edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dalziel Lianne: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16418] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have a very brief call to make simply to alert the Committee to my amendment to the Electoral Referendum Bill which is to remove clause 54. The effect of removing clause 54 would be to require a review of MMP to occur after the next election and it would occur regardless of the outcome of the first referendum. Clause 54 currently requires the review of MMP provided for in Part 4 of the bill to come into force only if in fact the first referendum decides that an alternative to MMP is preferred. That then means that the second referendum if National were to be re-elected would be held on the basis of a flawed version of MMP which people agree is flawed. Rather than actually fixing what is wrong with the system and putting that up against a new system a flawed system would be allowed to go up against a brand new version of whichever system is preferred out of the four. 
The one point I make is that if I had been writing the rules for this referendum I would have ensured that MMP was reviewed before the first referendum but I was not so obviously Labour has had no influence in that regard. It was a Government decision to put the flawed version of MMP up for consideration without fixing the problems with it and then to put it up for reconsideration. But given that situation the Labour Party will make a pledge at the next election that should we become the Government we will ensure that the second referendum is held after the MMP system is reviewed and any of the flaws in it are resolved so that it will be the reviewed MMP system that goes up against the preferred option at the 2014 general election. We are committed to the same timetable that the Government has set out but we will review MMP and we will fix any of the flaws that we find in that system as evidenced from the input of the people of New Zealand.
Vote: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16415] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16415] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 32A to raise the expenses limit to $750000 be agreed to.
Vote: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral Referendum Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16415] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Part 1 agreed to.
English Bill: Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16399] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time.
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16408] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will make a brief comment. I first acknowledge that the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill deals with some issues that have been difficulties for Parliament for quite some time. I think it is fair to say there has been no attempt to rort systems but there has been a series of rules in place that were somewhat unclear. So the clarity that will come from this legislation is very very welcome. 
I acknowledge the Electoral Legislation Committee which worked on this bill. Its membership was pretty much equally split between members who have recently come to Parliament and those who have been here for a longer period of time. There were people on the committee who had not gone through an election where they were personally elected and therefore a situation of having had their use of funding questioned. There were others who had some 34 election experiences between them. So there were fresh sets of eyes coming in plus those who had gone through this experience over a period of years. I think for that reason we can have quite a bit of confidence that this bill gets to the heart of the matter. 
My only concern if I had one was that there is a provision in the back of the bill for the recovery of amounts that were validly paid by Parliamentary Service to members through their entitlement but which can be recovered subsequently upon another body the Electoral Commission determining that those payments for advertising or whatever it was did not comply. I think what we have put there is a fair check and a fair balance in terms of the provisions. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said in the speech that preceded mine we do now have the basis for much much clearer rules. So I congratulate the committee on that work and particularly Amy Adams on her leadership of the committee. She is a new member herself who was looking at legislation that hopefully she will have many many occasions to resort to. Thank you. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16408] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will take only a very brief call on this clause. By way of introductory comment I will say that it is a mistake to view as anything other than something procedurally useful to the Committee the sensible suggestion to deal with the three bills as a single question because the bills raise the same issues. It does not mean that we do not get to vote separately on each bill; it means that we just have a single debate to cover the three of them. Anyway that was not to be. For the life of me I do not understand why that was not accepted by the ACT Party. It is beyond my comprehension but there we go. It was suggested simply as a way of being helpful. 
The only thing I want to say about this bill which is why I did not want to take calls on separate bills is to say how pleased I am that we have managed to get the definitional provisions aligned so that we are absolutely clear-cut that taxpayers’ money is not spent on election advertising that there is no crossover point now and that during the regulated period the rules are absolutely clear-cut. That will enable us to be absolutely sure that when we look our masters in the eye our taxpayers we are able to give them a cast-iron guarantee that the rules have been written so that there can be no crossover. There will be no taxpayer money spent on electoral advertising and that is the way it should be.
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16408] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16406] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to omit clause 21A be agreed to.
Barker Rick: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16406] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to members who will be making a contribution to debate on this part that it is about the nuts and the bolts of the bill. Some speeches have bordered more on being second and third reading speeches but I have been tolerant today.
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16405] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to omit clause 21(1AA) be agreed to.
