also enable applicants to verify their identity online in real time. The Justice and Electoral Committee also recommended that paper enrolment records be destroyed once they have been electronically secured and stored. The amendment will enhance the enrolment service and reduce electoral administration costs. 
The amalgamation of electoral agencies is part of the reform initiated by this Government with the support of other parties. This bill is essential not only to ensure the reliability and competence of the electoral system but also to streamline the enrolment process and accomplish a reduction in overheads. I look forward to hearing submissions on this bill during the select committee process.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15688] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Woodhouse Michael: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15688] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I begin by saying that if the comments made by Miss Mackey on accident compensation are anything to go by then the rest of her speech on the Holidays Amendment Bill should be taken with a similar pinch of salt. Labour members showed in the debate on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) that they have absolutely no understanding of employers and now we have the quinella—they have no understanding of employees either. They treat them as if they are idiots. Well this side of the House does not. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Blue Jackie: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Blue Jackie: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15682] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call on the Holidays Amendment Bill. The principal Act has been criticised for being overly complex and prescriptive. The Government recognises that prescriptive laws cannot work or account for the variable hours the variety of jobs and the diverse workplaces that exist in New Zealand and there needs to be greater flexibility and choice. This bill gives exactly that. It makes a number of sensible amendments in that direction. It will help improve the overall operation and efficiency of the Holidays Act 2003 and I commend it to the House.
Goodhew Jo: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15685] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to support the Holidays Amendment Bill. This bill will improve the overall operation and efficiency of the Holidays Act 2003. The people of Rangitata have told me they support this bill. Therefore I commend it to the House.
Bennett David: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bennett David: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15676] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That last speech was a very emotional speech from Trevor Mallard. It tried to create a lot of fear and anxiety amongst New Zealand workers which is the Labour Party’s tactic in regard to this bill the Holidays Amendment Bill. That is quite unjustified and unnecessary. This is a good bill for New Zealand workers. It gives New Zealand workers choice in how they take their holidays; it gives them choice in how they use that time off. I think one of the points that the Minister of Labour raised was very important: maybe somebody wishes for cultural reasons to have a public holiday on another day such as Diwali or something like that. This bill may give the opportunity to people to celebrate in their own way their own special days. So I think the bill shows once again that the Government is acting in the best interests of New Zealand workers contrary to the Opposition which is trying to put a different slant on it for the sake of its publicity. We support the passage of this bill through the House and thank all those who made submissions the Minister who put it forward and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its hard work. Thank you.