edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9266] 
9.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What reports if any has he received on advances in the deployment of renewable energy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Today the Environmental Risk Management Authority announced its decision to allow petrol blends including bio-ethanol to be sold in single-skin tanks. The Government welcomes this decision. It lowers the cost of introducing biofuels. It is good for consumers’ pockets. It is good news for the environment motorists and oil companies and it is another step towards a more sustainable carbon-neutral future. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Has the Minister received any further reports on advances in the deployment of renewable energy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yesterday it was announced that the Environment Court has given the green light to Meridian Energy’s proposed Makara wind farm development. The wind farm is expected to produce enough power to meet most of Wellington’s domestic power needs. The Labour-led Government got wind power off the ground in New Zealand with its ground-breaking Projects to Reduce Emissions programme. This undoubtedly brought forward the deployment of wind power in New Zealand by many many years. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the average age of New Zealand’s domestic vehicle fleet is 11 years and that vehicles over 7 years old cannot run on blends of which more than 5 percent is ethanol meaning that most of New Zealand’s vehicle fleet cannot run on ethanol blends? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is obviously recent news to that member but it has long been known that there are technological limitations on the fleet’s catering for blends with a high percentage of ethanol. That is why the initial target has been set at 3.4 percent which all vehicles can cope with. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is very difficult to hear. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Minister’s earlier answer where he seemed to be putting the emphasis totally on renewable energy sources will he explain—because confusing messages are coming out—where the Government sees gas and oil exploration and what importance the Government attaches to it? 
Hon Member 
: Underground. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: One of my colleagues quipped “Underground.” But I note that having a biofuels target of 3.4 percent is hardly an exclusive focus on renewables. I would also say that the Government acknowledges a continuing role for thermal fuels both in transport and in electricity generation for some time to come. None the less we clearly believe there is potential for more renewables particularly in electricity generation but also progressively in transport.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9258] 
3.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What is the Government doing to increase the number of export-capable New Zealand firms? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government is supporting those firms through injecting funds into New Zealand’s global talent network Kea. An amount of $1.8 million over 3 years will mean the expansion of a network of influential New Zealand expatriates strengthening the links of this network back to New Zealand. and using those connections to grow the number of export-capable Kiwi firms. 
Maryan Street 
: What support is the Government providing to new exporters? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Business Mentors New Zealand will recruit up to 100 additional people to act as mentors for exporters with support from Export Year 2007. Just like Beachheads and Kea this programme uses a network of experienced exporters to give Kiwis a head start into exporting. I note that these policies are supported by John Key—one of the few things that he has got right. It is just a pity that Mark Blumsky and Katherine Rich keep bagging them. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister concerned about the growing number of New Zealand exporters who are heading offshore; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Heading offshore to sell one’s products is very good.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9255] 
1. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any recent reports concerning ACC levy rates? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes I have. I have seen a report recently in which the National Party leader John Key claims that accident compensation levies are “rising rapidly” and “going through the roof”. Despite that claim being demonstrably wrong and deliberately misleading Mr Key used it to justify his plans to return to the flawed policies of the 1990s and privatise accident compensation. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How do today’s accident compensation levy rates compare with rates from earlier years? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The levy for the average self-employed person has come down by 6 percent the earners rate has reduced by 7 percent and the average employers’ levy has dropped by a massive 43 percent since National’s costly privatisation experiment. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that explain why the current accident compensation scheme is so much more affordable than private schemes? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I have seen a report that lists some of the higher expenses of private insurers including marketing costs agents’ commissions profit loadings and the cost of an industry regulator all of which means that about only 60 percent of what is collected from premiums is available to meet claims compared with nearly 90 percent under the accident compensation scheme. That leaves me wondering why National wants to go there unless it is simply a payback to its financial backers in the insurance industry—as demonstrated by the leaked email from the Insurance Council prior to the last election. 
Peter Brown 
: In terms of reports is the Minister aware of the Law Commission’s report that expresses concern about the accident compensation regime that physiotherapists work under; if she is aware of it is she pleased that Labour and New Zealand First are working together to have an independent review to address such issues? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I can certainly confirm that I am pleased that that agreement was reached among Labour Progressive and New Zealand First as part of the confidence and supply agreement and also that the review is on track.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9255] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What assurances can she give as the leader of the current coalition of Labour United Future and New Zealand First that the Government commands a majority in this House? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 There is not such a coalition; there is a Government arrangement put together after the last election that rests on two confidence and supply agreements and on an abstention agreement with the Green Party. That is why the Government continues to enjoy the confidence of the House.