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16405] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 20 be agreed to.
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16405] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 12A to raise the expenses limit to $750000 be agreed to.
Prasad Rajen: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Prasad Rajen: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16439] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a very very brief call. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I know you have been waiting for this call; you told me that earlier. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: It is nice to know that when a bill before the House makes as much sense as the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill does it can be supported by members with the shortest speeches possible. This is unlike the situation when members on the other side of the House throughout Friday and Saturday took very short calls on very very important bills. I am happy to commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Deputy Speaker House of Representatives 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Deputy Speaker House of Representatives 
[Volume:669;Page:16381] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Hon Peter Slipper Deputy Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed.
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
[Volume:669;Page:16399] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Hon Heather Roy be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission in place of Hon John Boscawen. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Business of the House 
Smith Lockwood: Business of the House 
[Volume:669;Page:16395] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Vote: Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16399] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:669;Page:16395] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Pansy Wong to make her valedictory statement forthwith.
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16395] 
4. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee 
: How many submitters on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill have requested to be heard in person? 
Hon TAU HENARE (Chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee): 
 Five hundred and twenty-two.
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16395] 
3. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? 
Hon TAU HENARE (Chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee): 
 Four thousand one hundred and seventy-eight.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16394] 
12. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What progress has been made on the roll-out of the Public Defence Service? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I recently officially opened the Papakura-Pukekohe Public Defence Service. Its opening was significant because it marked the completion of the roll-out of the Public Defence Service across the entire Auckland region. A formal evaluation of the Public Defence Service and feedback from judges practitioners and court staff indicate that the Public Defence Service is operating well. It continues to provide clients with as good a level of legal representation as they would receive from the private Bar. It has led to a significant reduction in the number of jury trials court time and costs. 
Chester Borrows 
: What plans if any does the Minister have to expand the Public Defence Service to other locations? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister I say that I just could not hear the question because of the interjections from across the front bench. Would Chester Borrows mind repeating his supplementary question for me please. 
Chester Borrows 
: What plans if any does the Minister have to expand the Public Defence Service to other locations? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am pleased to report that the Public Defence Service is expected to be up and running in the Wellington Lower Hutt and Porirua courts early next year and in Hamilton and Christchurch by the middle of next year.
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16394] 
11. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he confident that the announcement of 10 November regarding neurosurgery services in the South Island will provide a sustainable service? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have been assured that the configuration of the South Island neurosurgical services recommended by the expert panel is sustainable. Having said that building the service will not happen overnight. A number of things have to click into place such as staff being recruited at both the university and the district health board level. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What was his response to the letter from Canterbury neurosurgeon Ronald Boet stating that he would resign if the announced model was imposed on him? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not recall receiving that letter. My comment would be that the important thing we need to do for the South Island is to have a service that is sustainable and that will provide for the future. That certainly is the recommendation that has come from the independent panel and I think that would be very good for New Zealand. I know that policy has been welcomed by the member’s two colleagues from Dunedin. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What was his response to the letter from Canterbury paediatric neurosurgeon Martin MacFarlane stating that he would retire from his profession if the announced model was imposed on him? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am aware that a number of people around the countryside may not be happy with what is being proposed but let us remember that the reason why this review was started was that the doctors could not agree and the district health boards could not agree. That is why a decision was made. If the member opposite is saying that the Labour Party’s position is that it wants a one-site service run from Christchurch then I find that very interesting. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why will children from the whole of the South Island have to travel to Auckland for neurosurgery; and does he care enough about them to act on their behalf? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not think that all the children of the South Island will have to travel to the North Island for their neurosurgery. This is about providing a sustainable service for the people of the South Island. That is why it has been strongly endorsed by her colleagues from Dunedin.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16393] 
10. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How is the Government improving transparency of taxpayer-funded social services? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Today the Government launched contract mapping a new tool that locates Government funding across New Zealand. The website uses Google Maps to pinpoint every social service provider in the country. We are able to see who gets the money what it is for how much they get and where we can find them. This tool means that policy makers communities and Ministers can immediately see where services are funded and will be able to identify gaps and overlaps in the community. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How will contract mapping contribute to the Government’s priority of having coordinated social services? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Significantly. Currently we have the Ministry of Social Development’s contract map. Early next year we will also add the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Education and Te Puni Kokiri.
