edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1839] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I wish to make two clear points. The first is that changes to the Resource Management Act—which is what the question asks about—are very clearly within my responsibility. If the member had wanted the question to go to my colleague the Minister of Maori Affairs then she would have asked what advice the Maori affairs ministry Te Puni Kokiri had provided on the Resource Management Act reforms and that question would have gone to the Minister. The second thing I think this House should reject is the view that as Minister for the Environment I have no responsibility for the role that Maori would take in environmental decisions because it is my view that every member of this executive has responsibilities that relate to their portfolio in respect of Maori. 
Metiria Turei 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient on this matter. I invite the member to sit because this case is very clear-cut. The member is asking about changes to the Resource Management Act. The Minister of Maori Affairs is not responsible for changes to the Resource Management Act. This is a very clear case and I invite the member to ask her question.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1839] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will members show the Green Party member some modicum of respect as she seeks to ask a question. [ 
Interruption 
] The member happens to be in the Opposition. That is why I am particularly focused on Opposition members who are making it difficult for her to ask a question. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: My apologies for doing this to you this afternoon but I seek your guidance on a matter that has not yet been dealt with in this—the forty-ninth—Parliament. I lodged this particular specific question to the Minister of Maori Affairs this morning because of the specific responsibility of that Minister to advocate for and to uphold Maori participation in public policy issues. It is an issue that is directly a part of his responsibilities. It relates to and impinges on his ministerial responsibility and it is certainly well within the strict matters of Maori affairs as Mr Gerry Brownlee set out earlier. However the question was transferred to another Minister. I know that the previous Government—as we have already discussed—did this on a very regular basis in the previous Parliament to the great frustration of many members of this House. I am concerned that the National Government is treating this as a precedent given that the previous Government did it too. 
I would like some indication from you about what right members of Parliament have on behalf of the public to hold a member of the executive to account for the responsibilities of an issue specifically concerning that Minister’s ministerial area and to get an answer from that Minister on those issues. I am very concerned that today’s decision and indeed the discussion we have just had looks very much like the Minister of Maori Affairs is being actively constrained from answering such questions. I would very much appreciate your advice on this matter.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1826] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 In case anyone thought that for once Mr Brownlee had made a point that of course related to a reshuffle in December 2007. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I think we can consider the score to be about one all.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1826] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not want to prolong this exercise but last year was 2008. I am sure that Michael Cullen was not telling us that the 2005 delegations were tabled in September 2008. We will be tabling the delegations in due course.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1826] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Perhaps I could just point out to the member that the delegations last year were tabled on 12 February and we are now well into March.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1826] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I give the House an assurance that we are following a timetable previously used by other Governments—former Governments in fact—and the delegations will be tabled in due course.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1826] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This point of order is in relation to Speaker’s ruling 147/4 which relates to the issue of the tabling of delegations to Associate Ministers. It is my understanding that no such list has yet been tabled in the House. Until that list is tabled questions cannot be asked of Associate Ministers because it is not known what their responsibilities are if any. I am sure the Opposition and even some Government backbenchers are keen to table questions to Associate Ministers and I think after some 3½ months of the Government being in office it might be about time now for a list of delegations to be tabled. After 100 days of action perhaps 100 minutes might be sufficient for the Government to see to that relatively simple task. The list of Associate Ministers in this Government is pretty small.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Unparliamentary Language—Reference to Persons Outside House 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Unparliamentary Language—Reference to Persons Outside House 
[Volume:652;Page:1826] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the honourable member’s point and I think it was well made just as I think the point made by the Hon Rodney Hide was a perfectly fair and valid point. The dilemma with all these matters is that one has to make a judgment somewhere. It is interesting to reflect in respect of some of these things that within this Chamber we consider it absolutely unacceptable to call another member of this House a hypocrite. I am not sure I have heard anyone suggest that one cannot call another member of this House an oik—I do not think that it has ever come up. But it is worth reflecting on the fact that if we find it offensive in this House to call another member a hypocrite why would we hold ourselves to be so special and above good citizens of New Zealand that it would be perfectly acceptable to call good citizens of New Zealand hypocrites? It is interesting that in this case the people being referred to are people who have been honoured and hold some of the highest honours in our country. 
I accept that the ruling is somewhat arbitrary I accept that the Speaker has to make judgments and I have given it careful thought because I think the point of order made by the member was a perfectly fair point of order. But I think in question time it is worth keeping the framework for questions a little bit tighter because the Standing Orders in respect of debate are different from those in respect of questions. I thank honourable members.
