edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
[Volume:643;Page:13300] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Brownlee had about three different phrases he was using but all of them contained the word that Mrs Pettis reported to you Mr Assistant Speaker. He was using it deliberately in the hope of breaking up Mr Cosgrove’s very fine speech. We did not do that; we waited until the end of the speech before we drew it to your attention. It is just unnecessary stuff and it is against the rules. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It depends on whether the member was actually accusing the member of lying. If that is the case then that is out of order. The member knows that as he is a longstanding member. If it were a throwaway line then in that particular respect it is another matter. So I am relying on the member’s integrity.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:643;Page:13300] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I will take your advice. I said: “Stop telling lies.” “More Labour lies.” and “Don’t tell lies.” Have I breached the rules? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member was implying that the member was lying— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I was. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well the member as a longstanding member knows that that is not permissible. I ask him to withdraw. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. I call the member Lindsay Tisch. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It’s the long the short and the tall!
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:643;Page:13299] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was saying “More lies.” What is wrong with that?
Pettis Jill: General Debate 
Pettis Jill: General Debate 
[Volume:643;Page:13299] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a long-held Standing Order that the word “lies” is unparliamentary. Mr Brownlee used that word several times during Mr Cosgrove’s speech. I did not interrupt his speech but I take offence and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Under Speaker’s ruling 41/3 calling a member a liar is “an offence against the dignity of the House and the assumption that its members behave truthfully and honourably.” If the member was engaged in that then I ask him to stand and withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I asked the member to withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well I won’t because you’ve got it wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member taking a point of order to clarify the situation?
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:643;Page:13298] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not interrupt the member’s speech because it was not appropriate to do so. But he made a number of very offensive remarks in that speech and I have taken offence at the suggestion that I was laughing at farmers. I was laughing at the fact that he was railing on behalf of farmers when New Zealand First of course is supporting the legislation that will break them up. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Yes that is a debatable issue. But while I am on my feet I urge all honourable members to play the ball and not the member. If they remember that we will preserve an excellent field for the full play of ideas.
Moroney Sue: Voting — Correction 
Moroney Sue: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:643;Page:13291] 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The vote of Taito Phillip Field was cast for the Ayes when it should have been cast for the Noes. The correct result of the vote is therefore Ayes 65 Noes 52. This does not affect the outcome of the vote. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:643;Page:13290] 
Voting 
Correction 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to alter the vote of Taito Phillip Field that was cast yesterday on the question that the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a third time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. The correct result of the vote therefore would be Ayes 65 Noes 52. This does not affect the outcome of the vote. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not really sure from that what the correction was. I would ask whether the vote of Mr Field cast was in favour of the bill and is now being cast in opposition of the bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was my understanding of the numbers yes. In fact would the member please confirm that for the benefit of Mr Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member actually sought leave but the leave was never put. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought that it was; there was no objection. I did not hear any objection. However for the point of clarification would the member please address Mr Brownlee’s question as to whether it was an “Aye” or a “No” that changed the vote. 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The vote of Taito Phillip Field was cast for the Ayes when it should have been cast for the Noes. The correct result of the vote is therefore Ayes 65 Noes 52. This does not affect the outcome of the vote. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry: Voting — Correction 
Brownlee Gerry: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:643;Page:13290] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not really sure from that what the correction was. I would ask whether the vote of Mr Field cast was in favour of the bill and is now being cast in opposition of the bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was my understanding of the numbers yes. In fact would the member please confirm that for the benefit of Mr Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member actually sought leave but the leave was never put. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought that it was; there was no objection. I did not hear any objection. However for the point of clarification would the member please address Mr Brownlee’s question as to whether it was an “Aye” or a “No” that changed the vote.
