edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Urgency 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgency 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7900. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the second reading and passing through its remaining stages of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill; the introduction and passing of a Government bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill the Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill and the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill and any bills into which any of those bills may be divided; the introduction and passing of a Government bill; and the passing through of their remaining stages of the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill and any bills into which any of those bills may be divided. 
This is a time of year when the legislative programme starts to cramp up quite considerably. There are a number of crucial dates that the Government needs to have legislation aligned for; the first of these is 1 January next year. In fact if the emissions trading scheme amendment is not passed in good time then the current emissions trading scheme provisions will prevail. We believe they would be bad for the economy. Therefore we are making the amendments today. 
The other bills in some cases deal with the sorts of general arrangements that the prison service may have to make over the Christmas period and also with the way it might progress in the long term. Getting clarity about that will be useful. The Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill deals with issues like pensions superannuation rates and various other things and it is important that the House also deals with that bill well before the questioned time. No one I am sure will be surprised that the Government wishes to put in place legislation that makes it clear that the Remuneration Authority can take consideration of the general economic conditions when it is making its determinations. The Biosecurity Amendment Bill is a bill that should be passed in a timely fashion in order that we can further protect New Zealand’s borders. For those reasons the Government has taken urgency today. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11199. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Act 1969 Amendment Bill the National Provident Fund Restructuring Amendment Bill the Social Security Amendment Bill the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.  
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8. 
Bills read a third time.
Mallard Trevor: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I put on the record the fact that Mr Quinn has accepted my donation to his campaign for Hutt South on the basis that he will be my candidate. I want to put that on the record. Thank you very much. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Although we can have a bit of a laugh at this time in the proceedings with not much time to go that is really just interrupting things.
Boscawen John: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Boscawen John: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11192. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the Meat and Wool New Zealand calculations of the cost of the emissions trading scheme on beef farmers sheep farmers and dairy farmers. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This document is definitely in the public domain because I have read it. I will not accept that document.
Smith Nick: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11192. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the  
New Zealand 
Environment and Energy Business Week 
 in which Mr Rodney Hide said he supported carbon credits going to foresters. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Boscawen John: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Boscawen John: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11191. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the Greenplan Forestry Investments newsletter dated December 2009 which refers to the windfall gains to 1990 foresters. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this document in circulation? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: It is a— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a public document in circulation? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Well it is a newsletter to the people who invested in forests in Taumarunui. It is not readily available. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Gilmore Aaron: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Gilmore Aaron: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11181. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It gives me enormous pleasure to stand and speak in the third reading of these various bills. Today I was phoned up by my brother in Christchurch. He said the shopkeepers the taxi drivers and the rubbish collectors are happy. In straw polls up and down the country about 80 percent of people are happy with this Budget. The only people who are not happy are those Labour Party members over there because in 18 months’ time when we get on the hustings they will all be sad and depressed. 
Labour members cannot count and they cannot read. We have heard time and time again from those members about the hairy scary things regarding 5.9 percent inflation. I do not think those members read the Budget to page 63. I do not think they got as far as that; they got to about page 5 and gave up. On page 63 of (B.2) (B.3) in the Economic and Fiscal Update a whole lot of numbers are outlined and it might be a bit too tricky for some members over there. It says that yes the CPI will go up—as it normally does—but so will nominal wages. Low and behold wages go up the CPI goes up the world is a better place and the people are better off. We have heard all the rhetoric from the other side of the House and we have heard all their discussions but here it is in black and white. I encourage those members to look at page 63— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has obviously been some dispute about Treasury’s numbers. Therefore I seek leave to table— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member will sit down. It is the accepted practice in this House that members do not interrupt a member who is speaking to table a document. Mr Gilmore was on his feet and there is no need for the member to table a document at this point. Should the member wish to table it he can do so at another stage. I advise members that we will wind up this debate with some semblance of decorum and we will let members give their speeches. 
AARON GILMORE 
: On page 63 it is there in black and white. I encourage the Opposition members to actually read it because they did not get as far as that. However some of the journalists have read it and I encourage them. 
The shopkeepers up and down the country and the people visiting their shops are all very happy. I look forward to standing up against whomever I am running against in 18 months’ time in any meeting up and down the country and talking about this and pointing out what has happened. People are happy. Every school up and down the country is getting $10000. Every school will have more money to spend—that buys a lot of pens and paper. I think that is great. 
This legislation is wonderful legislation by a wonderful Minister of Finance led by our wonderful Prime Minister John Key. I look forward to selling it up and down the country time and time again. Thank you very much.
