edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wilson Margaret: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13481] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members. We have had sufficient argument on this so I thank the member. As members have said and as I appreciate the point is an important one. But I would refer members to Speakers’ rulings 60/7 and 60/8—but in particular Speakers’ ruling 60/7—where the position is set out quite clearly that in these instances the Chair is the sole judge of whether a closure should be accepted. The Chairperson has been the person who has listened to the debate and even though I have also listened to the debate it is the Chairperson who has been in the Chamber listening to the debate who is the best person to judge that. It is not for the Speaker in accordance with the Speakers’ rulings which I uphold to second-guess the Chair’s judgment in that respect. Of course if in fact the Committee does not agree with the Chair’s decision to accept the closure then it is always open to the Committee to vote down the question—and that question be now put.
Benson-Pope David: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13481] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I will respond just very briefly to the statements made by Mr Heatley. It is my understanding of events—and it is confirmed by my colleagues sitting beside me—that this discussion and ultimately your recall Madam Speaker started when I was granted the call by the Chairman of the Committee and I moved in the proper language the closure motion.
Williamson Maurice: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13480] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to canvass what I think is now a very serious issue with regard to one of the most major constitutional reforms that this Parliament may process. I expressed before when Mr Ross Robertson was in the Chair that he and I were probably the only two members in the House who have been here as long as this. I have been through debate after debate in this House where members of both Opposition and Government have repeated the same old mantra time and time again and I think we are so sick of it that we would have liked to see a closure as well. But tonight I have specifically followed every speech. Not only are there 19 clauses in this bill but also in some cases those clauses fragment—like clause 5 which fragments into clause 5(1) clause 5(2) down to clause 5(2)(da). 
The speech I gave focused solely on clause 5(2)(g). If the Chairperson of this Committee were to rule that there had been repetition and irrelevant debate then I would go with his ruling. But I do not believe that anybody listening to tonight’s debate would say that had yet been the case. I know that there are members on the Opposition side of the Chamber who still have points on fresh fractions of clauses within the 19 substantive clauses and I see no reason as long as those people are given a right to make the claims and arguments that they want to and as long as they are not repeating themselves why this House would not want to allow that to happen. I think that there would be a severe breach of the democratic right of this Parliament should that debate be shut down.
Heatley Phil: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13480] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 There is also a procedural matter to consider here. What happened was that the Chairman indicated that he would take a final call and he turned to do that but the National Party challenged it through our senior whip and there was a series of points of order about it. During those points of order David Benson-Pope rose to argue that putting the closure motion would be the appropriate thing to do. After those points of order the Chairman said that the question was whether the question should now be put but no Labour member or any other member of this House including David Benson-Pope actually moved the motion that the question be now put. So that vote was— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Did so! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: No  
Hansard  
will show that the members opposite never actually moved the motion. The Chairman put that question to the Committee before a member had moved it. David Benson-Pope took a point of order but he never moved that motion before the Committee.
Woolerton R Doug: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Woolerton R Doug: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13480] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 As you heard from previous speakers Madam Speaker there has been extensive debate on this bill. I can think of many occasions when we have had far fewer speeches on any number of debates that I have listened to in the House. I can say fairly that the National Party in my view has been well represented. I can tell you just as a matter of interest that there have been many comments from the National Party to the effect that the bill is a nonsense and is not worth pursuing and that was also those members’ attitude in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I say this only to make the point that I am amazed at the seriousness with which National members pretend to take this closure motion and at the hurt feelings they tend to portray because I can tell the House that that is not what they have portrayed hitherto.