English Bill: Points of Order — Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future 
English Bill: Points of Order — Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future 
[Volume:639;Page:9255] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will be aware of media reports that Gordon Copeland intends to resign this afternoon from United Future. That means that the governing coalition will then command only 59 votes in the House unless it negotiates arrangements with Mr Copeland or with the Greens. In the light of that important change in the balance of voting in the House I seek leave to ask the Prime Minister an urgent question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Points of Order — Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future 
Points of Order — Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future 
[Volume:639;Page:9255] 
Wednesday 16 May 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will be aware of media reports that Gordon Copeland intends to resign this afternoon from United Future. That means that the governing coalition will then command only 59 votes in the House unless it negotiates arrangements with Mr Copeland or with the Greens. In the light of that important change in the balance of voting in the House I seek leave to ask the Prime Minister an urgent question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Groser Tim: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Groser Tim: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9425] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 There have been documents consisting of many pages tabled tonight. There has been a deluge of words some less useful than others and in them have been matters of some complexity and also some quite simple matters. Generally as in life the more important things are the quite simple things. 
Amidst the many complexities I am still puzzling over one thing and that is that in the Budget speech under “National Identity” the keynote statement says that giving $245 million or $246 million more to people who live outside New Zealand in the form of development assistance will help our national identity. When one tries to explain to Aucklanders why they feel aggrieved about the mix of policies in this Budget and then tries to explain why they should be positive in terms of their national identity one has some hard yards ahead. 
While on this matter I note that it is symptomatic of the general spending problem. There is nothing wrong with trying to make progress towards our higher overseas development assistance targets. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that but the fundamental speed wobbles involved in the expansion of the existing programme as identified in 2005 by the Marilyn Waring report have not even started to be addressed. That is just one small example of one of the fundamental things that are wrong with the Budget strategy tabled tonight. It is about more spending. More billions of dollars are going down delivery mechanisms that are seriously flawed and no serious attempt has been made to fix them. 
But in respect of the simple things the simple truths what strikes me is that if we try to analyse the two centrepiece issues in this bill which are the Working for Families additional elements and the KiwiSaver elements we see that one simple truth comes through. When we ask ourselves why the Government has gone down these complex routes why has it not gone for simple solutions such as comprehensive tax reform over the years why has it gone down these bureaucratic targeted approaches routes I think there is a simple truth staring us in the face. They do not trust New Zealanders. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax Rate Amendments) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax Rate Amendments) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9402] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax Rate Amendments) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 7 
Green Party 4; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:639;Page:9379] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:639;Page:9379] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax Rate Amendments) Bill and the introduction and first reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill 
. This motion is moved so that a range of Budget-related measures can be referred to the select committee as quickly as possible and so that measures that come into force on 1 July can be passed as quickly as possible. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Budget Debate 
Mallard Trevor: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9378] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:639;Page:9379] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax Rate Amendments) Bill and the introduction and first reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill 
. This motion is moved so that a range of Budget-related measures can be referred to the select committee as quickly as possible and so that measures that come into force on 1 July can be passed as quickly as possible.
Cullen Michael: Budget Statement — Budget Debate Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Budget Statement — Budget Debate Procedure 
[Volume:639;Page:9353] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Budget 2007 Speech the Executive Summary the Fiscal Strategy Report 2007 the Economic and Fiscal Update 2007 B2 and B3 the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2008 (B.5) and the Departmental Statements of Intent. I move  
That those papers be published. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Appropriations (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriations (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9339] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriations (2007/08 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Appropriations (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriations (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9339] 
Appropriations (2007/08 Estimates) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriations (2007/08 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:639;Page:9339] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2007 (B.7). I move  
That that paper be published. 
Motion agreed to.
Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:639;Page:9339] 
Thursday 17 May 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2007 (B.7). I move  
That that paper be published. 
Motion agreed to.
Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10430] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a statement made by Peter Brown that shows quite clearly that when New Zealand First and National were in coalition Government New Zealand First tried to put all roading taxes into roads and Mr Maurice Williamson opposed it. 
