edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:632;Page:4194] 
4.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports regarding the virtues of providing tax relief to aid the performance of exporting companies and is he considering providing tax relief for exporters as part of Export Year 2007? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The most recent report of many I have received on this and similar matters is from David Skilling of the New Zealand Institute along with comment in support of it. All aspects of business taxation are being considered as part of the business tax review which is a provision of the confidence and supply agreements with both New Zealand First and United Future. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister see the potential value in changes to the taxation regime for exporters especially in the wake of recommendations of the report of the New Zealand Institute which outlines changes to the tax regime as an important part of providing incentives for New Zealand business to expand into overseas markets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly I believe that these matters are worth considering alongside other changes within the taxation system. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the priority that should be accorded to changes to business tax such as tax relief for exporters? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports indicating that no specific tax relief should be given to exporters and that any relief in business tax in general should wait until after some billions of dollars a year of personal tax relief—and only if it can then be afforded. That was a National Party policy at the last election. 
John Key 
: Is the Minister of the view that New Zealand companies that export to America could in fact be in need of some export incentives following the performance of New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs the Rt Hon Winston Peters who clearly set back our relationship with America by rudely interrupting Senator John McCain a friend of New Zealand; or will the Minister reserve his view about tax incentives for New Zealand companies that export to America until we see whether they are in even greater need post Mr Peters’ meeting with Condoleezza Rice? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure the slightly hurt feelings of two or three New Zealand reporters who were asked to leave the interview as a result of a misunderstanding will not affect New Zealand’s trade with the United States. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand First has been a key contributor to the discussions surrounding Export Year 2007 and that New Zealand First has long advocated policies aimed at boosting our trade performance such as tax abatement schemes on new exports? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that New Zealand First has consistently promoted support for stronger exporting and indeed for savings—unlike some parties in the House which regard both savings and exporting as somehow irrelevant to economic performance.
Turner Judy: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Turner Judy: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:636;Page:7226] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future for this adjournment debate and reflect on what has been a most interesting year. At one very important level it has been a good year for United Future. It is great to be in a party that gets to contribute and to advance its policies issue by issue. As we finish this year we can cite the fact that a number of key discussion papers have now been tabled. One discussion paper reflects the largest review of business tax that this country has known for 20 years. A paper is now being circulated that invites charities to look at a new tax rebate regime that has been developed for charities and we are seeking their input on that. Even this week a discussion paper has been tabled that is reflective of our supply and confidence agreement with the Labour-led Government and that introduces some thinking around the development of a national medicines strategy. We in United Future do not see ourselves as supporting a Labour-led Government; rather we see Labour as supporting United Future policies into existence. 
On another level it has been a bad year and I would like to encourage members of this House over the summer adjournment to reflect on the conduct of this House. I suggest that there have been times this year when we would have been well served by having an age restriction on entry to the public gallery. I admit now to being asked by a school principal whether it would be suitable to bring his class to watch question time. Because of the behaviour at the time I said “No” and he chose not to bring his class. One good thing though that has come out of that experience is that dialogue between the minor parties has opened up in a new way and I think there is more to be discovered about how we together can influence outcomes in this House. I look forward to ongoing discussions in that regard. 
Like other parties I would like to thank those who help this Parliament to tick over. I would like to start with our own staff who are a remarkable group of researchers executive secretaries and advisers. I thank our board and our party volunteers. I also thank the Parliamentary Service for the many ways in which it supports our efforts and in particular I thank the Speaker’s office. On behalf of the Hon Peter Dunne I thank his ministerial advisory staff from the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Health and of course I thank our electorate agents who work for us out in the regions. 
As we part company for the year it is time to reflect on the fact that we look toward Christmas as a family-focused season. It occurred to me as we were gathering for this debate that even though it is the second Christmas since Rod Donald’s death his family yet again bears his memory. We would like to pass on through the Green Party our ongoing memories of him and say that we wish them well at this season which will be tinged with sadness for them. We encourage everybody to have a restful and safe Christmas and we look forward to the beginning of the new year.
