edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Calder Cam: Local Government Borrowing Bill — First Reading 
Calder Cam: Local Government Borrowing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18748] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Despite the schadenfreude of the previous speaker it is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Local Government Borrowing Bill in its first reading. It is a very practical bill. It is a bill in the interests of hard-working Kiwis the length and breadth of New Zealand. In his work  
Essays of Elia 
 Charles Lamb observed: “The human species according to the best theory I can form of it is composed of two distinct races: the men who borrow and the men who lend.” Although that may be true of men and women today—although I suspect the borrowers far outnumber the lenders—it is not true of local councils. Not for them the luxury of heeding Shakespeare’s injunction “Neither a borrower or a lender be for loan oft loses both itself and friend.” Councils all over New Zealand must borrow. The purpose of this bill is to allow local authorities to borrow more cost-effectively. 
The New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency will operate as a large-scale borrower that will be able to borrow on more favourable terms than a host of small-time borrowers could. The agency can then pass on these savings when re-lending to local councils. We understand that hard-working New Zealanders are finding it difficult to cope with ever-increasing council rates. It is estimated that the Local Government Funding Agency will help councils to operate in a more cost-effective manner. The agency will issue debt on behalf of all participating local councils. The credit rating scale and specialisation of the agency could as the previous speaker mentioned potentially save participating local councils collectively about $25 million a year. 
Other potential sequelae of the agency is aiding the development of a liquid market in standardised local authority bonds and once again the previous speaker—it is good to have support from the other side of the House—noted that this will benefit retail and wholesale investors. It will also be positive for the development of the New Zealand capital market. I commend this bill to the House.
Goodhew Jo: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18744] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3). I am pleased that both sides of the House seem to believe in this industry and to want it to become a billion-dollar industry by 2025. However on this side of the House we will try to actually make it happen. We are committed to streamlining consent processes and red tape—which of course only gets in the way—to help businesses grow boost our economy and create jobs. With those few words I commend this Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) to the House.
Upston Louise: Local Government Borrowing Bill — First Reading 
Upston Louise: Local Government Borrowing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18752] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the first reading of the Local Government Borrowing Bill. As we have heard from the Minister of Local Government and subsequent speakers the intent of this bill is to allow for more cost-effective borrowing by local authorities. I stress the word “cost-effective”. I have looked at some of the projections around the expectation of growth in local authority debt. According to a Treasury estimate it is forecast to jump by two-thirds in the next 5 years reaching as much as $10 billion. Anything we can do as a Government to find more cost-effective ways for local authorities to borrow to invest in capital projects and key infrastructure is important. That is why this legislation is so important. Anything that will save the costs of ratepayers and remove some of that pressure is important. 
It is great to see that this is another initiative that came out of the National-led Government’s Job Summit. In those discussions a whole raft of ideas was bandied about and this is one of the better ones in terms of being able to look at how as a small country of 4.4 million people—as of this week—we can more effectively work together in a way that reduces some of our costs. 
In terms of looking at this bill I looked at the impact of borrowing on the three district councils in the Taupo electorate. One of the concerns that constituents come and see me about particularly our older citizens is the pressure of increasing rates when they have fixed incomes. I have looked at the three different councils in my electorate and have looked at their interest costs and their effective interest rates. One of the effective rates is 3.5 percent and another one is 6.98 percent so there is quite a variance even amongst three councils. If councils were able to consolidate and get some economies in terms of this borrowing from this bond bank we would see a lower rate across the board. 
One of the councils in particular has significant capital requirements for water and waste-water treatment plant upgrades in the next few years. In effect on a rateable property the interest cost alone is $294 a year. That is a significant cost for a ratepayer so I am particularly pleased with this legislation. It really focuses on a specific area where we can reduce the costs for ratepayers up and down the country with the creation of the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency. It will issue debt on behalf of local councils up and down the country. 
That is all I will say about this bill. I know that constituents in Taupo will be very pleased about the introduction of this bill under Minister Hide’s name because it will in effect assist with the burden of their local rates.
Foss Craig: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Foss Craig: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18742] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 A previous Labour speaker Damien O’Connor—I think he is the spokesperson on aquaculture—pointed out that during the Labour administration there was not much growth in aquaculture in New Zealand. We can talk about spin though because actually there was no growth whatsoever—absolutely none. Zero. The speaker himself realised that this is the second or third time around on aquaculture industry legislation in New Zealand but not much growth came from the Minister of such matters under Labour—in fact there was zero growth. So it was an interesting angle of spin there I think. 