Barnett Tim: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13480] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I support the position taken by the Chair and in doing that I will make five distinct points. Firstly the time of the debate according to our records here is 2 hours and 20 minutes of debate followed by 15 minutes of discussion. It began at 4.32 p.m. so a considerable time has been spent on this part. Secondly certainly we accept that there has been a range of speakers and viewpoints but the bulk of the speakers in that time have been from the National Party. Thirdly the Minister in the chair Rick Barker has been the Minister in the chair right through that period and he has responded to each issue raised as we have gone through. So there has been genuine debate and that is exactly what this part of the bill’s progress is about. Fourthly as has been mentioned there are three further questions to be put—the two further parts of the bill and then the initial clauses and commencement—so a lot of the issues raised will be covered in those further debates. Lastly there is a mechanism in the House by which it is possible to structure debate on significant bills which is to go to the Business Committee and raise proposals for how that can be structured. I have attended the last few meetings of the Business Committee and I am not aware at all that the National Party has raised those matters. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13479] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Recalling the Speaker to the Chamber is not a decision that has been made lightly. We realise that when we recall the Speaker to the Chamber the Speaker is immediately put into a difficult position because the person who is acting as the Speaker’s representative—in fact the Chairman of the Committee—is doing so with the best wishes of the House perched firmly upon his shoulder and with the authority that you carry as Speaker. However this bill is not one where there is a clear-cut opinion and if we look at the public opinion on this matter then that assertion is well backed and very clear. 
In this case we are also aware that at the moment the Government itself is conducting negotiations with other parties to see which of the many many amendments the National Party has put forward in the name of Chris Finlayson our shadow Attorney-General may win the vote of the House. It seems to us that each of those amendments along with the particular clauses that those amendments relate to should be debated thoroughly by this House. 
The proposition was put to us that this is not a substantial part in the whole bill. People need to understand that there are some 19 clauses in this part so there are 19 points of law that the House has to consider under this part. There are 17 amendments proposed to this part and as I said before a good number of those are being considered by the Government as we speak. We have discussed only four of those amendments through the last 1 hour and 40 minutes of debate meaning that there has been only a cursory consideration of these matters by the House. 
This is an extremely important bill because it limits the rights of some New Zealanders and it enhances the rights of some other New Zealanders. Our argument is simply that when members are wishing to take a call and when there has been virtually no incidence of repetition through the debate so far—and we would suggest that  
Hansard 
 would verify that claim—then there is still time surely when we have so much time between now and the Christmas break to consider all of the matters in this very very important bill and also to consider some of the matters in the House that we know are being discussed in some of the back rooms of Parliament tonight.
Robertson H V Ross: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13479] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Madam Speaker the House has decided that you should be recalled. We are debating Part 1 of the Electoral Finance Bill. As the Chair I considered that we had had sufficient time to debate the issue and the clauses. However members felt that there was insufficient time given. As the sole judge of relevancy and as the Chair of the Committee I judged that it was time to put the question. However members have not agreed with that and they have asked that you be recalled. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13479] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13478] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is unseemly for the Committee to get into a debate with you in the Chair—quite unseemly—but it is equally unacceptable for the Chair to suggest to members of the Committee that their personal view of what is most important in this bill should be what guides the Committee’s will and wish to speak on the bill. Core to this particular part is the purpose of the bill and we know that the entire purpose is driven by the paranoia that Labour has for fear that it might be driven out of office by honest voters in this country; but to simply say: “This is not such a relevant part and therefore I will curtail the debate.” after the entire Committee those for and those against have been restricted to just 4 minutes on each of the substantive issues is a disgrace. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. Can I just say that I am the sole judge of relevancy on this matter and I have judged that the speeches have been relevant to date but I am happy to put the question. However if the member wishes to recall the Speaker then the member can put that motion.
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13478] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You referred earlier to the Standing Orders and presumably you will back those up with a Speaker’s ruling and no doubt you would be proved right. But there is one thing where you have failed and that is to recognise that prior to your accepting Mr Benson-Pope’s plea there were calls for a point of order. Your responsibility is to look to the floor of the Chamber to see what comments are arising as a result of proceedings. Points of order are legitimate comments. I seek leave to recall the Speaker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I want the member to reconsider his seeking leave to recall the Speaker. We have had a considerable length of time to debate this issue. I am happy to consider the will of the Committee—if that is the wish of members. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: You have given 4 minutes and 10 seconds to each of the substantial points that people on this side of the Chamber wish to speak to. Actually that is wrong because peppered throughout that time have been comments from the Minister in the chair and comments offered in 5-minute slots from members on the other side of the Chamber. Mr Woolerton for example made a contribution earlier in the day. 