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Leaks of emails 
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Leaks of emails 
[Volume:636;Page:7221] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that was the subject of some misinformation in the House last week mainly by speakers on behalf of the Government. Their allegation was that Dr Brash had blamed National Party members for certain leaks of emails to Nicky Hager. I want to table a disclaimer to that claim which was published by the  
Sunday News 
 last week. For the sake of  
Hansard 
 it is only fair that it sits on the Table of the House. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tabling of Documents — Leaks of emails 
Tabling of Documents — Leaks of emails 
[Volume:636;Page:7221] 
Tabling of Documents 
Leaks of emails 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that was the subject of some misinformation in the House last week mainly by speakers on behalf of the Government. Their allegation was that Dr Brash had blamed National Party members for certain leaks of emails to Nicky Hager. I want to table a disclaimer to that claim which was published by the  
Sunday News 
 last week. For the sake of  
Hansard 
 it is only fair that it sits on the Table of the House. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7216] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Kedgley Sue: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7211] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is like everyone else in this House delighted to support the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. We think that the Mental Health Commission has been a real success story. It has been a really independent respected and credible voice and we strongly support its continuance. The Health Committee has had some dealings with the Mental Health Commission over the last 6 years. We have been impressed by the calibre of its submissions and its advice. I think it is a good model to have an independent voice in an area like this. I might say that there was another public health commission which regrettably was disbanded some years ago. I think that is unfortunate. 
As previous speakers have said it is extraordinary that mental illness is so prevalent in New Zealand and continuing to rise. It calls into question much about our society that we have such a very high rate of mental illness. But also there still is a huge stigma and lack of understanding around mental illness. The Mental Health Commission has done some excellent work in some recent campaigns in this area which I think is contributing a significant amount to reducing the stigma but there is a major amount of work to be done still. 
It is true that we hear terrible stories about what is happening to some people who are suffering from mental illness in our communities and also about the crisis among mental health workers. There is a huge amount to be done in this sector and for that reason we are absolutely delighted to support the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill and to extend the functions and life of the commission. As I say I think it has earned the support of all members of this House and indeed of New Zealanders. It has been a genuinely independent respected and credible voice in this area. It has earned its keep.
Stewart Barbara: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7210] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that New Zealand First supports the first reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. It is a very short bill and we will be taking only a very short call. 
This bill is needed to amend the Mental Health Commission Act so that the term of the Mental Health Commission can be extended to 2015 and so that there can be extensions to the functions of the Mental Health Commission. The current Mental Health Commission should end its term in August 2007; we do not want this to occur. 
The Mental Health Commission is a very important body. It provides many important functions to very many people right throughout New Zealand. We understand that there has been extensive consultation with the mental health sector and mental health consumers. They want the Mental Health Commission retained and they approve of the changes to its functions. 
New Zealand needs and wants the development of an integrated effective and efficient system of care for mental health. We need to protect the well-being of New Zealand. New Zealand First believes that the Mental Health Commission has a very real future and we support this bill.
Tolley Anne: Sittings of the House 
Tolley Anne: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:636;Page:7207] 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The urgency motion on the floor of the House is rapidly running out. We have one more bill to deal with then we go into the adjournment debate. I seek leave of the House during the adjournment debate to extend the debate until its completion even if we get to the tea break. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken by the House? There is none.
Mallard Trevor: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7207] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time it is the Government’s intention that the bill be considered by the Health Committee. 
This bill extends the term of the Mental Health Commission until 2015. It revises the functions of the commission and brings the commission’s terms in office into line with the Crown Entities Act 2004. Once enacted the bill will repeal and replace certain sections of the Mental Health Commission Act 1998. 
The commission was originally established in response to the recommendations of the 1996 Mason report the culmination of an inquiry under section 47 of the Health and Disability Services Act 1993 in respect of certain mental health services. It began work in September 1996 and was established as a Crown entity with a term of 5 years under the 1998 Act. The commission was established to ensure implementation of the national mental health strategy by monitoring and reporting on the performance of the sector. It was also tasked with reporting to reduce discrimination and stigma and promoting workforce training and development. The term of the commission has been extended twice—once in 2000 and again in 2003. The commission is currently due to expire in legislation on 31 August 2007. 