Just very quickly I say that other speakers have identified issues about why there has been no growth in aquaculture in New Zealand over the last 10 years or so. Interestingly as other members have said the Primary Production Committee operates very well. It is a bipartisan committee and as we can see from the commentary on the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) its deliberation is all very good. 
But what we hear from a couple of speakers on the other side is that there are particular issues around changes in the Minister’s direction on coastal planning existing consents etc. That is interesting because these are main items in the bill: coastal planning and the allocation of tools to manage demand the operation of coastal permits the variation of coastal permits and the re-consenting of coastal permits for aquaculture. The full committee has presented this bill to the House and it has the endorsement of all parties across the House. OK other members might want something to talk about but if members read the commentary and go through some of the other papers about this bill they will see that those issues were not of enough concern for select committee members including members from the Labour Party to amend the original bill as intended across the committee. I commend this bill to the House.
King Colin: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
King Colin: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18740] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3). In doing so I will address a couple of questions that were raised by members on the other side of the House. One of the speakers asked why there needs to be ministerial power. The simple reason is that under the review of aquaculture by Sir Doug Kidd it was designated that there should be a Minister responsible for aquaculture and this Government is very keen to see aquaculture put on to a sound footing. Therefore a designated team was set up within the Ministry of Fisheries for aquaculture. I would have to say that as the Primary Production Committee went through this bill it was wonderful to have the expert guidance and focus of that particular team. What has come out in this bill is to the credit of the officials who advised us. 
It is a very very complex issue. Under the 2004 Aquaculture Reforms (Repeals and Transitional Provisions) Act we had a problematic situation where only one species could be farmed within an aquaculture management area. What we have learnt particularly in the Marlborough Sounds is that with good sound science we have opportunities where finfish can be farmed. Talking to Work and Income the other day I discovered we are at the maximum unemployment we have been at for some time. We see aquaculture within the Marlborough Sounds especially concerning finfish as providing in the short term another 300 jobs. This legislation will certainly put aquaculture on to a very sound footing and we look forward to that. 
It was interesting also that the industry came to the select committee and said we should take more leadership around legislating how the undue adverse effects would be managed. We pushed back at that and said we would not. But the industry was actually looking for central government leadership and we are very fortunate at this time to have a very able Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who is able to show appropriate leadership. In so doing we can be very proud of the efforts that the select committee has made on this bill and the fact that the Government has shown confidence in this industry. The industry has a fine purpose for the future and we believe it will reach $1 billion by the year 2025. Thank you.
Finlayson Christopher: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
Finlayson Christopher: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
[Volume:672;Page:18729] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Affairs Committeeconsider the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Waiata
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18765] 
A party vote. was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule agreed to.
Vote: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
Vote: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
[Volume:672;Page:18729] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a first time.
Finlayson Christopher: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
Finlayson Christopher: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
[Volume:672;Page:18728] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Affairs Committeeconsider the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Finlayson Christopher: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
Finlayson Christopher: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
[Volume:672;Page:18728] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Affairs Committeeconsider the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 June 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
Vote: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
[Volume:672;Page:18728] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18764] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to.
Sepuloni Carmel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sepuloni Carmel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18704] 
12. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement: “This Government is committed to ensuring that everyone … has access to justice”? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Phil Twyford 
: Will shifting work from the efficient and highly regarded Waitakere Family Court to the already overloaded and inefficient Auckland Family Court improve access to justice; if so how? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes because matters requiring 1 day’s hearing or more in the Family Court in Waitakere currently have an average waiting time of 30 weeks. Centralising that work to the Auckland court has seen that waiting time reduced to 9 weeks. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Does he agree with senior west Auckland lawyers acting for children who believe that his policy to improve access to justice will do the exact opposite of what is intended: services in Waitakere will be slashed urgent orders for at-risk children will be delayed and the safety of these children will be put in jeopardy? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No. There will be no impact on children and vulnerable families. The process for dealing with urgent applications is robust at the Waitakere District Court and that will not change. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Why does he continue to stand by his justice policy in the face of criticism from the Deputy Mayor of Auckland Penny Hulse who when referring to the planned centralisation of Auckland’s courts has said that these “cut at any price” senseless initiatives will make our kids face further risk? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Because the deputy mayor could not be further from getting the matter right. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree with Kim Workman from Rethinking Crime and Punishment that “We have reached a tipping point where the incarceration of Maori is causing social damage within their own communities.” and what initiatives is the Minister putting in place to ensure that Maori have access to justice? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: We have been dealing with this issue at tipping point as Kim Workman described it for quite some time. That is why it is so important that quality legal aid services are provided in a timely way to ensure access to justice for all people using the justice system including Maori.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18703] 
11. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to support innovation in the manuka honey industry? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Last week I was pleased to confirm a successful bid by a manuka honey industry consortium for Primary Growth Partnership funding. The bid will see $1.7 million being invested in a research programme to increase the reliability of the supply and volume of medical-grade manuka honey. This is a major step forward in the sector’s goal of becoming a $1 billion industry and is yet another example of this Government’s commitment to boosting innovation. 