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Unparliamentary Language—Reference to Persons Outside House 
Cullen Michael: Speaker’s Rulings — Unparliamentary Language—Reference to Persons Outside House 
[Volume:652;Page:1825] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I think a difference can be drawn but of course all of these matters come down in the end to your judgment as Speaker and judgments are made on a case by case basis. The essence of calling people hypocrites is to imply that they are misrepresenting that they are speaking with two tongues if one likes that they are engaging in saying one thing in one place and another thing in another place and that they are being fundamentally dishonest. The term “oik” is somewhat out of date and not used much these days. It largely means somebody of a relatively limited education and background ignorant and not knowing very much which does not apply to almost anybody in Crown Law that I am aware of but it has been said by a person in reference to people outside the House and it is perfectly legitimate to quote it it seems to me in a question.
Hide Rodney: Speaker’s Rulings — Unparliamentary Language—Reference to Persons Outside House 
Hide Rodney: Speaker’s Rulings — Unparliamentary Language—Reference to Persons Outside House 
[Volume:652;Page:1825] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that clarification but I would ask you to reflect on the difficulty that we may now have. As you point out there are two standards: one for questions and one for parliamentary debate. But today’s question No. 7 which you have said is OK refers to “some oik in Crown Law”. Clearly you have ruled that one can call someone an oik in question time yet you have just ruled that one cannot call someone a hypocrite. I would like you to consider where you will draw the line because to be quite honest I cannot see why being called an oik is OK but being called a hypocrite is not.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Unparliamentary Language—Reference to Persons Outside House 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Rulings — Unparliamentary Language—Reference to Persons Outside House 
[Volume:652;Page:1825] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday members raised with me a reflection on persons outside the House that was contained in a supplementary question. I indicated that I would further consider my decision that the remark was not in order. Standing Order 115 deals with offensive or disorderly words used in debate. The Speaker intervenes when such remarks are likely to lead to disorder. Standing Order 371 sets the standard for questions. It is quite clear: questions should not contain offensive or unparliamentary expressions nor should they contain expressions of opinion imputations or epithets. The rules for questions while reflecting the general rules about unparliamentary language are deliberately tightly framed. 
In reflecting upon the matter I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 53/3. It counsels members to use temperate and decorous language when referring to persons outside Parliament. Although members have absolute freedom of speech in this Chamber that privilege should be treated with the utmost respect and used only in the public interest because it is conferred on Parliament in the public interest. While members may be strongly critical in debate of persons outside the House the rules for questions require members to take much more care if they wish to include such reflections in their questions. 
I have given considerable thought to Mr Hide’s point of order. It remains my judgment that the reflection was out of order. Not only was it unparliamentary it was in effect an expression of opinion in a supplementary question and it led to disorder. In such circumstances it was appropriate for me to intervene. Members have absolute freedom of speech in debate and I do not seek to curtail that privilege in any way. However I intend to uphold Standing Order 371. Questions that include offensive or unparliamentary expressions will be ruled out of order.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1825] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the debates on Government notices of motion Nos 2 and 3 to be taken as one debate with speeches of a maximum of 10 minutes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Speaker’s Statements — Call—Members Seeking 
Speaker’s Statements — Call—Members Seeking 
[Volume:652;Page:1861] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Call—Members Seeking 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next item of business I just remind new members that the kawa of this House is that when members want to speak they call. The Speaker does not know whether a person is standing up to go out to the toilet to go and get a cup of tea or to do something else so would members please call so that Speaker knows who wishes to speak. That is the kawa of the House.
Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
Points of Order — Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
[Volume:652;Page:1826] 
Points of Order 
Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This point of order is in relation to Speaker’s ruling 147/4 which relates to the issue of the tabling of delegations to Associate Ministers. It is my understanding that no such list has yet been tabled in the House. Until that list is tabled questions cannot be asked of Associate Ministers because it is not known what their responsibilities are if any. I am sure the Opposition and even some Government backbenchers are keen to table questions to Associate Ministers and I think after some 3½ months of the Government being in office it might be about time now for a list of delegations to be tabled. After 100 days of action perhaps 100 minutes might be sufficient for the Government to see to that relatively simple task. The list of Associate Ministers in this Government is pretty small. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I give the House an assurance that we are following a timetable previously used by other Governments—former Governments in fact—and the delegations will be tabled in due course. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Perhaps I could just point out to the member that the delegations last year were tabled on 12 February and we are now well into March. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not want to prolong this exercise but last year was 2008. I am sure that Michael Cullen was not telling us that the 2005 delegations were tabled in September 2008. We will be tabling the delegations in due course. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 In case anyone thought that for once Mr Brownlee had made a point that of course related to a reshuffle in December 2007. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I think we can consider the score to be about one all.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1825] 
Wednesday 11 March 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the debates on Government notices of motion Nos 2 and 3 to be taken as one debate with speeches of a maximum of 10 minutes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Hughes Darren: Address in Reply 
Hughes Darren: Address in Reply 
[Volume:652;Page:1168] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table this script which is a new play:  
Chris Finlayson: the Musical 
. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears to be no objection. It can be tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1151] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In answer to a supplementary question to question No. 4 the Prime Minister indicated that a particular school project in Hutt South my electorate had been brought forward. I have examined the list and it is clear that that is not the case. It was in Rimutaka in Upper Hutt and I invite the Minister of Education to brief the Prime Minister so he can correct the reply. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member knows that that is not a point of order. He may believe there is something wrong with an answer given but it is not a matter of a point of order if he believes that an answer has been given in error. There are other channels for following that up.
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1150] 
12.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What benefits will the extra $124.5 million of investment announced today for the Housing New Zealand Corporation provide to the people of New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The initiative is a double win. First of all we can address the disgraceful legacy left by the previous Government. Its inaction on upgrading State houses meant that Labour was a slum landlord. Secondly skilled tradespeople in New Zealand and the men and women who support those tradespeople will continue to be in jobs for the next 12 to 18 months. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What actions has the Minister taken to ensure that the $124.5 million of increased funding announced today for the Housing New Zealand Corporation will help deliver economic stimulus as soon as possible? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Since the approval of the stimulus package by Cabinet I have been working with my officials to ensure that upon the announcement we can proceed pretty quickly. The package achieves three goals: first it addresses the need to improve the living conditions of State house tenants due to the previous Government’s neglect in that area; secondly it gives the ability to start as soon as possible particularly with the upgrades because many of those will not require consents; and thirdly this work will stimulate local economies right around New Zealand. I understand from my officials that it will take approximately 4 to 6 weeks to award upgrade contracts to get the work under way as soon as possible.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1146] 
9.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he contemplating the dismissal of Otago District Health Board chair Richard Thomson; if so why? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes; because as chair Mr Thomson is accountable for leading a board that operates both effectively and efficiently. He has been the chair of the board since late 2001 during which time the largest fraud in the history of the New Zealand State services was taking place at the Otago District Health Board. This fraud totalled nearly $17 million of taxpayers’ money. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister rank his judgment higher than that of the people of Otago who when very well acquainted with the facts surrounding this fraud judged that the health board members were part of the solution not part of the problem and re-elected every last one of them back to their jobs Mr Thomson included—or is the Minister blessed with some unique wisdom and insight? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am not considering removing Mr Thomson from the board as an elected member; it is his position as chair that I am considering. This is a matter of accountability. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Can the Minister advise what health services could be bought for the people of Otago with $17 million? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can advise the member that $17 million would provide a significant number of services in the New Zealand public health service in Dunedin: over 1100 knee replacements or 1200 primary hip replacements or over 8000 cataract operations or nearly 700 coronary bypass operations. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Otago District Health Board’s Chief Medical Officer Richard Bunton who said that the Minister clearly had Mr Thomson in the “crosshairs of his political point-scoring bazooka” and that Mr Thomson has “the highest integrity and personal standards”; if so might the Minister consider improving his own integrity and personal standards to match those of Mr Thomson? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: A $17 million fraud occurred at the Otago District Health Board over 6 years nearly all of which occurred under Mr Thomson’s chairmanship of the board. It is the largest Public Service fraud in the history of New Zealand. Accountability is a critical role for a chair. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has it occurred to the Minister that should he sack Mr Thomson as chair then Michael Swann the guy Mr Thomson helped catch will be sitting in his prison cell grinning from ear to ear? And why would that be a good thing? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I alert the Minister to be careful in answering that question because the people involved in that case have not yet been sentenced. So I just urge that care be taken. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am considering the position of chair because accountability is a critical aspect of the role of chair.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1137] 
3.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What advice has he received from the Treasury on removing the research and development tax credit removing the $700 million Fast Forward Fund and reducing KiwiSaver contributions? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Treasury gave us the advice to keep the research and development tax credit to maintain the Fast Forward Fund in the form that had been proposed by the previous Government and to make no changes to KiwiSaver. However prior to the election National had made a number of decisions which were to remove the research and development tax credit remove the Fast Forward Fund and change KiwiSaver contributions and we are sticking to our word. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did the Minister suppress the Treasury briefing that was critical of these moves and release it at a time designed to minimise public awareness? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Labour Party complaining about compliance with the Official Information Act is like Jack the Ripper complaining about community violence. 