Moroney Sue: Voting — Correction 
Moroney Sue: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:643;Page:13290] 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to alter the vote of Taito Phillip Field that was cast yesterday on the question that the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a third time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. The correct result of the vote therefore would be Ayes 65 Noes 52. This does not affect the outcome of the vote.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13288] 
11.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How are early childhood education centres assisting parents to raise their children? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 A total of 18 early childhood education centres have now begun offering parent support and development programmes which is part of the Labour-led Government strategy to intervene early in families so our kids grow up safe healthy and confident. New centres offering the programmes include Newfield-Heidelberg Free Kindergarten in Invercargill which offers support for parents of children up to the age of 3. The kindy held an opening of its new parents’ room recently attended by the member Lesley Soper and I want to thank it for its participation in the 4-year $6.6 million pilot programme which has already helped 700 families in the past year to improve their parenting skills. 
Lesley Soper 
: What practical support does the parent support and development programme offer Kiwi families? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The parent support and development programme uses early childhood education centres as a community hub to provide support to stressed parents so they can do a better job raising their children. The programme offers parenting-skill workshops promotes participation in early childhood education reinforces the lessons learnt there at home provides one-to-one support to vulnerable families and where necessary referrals to community agencies and helps parents to build support networks in their home communities. 
Paula Bennett 
: In light of the Minister’s new-found concern with assisting parents to raise their children will he contact those 12 creches in gyms that he has closed to which parents went just so they could have some respite and that helped them to actually raise their children; and can he assure Sunday schools that he will not put them under the same regulations as early childhood education centres—which might be the best assistance he can give to parents? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member raises two points both of which she has been busy promoting misinformation about around New Zealand. Recently she said on the radio that my ministry had closed 10 creches in gyms. We have closed none. Ten creches chose to close themselves. We did not close any. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will have the rest of the Minister’s answer in silence. I hope it is succinct. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I repeat that the Ministry of Education has not closed any creches in gyms. As far as Sunday schools are concerned I say that there is absolutely no intention to make Sunday schools fit under the regulations around childcare centres. That is a bit of spurious nonsense that the member has been spreading around New Zealand. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave of the House to table the list that the ministry provided of the 10 creches that the ministry wrote to— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13284] 
8.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What reports has he received of scientific breakthrough led by New Zealand researchers? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I have received an abundance of reports. In the last week AgResearch scientists have announced the discovery of a new natural pesticide; a company called Orico Ltd in Dunedin has announced a pharmaceutical prospect for some types of muscular dystrophy; and news of a wound-healing gel derived from squid has just been made public by the chemistry department at Otago University. I think it is appropriate for this House to commend those remarkable advances and I am sure we all do. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How are the recent Labour-led initiatives supporting the research and development environment in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Members will be aware that a 15 percent tax credit for private sector research and development spending means that a company investing $100000 in research can now get $15000 back straight away. New Zealand’s total research and development spending has increased by about 10 percent in the 2 years from 2004 to 2006 and now stands at $1.8 billion. I am in no doubt that this tax credit will substantially increase that figure.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13282] 
6.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Forestry 
: What reports has he received on the progress of the East Coast Forestry Project? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) 
: 
 I have seen a report from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry that provides the results of the East Coast Forestry Project 2007 grant funding round. All 33 applications considered covering 3184 hectares have been approved for grant support. This represents a 58 percent increase in the area approved for planting in this first year of the streamlined grant-based approach. This is a very positive sign that East Coast farmers are increasingly recognising the importance of sustainable land management practices. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other Government initiatives will contribute to better soil conservation in highly erosion-prone parts of New Zealand’s hill country? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Several new initiatives complement the East Coast Forestry Project in targeting highly erosion-prone hill country. The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provides landowners with carbon credits for regenerating scrublands or conservation plantings. There are 30000 hectares in that regard on the East Coast. The $10 million Sustainable Land Management (Hill Country Erosion) Programme resources regional government to tackle erosion in critical catchments. The $50 million Afforestation Grants Scheme provides further resources to accelerate planting of these lands. The technology transfer and extension components of the $175 million  
Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change: Options for a Plan of Action 
 will assist landowners to get the most sustainable mix of land use. Collectively these initiatives represent the first comprehensive approach of any Government over many years in tackling the well-understood but neglected erosion problems that have significant impacts on downstream flood risk. 