Colin King 
: What amount does this bid bring total Primary Growth Partnership funding for primary sector innovation to? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The success of this latest bid means that since its inception 20 months ago the Primary Growth Partnership has delivered $477 million to primary sector innovation. Collectively this represents the largest investment by the Government in primary sector innovation in decades and it shows just how serious this Government is about boosting economic growth through increased research and innovation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you have been quite strict about the relevance of supplementary questions to primary questions. The primary question was about manuka honey. The fact that an innovation fund was mentioned in the primary reply does not widen the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does. If today a Minister included something in an answer Opposition members are perfectly entitled to question the Minister on what was included in the answer. What Ministers include in answers can be questioned. Earlier on today my problem was that the member was seeking to link back to an answer given last week to a rather different question.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18702] 
10. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When was construction completed on the new early childhood education centre at Weymouth Primary School and why is the centre empty? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that the building was completed on 21 January 2011 but that it has not yet been granted a code of compliance certificate by the council and cannot be opened until this occurs. The tendering and selection processes are proceeding as planned and I am advised that it is planned to open the centre for children in August. 
Sue Moroney 
: When was construction completed on the early childhood education facility at Homai Primary School and why is that centre also empty? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I understand that I provided information to the member in response to a written question that construction had been completed on Homai Primary School. I do not have the details in front of me of whether the code of compliance has also been granted for that building. I suspect we are still awaiting it. 
Louisa Wall 
: What impact does the Minister think these delays will have on 3-year-old Genesis Tupai and 4-year-old Daisy Broughton who featured on  
Campbell Live 
 last night and who are currently not enrolled in any early childhood education because their families are waiting for the centre within their local community and within walking distance from their homes to open on the Weymouth Primary School site? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I think we are all very frustrated but the reality is that we cannot open that building until it has a code of compliance from the Auckland Council—until that comes through and until we have a provider. I understand it will be open for children in August of this year. 
Sue Moroney 
: What will the Minister do to stop these delays from continuing and how are these delays meeting her Government’s stated priority of increasing participation in South Auckland? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The council is responsible for the code of compliance. I share the frustrations of the community. We want those centres open as soon as possible. We have built them to meet their need and we will open them in August of this year.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18701] 
8. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What was the annual rate of GDP growth for the year ended December 2010 projected in Budget 2010 and what was the actual rate of growth for that period according to Statistics New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Three percent and 1.5 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is it correct that his Budget 2010 projected that growth in the first three quarters of 2010 nearly all of which was before the first earthquake would be 0.8 percent 0.8 percent and 1.6 percent respectively whereas actual growth was 0.7 percent 0.2 percent and minus 0.2 percent which means that by the end of September 2010 economic output was $1.6 billion below the forecast he produced in May 2010? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes growth was slower than expected and the reason for that was mainly that New Zealanders were saving more than was expected. That is now showing up in a fast-rising household savings rate. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is it correct that in his 2010 Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update he projected real wages would fall by 0.9 percent in the year to March 2011 which is bad enough whereas the actual result was a fall in real wages of minus 1.2 percent according to Statistics New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that as a result of the tax cuts real after-tax wages have been rising consistently over the last couple of years. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can he offer any guarantee that the economic and fiscal projections he will present in the Budget on Thursday will be more accurate than those presented in the Budget last year; and is this why according to a new HorizonPoll 48.4 percent of people say the country is on the wrong track and most people disapprove of his Government’s handling of the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is a bit rich for the member to criticise the accuracy of forecasts and then quote the HorizonPoll as the reason why they are inaccurate. No I cannot give the member a guarantee. Around the world economists are having trouble in forecasting economic growth. The basic principles though of the Government’s plan remain unchanged. They are to rebalance this economy towards savings exports and investment and away from excessive housing speculation and excessive consumption fuelled by debt which is what happened under his Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table Statistics New Zealand and Treasury figures to show the differences between Budget 2010 projections and actual— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document the member is seeking to table—I mean I am not aware of Statistics New Zealand and Treasury documents. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: This is a document that has been compiled in my office from those sources. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member should have made clear at the outset the source of the document. Leave is sought to table a document compiled in the member’s office. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18700] 
7. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What practical initiatives is the Government taking in preparation for Rugby World Cup 2011 to protect the environment and New Zealand’s important “clean green” brand? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Firstly we are putting in place new measures to manage freedom camping in partnership with councils. The package includes standardised signage a website for informing visitors where they can and cannot camp nationally as well as practical enforcement measures with a $200 instant fine. The second initiative is a Love NZ public-place recycling programme whereby more than 2000 new bins are to be installed around Rugby World Cup venues and popular visitor spots. This is aimed at recycling 10000 tonnes of glass plastic and aluminium containers that would otherwise go to landfills. Although both these initiatives have been spurred by the Rugby World Cup they are good sensible and practical long-term environmental programmes that will pay benefits for New Zealand. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What response has there been from councils particularly those in high-tourism areas and from the tourism industry to the proposed new freedom camping policy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There has been almost unanimous endorsement of the Government’s approach. Councils in Queenstown Coromandel Kaikoura Nelson and Marlborough have been particularly strong in their support but Local Government New Zealand has also endorsed the approach. There have also been very positive comments from the Tourism Industry Association of New Zealand and the New Zealand Freedom Camping Forum. There is wide acknowledgment that there is a problem and that the Government’s response will let responsible freedom campers get out and enjoy New Zealand’s great outdoors while giving our councils the tools to be able to properly protect our environment.
Vote: Local Government Borrowing Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Local Government Borrowing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18759] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government Borrowing Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 118 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a first time.
King Colin: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18399] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18400] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to respond to the issues that my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson raised very specifically about the title. It is the question of the fact that the bill is called the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill with a small “t” on the word “the”. It is not as Mr Hodgson pointed out filed under “t” but rather under “R”. Mr Hodgson is correct that certainly in all my dealings with the Royal Society the word “the” very much has a capital “T”. However the reason why I do not believe an amendment would be appropriate is that the predecessor legislation covering the Royal Society both the 1965 Act and the 1997 Act are both filed under “R” and we would be stepping outside the process that was put forward by both of those Acts to make it “The Royal Society of New Zealand Act” with the “T” being the key letter rather than the “R”. 
The other argument against making an amendment as Mr Hodgson would suggest is contained within the Standing Orders. In particular I refer to Appendix C of the Standing Orders which runs through the procedures for private bills. The Clerk’s Office is extremely helpful I might say to those of us who end up sponsoring private bills. The Standing Orders and also  
McGee 
 cover the responsibilities of a member who sponsors a bill. In actual fact it is the role of the organisation on whose behalf I take the bill as to what it is called. The title is in fact its prerogative and although we are making potentially some amendments they are ones that have been done in close consultation with the Royal Society and therefore I would be very reluctant to take up Mr Hodgson’s kind offer of amending the title. But I do understand what drove him to make that contribution on the title clause. 
I think in common parlance it is “The” Royal Society. It is actually part of its integrity and it is part of its mana to coin a word that it is called “The” Royal Society. But both the 1965 and 1997 Acts are filed under “R” so although I very much respect my colleague Mr Hodgson’s knowledge of this topic I do not think I will take him up on the offer of that amendment. Thank you.
Peachey Allan: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18396] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
King Colin: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18404] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18404] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on clause 3 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill which amends the principal Act. It is worth noting the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 and its predecessor the 1965 Act. 
I will use this opportunity to tell colleagues in the Chamber that I have been able to identify the exact day in 1867 upon which the Royal Society as seen within the 1997 and 1965 legislation was created. I did this using modern technology of course. That date was 10 October 1867. That information comes via an appendix to the New Zealand Institute Act of 1867. It is also backed up I am told by my advisers by the German version of Wikipedia. I tell no lie—that is what I have been told. It is unusual for me to do this but I credit a researcher by the name of Michael Naylor for that excellent piece of work. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Is he a scientist? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I do not know that he is actually. 