Craig Foss 
: What other reports has the Minister seen of advice offered by Treasury to finance Ministers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Treasury advice is as always mixed. Some we agree with some we disagree with. Treasury has given us other advice such as the need for extensive review of the Resource Management Act which the Government has followed and a Resource Management Act Amendment Bill will be in Parliament within a few weeks. Treasury has also given us the advice that the performance of the Public Service needs to be improved significantly and I would agree with that. After 10 years of bullying and manipulation it can do a lot better and we will make sure it does. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a question about the relevance of that answer. The question was a patsy question designed to elicit the answer about my reference to an ideological burp and I think the Minister read the wrong answer at that particular point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a particularly helpful point of order I must say. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did the Minister not have fortitude equal to that of the previous Minister of Finance and release the Treasury briefing at the same time as other briefings to incoming Ministers were released? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Treasury briefing to the incoming Government has been released. There are absolutely no secrets in it and I am surprised that in the context of the most significant economic recession in 90 years this is what the Labour Party is focused on. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Did the Minister or any of his staff talk at any point to the Prime Minister or any of his staff about the date of releasing the Treasury briefing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister advises me that he read about it in the newspaper. It is unlikely that a matter of that kind of detail would have been discussed at the highest levels of Government.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1135] 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Ministers? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why would the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister whose behaviour is described by the  
Otago Daily Times 
 as “blatantly partisan scapegoating” and as “having compromised any semblance of the due process”—that Minister being the Minister of Health Tony Ryall—and is the Prime Minister prepared to tolerate such behaviour in a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have great confidence in the Minister of Health who is prepared to look for accountability when there is a $17 million fraud. While I am at it I congratulate the Minister of Health on ensuring that those New Zealand women who have previously been funded for Herceptin for only 9 weeks now have a 52-week programme. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister support and have confidence in Tony Ryall’s efforts to sack Otago District Health Board’s elected chair Richard Thomson on the basis of a fraud initiated before Mr Thomson became chair and when Mr Thomson was in fact responsible for helping catch the crooks; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I understand that the Minister of Health is following a proper process and at this stage no decision has been made. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If the Minister is following proper process why did the  
Otago Daily Times 
 describe him as “having compromised any semblance of the due process”? Is the Prime Minister confident that Mr Ryall is right in this matter and that Otago’s chief medical officer the senior doctors and staff the entire Otago District Health Board the  
Otago Daily Times 
 and the big majority of the voting public that re-elected Mr Thomson are wrong; if so what evidence does he have for that view? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I repeat that the Minister of Health is following due process. I am not responsible for what the  
Otago Daily Times 
 writes although I have noted that in recent times it has written some pretty terrible stuff about the Labour Party. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister confident that the approach of the Minister of Health Mr Tony Ryall in arrogantly trying to bully the elected chair of the district health board to resign is consistent with the views of one Mr Tony Ryall MP who earlier said that a well-founded dismissal of another board was “appalling political manipulation”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Minister of Health is following due process but I repeat again—[ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite might not like it but he is following due process. The members opposite need to realise that when there is a $17 million fraud this Government will stand up and make sure that there is accountability. The Government that Phil Goff was a member of did not do so.