Judith Collins 
: And Mr Brown. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am told that Peter Brown also did. These are people who support this bill. The argument opposing this bill has been severely shut down to well below the 4 minutes and 10 seconds that might have been allocated in the total debate to every substantive point of view here. Although Mr Chairperson you know that this side of the Chamber has enormous respect for you personally I think it is a matter that the Speaker should rule on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The reality is that a motion may be moved that the Chairperson obtain the Speaker’s ruling on a matter of procedure. There is no debate on the question. The member is perfectly entitled to recall the Speaker if the member wishes to do so. It is under Standing Order 179. I would just say to members that there will be ample opportunity and I will allow ample opportunity to speak in the rest of the debate. There are still Parts 2 and 3 to debate. They are significant parts—I believe more so than Part 1 is.
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13478] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Point of order Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 9/6. Once I have accepted a closure motion and commenced to put the question all progress is deferred until the closure is considered.
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13477] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 There are 19 clauses in this part and they are very very substantial clauses. There are 17 amendments to those clauses. Mr Chairperson if you think about anybody trying to deal with each clause and each amendment then you will see that so far about 4 minutes and 10 seconds has been allowed for each one. On a bill that is of constitutional importance for New Zealand it would be difficult for the Chair to mount an argument that adequate time has been given to each one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable members for all of their contributions and I assure members that they will be given a fair opportunity. I have noted down the number of members seeking the call. I consider that we have had sufficient time on this part and I am going to put the question. The question is that the question be now put. As many as are of that opinion will please say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”—
Williamson Maurice: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13477] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I think you and I are the only two people in the Chamber who have been here the length of time we have and I have to say that in my time I have not seen debate on a bill of this magnitude which is a constitutional issue and which changes the very fundamentals under which Parliament is elected be truncated. Let me tell you that I have watched with great interest tonight and I have listened clearly to the various contributors and all of them including myself have chosen a specific aspect of the bill have addressed their speeches to a specific clause—every member on this side. I have listened very carefully trying to see whether there was even one sentence of either repetition or irrelevant debate and Mr Chairperson you cannot say that that has occurred tonight. So I ask you to think about this. We are making a fundamental constitutional change to the way this democracy of New Zealand works. I will support your putting the question to close down the debate if anybody’s speech is either repetitious or irrelevant but that has not yet happened. I would ask you to give those members—be they from our side or from any other party—who have a very heartfelt view to express the opportunity to do so.
Benson-Pope David: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13477] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I welcome the member’s contribution. I think it is good that people have been able to get to the Chamber to debate the bill. This part has not been discussed for only a short period of time—contrary to the comment that was made. We have been discussing this part for 2 hours and 20 minutes. That is more time than would be given to a lot of other issues in Committee to be dealt with. Mr Chairperson your ruling was quite clear. I think it is entirely appropriate that you make it—and you are able to of course. I would welcome members on the opposite side of the Chamber focusing on the issues rather than personalities as Mr Brownlee has done. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I have not made a decision yet.
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13477] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate that your ruling is consistent with what the Chair may rule in these circumstances but you must take account of the considerable public interest in this bill. In fact the prospect of this bill passing has caused considerable public odium. If presiding officers are prepared to shut down the debate after just a short period what do you think that does for Parliament? I have been able to get to the Chamber only in the last few moments because of other duties. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Ha ha! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There is the laughing Benson-Pope on the other side of the Chamber. Everybody knows how valuable his contribution is around this place! Therefore it should not be taken into account at all. I would be disappointed if Mr Chairperson you fell for the pressure that he clearly is trying to bring upon you. 