I note that the Act amended is the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 an Act passed under the previous National Government. I understand that the Hon Simon Upton was heavily involved in that legislation. That Act largely raised the status of social science within the Royal Society so I think it is important to note now that it is being amended to bring the humanities into it that there has been a logical flow in the way the legislation covering the Royal Society has developed. I think it is important to note that the 1965 Act codified what had been happening for nearly 100 years in the Royal Society. The 1997 Act updated it to bring in social sciences and today we will amend the Act as clause 3 states with this new 2011 legislation. I wanted to make that brief comment.
Faafoi Kris: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Faafoi Kris: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18405] 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Chair for allowing me to speak on clause 4 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. Clause 4 is the purpose clause. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but we are on clause 3 “Principal Act amended”. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: I apologise; I was on the wrong page. I was ahead of myself. We were enjoying the debate so much. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: If the member is not going to take a call on clause 3 I will put the question. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18397] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the title clause because the Hon Pete Hodgson raised a question earlier in the debate as to whether the Act should be called as it is in the printed version of the bill in front of us the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act 2010. I am able to reassure Mr Hodgson that despite the longish gestation of this bill when the time comes for it to receive its Royal assent I am advised by the Clerk’s Office that it will magically become the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act 2011. Before I took on the role that I have with this bill I was not aware that that is automatically what takes place. 
As I noted earlier in relation to that point there has been a significant process in the development of this bill. Mr Hodgson himself acknowledged that when he was the Minister of Research Science and Technology in 2007-08 I believe it would have been he began the discussions between the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society. The Royal Society of New Zealand Council and the Academy within the society made sure that they had extensive discussions on this matter through 2009 and it then found its way before the House in 2010. When I was approached by the society to take on the bill I did so because as has been previously mentioned it is headquartered very close to us here in the Wellington Central electorate. It was aware that this was an important legislative tick-off to a process it had well and truly got under way. 
I wanted to take just a brief call to let colleagues know that when the bill gets its Royal assent we will be altering this particular clause. As I understand it it is standard procedure and it will become the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act 2011.
Vote: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
Vote: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill 
[Volume:672;Page:18728] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Bill read a first time.
Roy Eric: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18397] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We will move now to the debate on the clauses of which there are 23. Members have had quite a wide-ranging debate on the preamble. I am now going to require that— 
Sue Moroney 
: Some members. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not saying that that was inappropriate. The member should not interject while I am speaking. What I will be doing now is requiring relevancy as we go through these 23 clauses.
Peachey Allan: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18388] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I express my very strong disappointment with the Opposition’s lack of interest in hearing the contribution I have to make to this debate on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just to show our interest in what the member has to say I move that he be given unlimited time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is being frivolous with the Chair. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I point out to the chief Labour Party whip that whereas it takes some Opposition members 10 minutes to say what most of us could say in 2 I prefer to be one of those who can say what needs to be said in 2 minutes. I acknowledge the contribution that the previous speaker David Shearer made and I recognise his acknowledgment of the work that the Education and Science Committee did on this bill. It was a very good process and he was a major contributor to it. 
In a nutshell this bill is before the Committee because the Royal Society—which is a fine august body that has made a major contribution to intellectual thought and development in this country over a long long time—wishes to extend its base beyond strictly the sciences to include the humanities. There is widespread support for that to happen. I think many of us acknowledge that the science community has a lot to offer the humanities particularly in terms of the introduction of the scientific method of thinking the gathering of research the drawing of conclusions and that sort of thing. If one were to criticise some of the quality of research in the humanities that has occurred in this country—and I think particularly of some of the work done in the education field—one could not avoid drawing the assumption that far too often the conclusion had determined what the inquiry would be when it should of course be the other way round. 
Moana Mackey 
: Like national standards. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I thought we had an agreement that I would be listened to in silence—did I miss something there? 
Hon Member 
: It’s members’ night. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: It is good that on a members’ night the Committee can enjoy itself and have a little bit of mutual fun across the floor. If members opposite did not all shout at once I might be able to respond to them individually but when half a dozen are coming at me I find it a little bit hard to cope. 
I reinforce the view of members on this side of the Chamber that this legislation is supported. I urge members opposite not to spend all night debating it. I realise they have another agenda operating but I ask that those members also be respectful of the Royal Society and its need to get this legislation through. I ask that it not be delayed because there is another agenda operating. Thank you.
Vote: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18397] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
Preamble agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18390] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bennett David: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18373] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the Westpac New Zealand Bill. We are on the second reading of this bill. It has gone through the Finance and Expenditure Committee and members of the select committee have spoken earlier. We traversed the issues in the first reading debate. 