Dunne Peter: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11179. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Act 1969 Amendment Bill the National Provident Fund Restructuring Amendment Bill the Social Security Amendment Bill the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. 
These bills give effect to the decisions in the Budget yesterday regarding the most radical restructuring of taxation in New Zealand probably since the 1980s. The Committee has spent some time discussing the impact of those changes: the dramatic changes to personal tax rates; the reduction in the company tax rate; the lift in the rate of GST and the associated compensation made available to all those in receipt of superannuation welfare benefits Government superannuation veterans pensions etc.; and the changes to the company tax to help create a more balanced and rational tax system in New Zealand. 
The Committee spent time considering the contention made by the Minister of Finance in the Budget speech that these measures as a package were designed to strengthen growth by rebalancing our tax system so that it better supports and promotes productivity savings and investment. I have to tell the House that although there was a lot of debate during that period of consideration the legislation has emerged unaltered. The position that the Government advanced in the legislation has been held intact by the Committee and as a consequence we have legislation that will give people greater incentives to work save and invest. It makes our tax system fairer and more coherent and it makes it a more integrated system with more integrity. It will also encourage productive investment in New Zealand. 
There was widespread agreement during the Committee stage that those aims were laudable aims for New Zealand and the fact that this legislation emerges with majority support at the end of that debate demonstrates that this House like the country as a whole accepts the validity of these measures accepts that they are the right course to follow and looks forward to their early implementation. I am delighted to commend these bills to the House because they give good tax reform for all New Zealanders.
Quinn Paul: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Quinn Paul: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11120. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It is important to realise that the genesis of yesterday’s tax announcements lies in the changes made by that chappie called Cullen in 1999 when driven by his fantasy of what he called “rich pricks” he introduced an envy tax. All this bill does is remove the envy tax that Cullen brought in in 1999. That enables people the true professional people in this country such as doctors and hard-working New Zealanders— 
Chris Tremain 
: Teachers. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Exactly. It enables those people to get on. They are the people whom that shameful former Minister of Finance hit when he was trying to get at what he called ‘rich pricks”. The fact of the matter as we know now is that none of the real rich people— 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take personal offence at the member calling Dr Cullen shameful. I think that is a slur on his character and I take offence at it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There are two measures here. The first is that members can take offence and register that to the Chair. The second test whether the offence is in fact one that should be accorded some response from the Chair. The kind of test of that—and I think the member should look at Speaker’s ruling 45/1—is whether the House itself is offended. Otherwise members would be jumping up and down the whole time. But having said that to that member I say to the other member that when we start getting into what we might call “on the verge debate” the House itself descends to a level that is not productive. This is early in the day so can we just have a bit of generosity. 
PAUL QUINN 
: You mean I should go soft on the Opposition Mr Chairman. I am happy to go very soft on the Opposition. One has only to look at the straw polls that have flowed across the country to see that 80 percent of the populace 80 percent of the people whom Labour alleges it represents are actually in favour of this Budget. It is about time the Opposition benches conceded they are out of touch not only with ordinary New Zealanders across the board across every career group including professionals but with ordinary working people whom Labour alleges it represents in the House. 
The polls on this Budget demonstrate that people support this Government. That is why they voted us in—to undertake measures like this. I know that that will be hard for Labour members to accept but my advice during the course of this debate is that they concede the Budget is an outstanding one and quickly move on through this debate. They will then be able to go home early this afternoon and actually get re-engaged with their constituents—and find that those constituents support this Budget. That is my advice to the Opposition.
Cunliffe David: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11183. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I apologise. I should have sought leave prior to my colleague’s very eloquent speech after the architect— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member knows that when he seeks leave he is to be succinct and to the point. It is not the time to have a preamble of a speech—to offer congratulations and so on. If the member wishes to seek leave he should raise the Standing Order and say what he is seeking leave for. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table the statistics on growth expectations resulting from the Budget. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will not accept that document. It is a published document and it is on the Table of the House. It has been given to everybody else. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The actual graph is not a published document. The data— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The graph is not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The graph is not. It is new material. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is new material; OK. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Barker Rick: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barker Rick: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11179. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call on the Minister to move that the bills be read a third time I have a small matter to attend to. The result of the vote on the question that the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill be read a second time was announced as Ayes 69 and Noes 53. The correct result is Ayes 69 and Noes 52. I order that the record be corrected.
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11178. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Act 1969 Amendment Bill the National Provident Fund Restructuring Amendment Bill the Social Security Amendment Bill the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper124. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11178. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that clause 2 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11178. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Before I give the result of the vote I remind members that the previous Chairman prior to the luncheon adjournment said that there was to be silence during the taking of votes. I ask members to respect that.