I think it would not hurt if the Committee spent the rest of the evening debating this part. There is no hurry to get out of this place. There is a very limited amount of work that the Government proposes for us before the House rises sometime around 21 or 22 December. I would ask you to consider the public attitude towards this bill the requirement that it is properly debated and the fact that members come and go from the Chamber according to other duties they have.
Tolley Anne: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tolley Anne: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13476] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Prior to the call being given to my colleague Dr Worth you indicated that you would take only one more call. Could I point out that this bill has two substantive parts: the one we are debating and the next part. This bill is not huge in terms of the number of parts and the substantive issues are confined to Parts 1 and 2. National has tabled two Supplementary Order Papers with 17 amendments. Members on this side are addressing individual amendments to clauses and I crave your indulgence to allow a bit more debate on this substantive part of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have had a considerable number of speeches. Parts 2 and 3 are substantial and I assure members that they will be given every opportunity to have their say.
Benson-Pope David: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13476] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13475] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think I will hear one more.
Hobbs Marian: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Electoral Finance Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13474] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am going to call the honourable member Chris Auchinvole because he was on the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13448] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a second time. 
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. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13448] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority 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. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Question agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Capital and Coast District Health Board—Maternity Services 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Capital and Coast District Health Board—Maternity Services 
[Volume:644;Page:13432] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Judy Turner seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the death of a newborn baby whose mother was discharged from Wellington Hospital 5 hours after birth. This is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not think that I would be justified in giving priority to this particular issue over other business in the House today. There are other opportunities to consider the performance of district health boards. The financial review of the Capital and Coast District Health Board is currently before the Health Committee and there is of course the general debate tomorrow. The application is therefore declined.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:644;Page:13432] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I seek leave to table data from the Nursing Council of New Zealand and the Midwifery Council of New Zealand from the year 2000 to the year 2006. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:644;Page:13428] 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Can he assure the House that all employment and contracting decisions made by the Ministry for the Environment have been made according to ministry guidelines; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 No; my reasons have not changed since the last time I answered this question in the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What is his response to comments made last night by former communications manager Keith Lyons who stated that David Parker had imposed Clare Curran on the ministry and “He also wanted to boost his own profile. It sounded like for him that the appointment was not negotiable. The Minister wanted to ensure his own interests were promoted.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: My response is that this is a matter that is being considered by the State Services Commissioner and that is the way it should be dealt with. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why was Erin Leigh required to forward her work to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff for approval and comment and was it the case that Heather Simpson ordered Erin Leigh to make changes that were to benefit the Labour Party’s political view? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is a matter that is being dealt with by the State Services Commissioner but I can assure the House that comments on that work came from much wider than the Department of Internal Affairs. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Ministry for the Environment party to the Partnership for Quality arrangements with the New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA)? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would have to consult with the Minister of State Services to give a definitive answer but from my memory going back as a former Minister the answer is “yes”—of course that applies to public servants. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the amount of Ministry for the Environment funding that has flowed through the Partnership for Quality programme to pay for PSA union delegates to undertake union activities has topped some $400000 in recent times? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister denying that the Ministry for the Environment has been funding from its vote time and salary for union delegates? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister tell the House how much the Ministry for the Environment has used of its vote to pay for the activities of union delegates? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is there anything this Minister knows about things going on in his ministry? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes and I know quite a lot about hot air. I have learnt more though from that member than from the ministry.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:644;Page:13428] 
9.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What reports if any has she received about the Government’s work to protect New Zealand’s wildlife? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 In the past week I officially opened the new yellow-eyed penguin reserve on the Catlins coast in Otago on land bought jointly by the Department of Conservation and the Yellow-eyed Penguin Trust. Securing this habitat is a major victory for conservation. It highlights this Labour-led Government’s commitment to protecting New Zealand’s unique species. 