Document not tabled.
Horomia Parekura: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10408] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 There is one thing about cultureless people—they make insidious remarks about personalities when they do not even understand what a boil-up is. But I suppose that is where that speaker is lacking in intelligence. 
The aquaculture industry’s goal is to be a billion-dollar industry by 2025. That is the Government’s role and what that member is not stating is that in the sense of Maori by January 2008 there is purchase right that the Government can exercise on behalf of Maori. I can tell that person that there are rights in local authorities and there are issues that have to be managed by them and by central government. 
This Government has been very supportive of regional councils. It has allocated $2 million to ensure that the information and resources are there and that the Government’s work programme is quite clear. Both my colleagues Minister Benson-Pope and Minister Hodgson have done well and ensured that after the aquaculture moratorium became inactive a large number of applications with regard to many thousands of hectares—and that is where that member has been distorting the truth—had already been notified by councils and were allowed to proceed. With the great support of this Government there has been a real and total surety about aquaculture being a key integral part of this country going forward. 
Certainly in relation to the moratorium over the last 6 years the councils and the Ministry of Fisheries have processed over 200 of these applications. That member was making out that there was zero—that there was nothing. But they were in action and New Zealand has increased the hectarage by nearly 48 percent. It is the fastest growth period to date. That is what has happened but that member has been making out that nothing has happened. 
We have formed the New Zealand aquaculture group which is really really going forward and is very thankful for this Government’s support. There is nonsense from that member from up in Whangarei. He wants to be very thankful that this Government has really put those issues forward—issues that had been put asunder by some people’s red-neckery—in relation to what should be happening in the fisheries area. 
I want to tell the Committee that fisheries development in this country is well supported by this Government and certainly that member from Whangarei should be more supportive because we know that at the end of the day he is always in silent and secret negotiations with us to make sure that the aquaculture platform and the fisheries platform in this country are well preserved and only this Government can do that. 
Vote agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10389] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 8 hours of debate on the estimates. Each member may have no more than two speeches of 5 minutes on each vote. The estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. 
As each vote is reached a question will be put that the vote stand part. If it is the wish of the Committee I will put the question on groups of votes by Minister until a vote is reached that members seek to debate. A separate question on this vote will then be proposed from the Chair. Should it be the wish of the Committee a question may be proposed on two or more related votes for the purpose of debating them together. At the conclusion of the 8-hour debate any remaining votes and the remaining provisions of the bill will be put as one question. 
The Government indicates which votes are available for debate. I understand that all votes are available in order of seniority of Ministers commencing with the Speaker’s votes. Copies of the order of votes to be considered are available at the Table.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank)  Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank)  Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:640;Page:10389] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I can help the member; it was the Hon Bill English.
Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank)  Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank)  Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:640;Page:10389] 
Points of Order 
Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank)  Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I listened hard to see who objected to that very very sane and sensible bill being introduced with the dollar now at almost US80c. Would you tell me which party objected please? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The member knows that anyone can object and it is not to be identified— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I can help the member; it was the Hon Bill English.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank)  Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank)  Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:640;Page:10389] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I listened hard to see who objected to that very very sane and sensible bill being introduced with the dollar now at almost US80c. Would you tell me which party objected please? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The member knows that anyone can object and it is not to be identified—
Woolerton R Doug: Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank)  Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Woolerton R Doug: Points of Order — Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank)  Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:640;Page:10389] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10386] 
11.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: How do current employers’ ACC levy rates compare with rates from previous years? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 To the end of March this year the average employers’ levy has dropped under the Labour-led Government’s nationalised accident compensation scheme by 43 percent since National’s costly privatisation experiment in 1999. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has she seen any reports linking the appointment of a new Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board chair with changes to levies? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As a matter of fact I have. National Party accident compensation spokesperson Pansy Wong has stated that the new ACC board chairman has some work to do to assure levy payers that he is not anti-employer. She stated: “Employers will be understandably nervous about what this means for them.” Considering that levies for employers under National’s privatised scheme were 43 percent higher than they are currently and that National wants to return to that situation the only party that needs to assure employers that it is not anti-employer is the National Party. I have also seen a report from the National Party leader John Key stating that accident compensation levies are rising rapidly and going through the roof. That claim is demonstrably wrong and deliberately misleading but Mr Key has used it to justify his plans to return to the flawed policies of the 1990s and to privatise accident compensation. If I may quote Pansy Wong employers should be “understandably nervous” about National’s plans to sell out their lower levy rates in exchange for financial backing for the National Party from the insurance industry. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Minister’s concern about levy rates is she aware that more and more mature people are working and paying accident compensation levies yet in the event of an accident they have fairly severe limitations on the length of time that they can receive financial compensation and will the Minister tell the House whether she believes that is fair; if she says it is not fair will she tell us how she will address the problem and whether she will make mature people exempt from paying the levies? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think that the member raises a legitimate point. There is an increasing anomaly in that people who are over the age of 65 are contributing levies but are not entitled to earnings-related compensation.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10384] 
9.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports if any has he received on general practice fees? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have seen a report in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of 7 July the headline of which states: “Cost of GP visit dives as Government boost kicks in” and a subheading that states: “Survey of health centres shows average fee has dropped nearly $27 this week”. That is another triumph for the health policies of this Labour-led Government. 