Moana Mackey 
: What further reports has the Minister seen on actions to address highly erosion-prone parts of New Zealand’s hill country? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think I just gave that answer so I will not subject the House to it again.
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13280] 
4.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What steps is the Government taking if any to review and strengthen legislation around the employment of children in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have received a report on this issue from Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand. I have also received a request to meet with the organisation to discuss this report. I intend to take up that invitation. Any further steps will follow from that meeting. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister explain why the long delayed review of policy and law in relation to child labour advocated by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child 10 years ago is still not complete—in fact does not seem to have happened at all? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there is a fundamental difference between the view of New Zealanders and the position of the United Nations on this issue. Most New Zealanders believe that some work is not bad for children. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is it the Government’s intention to ban children from working? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Notwithstanding the views of some people at the United Nations or the International Labour Organization no. The question is whether we have all the health and safety rules in place especially where contracting is concerned. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Government guarantee that any review of child labour laws will ensure that children and young people 15 years and under are fully included in the consultation process alongside other stakeholders such as employers unions community groups and so on? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That seems a sensible thing to do. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister aware of indications made by Government members during the debate around my youth rates legislation earlier this year that the Government is seriously looking at carrying out a full consultation process and review and will he speed that up given that the Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand report he referred to states that some children are actually earning as little as $1.67 an hour? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am a relatively new Minister in this particular area so I am not aware of the timetable and therefore I cannot say whether it will be sped up? 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister believe that New Zealand Post should follow the advice given to some child delivery workers and advise their posties to talk to their parents if they have problems with dogs difficult members of the public or other dangers while on the job and why should not child workers have the same protection as for example posties working for New Zealand Post? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would have thought that one of the things a child employee should do when a problem occurs is talk to his or her parents. I would not exclude that. A number of other things could be done as well but talking to the parents and getting advice is probably a good way to start.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13277] 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports highlighting the need for the KiwiSaver scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. Statistics New Zealand last week reported that in the year to March savings from all sectors fell to a total of $1.3 billion well under 1 percent of GDP. This is the lowest level in 14 years. This followed a report from the World Economic Forum earlier this month that showed that New Zealand ranked 108th out of 131 countries for our national savings rate. This underscores why the Government has made KiwiSaver such a significant priority. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the uptake of KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At the last numbers well over a quarter of a million New Zealanders—closing in on 300000 New Zealanders—are already enrolled in the scheme. But still the members opposite will not come clean on whether they support KiwiSaver or whether indeed they support cutting New Zealand superannuation as they did last week. The next test will come very soon when the House will be voting on the legislation for the enhancements to KiwiSaver announced in Budget 2007. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that had the retirement savings scheme been introduced in the late 1990s as was proposed by New Zealand First the New Zealand economy would now be reaping the benefits from the accumulation of 10 years’ worth of savings; and on that basis would he agree that KiwiSaver is better late than never? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I agree that if we had moved earlier on these matters then it would be doing so. Indeed I would go back to 1974 or 1975 when the third Labour Government introduced a savings scheme that was abolished initially illegally by the incoming National Government. Had that scheme proceeded at that point New Zealand would have been in a far stronger economic position now than it is and with a much stronger financial services sector in particular. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister received any international reports on the links between savings and wealth creation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have seen a report from Boston Consulting Group that found that personal wealth grew faster in Australia than in any other developed country in the 5 years to the end of 2006 due largely to the very large savings base accumulated through Australia’s superannuation scheme. That emphasises the importance of KiwiSaver’s proceeding in its current form and for Kiwis to get behind KiwiSaver and to ensure that it is highly successful.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13710] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13710] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Burton Mark: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13710] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hartley Ann: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13710] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to insert new clause 85C is out of order as it was lodged with fewer than 24 hours’ notice and may have an impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 167 and 168 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13710] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13705] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises to oppose the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill in its entirety. 