This bill repeals section 10 of the principal Act and substitutes a new section 10. It amends section 13 of the principal Act. Part 2 details the transitional provisions in relation to the commission. Considering the support expressed by stakeholders in this sector for the retention of the commission and the important role that the commission has played in supporting development of the mental health sector this bill is important legislation that will allow the commission to continue to serve the mental health sector well into the future. 
This bill which proposes the retention of the commission until 2015 and revises its functions to support the future direction of the sector is a good indication of this Government’s wish to promote and protect the health and well-being of New Zealanders in another positive step forward in the ongoing maintenance of an efficient innovative and exciting mental health sector.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:636;Page:7207] 
Sittings of the House 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The urgency motion on the floor of the House is rapidly running out. We have one more bill to deal with then we go into the adjournment debate. I seek leave of the House during the adjournment debate to extend the debate until its completion even if we get to the tea break. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken by the House? There is none.
Mallard Trevor: Social Security Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Social Security Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7206] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That the Social Security Amendment Bill be referred to the Social Services Committee 
 and that the committee finally report back the bill to the House on or before 30 April 2007.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7207] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7206] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Copyright (New Technologies and  Performers' Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Copyright (New Technologies and  Performers' Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7197] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Copeland Gordon: Copyright (New Technologies and  Performers' Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Copyright (New Technologies and  Performers' Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7194] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Bill. When Chris Finlayson spoke recently of the Statute of Anne of 1709—I assume by the way that that is Queen Anne of the chocolates fame because I know my wife Anne was not around in 1709 and I doubt very much whether Madam Assistant Speaker was around in 1709 either—I was reminded recently that this bill was introduced to the House by the Hon Judith Tizard and that she was also involved with the Charities Bill a couple of years ago which was a continuation of the Statute of Elizabeth of 1601. So for whatever reason it seems that the Minister Judith Tizard seems to pick up on Acts that were started by English female monarchs. Perhaps in due season this bill will be known as the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Act of Judith 2006 and historians will puzzle over why it had its first reading on 12 December when in fact the calendar shows that it is 13 December outside this Chamber. Anyway I am sure those historians will be able to explain that little mystery to future generations. 
This bill essentially updates New Zealand copyright law. Indeed as Chris Finlayson has pointed out there is a long tradition of law concerning copyright; it goes way way back in time. This is necessary because we are now in the electronic and digital age. I could not help but think when I was listening to Dr Pita Sharples’ speech which referred to Tane and other such things that probably no one anticipated in those times that we would have an electronic and a digital age and that the indigenous people of New Zealand the tangata whenua would be there alongside people from other parts of the world to put in place legislation to take us forward into that digital age. 
I am a member of the Commerce Committee and I note that the bill will be referred to that committee so I look forward to getting down to the nitty-gritty of the bill in the select committee. At this stage I simply signal that United Future will support the bill which I think is both timely and necessary.
Turner Judy: Third Readings 
Turner Judy: Third Readings 
[Volume:636;Page:7186] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to take a call on the third readings of this legislation. The Epidemic Preparedness Bill contained legislation that we hope never has to be enacted. The provisions are triggered by an announcement by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health in collaboration with the Director-General of Health that we are threatened by a pandemic. Pandemics are rare. We have about two or three every century. They can strike at any time. They are highly contagious and have a high fatality rate; there is no human resistance. The number of lives taken by the Spanish flu of 1918 is unclear but it was anywhere between 50 million to 100 million worldwide. Over 8000 people died in New Zealand 25 percent of the entire population of Western Samoa died and 20 percent of French Polynesia died. 
The strength of what has legislatively been put forward in this legislation is that health officials and officials in other Government departments are required to act predictively and make in advance as many of the regulations as they reasonably can. All regulations will be reviewed after the crisis. Most other jurisdictions have similar legislation but New Zealand is perhaps a forerunner in designing regulations specifically geared to the conditions that prevail during a pandemic. A pandemic is different from other crises—for instance a natural disaster where people pull together to support each other. The nature of a pandemic is such that we would most likely be actively discouraging social contact because that would add to the existing risks associated with a pandemic. 