Wilkinson Kate: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 10 February 
Wilkinson Kate: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 10 February 
[Volume:652;Page:1135] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct outdated information that was given during my reply to question for oral answer No. 8 on Tuesday 10 February. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is not. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yesterday I told the House that I had received advice that increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour might result in the loss of up to 17000 jobs. This figure came from the 2007 minimum wage review and the most up-to-date figure from the 2008 minimum wage review is in fact up to 12200 jobs.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1135] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debates on the question that the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill be read a second and a third time to be taken together as one debate of 12 10-minute speeches. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 10 February 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 10 February 
[Volume:652;Page:1135] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 8 to Minister 10 February 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct outdated information that was given during my reply to question for oral answer No. 8 on Tuesday 10 February. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is not. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yesterday I told the House that I had received advice that increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour might result in the loss of up to 17000 jobs. This figure came from the 2007 minimum wage review and the most up-to-date figure from the 2008 minimum wage review is in fact up to 12200 jobs.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:652;Page:1135] 
Wednesday 11 February 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debates on the question that the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill be read a second and a third time to be taken together as one debate of 12 10-minute speeches. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Boscawen John: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — Third Reading 
Boscawen John: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:278] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 Once again it is an honour and a privilege to speak in support of the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill. One of the great challenges that confronts this country is the requirement to get our rate of productivity growth up. One of the key issues that was in the supply and confidence agreement between the ACT Party and the National Party was to set an aspiration to raise New Zealand’s living standards up to the level of Australia’s by 2025. That is some 16 years away but that is no easy task and it is likely to require increases in productivity of over 3 percent per annum. A key aspect of achieving those productivity gains is to have a taxation system that encourages hard work thrift and responsibility. 
It has been very interesting to listen to this debate over the last couple of days because the Hon Dr Cullen asked the question earlier today why do people move to Australia? He quoted as an example the 9 percent superannuation contribution to employees’ superannuation savings by their employers. I put it to Dr Cullen that the reason people move to Australia is that the standard of living there is far superior to the standard of living in New Zealand. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh! 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I tell Dr Cullen that it is far superior to that here. The incomes in Australia are 25 percent or more higher than those in New Zealand and one of the reasons that has contributed to that is that Government spending under the last 9 years of the Labour Government here has been in excess of the per capita inflation-adjusted base by over $18 billion—$1000 per household per month; $12000 per household per year. I tell Dr Cullen that that has resulted in the tax rates in New Zealand cutting in at the highest top marginal rate of 39c in the dollar. 
Dr Cullen talked about the winners under this legislation being those on hundreds of thousands of dollars of income a year. My point to Dr Cullen is that the winners under this legislation are the 80 percent of New Zealanders who will be paying no more than 20 percent as their top marginal rate of tax from 1 April 2011. 
Debate interrupted.
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:269] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I made it very clear before that there is no requirement for a bill to be tabled before the time that it is to be debated. That is a point I made earlier this morning. I intend to move on.
Norman Russel William: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Norman Russel William: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:269] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker the issue for the Green Party is that clearly the Leader of the House has some animus towards the previous Leader of the House and the Labour Party. However that has nothing to do with us I say to the Leader of the House. This Parliament is not just a Labour and National Parliament; it is an MMP Parliament. All of us need to be able to look at the legislation which the Leader of the House has now told us is in his possession. It is very difficult to see how we can undertake our democratic responsibilities if the bills are not placed on the Table.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:269] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I make the point that that matter was sparked off by nothing at all on the part of Mr Brownlee; what we have now is Mr Brownlee deliberately failing to implement an undertaking that he gave at 2 o’clock. He said at 2 o’clock that I had made a fair point and that he would address the matter and see that it was seen to. He is now point-blank refusing to honour an undertaking given in this House across the House. He should be experienced enough by now to know that behaviour of that sort does have consequences in Parliament. I suggest to him that he might care to go home have a cup of cocoa think about life come back in the morning and while we are still in the third reading of this bill think about tabling some of the bills that are coming up tomorrow. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The point has been well made.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:269] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker you will find there is a Speaker’s ruling on that particular matter. The Speaker ruled that deliberate disruption of the House or its progress in that way would be considered unruly behaviour likely to lead to the member concerned being ejected or named.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:269] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You might recall that on a previous occasion during the previous Government Mr Brownlee took some time of the House in seeking to table one by one the Standing Orders of Parliament. I would like an indication from you Mr Deputy Speaker whether that would be a legitimate thing for me to begin to do as this particular point.
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:269] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Cunliffe you have made the point very clear. I remind members that when points of order are taken they are to be heard in silence. Please observe that. On advice these are matters of debate. Standing Order 106 does not prevent misrepresentation; it provides a manner for dealing with it. I am sure the member can find a way of expressing his views without making a personal reflection. It is a matter for debate.