I will make some overview points and I ask first why we are confirming these annual rates. It is clear to everyone in New Zealand and to the majority of parties in this House that New Zealanders are overtaxed. It appears to the majority of New Zealanders that this Government has taxed New Zealanders poor and made itself rich. 
It is clear to the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders that they should keep some of their hard-earned tax money and that they should spend it themselves rather than allow the Government to accumulate it—particularly heading into an election year where the Government will spend money not for a good purpose and not for general welfare but to secure the extra votes it needs. And why are we confirming the 39c rate? Dr Cullen marched into office in 1999 saying “Oh well we will just tax the rich. We will just tax the 5 percent who are earning too much and we need the extra estimated $400 million to fund what the Labour Party has planned.” 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Superannuation cuts. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I tell Mr Barker that the economy was growing so strongly and tax revenues were so good that that member cannot point to any one year when that extra $400 million was actually needed. He cannot and he has just admitted that he cannot. That tax was nothing but a “spite tax”. That is what it was. The money was not needed by the Government and of course now we find that 12 percent or 13 percent of taxpayers are paying this new “spite tax”—a tax that was never needed other than to penalise those who earned more than others those who worked harder than others and those who had been more successful. 
Although we might agree that it is reasonable for people who have earned twice as much as other people to pay twice as much tax it is hard to see it as reasonable that they should pay three times as much tax four times as much tax five times as much tax or six times as much tax as their neighbour as readily happens nowadays. More particularly those taxpayers are the ones who do not put out their hands for help from the State. They are taking out health insurance they are taking responsibility for their children; and they are working. But I tell the Minister in the chair Peter Dunne that they are the ones whom he represents who do all the work. 
We find with a bill like this—and this is something that has been consistent for years and years in New Zealand—that a great swathe of New Zealand has been overtaxed and overlooked. So I do not understand—at all—why we are confirming these tax rates. They are too high. New Zealanders do not want to hear the Hon Michael Cullen talk about tax cuts; they want to see him actually deliver them. Tonight is the night. Thank you Madam Chair.
Chauvel Charles: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13694] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to speak briefly on new clause 85B which Dr Smith has just mentioned. New clause 85B appears in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 167. It is the provision that will give tax relief for redundancy payments. I am sad to hear that the National Party will vote against another tax cut that this Government is bringing before the House. But there it is. 
Let us just have a look at the scheme of this tax relief measure which will be introduced for employees who are in a difficult situation and who deserve some sort of relief. The legislation that is set out in Supplementary Order Paper 167 will make the taxation of redundancy payments fairer to low and middle income New Zealanders. Clearly redundancy payments are employment income so it is fair that they are taxed. Some members who have practised in the employment field will remember that in the 1980s and prior redundancy payments were subject to a specialist and favourable tax regime whereby they were taxed at a very low rate. Under the current law which has remained—as far as I can recall—since the early 1990s low and middle income people can be pushed into a higher tax bracket if they receive redundancy pay. If that happened it would come at a very difficult time for most people. Clearly it would be a terrible thing for someone to have to contemplate on top of losing his or her job. 
The Supplementary Order Paper will introduce a simple tax rebate to apply to redundancy payments received on or after 1 December 2006. This rebate will allow low and middle income New Zealanders to retain more of their redundancy pay and will keep complexity and compliance costs to a minimum. The rebate will be based on the flat rate of 6c per dollar up to $60000 per redundancy. Let us think of an example. It means that somebody who receives a redundancy payment of say $20000 will be able to claim a tax rebate of $1200. Someone who receives a $60000 redundancy payout will be able to claim a rebate of $3600. There is a maximum redundancy payout provided for in the Supplementary Order Paper. The maximum payout that qualifies for a rebate is $60000 so the rebate itself would be capped at $3600. 
I am sad to hear members opposite announce the intention to vote against this tax relief measure for low and middle income New Zealanders. These changes will make the taxation of redundancy payments fairer and give certainty and more security to an issue that has been of concern to workers and unions for some time. I am very pleased to support the measure.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13692] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.