Ongoing work is required at community level. For example most supermarkets stock only enough food to cover themselves for 2 to 3 days. Public education about civil defence - type emergencies remains current and ignorance on this matter is unhelpful. Although overreacting is also unhelpful so is under-reacting. This discussion now needs to move beyond Government departments and towards neighbourhoods and homes. As others have mentioned this is not a matter to be treated as a political football. 
I thank the select committee for the tone and working environment that it created and also for welcoming me as a non-voting member on to the committee for the duration of consideration of this legislation. United Future is happy to support the combined third readings of the seven bills resulting from the original legislation. 
Bills read a third time.
Stewart Barbara: Third Readings 
Stewart Barbara: Third Readings 
[Volume:636;Page:7186] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support this legislation and the subsequent amendments to the various Acts that it effects. This has been very important legislation for New Zealand—an important planning step in the event of any pandemic. 
We are all very aware that a flu epidemic of the magnitude of the Spanish flu that occurred after the outbreak of World War I would be disastrous for New Zealand and in fact for the whole world. I was reading an article recently where it was estimated that a severe bird flu pandemic among humans could cost the global economy up to $2 trillion according to Jim Adams who is the World Bank vice-president for east Asia and the Pacific and head of the avian flu task force. He said that represented more than 3 percent of the global economy’s gross national product. 
If we use the same base percentage figure for New Zealand then we realise legislation and prompt action on the part of the Government are absolutely essential. We need to have a timely response in order to attempt to minimise the crisis that we will find ourselves in and of course to ensure that after the epidemic wanes normal life is resumed as soon as possible. As a country we have no option but to be prepared. Other countries have legislation in place; so must we. The reality is that all countries will be dealing with the crisis that they have and their efforts will be concerned solely with their individual situations and not ours here in New Zealand. 
Many Acts are affected by these bills. However if we are logical about this we realise it means that this type of crisis does indicate that widespread efforts will need to be made across many fronts for some time. A pandemic threat such as bird flu or any derivative of it is far too important an issue for petty party politics to come into play. This is legislation that must be supported by every party in this House and I can see the National member nodding in agreement from the back seat. 
Preparations such as those outlined in this legislation are absolutely essential and New Zealand First supports this legislation.
Hodgson Pete: Third Readings 
Hodgson Pete: Third Readings 
[Volume:636;Page:7181] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Epidemic Preparedness Bill the Health Amendment Bill the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) the Parole Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. I want to make my comments briefly. It may be that there will be relatively few speakers in the third reading debate on these bills but this concludes a process that has been a cross-party process—one that I think has shown that when there is a threat to this nation the parties of this House can act together and can act together sensibly to good effect. 
I therefore want to thank again the chair of the Government Administration Committee and its members who deliberated on the legislation. Also I thank again the Law Commission and especially Sir Geoffrey Palmer. As well I would like to thank those who made their submissions on this legislation members of Parliament across all parties and indeed officials the Clerk’s Office and all those who have worked on what has been difficult but necessary and important legislation—legislation that now finds itself divided into many bills.
Turner Judy: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7180] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the third reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill. As we round off this debate on this important legislation I think it is important to remind ourselves exactly why this amending legislation came before the House in the first place and what exactly we are trying to address. The first thing is that currently prior to the passage of this legislation today it was taking a very very long time for claimants to resolve their issues. The process had become extremely adversarial. Claimants were under-resourced compared with the respondent territorial authorities and often felt very much on the back foot. The process was costly with the costs of the process often being higher than the claim itself. A very good example was Wellington City Council which reported that it had spent $70000 in court defending itself over a $4000 claim. 
The other problem was that the claims were only for actual and visible damage at the time. There was no provision within the Act to anticipate the ongoing consequences of a leaky home. Lastly we needed this legislation because there were some huge barriers for people who were in apartment dwellings in terms of processing their claims. So this bill provides for those people’s class action for multi-unit complexes. It widens the scope so that potential damage—that is damage that has not yet occurred but is likely to occur—can be covered. It improves assistance for claimants. It also sets up a new process for people who have a low-cost claim so that it is not too expensive for them. There are new statutory time frames including a date by which all settlements must be sorted out. A new tribunal is established. The thing that United Future is very pleased about is the better opportunity for prospective homeowners to receive information about the weathertightness history of the house they are about to buy. 