Maryan Street 
: What has been the reaction to this report? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
states that National will leave Labour’s Primary Health Care Strategy “undisturbed” which of course is a big fat flip-flop because National has been publicly opposed to low doctors’ fees at every step of the way. I would not be surprised if the flip-flop announced today were to be a “flop-flip” announcement later. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is he aware that in spite of reduced general practice fees New Zealand is reportedly lagging behind the industrialised world with regard to child vaccination rates especially those of Maori and Pacific children and how will he move to improve that inequitable situation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member asks a very good question indeed. Depending on quite what is being measured our child vaccination rate in New Zealand is somewhere in the order of the mid-eighties or the low to mid-eighties which is well below the 95 percent target that we have set for our district health boards yet well above the 60 percent rate that existed in 1992 under National. Details of how we will improve the inequitable situation that the member refers to will be announced in the next month or so.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10382] 
7.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: Does she agree with the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) call for “One Auckland Council” as set out on its website FixAuckland.com; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: The Government is working in collaboration with Auckland councils on governance arrangements because it is committed to promoting Auckland’s future as a world-class internationally competitive city region. Key elements of this work include a stronger regional governance structure an overarching regional strategic plan—that is a “one plan”—and the regional sustainable development forum to develop such a plan. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she not think that one Auckland city council might be a good vehicle for stopping the 245-plus percent mark-up by territorial council water retailers and costs to householders; if not what alternative has she to stop such price gouging? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think that a thorough process of review of the arrangements is appropriate and that is precisely what is happening right now. There has been a process that has involved an invitation to all ratepayers to contribute to that process earlier this year through the long-term community plans. The work has continued on through the councils with central government and there will be a further opportunity should that process proceed for further engagement with local people. There will be many points of opportunity for participation to address those issues of concern to Aucklanders. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister not see that the problem for Auckland with its high costs and the poor service from councils is a direct failure of governance from eight councils seven mayors and over 6000 bureaucrats and that what the Government is actually proposing in consultation with Aucklanders is just more bureaucracy more process and that the answer is a simple governance structure of one council that can actually do the business and be accountable to the people of Auckland? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do not accept the member’s assertion that that case is proven—it is certainly not in the material which is relatively high-level material on the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) website. That material does not offer any real financial analysis of its proposition. I would also point out to the member that as in the rest of the country one of the most significant realities of cost drivers for local authorities is the simple fact that one of the most expensive areas of council activity—construction—has a rate of inflation roughly triple that of the consumer price index. There will always be significant cost drivers for councils meeting their obligations for infrastructure to their ratepayers.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10370] 
1. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports advocating income and asset testing of New Zealand superannuation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I have seen two that appeared to advocate such a move. One is from Michael Littlewood; the other is from the Hon Bill English. Both argued that the current provision for New Zealand retirement income is too generous. I can confirm that unlike National this Labour-led Government has no plans whatsoever to income or asset test New Zealand superannuation. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister received any reports on why the income and asset testing of New Zealand superannuation might be considered? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have seen the comment that supporting savings will not win “the hearts and minds of 20-year-olds” which is a clear attempt to drive a wedge between young people and the elderly. Unlike Mr English who made that comment and who sat around a Cabinet table that did cut superannuation and indeed had previously cut it twice in order to fund tax cuts this Government has no plans to play that kind of divide and rule politics. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister aware that when New Zealand First left the coalition with National in 1998 one of the first moves that that party made was to withdraw New Zealand First’s bill to remove asset testing for seniors? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed I can confirm—and I think I should place it on the record very clearly—that the reduction in New Zealand superannuation that occurred in 1998-99 coming into force apparently on 1 April 2000 if it had not been reversed took place after New Zealand First left the coalition Government.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Documents Tabled By Leave—Release 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Documents Tabled By Leave—Release 
[Volume:640;Page:10370] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My understanding is that they were and that the matter was referred back to the member. I am aware that the ruling was a long one so it will be available for members to read at their leisure.