Hide Rodney: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13687] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to say that the ACT Party will be opposing this bill and to explain why. This bill means more interference with the people who are actually doing the work. It means more State direction of how our universities should function and it means less diversity. It means more bureaucrats and it means more taxpayers’ money being spent on collaboration talkfests and planning but not on education. That is why we are opposing it.
Locke Keith: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13681] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this bill. We are very strongly in favour of good tertiary education. I think it is useful to point out though that we are very concerned about what is being done up at Auckland University which seems to be spreading a little bit throughout the country—that is restricting the entry of students to tertiary institutions. That is a dramatic change for New Zealand where we have had open entry for so many years making us a more egalitarian society. In more recent years open entry has enabled people in all age ranges to go to university perhaps more so than in the past. People who missed going to university the first time around for whatever reason—not having enough money not being born of the right parents not getting the initial encouragement they perhaps should have or going into other jobs—have been able to go on to university. We are a bit concerned—very concerned in fact—and we support the criticisms of various members of the community including university staff who said that this restriction of entry should not be allowed to happen. So with those few words the Green Party supports this bill.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:644;Page:13672] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the third reading of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) and any bills into which those bills may be divided; and the first readings of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable) Preference Bill the Real Estate Agents Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) the Public Health Bill the Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) the Companies (Minority Buy-out Rights) Amendment Bill the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) the Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill.  
This motion is moved so that the Government can complete its legislative programme for the year by the end of this week except for the third reading of the Electoral Finance Bill and the adjournment motion incorporating the timetable for next year. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field;. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:644;Page:13673] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field;. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:644;Page:13672] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the third reading of the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) and any bills into which those bills may be divided; and the first readings of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable) Preference Bill the Real Estate Agents Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) the Public Health Bill the Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Bill the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) the Companies (Minority Buy-out Rights) Amendment Bill the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) the Electricity Industry Reform Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill.  
This motion is moved so that the Government can complete its legislative programme for the year by the end of this week except for the third reading of the Electoral Finance Bill and the adjournment motion incorporating the timetable for next year.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13672] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Motion agreed to.
King Annette: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13672] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Electoral Finance Bill the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Electoral Amendment Bill  
divided into Electoral Finance Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill Electoral Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 164 
.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13672] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13671] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13671] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Chauvel Charles: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13670] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Guy Nathan: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13670] 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am prepared to take a point of order only if it is to do with the reason why the motion should not be put. 
NATHAN GUY 
: I was calling just before you put the vote. We are talking specifically about the title and we have members here who have been seeking a call over the last week. I ask you to consider Standing Order 137(3) on whether you consider it reasonable for the closure motion to be put. This is an important bill. We know it is very contentious and members on this side of the Chamber wish to raise some very important points around the specifics of the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for the contribution that he has made. I have listened considerably to this debate. I suggest that the member look at Speakers’ rulings 73/1-3 and Speaker’s ruling 73/3 by the Hon Doug Kidd in 1998 in particular. I therefore put the question.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13671] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 166 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 2 be agreed to.
King Annette: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
King Annette: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13661] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to correct one thing that Phil Heatley said. Although he said many things that were total garbage there is one thing that I want to correct. He constantly used the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society as his evidence against the Electoral Finance Bill. I assure the member that all the concerns raised in the society’s submission have been addressed and met and the society is happy.
Copeland Gordon: Voting — Correction 
Copeland Gordon: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:644;Page:13649] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I have determined that my proxy vote on the two votes that followed the second reading debate on the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill was invalidly given as a “No” instead of an “Aye”. I now request that the vote be changed in order to validate and record the correct position. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The record will be corrected accordingly.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:644;Page:13649] 
Voting 
Correction 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I have determined that my proxy vote on the two votes that followed the second reading debate on the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill was invalidly given as a “No” instead of an “Aye”. I now request that the vote be changed in order to validate and record the correct position. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The record will be corrected accordingly.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13648] 
1.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: Has the committee concluded its consideration of the 2006-07 financial review of the Ministry for the Environment; if not why not? 