Roy Eric: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11170. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure whether that is a matter of order for the Committee but it does possibly relate to matters that are related to the order of the Committee. However the member has had an explanation and I think we should accept that.
Brownlee Gerry: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11170. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is somewhat rare and unusual to have to do this but the situation is that parties of course cast their votes within the requirement that they can have some people away from the House but can still cast a full vote. All parties are in that position. In this case not only is public business taking one of our colleagues away but also I understand that two tangi are also part of proceedings. There was an absolute full vote yesterday. When it comes to personal matters there is not a lot the House can do other than in these circumstances meet the requirements of public functions that have been committed to and of course take care of family business.
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understood that this was a confidence vote for the Government and therefore there is an obligation on the part of the coalition and confidence and supply partners to support it. Clearly that has not been—[ 
Interruption 
] Therefore I am slightly surprised at the declaration of a short vote and ask whether that is an indication of some members having now left that confidence and supply arrangement.
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Roy Eric: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Technically that is right and I ask the Clerk to put that. Before I declare the vote I point out that I cautioned the House yesterday about members calling out during voting and maybe to reinforce that it may well be time that someone takes a walk as that used to be the practice. I just affirm that no members will vote in this Chamber under duress and we need to hear the votes.
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought that the normal practice was that when there was a short vote the question was asked as to whether there were any other votes to allow for the possibility of abstentions. I wonder whether that practice is being followed.
Douglas Roger: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Douglas Roger: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I will be brief. I want to ask the Minister in the chair Peter Dunne a couple of questions in relation to rental property and the loss of the depreciation rights. I must say that I certainly had not contemplated the 50-year rule. It seems to me that it is a relatively neat provision. I thought that the Minister might have reduced it to about 1 percent or something of that nature. I am interested in the administrative handling of it particularly for older houses—maybe a house that is 60 to 70 years old. One would hope that the procedures would not be too bureaucratic. But that is a minor issue. 
The second issue is really the more important one and that is what economic analysis has been done on whether the measure which is in Part 3 of this bill is in fact likely to change New Zealanders’ attitude towards or love of investing in rental property. I think one of the big reasons that people invest in rental property is not just the fact that the sharemarket is prone to go up and down but that they tend to understand rental property. From my calculations the loss of deductions is probably equal to an interest rate rise of about 1 percent. It is equal to an interest rate rise of approximately 1 percent and I am not sure that that is likely to deter property investors from investing in rental property. 
If we take a house in a regional town worth $200000 and we take 40 percent off that for the value of the land that brings us down to about $120000. We then take off $20000 for chattels; they will still get the depreciation as I understand it on the chattels. That leaves $100000. At 3 percent property investors will lose the depreciation on that—on $100000 that is $3000. Those people are likely to be on the new top rate of tax—and we thank the Minister for that—so after those savings they will lose about $1000. They will have to pay an extra $1000 in tax. On a borrowing of $100000 that is equivalent to 1 percent. If it is as high as 80 percent then the equivalent borrowing cost is probably only 0.75 percent. 
So I am not sure that this provision will change the approach of New Zealanders to rental property and I wonder whether the Minister received any analysis of it from Treasury or anyone else. I think that what might deter people from moving into rental properties in the near future is the likelihood that interest rates will rise by 3 percent over the next 2 or 3 years. If we look at the prediction at the back of the Budget we can clearly see that mortgage interest rates are likely to rise by at least 3 percent and maybe hit 8.5 or 9.5 percent. I just wondered what economic analysis the Minister had received.
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11164. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11164. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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 50 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7. 
Motion agreed to.
King Colin: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Colin: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11164. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11154. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11154. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11154. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Before I put the question on Part 1 there are four amendments to Part 1 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe. The three amendments to clause 45 are not in order as the Minister has issued a financial veto certificate in respect of each of them. These certificates are on the Table. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe to the cross-heading above clause 44 be agreed to: 
to omit “to Goods and Services Tax Act 1985” and substitute “designed to Increase Goods and Services Tax”.
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11154. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7. 
Motion agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goodhew Jo: Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 May 2010. Volume:663;Page:11153. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Dean Jacqui: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12295. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I will speak on the third readings of this legislation. The previous speaker Charles Chauvel is quite right: this omnibus legislation is generally non-controversial. In this case a couple of years’ worth of statutes are being amended—some 47 of them if I read my papers correctly. I have to say following the contribution of the previous speaker that the Government Administration Committee’s consideration was thorough but I do not recall any particular discussion on any problem the Opposition had with the Wills Act. I want that noted in  
Hansard 
. 