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16386] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Question No. 5 was originally set down for the Prime Minister to ask him about his specific commitment to achieving an economic step change for New Zealand. I am not sure that it is fair or relevant to ask that of the Minister of Finance. I do not know that he made such a commitment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is the Government’s responsibility who answers questions in respect of responsibility. The question is about New Zealand’s economic performance and it seems not unreasonable that it be directed to the Minister of Finance.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16386] 
4. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What steps have been taken to ensure that the corrections system has better access to world-class innovation and expertise? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 This Government is committed to a world-class corrections system in New Zealand. To achieve that we must have access to world-class innovation and expertise. Today I was delighted to announce that global services management company Serco has been selected to manage the Mt Eden Prison and Auckland Central Remand Prison. Serco has a strong track record in managing prisons operating six adult prisons and two youth offender centres in the United Kingdom and Australia. I am confident that this new partnership will lead the way in delivering innovation and excellence across the entire corrections system. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What benefits does the Government expect to obtain from the private management of prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: One of the major advantages of private management is the ability to build performance incentives and penalties into the contract. It also allows the Government to target problem areas more effectively. The contract now being finalised with Serco will contain rigorous oversight and significant financial incentives to ensure that the company consistently delivers its services to a high standard. We also expect the partnership will lead to innovation and efficiencies that can be extended to prisons throughout the New Zealand corrections system.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:669;Page:16440] 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 In accordance with discussions held this afternoon at the Business Committee I seek leave for the House to now rise until the next sitting day. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
[Volume:669;Page:16399] 
Parliamentary Service Commission 
Membership 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Hon Heather Roy be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission in place of Hon John Boscawen. 
Motion agreed to.
Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16399] 
Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: I move that the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just seek a little advice because this is quite an important procedural motion. While the Minister of Finance is in the House I believe he should have moved it. If it is possible I think we should just stick to the correct procedure 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Say “I so move.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise that. If the Hon Bill English could just move the motion again I would appreciate that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:669;Page:16395] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Pansy Wong to make her valedictory statement forthwith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
King Annette: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
King Annette: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16437] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Labour supports the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. The bill amends three main aspects. The first—as has been set out by the member who has just spoken Todd McClay—is that it replaces the living alone payment and the current rates of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension for single superannuitants with a new single living alone rate of superannuation and the veterans pension. 
This amendment will remove the requirement for superannuitants to make an additional application for a full entitlement at a very distressing time which is usually when there has been the death of a partner or a spouse. At the moment when that happens they are required to make a special application to receive it. In addition they have to do it within a given time period of 28 days in order to get it backdated. This can be a real burden on older New Zealanders who are really finding it hard at the moment and are really feeling the pinch. 
I note that the member who has just spoken talked about the additional assistance to superannuitants. I believe that if he has been seeing his constituents as I have been seeing mine he will know that even with some additional help in the Budget they are still finding it very difficult with increases in power charges increases in their rates increases in food prices and so on. This change makes it better for a group of people who find themselves in awkward circumstances upon the death of a spouse in particular. 
The second part of this amendment bill aligns the definition of a dependent child in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act with the definition provided in the Social Security Act. This amendment is a response to a decision by the Social Security Appeal Authority in a case relating to decisions made by the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development in May and June 2008. 
The third part of this amendment bill updates the definition of a boarding house so that it is brought into line with the definition that refers to a licensed boarding house. This is a new definition that has recently been amended in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Labour Opposition supports this bill.
Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Resignation of Member of Parliament 
Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Resignation of Member of Parliament 
[Volume:669;Page:16395] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Pansy Wong—Resignation of Member of Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Pete Hodgson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement that Pansy Wong has accepted that she breached  
Cabinet Manual 
 rules in her conduct as a Minister and will be resigning from Parliament as a result. The member provided no authentication for the statement set out in his letter and an anticipated announcement cannot be a particular case of recent occurrence. The application is therefore declined.