So as we end this matter we have to ask ourselves whether this is the end of it. Others in the House today have said they hope it is; I have to say that I suspect it is not. Although many of the ongoing issues that United Future would like to see addressed may fall directly under this legislation we would like to see the Government move to provide better education for homeowners around home maintenance. I think we need clearer boundaries around areas of responsibility for all those who feature in the housing industry from local councils real estate agents builders plumbers and other housing-related trades architects inspectors and assessors legislators and those who set standards and codes. Although we welcome the chance for claims to be settled in a timely way we do caution the House to remain watchful to make sure we do not end up with an unacceptable forced settlement process that would further victimise homeowners of leaky homes. We are happy to support this third reading. 
Bill read a third time.
Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill — Third Reading 
Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7179] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am somewhat saddened by the pessimistic remarks that have been made. Although I can understand that from a political point of view those comments may seem justified by those who make them I think we need to look at this whole bill in a more positive light. I know that my colleague from Te Tai Tokerau the Hon Dover Samuels often talks about Santa Claus at this time of year. I suggest that for a number of leaky-home owners this legislation will almost be like something they would receive under the Christmas tree. 
This bill goes towards bringing some resolution to what has been a harrowing experience for the owners of homes affected by the problems of leaky home syndrome. It is a result of the fact that the existing legislation has not been effective enough—hence this bill. I say that if something is wrong then we should fix it. To the credit of this Government it realised that the original legislation was not effective in the way we would have liked it to be so we have this bill. I want to recognise the select committee for having the courage to recommend to this House that the principal Act be amended in the way that this bill has been presented to the House. The select committee has clearly put a lot of effort into bringing this bill back and again I acknowledge the intestinal fortitude of the members of that committee in bringing it back in this form. 
Whatever we may say and whatever criticisms we may have about this whole sorry saga it is important and it is incumbent on this House that we provide an effective resolution of the leaky homes problem. On behalf of New Zealand First I say I believe that this bill will actually do that. Notwithstanding some criticisms of the bill we still believe that it is in the best interests of those who own such homes. It is also in the best interests of the territorial authorities that we have a coordinated approach to resolving the issue. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
PITA PARAONE 
: I will not speak for the full 7 minutes still left allotted to me. Suffice it to say that I just reiterate New Zealand First’s support for a really important bill that will go a long way towards providing closure for those whose homes are affected by this sorry saga.
Beyer Georgina: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services AMENDMENT Bill — Second Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services AMENDMENT Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7161] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 It is a privilege to rise at the second reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. As chair of the Social Services Committee may I acknowledge the general cooperation from all of the committee frankly to process this bill speedily. I particularly thank the officials from the Ministry of Justice the Department of Building and Housing and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for the intense amount of work they had to do in a relatively short time. 
The committee received the bill on 31 August and the closing date for submissions was 6 October. We received and considered 27 submissions from interested groups and individuals and we heard 23 of those submissions. There was great sympathy as we heard the submissions particularly those from people who were direct victims of the leaky home problem. The committee was very resolute in its decision to process this bill as quickly and expediently as possible but not by doing a once-over lightly. 
It was also an advantage to have on the committee a member in the form of Paula Bennett who had actual experience of the leaky home problem. To Ms Bennett’s credit she declared that possible conflict of interest but it turned out to be helpful to have someone who had that experience and she brought to bear that particular perspective without it prejudicing in any particular way the committee’s decision. So that was helpful. 
The member who has just resumed his seat waxed lyrical—it was a typical filibuster speech from Nick Smith—and highlighted all the problems and issues the Opposition wished to debate but he gave not one idea as a solution. Perhaps we may be enlightened further on. The basis of what has happened occurred over the 1990s in particular and up to recent times. This Government has indeed progressed the issue no matter what feelings of derision the Opposition may have about slowness. The Opposition may say it is not enough—it is never enough—but it is more than we had before. 
One of the important aspects decided by the committee was simply that the bill would supersede the principal Act. The bill as it has been returned to the House will now become the primary Act as opposed to an amendment to the primary Act. That is quite major and a lot of work had be done by various officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office in particular to get that rewrite—for want of a better term—completed so that we could process the bill as quickly as possible. 