Lesley Soper 
: What other work is the Government doing to protect endangered species? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: The Department of Conservation is actively working to protect 239 endangered species at the moment with projects including an intensive recovery programme for kakapo increased kiwi populations in the wild and in sanctuaries boosting the survival of the whio or blue duck and captive breeding and supporting of wild takahe. So far this season eight chicks have been incubated and two have already hatched. 
Metiria Turei 
: Do any of the reports on the Government’s work to protect New Zealand’s unique species estimate how many fatalities of the Maui’s dolphin we might expect over this coming summer with increased risk from fishing from set-netting from pollution in the waterways and from boat strike given the Government’s procrastination about doing anything to protect this uniquely endangered New Zealand wild species? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: The member is absolutely correct about this beautiful species of about 111 Maui’s dolphins the rarest in the world. Yes we have had an overwhelming response of nearly 2500 submissions on the discussion document. Because they are so complex we do need to give them due time and due consideration and we will be reporting on this around March next year.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:644;Page:13426] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave for this question to be held over until the Minister— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:644;Page:13426] 
7.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What has been the international response to the Government’s disability issues policy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I am delighted to inform the House that yesterday I announced that New Zealand has won the Franklin D. Roosevelt International Disability Award for 2007. The Roosevelt award recognises a nation that makes noteworthy progress towards the goal of full participation of disabled citizens. The award recognises the “extraordinary leadership that New Zealand has shown in this area”. It includes our Government’s work nationally in developing and implementing the New Zealand Disability Strategy and internationally in taking a lead role in negotiating the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister please advise what progress has been made on implementation of the New Zealand Disability Strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I certainly can but first of all I advise the House that the Roosevelt award trustees paid tribute to the fact that New Zealand is just one of a few countries in the world to have a disability strategy. The strategy requires the Government to develop and implement a comprehensive approach to disability inclusion. Our Government is continuing to deliver on that requirement. Highlights from the last couple of years include the enactment of the New Zealand Sign Language Act; work relating to the Building Act that will make a real difference in how disabled people can enter and use buildings; repeal of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act; changes to the way we provide services to people who are receiving a sickness or an invalids benefit to focus on what a person can do rather than what they cannot do; and the closure in New Zealand of our last residential institution. We will continue to work towards achieving a society in which disabled people can lead the lives that the rest of us take for granted.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:644;Page:13420] 
3.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports on the Government’s fiscal policy stance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. I have received Fitch Ratings’ New Zealand sovereign rating report which notes that this Government has run “a broadly neutral fiscal policy stance”. The report also notes that since the early 1990s general Government debt has declined from close to 60 percent of GDP to 25 percent of GDP. Despite this positive review of the Government’s fiscal policy stance we will remain conscious of inflationary pressures when we announce next year our personal tax reductions. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the revenue side of fiscal policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed. Just today according to the PricewaterhouseCoopers and World Bank joint study  
Paying Taxes 2008: The global picture 
 which offers data on total tax rates payment frequency and the time needed to comply with tax regulations New Zealand is ranked second best in the OECD after Ireland and ninth best in the world out of 178 economies. The report goes on to note that— 
Hon Member 
: Why is everyone leaving then? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —unfortunately that member has not—outside of all rich countries and the Maldives the top performers whose business tax systems may be successfully emulated by other countries are Singapore Hong Kong Ireland and New Zealand. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister believe that people on $39000 who are paying 33c in the dollar in tax are grateful to him for the way he has accumulated all the money that he needed and that he thought they did not need? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What endless public opinion surveys show is that people do not believe that we should borrow for tax cuts unlike that member; people do not believe that we should cut social services to pay for tax cuts which that member did in 1999; people do not believe that the entire benefit of tax cuts— 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s not true. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That member in 1999 cut New Zealand superannuation and cut taxes. He is far too young to be suffering from that kind of premature amnesia and I will continue to remind him and bring him up to date.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — State ServicesMinister—Lodging Questions 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — State ServicesMinister—Lodging Questions 