King Colin: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
King Colin: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16436] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is interesting to see that the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is before Parliament. I am sure that this is an essential development and a progressive innovation towards having our produce received in high-value countries. However in saying that I think it would be a crime not to say that one needs to bear in mind some of the difficulties our farming system will have to consider in respect of implementing this legislation. Although Parliament might set this all up one can think of those high country farmers or farmers in parts of the North Island where there is very broken bush-covered landscape and where there is the possibility of losing tags and suchlike. 
The Primary Production Committee will certainly be looking forward to receiving a range of submissions especially from farmers and the industry so that we get this structure right—it is very essential. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
Power Simon: Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16399] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: I move that the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just seek a little advice because this is quite an important procedural motion. While the Minister of Finance is in the House I believe he should have moved it. If it is possible I think we should just stick to the correct procedure 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Say “I so move.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise that. If the Hon Bill English could just move the motion again I would appreciate that.
Visitors — Australia—Deputy Speaker House of Representatives 
Visitors — Australia—Deputy Speaker House of Representatives 
[Volume:669;Page:16381] 
Tuesday 14 December 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Deputy Speaker House of Representatives 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Hon Peter Slipper Deputy Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed.
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Anderton Jim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:16386] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 When the Prime Minister promised a step change in economic performance did the Minister of Finance believe that the step change— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not what the question in front of me actually says. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The original question was to the Prime Minister asking him about his promise— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With respect the member has been in this place just as long as I have and knows that the final wording of questions is agreed with the Clerk’s Office. Some questions require rewording. I ask the member to ask the question as worded.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Resignation of Member of Parliament 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Pansy Wong—Resignation of Member of Parliament 
[Volume:669;Page:16395] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Pete Hodgson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement that Pansy Wong has accepted that she breached  
Cabinet Manual 
 rules in her conduct as a Minister and will be resigning from Parliament as a result. The member provided no authentication for the statement set out in his letter and an anticipated announcement cannot be a particular case of recent occurrence. The application is therefore declined.
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:669;Page:16406] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Burns Brendon: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
Burns Brendon: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16435] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I also rise in support of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. Labour supports this bill because it has its origins in Labour policy—we set the ball rolling. It is good to see the Minister of Agriculture David Carter bringing this bill through the House. I acknowledge that this is the second bill we have seen from this Minister in the last few days. He managed to wrest $25 million from Government coffers for the kiwifruit industry. I would like to see him in charge of the Canterbury earthquake recovery because he is so good at extracting money from the pocket of Bill English. 
This bill is good regulation and it is good to see. It is a shame that the member’s colleague the Minister of Broadcasting Jonathan Coleman does not adopt some of this regulatory approach. We need to see some light-handed regulation to make sure we get the best out of our economy. I rise in support of this bill and I look forward to seeing it at the Primary Production Committee.
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6254] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the  
Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 
be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a third time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 108 Noes 13.
King Colin: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — First Reading 
King Colin: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6262] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. As I do so it is significant and appropriate to mention that the National Party is anchored in the principles and importance of sound biosecurity. It is also appropriate to make the comment that the Primary Production Committee will tomorrow visit the Wairakei land of Landcorp. We will be quite grounded in the importance of sound biosecurity. In saying that we must contrast that grounding with the realities of how we live today. This evening we had an enjoyable event that celebrated 2 years to the day until the Rugby World Cup 2011 begins. That is quite relevant because we will have an enormous number of tourists coming here. It illustrates the tension that exists between our very important tourist industry which sees somewhere in the region of 3 million passengers coming to New Zealand and the importance of our primary production industry. 
It is quite important to inform the House that in implementing the Biosecurity Amendment Bill there will be a considerable need for education. It is relevant that when people come into New Zealand they all receive an arrival card. It is important that the educational process about our biosecurity is clear and understandable because when people come here—those 3 million people—they need to be well informed. It is appropriate without a doubt that the education process will be undertaken first and foremost by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Its campaign will run under the title “Declare or Dispose. It is New Zealand law.” It is also important to realise that as we get the balance right with our tourist industry the experience in the primary production industry is that there needs to be training of staff. Ninety-two percent of people pay fines within 14 days. However with the raising of those fines to $400 and $800 there will be the need for District Court administration and fine recovery. There have to be inspectors who need to be trained. Those things are all being taken into consideration. 