Motions — Military Awards—Victoria Cross Gallantry Decoration Gallantry Medal 
Motions — Military Awards—Victoria Cross Gallantry Decoration Gallantry Medal 
[Volume:640;Page:10369] 
Motions 
Military Awards—Victoria Cross Gallantry Decoration Gallantry Medal 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That this House note the award of the Victoria Cross for New Zealand to Corporal Willy Apiata the first such award to a New Zealand soldier in more than 60 years and the award of the New Zealand Gallantry Decoration and the New Zealand Gallantry Medal to three of Corporal Apiata’s colleagues in the 1st New Zealand Special Air Service; acknowledge that these medals reflect the ethos the courage the high standards and the training of the 1st New Zealand Special Air Service and of the New Zealand Defence Force generally; and pay tribute to those men honoured for their leadership and their outstanding bravery. 
Motion agreed to.
Goff Phil: Motions — Military Awards—Victoria Cross Gallantry Decoration Gallantry Medal 
Goff Phil: Motions — Military Awards—Victoria Cross Gallantry Decoration Gallantry Medal 
[Volume:640;Page:10369] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That this House note the award of the Victoria Cross for New Zealand to Corporal Willy Apiata the first such award to a New Zealand soldier in more than 60 years and the award of the New Zealand Gallantry Decoration and the New Zealand Gallantry Medal to three of Corporal Apiata’s colleagues in the 1st New Zealand Special Air Service; acknowledge that these medals reflect the ethos the courage the high standards and the training of the 1st New Zealand Special Air Service and of the New Zealand Defence Force generally; and pay tribute to those men honoured for their leadership and their outstanding bravery. 
Motion agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Economics Finance and Public Administration Australia - New Zealand Political Exchange—Members 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Economics Finance and Public Administration Australia - New Zealand Political Exchange—Members 
[Volume:640;Page:10369] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I also have pleasure in informing the House that members of the Australia - New Zealand political exchange led by the Hon Kate Doust member of the Legislative Council for Western Australia are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would also wish to welcome this delegation.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Economics Finance and Public Administration Australia - New Zealand Political Exchange—Members 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Economics Finance and Public Administration Australia - New Zealand Political Exchange—Members 
[Volume:640;Page:10369] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Standing Committee on Economics Finance and Public Administration from the Australian House of Representatives led by the Hon Bruce Baird MP chair of the committee are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Economics Finance and Public Administration Australia - New Zealand Political Exchange—Members 
Visitors — Australia—Standing Committee on Economics Finance and Public Administration Australia - New Zealand Political Exchange—Members 
[Volume:640;Page:10369] 
Tuesday 17 July 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Standing Committee on Economics Finance and Public Administration 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Standing Committee on Economics Finance and Public Administration from the Australian House of Representatives led by the Hon Bruce Baird MP chair of the committee are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Australia - New Zealand Political Exchange—Members 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I also have pleasure in informing the House that members of the Australia - New Zealand political exchange led by the Hon Kate Doust member of the Legislative Council for Western Australia are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would also wish to welcome this delegation.
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11336] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Barker Rick: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11335] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Agriculture 
: I move  
That the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 31 October 2007 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening after 6 p.m. on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on any Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 195(1)(b) and 195(1)(c).
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11330] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I am certainly looking forward to working together with David Carter on the Primary Production Committee. I hope we will work very closely as we usually do in the select committee because this is a very important bill for us and for the farmers of New Zealand. 
The Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) deregulates some dairy quota controlled export markets. I want to say a few words about the recent visit that the Primary Production Committee made to the Waiariki block in Taupo. Landcorp is developing huge tracts of land converting them from forestry to dairy production. I must confess I was amazed to see that development and I think in relation to some of the development going on this bill is very timely. We saw thousands of hectares of forestry being converted to dairy farms—and they were state-of-the-art dairy farms too I must say. I was certainly impressed with the equipment being used the equipment being installed in the milking sheds and the machinery being used to convert these lands to dairy production. 
This area was considered to be a wasteland years ago when scientists and farmers did not know about the cobalt issue. Cobalt is an element in the soil. They knew about the selenium problem and they found out later that pastures were not growing very well because there was a shortage of cobalt. Once they found that out an additive could be put into the soil to make sure the pasture grows well and that is what happened as I understand. Now forestry is being converted to dairy farming because that land will be very productive. I must say I have some concerns in terms of the environmental impacts of this conversion although I was told that Landcorp works very closely with Environment Waikato to make sure these conversions are in keeping with the environment in the area. 
 Let me say that this bill will provide assurance to all parties in the dairy industry about future access to export markets and it will provide for access to each of these markets in different ways as the Minister of Agriculture said earlier. In terms of the markets for butter in Canada and for cheese in Japan the bill will remove all export restrictions that currently apply. For the remaining markets the bill provides a mechanism whereby the export licences can be allocated among New Zealand dairy processors on the basis of objective criteria. So in both these cases a much wider group of New Zealand dairy processors and exporters will gain access to these markets and have the opportunity to benefit from the increased exporting opportunity. 
Similar to what happened in the meat markets this dairy deregulation clearly will be a fantastic opportunity not only for businesses to get into the quota-controlled markets but also for the wider group of processors and exporters to be part of the dairy industry. With those few words I commend this bill to the House.
Cosgrove Clayton: Limited Partnerships Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Limited Partnerships Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11326] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That the Limited Partnerships Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee 
 that the committee finally report back on or before 3 December 2007 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11298] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Major Events Management Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a second time.
Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11297] 
Major Events Management Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 14 August. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Major Events Management Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a second time.
Cullen Michael: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11297] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Revenue 
: 
 I move  
That the Income Tax Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Debate interrupted.
Hodgson Pete: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11296] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have been listening to the debate with some interest and have not taken a call until now. But I was moved to respond to Eric Roy’s comments. He is a sensible man a good solid Southland citizen and I thought that his comments were interesting but I did not agree with too many of them. As he went on I found myself actively disagreeing with him and I wanted to get up and explain that—it is to do with research and development. 
You see the research and development effort in New Zealand compared with say Taiwan is exactly as the member describes it. This is a low-investment country in research and development. If we unpick where the under-investment is it is relatively speaking in the private sector although our public sector investment is a little below the OECD average. We under-invest a little in the public sector and we under-invest significantly in the private sector and successive Governments have sought to address that. 
The underlying reason for us under-investing in the private sector is the nature of our economy. That is to say that our research into primary production which we are amongst the best of the world in and are very good at is none the less a relatively low intensity research and development sector compared with say pharmaceuticals or aeroplanes or motherboards if one wants to go to Taiwan. 
Yet the truth of the matter is that the member—perhaps unwillingly or unwittingly; I am not sure—was one of those of his caucus who trooped out into the Noes lobby when the tax credit for research and development was put to this House only 3 months ago. A very substantial tax change was made proffered by the Minister of Finance and National Party members almost unbelievably voted against it. They did not set out to split it off in the way that they spoke or in the way that they voted. They said they opposed it. But the truth of the matter is that if there can be more research and development investment made by a private sector business in this country now then there is a very significant tax credit available—very significant. 
That is to say that if the member wants to talk about philosophy then this is the way to deal with that issue. I absolutely agree with him that under-investment in research and development is an issue for us. It is a systemic issue in our economy and there are very many ways of fixing it. His Government when it was in power and this Government now in office have been looking to improve that situation through various policy changes. One of the most significant was always going to be to have a tax credit for research and development and when it came forward in the Budget 3 months ago his party voted against it. I thought the Committee should be reminded of that.
Robertson H V Ross: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11291] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Dr Smith just before I call you I want to point out that you have already had four speeches on this part. I recognise of course that there is a single debate of 4 hours for the Committee stage of this bill and in recognising that I invite the member to seek leave of the Committee to be able to speak again.