Cunliffe David: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Cunliffe David: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:268] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I may not have made myself clear Mr Deputy Speaker. It was not that I take offence; it was that if I were to characterise the Leader of the House’s late change of position on this matter he would likely take offence because I would have to refer to him as being dishonourable in this House and that would be a very serious charge. I take it that I am prevented from doing that by Standing Order 116. On the other hand the House remains in the situation that the member has apparently contradicted himself on a matter of significant constitutional practice. On a strict reading of the Standing Orders it may be an option legally available to him not to present bills before the debate on each bill starts. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that he gave an indication to the House earlier in the day that he would do his best to get the bills here in advance in response to an earlier point of order made in good faith by the previous Leader of the House who made exactly that a standard practice. There is both a substantive and a procedural lack of apparent honour in this matter and I do not know how the House will handle it unless the member—
Cunliffe David: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Cunliffe David: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:268] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on an apparent conflict between two Standing Orders that bear upon this matter. Standing Order 116 prohibits members from making personal reflections. For example when I reflect upon the fact that the Leader of the House Mr Brownlee earlier today gave his undertaking to do his very best to put these bills on the Table in advance of debate on them I am prevented from making any comment on his honour or lack of it in now not doing so. By his own free admission the bills are available. However Standing Order 106 prohibits misrepresentation. It would appear to me that Mr Brownlee may have placed himself in the position of misrepresenting his own position because he earlier said that he would do his best to bring the bills forward for scrutiny. This is against the background that no select committee process is available to the country in respect of these fundamentally important bills. He has made a statement. He has contradicted that statement. I am prevented by the Standing Orders from reflecting upon that. Mr Deputy Speaker I ask your guidance: what happens when a member the Leader of the House apparently contradicts himself on a matter of this import? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The first point Mr Cunliffe is to ask whether you are taking exception under Standing Order 116 concerning personal reflections. You mentioned that. Do you take offence at the comments made by the Hon Gerry Brownlee?
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Tisch Lindsay: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:268] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you Dr Cullen. Earlier this morning I made the point on advice that when the House is sitting under urgency at the time that a bill is to be introduced copies of the bill must be available at the Table. There is no requirement to have a bill available prior to that. Standing Order 263 sets out the general rule but it does not deal specifically with bills introduced under urgency. It simply establishes the principle that copies of a bill must be available upon its introduction.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:268] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 That is an incredibly arrogant response. People in that member’s position in the past have taken the view very properly of reminding Governments of their responsibility in these matters. It is clear now that the Government has got the bills available— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —yes—and the Government is choosing not to table bills it has available out of spite and out of arrogance. This is the second full day of this Parliament and this Government is acting like one already heading for the graveyard because it does not want to follow any kind of normal procedure. That is not the practice that has been followed in this House for many years now. I went with the practice as Leader of the House of being very very full about what business the House would consider. The Opposition always knew well in advance what business would be considered. In urgency if bills were coming forward to go through all their stages they were tabled at the earliest opportunity. That is just basic common courtesy about making this House work. If the Government chooses to have no cooperation at all then it will pay for that in a very significant fashion over the period of time. It will come to regret it. That member should know that this House cannot work if there is no cooperation between the parties in it.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:267] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 A couple of things have become evident to me in the last couple of days. One is that Dr Cullen is hell-bent on everybody following the letter of the Standing Orders to the nth degree. That is exactly what is happening here. There is no requirement on the Government at this point to table any bills at all—no requirement whatsoever. After the extraordinary performance of the huge amount of outrage from the members of the previous Government at the reinstatement of most of their own business it seems to me that those members have very little interest in knowing about anything that this Government will do. But they will have those bills on the Table in time for them to be debated at a time to be chosen by the Government. If I were to seek leave to introduce those bills now Dr Cullen would say: “Well done you have just put them on the Table; they can stay there for 3 days.” or he would play some other clever trick that the Standing Orders might by the letter of the law allow. We will play it very safe so he can be happy.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:651;Page:267] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have raised this point a number of times today. It is still the case that none of the other bills that the House will consider are on the Table of the House. The previous Government never adopted the practice of going into urgency and taking as long as this to table bills. Either this Government is so incompetent that it has not got them drafted yet and does not really know what it has taken urgency on or it is deliberately withholding the bills from the House.
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:265] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:265] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:265] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 57; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:264] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter John: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:262] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:252] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Progressive 1. 
Part 4 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:252] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:251] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe to clause 58 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:251] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe to clause 56 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:251] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe to clause 55 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:251] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The closure motion of course is in your purview and yours alone. I make the point— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It is. I refer to— 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: My colleague Moana Mackey has been calling all evening trying to get a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I refer to Speakers’ ruling 60/7.
Wong Pansy: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:251] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.