The committee gave an undertaking to submitters particularly in the final hearing but generally to all that we would report this bill back by 4 December. Indeed we happened to report it back a week earlier than that. That I hope highlights the commitment the committee had to seeing it happen. All that is left now is to hope that the bill will proceed expeditiously through its Committee stage and third reading and be completed by the end of today’s session. With that I thank you.
Vote: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7157] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Telecommunications Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time.
Jones Shane: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Shane: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7157] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a very short call as chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and after having been humoured at the end of the year by Mr Hide who I must say although we have not seen a great deal of him every time he does turn up— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot refer to the absence of another member. 
SHANE JONES 
: I withdraw that remark. Mr Hide’s presence in our committee has been felt as we studied the media to see where he has actually been. 
In terms of the bill there is one thing that was not said and that I need to put on the record and it is about two former Ministers Mr Swain and Mr Williamson. Whether Mr Williamson went through some sort of biblical conversion experience I do not know but he proved to be potentially the strongest advocate for moving towards a better balance between investment and competition and obviously for Mr Swain was a tower of strength in developing this bill. Whatever misgivings he felt about earlier episodes in his career they were expunged with the passage of this bill. So both of them ought to enjoy a passing mention so that their names and their deeds are etched into the parliamentary record. Kia ora tatou katoa.
Kedgley Sue: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7155] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I will speak just briefly to say how delighted the Green Party is at the passage of this Telecommunications Amendment Bill because I have not been working on it in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But our only regret is that it has taken us so long to get to this point. I cannot resist mentioning that when we were considering the original telecommunications legislation which established the Telecommunications Commissioner—I think in about 2002—the Green Party campaigned and indeed introduced amendments to this House to unbundle the local loop but we had absolutely no support from any other party in this House. So it is great to see that now everybody else has caught up with the Greens and that everyone—[ 
Interruption 
]—except for Rodney Hide and the ACT party—is now supporting what we were advocating and campaigning for years and years ago. It just shows that once again the Greens are at the forefront and that we come up with ideas that at the time are dismissed as being radical but a few years later are accepted as being absolute necessity and common sense. 
We pointed out then that New Zealand along with I think Mexico were about the only two countries in the OECD that had not unbundled the local loop. We pointed out that telecommunications are so utterly vital. They are the new highway in the 21st century; I think they are what railways were to the 20th century. But particularly for New Zealand with this technology we can transcend our geographical isolation and so forth. We need to be right at the forefront at the leading edge of this technology and it is incredible that we have allowed a telecommunications monopoly—namely Telecom—to hold us back for so long. Telecommunications are a key strategic asset in New Zealand that is so vital for our economy so why did we sit around and allow Telecom which inherited a monopoly in telecommunications to exploit that monopoly to hold back other businesses to hold back on innovation and to do everything in its power over many years to retain that monopoly? Instead as the previous speaker said the company could have been at the forefront and it could have embraced change and innovation so that it did not get us to this point. 
The Greens really want to give our support to this bill and also underline the fact that telecommunications are vital in terms of their delivery of environmental benefits. If we finally do start telecommuting on a larger scale we will not need to build new motorways. Telecommunications have huge benefits in terms of the environmental perspective as well as in terms of enabling New Zealand to be competitive in the international world. At long last Parliament has caught up with what the Greens have been campaigning for for about 6 years. We are absolutely delighted to support this bill and our only regret is that it has taken us so long to get to this point. Thank you.
Robertson H V Ross: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7148] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have some amendments to Part 2 in the name of the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell and I have to advise the Committee that they too are out of order because they are inconsistent with the previous decisions of the Committee.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe to clause 64 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “accordingly to meet” and substitute the words “according to their”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Cunliffe David: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7147] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications) 
: 
 Like other members I do not intend to take much of the House’s time here but I note Mr Flavell’s submission that he wishes to see the immediate designation of mobile co-location and roaming. These two services are currently specified under the legislation which means that they are under regulatory scrutiny but under which no price is set in regulation. The Government could not support amendments to the bill on that matter at this time. There is a very good reason for that. The reason is that the Commerce Commission currently has those two services under review and out for public submissions in a schedule 3 process under the Act. It is due to report on that next year. 