A number of interesting statutes are amended by this legislation; some are quite unique and obscure. For instance this bill amends the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 which seems reasonably obscure. With those words I commend the legislation to the House. 
Bills read a third time.
Chauvel Charles: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12295. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will address the comments that have been made by the Associate Minister of Justice in my third reading remarks; I will confine myself to responding to those remarks. I put on record for the House that we on this side of the House made it clear to the Associate Minister that if an application for leave had been forthcoming to refer the particular amendment to the Wills Act which has been the subject of most of the debate this evening to a select committee such as the Justice and Electoral Committee for a proper discussion on its merits no one on this side of the House would have raised an objection. The Government has not chosen to avail itself of that procedure in the House tonight notwithstanding the fact that it might have. Let us not have too much rhetoric about the unfortunate effect of declining leave to allow the amendment to the Wills Act to proceed tonight. A remedy was open to the Associate Minister; he simply did not take it. 
I hope the Associate Minister has learnt from tonight’s proceedings that statutes amendment legislation should contain matters that are truly non-debatable in a technical sense; they ought to be non-controversial. If they are controversial then they should not be included in this sort of legislation. Really that is the be-all and end-all of the rules relating to statutes amendment legislation. They are an essential part of parliamentary procedure. They play an important part. The Opposition will always attempt to be reasonable and find ways forward when a particular proposal does not fit into that category as we tried to do in respect of the amendment that has been debated tonight. The offer that we made unfortunately was not taken up so the Minister is right: it will have to be the subject of a further substantive amendment in future. That is a consequence of the fact that the amendment clearly requires substantive debate substantive input and expert evidence as to the effect that it may or may not have if it is passed. 
With those comments for the record I simply commend the surviving parts of the statutes amendment legislation to the House.
Nash Stuart: Statutes Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Nash Stuart: Statutes Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12289. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I think Mr Burns has hit the nail on the head. This Statutes Amendment Bill is contrary to the general purpose of what we do in this House which is to work together on these sorts of bills. I think it is an abomination. I congratulate Mr Burns on hitting the nail on the head. 
I will get a couple of definitions out there. People have asked me what an omnibus bill is. Is it a bus that carries one big person like Gerry? I do not know. “Omnibus” is defined as pertaining to including or dealing with numerous objects or items at once. Hence we have one bill dealing with a whole lot of items. Taking that further an omnibus bill is a single document that is accepted in a single vote by a legislator but contains amendments to a number of other laws. It may even sometimes create entirely new laws but that does not happen in this country and it should not. As Brendon Burns said these sorts of bills are put together to make minor non-controversial amendments. 
Under Standing Order 259 “An omnibus bill to amend more than one Act may be introduced if—(a) the amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy or (b) the amendments to be effected to each Act of a similar nature in each case or (c) the Business Committee has agreed to the bill’s introduction as an omnibus bill.” I was not lucky enough to be on the Government Administration Committee when it debated this fine legislation. It amends in one hit—believe it or not—about 48 pieces of legislation. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: It’s a clean-up bill. 
STUART NASH 
: It is a clean-up bill. We need to do this every now and again. We support this legislation but as Mr Burns said we have some concerns about it. Mind you we have concerns about a lot of things that the Government does. We would have done it differently. Then again the Government has done a lot of things that we would do differently. That is my 2c worth. I will leave it up to my colleagues to hammer home the point. Thank you very much.
Vote: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12285. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Question agreed to.
Guy Nathan: Statutes Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Guy Nathan: Statutes Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12285. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate on the 47 parts of the Statutes Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate with the questions on each part to be put separately at the end of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There being no objection we will do what the leave has been sought for.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Courts (Remote Participation) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill and address some of the points raised by the Opposition. This bill clearly sets out the parameters for the judiciary to decide whether an audiovisual link is to be used. This was well discussed during the select committee proceedings and it was decided by majority that this report should proceed further. 
The audiovisual link facility will be used both in civil and criminal proceedings. This bill is part of many legislative changes that this Government has introduced to make our courts work more efficiently and effectively. This system is already being used in many countries like Australia Canada the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The Australian jurisdiction in particular is internationally recognised for its effective use of videoconferencing in legal proceedings. 