Essentially as speakers have said the bill is about the transfer of assets so that Westpac can meet the regulatory obligations and the incorporation policy which has some limits around the amount of funds—funds in excess of $15 billion trigger certain requirements. The Reserve Bank’s local incorporation rules are an important part of the triggers that can help to stop bank failure in New Zealand. This bill also transfers certain assets and liabilities to Westpac New Zealand. That transfer enables Westpac to carry on its activities in New Zealand in such a way that depositors and borrowers will find no difference. It will enable Westpac to meet the rules and regulations of the banking systems in New Zealand in a way that is suitable and easy for it to run its operations. 
In that regard this bill has found favour amongst all parties in this House. Everybody recognises that it is in the best interests of our banking sector—and especially Westpac as one of the banks in that sector—and it has no effect on the ground in the sense that depositors or lenders will find no difference in the way they conduct their activities going forward. They will still deal with Westpac in the sense that Westpac is the brand they will deal with. 
I take this time to thank the big banks that we have had here from Australia. They have been instrumental in providing a lot of resources and stability to the New Zealand economy over the last few years. These have been difficult times around the world. The banking sector especially has been under tremendous pressure. If we as a country had had to experience bank failures of the size that many other countries have had to experience I am sure that the pain that the New Zealand taxpayer and the New Zealand economy has had to face in the past year or two would have been much greater. The good management and the resilience of those banks and the support of their Australian colleagues has been instrumental in helping New Zealand get through this recession as quickly and as painlessly as possible. I think a point of gratitude needs to go to those banks for the way that they have managed themselves. Our system of rules and regulations has stood up in this period of time. The banks are very important in the sense that they make a contribution to our communities as well. 
This bill will be supported by all parties. It is partly a formality in the sense of providing the opportunity for Westpac to engage in its operations but under rules and regulations that make it easier to do so at the size that it is. I recommend this bill to the House.
Power Simon: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18395] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Ah— 
Hon Simon Power 
: You’ve got to be kidding. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not kidding. The members who are seeking a closure need to show a bit more decorum when the debate is on.
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18764] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Upston Louise: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Upston Louise: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18394] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Westpac New Zealand Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18379] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Malo le soifua. It is a privilege to speak on the Westpac New Zealand Bill and to be the final Government speaker in this second reading. I will take just a short call. This bill is about reinforcing the strong banking system we have in this country. It is a system that has weathered the storm of the global financial crisis. The bill is about supporting what is already a strong bank in New Zealand and supporting the importance of adhering to regulatory policy. The bill transfers assets and liabilities from the Westpac Banking Corporation New Zealand branch to Westpac New Zealand Ltd and it ensures that regulatory thresholds can always be met irrespective of the volatility in our financial markets. We know that in the last 3 years we have had some of the most volatile financial and capital markets in terms of the performance of those markets. We have seen how volatile they can be. 
The legislation is really about allowing Westpac’s large corporate customers to bank with a different legal entity—that is with Westpac New Zealand Ltd rather than the banking corporation branch. It provides the means by which assets can be vested in that company efficiently and economically and without disrupting the conduct and the continuity of Westpac’s businesses. It should have no real impact on any of its customers which is a really important point. 
I will touch on the last speaker’s obsession the politics of envy in relation to the remuneration of the chief executive of Westpac. I do not think it is fit for Government members or members of Parliament to dictate the way in which private businesses and private organisations should run their operations. But we heard from the last speaker just a tirade of unwanted advice to a private organisation that is in the market to provide jobs and opportunities and to provide capital to our businesses in order for them to operate on a daily basis. It really was an unwanted uninformed delivery of advice to one of our largest corporations in this country. 
Just to finalise my contribution I tell the House that the Inland Revenue Department Treasury and the Reserve Bank were all consulted during the select committee deliberations and no concerns were raised in terms of the financial stability of our banking system or this financial institution. I certainly support the bill and look forward to the Committee stage discussion. Thank you.
Mapp Wayne: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 
Mapp Wayne: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 
[Volume:672;Page:18372] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to correct a figure I gave in relation to question No. 8 today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: This afternoon I gave a figure of approximately $61000. That was the result of adding two figures up in my head as I was standing. In fact the correct figure based on information supplied by the RNZAF should have been $65098. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There will be no comments.
Hide Rodney: Local Government Borrowing Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Local Government Borrowing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18759] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government and Environment Committeeconsider the Local Government Borrowing Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 August 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). 
Motion agreed to.
Upston Louise: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Upston Louise: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18401] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.