It may well be that there is an element of truth behind what Mr Flavell is saying but that is a matter for the due public process to ascertain. It would be to undermine the role of the commissioner I think for this House to legislate over the top of that process. Maori Party members know that my door is open if they wish to make submissions on that matter. Indeed they could also make submissions to the commissioner. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
7ANew Part 2 heading substituted 
The heading to Part 2 is repealed and the following heading is substituted:  
Part 2Designated Services 
. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
9ANew Subpart 2 heading substituted 
The heading to Subpart 2 is repealed and the following heading is substituted:  
Subpart 2Determinations for Designated Access Services 
. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
9BApplication 
Subsection (1) of section 20 is repealed and the following subsection is substituted: 
(1)An access seeker or an access provider of a designated access service may apply to the Commission for a determination of all or some of the terms on which the service must be supplied during the period of time specified in the application. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7148] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The remaining amendments to Part 1 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell are out of order for they are inconsistent with the previous decisions of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe to clause 55 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (ce) of section 157(1) after the words “procedures or” the word “minimum”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7147] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tatou katoa. I will take just a short call to give a brief explanation in respect of some recommendations that the Maori Party has made and put on the Table. I appreciate the discussion with the Minister the Hon David Cunliffe in respect of looking forward and hopefully we will pick this up in the future. 
The amendments we propose are for a very special simple purpose. They allow for specified services to be reclassified as designated services. I pointed out in the speech I gave not long ago that designated services are services where the Telecommunications Commissioner can regulate everything including price. However specified services are services where the Telecommunications Commissioner can regulate everything except the price. We say that the regulation of everything except price is not actually regulation at all. We make a recommendation to extend the ability to regulate on price and to include not just fixed lines but also mobile services particularly roaming and relocation in order to open up that particular door. 
For Maori to be able to enter the mobile market these changes are necessary. I simply ask the Committee to give these recommendations consideration as we go through this process. They are spread throughout Parts 1 and 2. Obviously one piggybacks on to the other but that is the general gist in respect of our recommendations. Depending on how things go we would be prepared to pick up these recommendations and enter into discussions with the Minister in the future about this. Kia ora tatou.
Woolerton R Doug: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7146] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 It is most fortunate that Dr Lockwood Smith has talked about those technological points and has gone through that detail. I want to talk about similar sorts of things but in more general terms. 
In speaking on Part 1 I want to say that this bill allows for competitors to come in and pay a price to access homes and businesses. My concern—and I know it is a concern of Lockwood Smith Gordon Copeland and others on the committee—is that they do not do an excessive amount of cherry-picking. I know that Mr Hide believes in a completely unfettered market but sometimes the market will deliver huge benefits to one portion of the population but virtually nothing to others. I think it is a concern for all of us that we do not have a situation whereby competitors coming into the market just cherry-pick and provide services in the big cities. 
It would do the cause of competitors more good if they could show Telecom the Government and consumers that their intentions are honourable and that they intend having set up businesses in city areas with larger populations at least to attempt to go out and provide some sort of competition in locations further afield—and to our farmers who we know produce most of our exports. I make that point because too often we look at a big company and say: “Hey here is a company that is not performing as we think it should. What can we do about that? We can provide competition because it has not performed as we think it should since its sale as a Government enterprise.” Then we blame it for not doing all of those things. But if we are going to provide that competition—and Mr Hide says that we should—it is then up to that competition to show good endeavours and to seek to do something about our rural environments. 
Sometimes the distance is not that far. The Hon Dr Lockwood Smith has talked about 10 kilometres down the road. I know approximately where he lives but some of the farming areas we are talking about are more intensely settled. For example I come from the Waikato and I believe that if competitors started in an area such as that they could get a reasonable return and provide a service. If competitors cherry-pick and just go after the good dollars in the cities they will do their case some harm. 
Rodney Hide 
: Put up an amendment. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I am not going to put up an amendment. I do not believe it is an area that should be regulated but I am saying that if those people want to show good endeavours and have the goodwill of customers they will not do such a thing. I will leave it at that.
Vote: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7145] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Telecommunications Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Telecommunications Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7145] 
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 119 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Question agreed to.