[Volume:644;Page:13416] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Of course at the time that that question was asked of the Minister of State Services with Trevor Mallard answering on his behalf the delegation had not occurred. That delegation has now occurred and the question on this matter can quite properly be put down to the Hon Annette King. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contribution. I will take into consideration the comments that have been made and rule tomorrow.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — State ServicesMinister—Lodging Questions 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — State ServicesMinister—Lodging Questions 
[Volume:644;Page:13416] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 That sounds all very high and mighty and very fine but the reality is that on behalf of David Parker the Hon Trevor Mallard stood in this House and speaking as the Minister of State Services seriously besmirched the character of a contractor to the Ministry for the Environment. Madam Speaker we were not asking for the Minister to judge himself; we were not asking for the Minister to make any comments about the facts of the particular circumstance that led to this inquiry; we were simply asking the Minister whether he stood by the statements that were made on his behalf and I think that is the fine point that needs to be considered by yourself.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — State ServicesMinister—Lodging Questions 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — State ServicesMinister—Lodging Questions 
[Volume:644;Page:13415] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member raises a very important point in this context. I think that what needs to be clearly put on record is that the Prime Minister has delegated to the Hon Annette King responsibility for those matters within the state services portfolio. Of course where a matter is delegated to another Minister a question on that matter must be addressed to that Minister. The reason for that is obvious and I think the member himself alluded to it near the end of his statement—that is that the matters clearly involve actions that occurred during the time that the Hon David Parker was the Minister for the Environment; now that he is the Minister of State Services it is not appropriate that he have ministerial responsibility in relation to those matters. It must be delegated to another Minister to avoid any implication at all that wearing one hat he is judging his actions when he was wearing a previous hat.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — State ServicesMinister—Lodging Questions 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — State ServicesMinister—Lodging Questions 
[Volume:644;Page:13415] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to raise with you a very serious point of order from National’s perspective. 
This morning we attempted to lodge an oral question to the Minister of State Services David Parker. That question asked whether he stood by all the statements and responses given on his behalf by the Hon Trevor Mallard to oral question No. 6 last week and if he did not why he did not. The Clerk’s Office advised us that the Prime Minister had determined that all matters relating to Erin Leigh and Clare Curran were to be referred to the Minister of Justice the Hon Annette King for a response. The Clerk’s Office further suggested that the question was unacceptable unless it was reworded and suggested that it should be reworded to say: “Does she stand by all responses given on behalf of the Minister of State Services the Hon Trevor Mallard to oral question No. 6 on 22 November 2007; if not why not?”. 
The suggestion that Annette King might be able to answer a question about whether Mr Parker accepts that answers given to the House by Mr Mallard were in fact statements that she or he could stand by makes quite a nonsense of the question process. Although we accept that the Government can choose to have anybody answer a particular question this question is unique to the Minister of State Services and to circumstances that relate specifically to his involvement in that ministry and the issue that is at hand. We are really concerned in that while we would say there was a case to be made that the Hon David Parker should not be involved in receiving the report on the investigation into whether he was properly acting when he made a suggestion to the ministry that Clare Curran should be employed Ministers surely have to be accountable to this House not only for their actions but also for their responses and statements in this House to this House. In this case all we were asking was for that particular Minister to confirm remarks that had been made on his behalf. If we are not able to ask a simple question like that then that I think seriously attacks the concept of Ministers being accountable to this House. 
Madam Speaker I would like you to consider the appropriateness of the action of the Office of the Clerk in accepting a direction from the Prime Minister that this question to Mr Parker was somehow unacceptable.