There is a real need to enhance the efficiency of our judicial system. There has been a 10 percent increase in the number of trials that our courts have to deal with. Although our police force has undoubtedly made a marked improvement in bringing people to justice with increased prosecutions it has meant an increased burden for the courts to deal with. With ever-advancing technology the audiovisual link system will be seen as a real advantage in streamlining the efficiency of our justice system. An audiovisual link can be used for example for a witness living overseas thereby cutting costs. Another advantage is that expert medical witnesses living overseas can use the link. 
I say in conclusion that this bill will greatly reduce costs and moreover significantly increase the number of cases that can be brought before the courts. This will make the system function more effectively and efficiently. The bill will also greatly reduce distress for victims and witnesses who may have to wait a year or more before their cases are heard. I fully support this bill. I believe it will be a vast improvement and an excellent step forward for our justice system.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12266. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on the performance of the 2008-09 and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises has therefore concluded. I will report the debate to the House. 
Report adopted.
Heatley Phil: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12266. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Thank you very much for this opportunity to outline where the Housing New Zealand Corporation is sitting at the moment and where we would like to see it go. Members might be interested in some interesting statistics. I know that the Minister in the chair the Hon David Carter certainly would be. At the moment the Housing New Zealand Corporation manages just over 69000 houses. The majority are owned by it. A few are leased—not many but roughly about 5 percent. As we increase the number of State houses—that is our commitment—we are buying building and leasing properties. We are tending to lease and build properties more than to buy existing properties because we want to add to the housing stock in New Zealand. We are very very keen to see the stimulus effects in the economy and particularly in the construction sector when we build. Of course if people buy an existing house—the Housing New Zealand Corporation does that—there is no stimulus activity in the building sector. Members might be interested to know that when we lease houses which the Housing New Zealand Corporation does it tends to lease new-build houses. So we do not tend to lease those that are already in existence. We tend to go out and lease new builds. That also stimulates the economy and the construction sector. The flip side to it is that we get a new and modern home. Members may also be interested in the waiting list. From 1 November 2008 to today 31 May 2010 we have seen an increase in the waiting list of just over 400. 
Report noted.
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12265. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be noted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 43; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Report noted.
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12262. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be noted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 43; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Report noted.
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12259. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I would now like to not quite withdraw and apologise but pull back somewhat. I have had time to get advice and have a quick look at the Standing Order; I accept that the ruling you made earlier is correct. I apologise for the interruption. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Just to clarify for members I tell the Committee that if we look at the consideration of financial reviews under Appendix A of the Standing Orders we can see stated that the whole debate will be 3 hours. I understand there is agreement between the whips and that the proportionality has been worked out. There is agreement between the parties and I think that Speaker’s ruling 25/6 clarifies the matter. I intend that the decision I made earlier stands; I will put the vote. 
Report noted.
Chadwick Steve: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chadwick Steve: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12258. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I sought clarification on speaking slots for this portion of the debate. I was advised that if Government members did not take their calls we could stand to take a call. My colleague Lynne Pillay stood to take a call when no National member stood. We were following guidance and without wanting to trifle with the Chair I point out that you tried to seek closure on this debate. I seek some clarification on that step that you undertook in the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. Each party is allocated so many speaking slots in which they can seek calls. Labour has actually used the 12 calls. National still has six calls left for its members to exercise. As they have not exercised their six calls they can now move on to the next question before the Committee. If at the end of the debate and within the 3-hour period there is still time available then it is open for any party to seek calls. But at this stage we must move on. As the member’s party has exercised its 12 opportunities we now must move on. That is why I cannot accept a call from the member. We will move on to the next vote and as I said if all parties have exercised their total votes within the 3-hour period and there is still time available then there is an opportunity for further speeches.
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12259. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I go to the question of whether the allocations are fixed according to the Standing Orders or whether they are a guideline. My understanding is that they are a guideline rather than a fixed allocation. I apologise; I was not in the Chamber when this was first raised and I have come in and I have been looking for the appropriate Standing Order—if I am pointed to it and I am wrong I apologise—but my understanding is that they are guidelines as opposed to an allocation by way of the Standing Orders. Although I accept that there will be an opportunity presumably in a later debate for people to pick it up I would appreciate a ruling on the strictness of the allocation interpretation and whether that is fixed in the Standing Orders or whether it is something that is less formal.
Pillay Lynne: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pillay Lynne: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12258. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Members the question is that the report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2008-09 financial review of the Accident Compensation Corporation be noted. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No.
Pillay Lynne: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pillay Lynne: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12257. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Labour Party has used its allocation of speeches so there are none left for the Labour Opposition. 
Darien Fenton 
: Do we only get two? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No you have used your full allocation; I am just bringing that to your attention. You will have no more speakers for the rest of this debate.
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12234. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be noted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Report noted.