MOANA MACKEY (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): 
 No; if the member had bothered to turn up to last week’s meeting he would know why. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What explanation has she or the committee clerks received from the Ministry for the Environment for its failure to respond to the committee’s 14 questions on communications contracts involving Clare Curran and Erin Leigh for which a response was required by 5 p.m. last Friday—or is the material so embarrassing that the Government intends to hold it until after the last question time so it does not have to address those issues? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That moves out of process questions into substantive matters. So the chair has no responsibility for that; the committee does. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: This is a supplementary question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No there are no further supplementary questions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was: “What explanation has she or the committee clerks received … ” under the agreement? A specific agreement was reached between the committee and the Ministry for the Environment that these answers would be provided by a particular date. The question was quite specific. It was about whether the committee clerk or the chair had received any explanation since that deadline had passed. Surely that is within the Standing Orders in terms of questions that are appropriate to go to chairs of select committees noting that this is likely to be one of the last question times in the House this year. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Unfortunately of course the member went on and added a great deal more to the question including asking something about the Government’s intention. The chair of the select committee has no responsibility for that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. If the question is confined to whether the committee has received a response then that can be addressed but nothing else. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: As the member well knows any correspondence that has been received by the committee is confidential to the committee until it is tabled. I invite the member to grace us with his presence on Thursday so that we can discuss the matter. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the 14 questions from the committee and the email I have received from the committee clerk stating that no response had been received. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13647] 
11.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What reports has she received about businesses and tourism operators supporting conservation? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 A new conservation trust has just been launched to further protect New Zealand’s busiest national park. The Abel Tasman Birdsong Trust is a new approach where tourism operators contribute to local conservation projects. I applaud this initiative; it is a wonderful example of local businesses supporting the Labour-led Government’s commitment to preserving our unique identity. 
Moana Mackey 
: How will the trust support the Abel Tasman National Park environment? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: The trust will work to support the preservation of this beautiful and unique park environment by restoring birdlife and expanding pest control. The trust will help to ensure that this park remains one of the best places in the world to visit.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13637] 
4.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister for the Environment; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: Should Trevor Mallard apologise for his attack on Erin Leigh in this House; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister awaits the report of the State Services Commission. 
John Key 
: What reason has Mr Mallard given the Prime Minister for refusing to apologise in the House at this point? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Mallard and the Prime Minister are both awaiting the report of the State Services Commission. 
John Key 
: Is the reason Trevor Mallard will not apologise that Mr Mallard did not rely just on the briefing note when he defamed Erin Leigh in this House but he also relied on other information that information came from two other people David Parker and Heather Simpson and that proves more than anything else that the Public Service is now politicised under Labour? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I am advised the Minister did not talk to either of those people before giving the answer in the House. 
John Key 
: Well why then will the Minister for the Environment not apologise for something that the ministry itself is apologising for? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The ministry of course has apologised to the Minister for giving information that the head of the ministry now considers to be inadequate. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister think that Trevor Mallard’s actions in the last few months live up to her promise that “The Labour Government will set new standards both in terms of behaviour and performance so that we will govern for the people and be accountable to them”; if so how is that the case? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister has a clear record of operating sanctions against Ministers who have not performed up to the required standard unlike the member opposite because of course when Dr Nick Smith was found guilty of contempt of court his colleagues welcomed him back with applause and no sanction occurred. When Mr Tau Henare was engaged in the altercation with Mr Mallard nothing happened to him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is very difficult to hear. 
John Key 
: Is it not just the case that Mr Mallard has completely lost objectivity that he no longer is in control of his own actions in this House and that he is wrong the Government is wrong and the ministry is embarrassed by the spin that Mr Mallard has put on this; and why does the Prime Minister not just put Mr Mallard out of his misery before the New Zealand public do so in 10 months’ time? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member really believes in the rule of law and of standards then he will await the full inquiry report before rushing to judgment.