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — John Belgrave DCNZM 
Wilson Margaret: Obituaries — John Belgrave DCNZM 
[Volume:644;Page:13415] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 3 December 2007 of Maurice John Belgrave DCNZM who was appointed Chief Ombudsman on 1 July 2003. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and to extend our sympathy to his family. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Urgent Debates Declined — Capital and Coast District Health Board—Maternity Services 
Urgent Debates Declined — Capital and Coast District Health Board—Maternity Services 
[Volume:644;Page:13432] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Maternity Services 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Judy Turner seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the death of a newborn baby whose mother was discharged from Wellington Hospital 5 hours after birth. This is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not think that I would be justified in giving priority to this particular issue over other business in the House today. There are other opportunities to consider the performance of district health boards. The financial review of the Capital and Coast District Health Board is currently before the Health Committee and there is of course the general debate tomorrow. The application is therefore declined.
Obituaries — John Belgrave DCNZM 
Obituaries — John Belgrave DCNZM 
[Volume:644;Page:13415] 
Tuesday 4 December 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
John Belgrave DCNZM 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 3 December 2007 of Maurice John Belgrave DCNZM who was appointed Chief Ombudsman on 1 July 2003. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and to extend our sympathy to his family. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Woolerton R Doug: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13414] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill. Unlike the National Party New Zealand First votes for tax reductions wherever and whenever we can find them because we believe in sensible tax reductions and we are in favour of them. We are also in favour of savings and we vote in favour of savings wherever and whenever we find them. We have long spoken about giving tax breaks—as we call them—or tax credits for research. That is in this bill as well so that is a third reason to vote for this legislation and we will certainly be doing that. 
I just have time to tell a story illustrating what we have to guard against when it comes to research and development tax credits. We had an instance of the tax officials telling us about a gentleman in Australia—and I think it is worthy coming from the City of Sails as you do yourself Mr Deputy Speaker although I do not intend to bring you into the debate—who was claiming a tax deduction on a pleasure boat worth something like $2 million because he was experimenting with a plastic gizmo shall we say measuring about 25 centimetres which was to assist with the hands-off steering of the boat. That is the very sort of thing that we cannot afford to have in New Zealand. 
Lynne Pillay 
: That’s a rort. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: That is absolutely a rort as my colleague Lynne Pillay says and we cannot have it. This bill has made sure to the extent it can that that sort of thing does not happen in New Zealand. It has happened in Australia and thank heavens we can sometimes avoid the pitfalls by watching that close and friendly neighbour of ours. New Zealand First is in favour of this bill and we intend to vote for it. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13406] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral Finance Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13406] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Question agreed to.
Carter Chris: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 12 to Minister 
Carter Chris: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 12 to Minister 
[Volume:643;Page:13394] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I wish to clarify the response I gave to question No. 12 today from Katherine Rich on whether the Ministry of Education had been informed of concerns about the behaviour of the principal of Hato Paora College. I replied I was unaware of such concerns but would check it out. I have now done so and I can confirm that two emails were received in my office from an individual claiming that he had raised concerns about the principal of Hato Paora College during the appointment process by the board of trustees. I cannot attest to the validity or otherwise of the information contained in the emails. However my office has referred the emails to the Ministry of Education and has requested a full report on this matter. I understand that the person who sent the emails to my office is in touch with the police who are of course the competent authority to deal with these matters.
Cunliffe David: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
Cunliffe David: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:643;Page:13388] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Earlier today I said in answer to a parliamentary question that 97 percent of New Zealanders were receiving radiation treatment within 6 months. I wish to take the earliest possible opportunity to correct an inaccuracy in that statement. The correct figure in fact is that 97 percent of New Zealanders are receiving radiation treatment within 2 months. I apologise to the House for understating the Government’s success.
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13382] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I want to assure the member that my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith was not referring to her. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. This actually happened yesterday and yesterday the word was ruled out of order. So I ask the member to stand and withdraw. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you.
Pettis Jill: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Electoral Finance Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13382] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I did not interrupt the member but during her speech Nick Smith said on more than one occasion “You’re just a cheat.” I take exception and offence to that statement and I request that the member be asked to withdraw and apologise.