As this bill is receiving wide support in the House I think the Minister has clearly articulated his vision going forward with regard to biosecurity and the benefit for New Zealand. We realise under the Labour administration that we had 330 biosecurity incursions. We had the painted apple moth we had didymo we had varroa and we had didendum. It is very much in the vision of this National Government that we effectively do 10 times better. It is a pleasure to speak on the bill at 10 past 11 tonight and I commend the bill to the House.
Hague Kevin: Voting — Correction—Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 
Hague Kevin: Voting — Correction—Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:657;Page:6265] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I apologise for interrupting the flow of the debate but I seek leave to alter the Green Party’s vote on the third reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill from eight votes opposed to nine votes opposed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The correct result will therefore be shown that the Ayes will be 108 and the Noes 14.
Goudie Sandra: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6265] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 We will educate visitors to this country— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You can’t speak in a rain jacket! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: It is cold in here! I do not know whether that member feels it but I came through that door and there was a huge draught. But I digress. We will educate visitors to this country by hitting them in the pocket and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill does that. This legislation cannot come about soon enough. I commend the excellent Minister of Agriculture for being so decisive and for working so quickly to bring these increased charges into the House. We will deal to those visitors in their pocket. Quite frankly let us hope that the judges follow suit and deal to them in the courts if that is where they end up. We do not want the sentences for offenders to be too light which is what the Green member talked about earlier. We want those visitors to learn a lesson learn it well and learn it the hard way so that they do not take it for granted when they come to New Zealand that they can bring in unwanted goods. 
I am delighted to be on the Primary Production Committee and that this legislation will be coming to the committee. It is excellent to work with members of the committee from both sides of the House. I am really looking forward to working on this bill.
Carter David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter David: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6267] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 12 October 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).
Cunliffe David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6231] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wish to raise a serious point of order and ask for your indulgence. It is a leave motion but I need to provide some context for it. During the debate in the Committee stage the Minister alleged that Labour had voted for clauses 52 and 151 in the select committee. We explained that we were opposed to both of those clauses but that in the select committee of course the voting had been on a part by part basis. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I ask the member to pause here. Is this a point of order about some offence to the Standing Orders or is this simply an explanation to right the record and therefore a debatable matter? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well I hope the member is going to come to some offence that has been created and caused to the Standing Orders. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes Mr Chairperson. Notwithstanding the decision of the Business Committee to take the substantive motion on both parts as one motion I seek leave in light of the earlier discussion for the votes on clauses 52 and 151 to be held as a separate vote so that Labour’s opposition to those clauses can be recorded. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is clauses 52 and 151. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is the Committee clear on that? Is there any objection? There is objection. Therefore the question is that Parts 1 and 2 schedule 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended stand part. All those of that opinion say Aye of the contrary opinion say No. The Ayes have it. Is a party vote called for? No party vote is called for. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Party vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I asked whether a party vote was called for. I got silence and I then moved on. I just say to the member that once the Chair has declared a vote and it is disputed the member who wishes for a party vote should call for the party vote immediately. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I did Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I did not hear it. I am sorry. 
A party vote was called for on the question that Parts 1 and 2 schedule 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I declare the result I just say to Dr Norman that I am sorry I did not hear the call for it. That is one of the reasons why it is important that there is quiet in the Chamber when a vote is being conducted because very often voices do not carry.
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6228] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 49 in the name of Rahui Katene to omit clauses 83 and 83A be agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6228] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendment in the name of Dr Russel Norman to omit clause 68 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 82 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6228] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 45 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to new section 95D in clause 68 be agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6228] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 45 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to new section 95B in clause 68 be agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6227] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Will the member please turn off the cellphone and take it out of the Chamber. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 68 be agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6231] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendments are to clause 151. They are Phil Twyford’s amendment to omit clause 151—the amendment that the member thought had been lost has been found—set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40; Dr Russel Norman’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 42; the Hon David Cunliffe’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41; and Lynne Pillay’s typescript amendment. All of these amendments are out of order as they are inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to.
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6229] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendments are in the name of the Hon David Parker. They are typescript amendments to omit clauses 83 and 83A. They are ruled out of order as they are the same in substance as the previous amendments. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 84 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.