edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8337] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. This legislation has come about because of a situation whereby the fertility clinics throughout the country that store gametes and embryos may inadvertently be doing so illegally. It is important to point out exactly what gametes are because as I was wandering back to my room before the dinner break a radio announcer was interviewing the Minister of Justice and asking what gametes were. They are eggs and sperm and when eggs and sperm come together they form embryos. 
The Minister pointed out in his speech that the first in vitro fertilisation in New Zealand took place in 1983 at National Women’s Hospital but it is important to realise that prior to that sperm were being frozen and can be kept for long periods of time. It was not until recently that embryos have been able to be successfully frozen and then thawed and it is even more recently that eggs have been able to be successfully frozen and then thawed. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Veterinarians have been ahead of medicine by decades. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: So they should be; I think that is quite right! I must point out that this bill is not about the biological arguments—undoubtedly it is important to consider how long eggs sperm and embryos can be stored—nor is it about the ethical arguments which are complex. 
As the Hon Steve Chadwick pointed out earlier on the genesis of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act was a long one. It came about through the hard work of a lot of different people including the Labour member Dianne Yates. Her bill was later merged with a Government bill and a lot of people worked on this legislation including ethicists clinicians and the New Zealand Infertility Society. It has been a hugely important topic for many many years. The ethical and biological implications of this legislation are extraordinarily important to the individuals who are affected. Those people for one reason or another may wish to donate gametes or embryos or may wish to be recipients of them. 
This bill is about an anomalous situation that has been created inadvertently in an otherwise very complex legislative area. The amendment will make it clear both to the fertility clinics and to the ethics committee as to how long the storage of gametes and embryos may take place in New Zealand. I commend it to the House.
Foss Craig: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — First Reading 
Foss Craig: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8317] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I was enjoying the speech of the previous speaker the Hon David Cunliffe until he got on to monetary policy. I note that I was part of the National minority on the Finance and Expenditure Committee last year which reviewed the monetary policy and the various instruments initiated by the previous Minister of Finance the Hon Michael Cullen. We examined all sorts of options in respect of tools in the tool box for the Reserve Bank etc. I think that committee review went on for 5 or 6 months and I think it was virtually unanimous. There was total consensus other than a small minority report from New Zealand First which is no longer here and the committee reported that it had gone through the various fiscal and economic cycles and that the status quo was working. You know an election comes around and the Government becomes the Opposition and its members look for something to talk about but the uncertainty that the member’s statements create destine Labour to remain in Opposition for somewhat longer because they create uncertainty and premiums. 
Briefly the speaker made a point regarding captive insurance and I think that will take up a fair bit of our time on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. There has been a fair bit of discussion about that already and I fully expect a fair few submissions on the issue. I acknowledge that a lot of the work on the Financial Advisers Bill and the non-bank deposit takers bill and regulations and the upgrades and changes were started under the previous administration. This bill is yet another plank to that. So its history is quite robust and I think there will be consensus across the House as this Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill goes through subject to changes and debate at the select committee. 
It is an upgrade and a modernisation. If any good things came out of the systemic financial markets failure around the world—we were not quite as badly affected here as many other parts of the globe were—they were the examination of current prudential regulation monitoring a sudden awareness of many holes in the system and an acknowledgment that in respect of the huge asset base the obligations in the cross holdings from the various insurance funds across the financial sector can have a major impact on the financial sector and the New Zealand economy. 
Having looked through the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill I note that a lot of the wording looks similar to wording in the Financial Advisers Bill which the Finance and Expenditure Committee considered last year so there is some commonality there. As the chair of that committee I am sure that its members will welcome considering this legislation. We will have a busy few months. I look forward to submissions on the bill. I think the previous speaker outlined most of the issues that will be raised in respect of it although I set aside the points he raised with regard to monetary policy. I commend the bill to the House.
Bennett David: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — First Reading 
Bennett David: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8327] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will just take a short call on the first reading of the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill. First of all some Opposition members have been talking about the need for monetary policy reform and of their vision of the world and economics. I think the New Zealand Parliament and the New Zealand people need to be aware that the New Zealand economy has come through this recession as well as could be expected for a Western economy. The prudential supervision of our banks has given us a lot to be thankful for and our monetary policy has been shown to be effective and successful once again. Labour Opposition members are hopping on the bandwagon that I think New Zealand First started a number of years ago but nobody has any solutions that are any better than what we have at the moment and they are raising false hope by going around saying that they have a better system. 
The reality is that this recession was a combination of factors: not only were there some unusual financial whiz-kids in the US and other Western economies but also it was a wake-up call for the West in that the Eastern economies have focused more on their production of goods and services and exports. They have basically shown us that we need to reinvent the wheel and get back to basics. That is what the New Zealand economy needs to do. We need to get back to being an export-led economy that actually pays its way in the world. That is the wake-up call that this recession has given to the Western World and it is up to the West to accept that to move on and to play the game. The competing economies of the world are playing that game and if we do not wake up and do so we will fall further down the list of international economies. 
This bill is an attempt to give a balanced approach to dealing with supervision of the insurance industry. It is not too stringent but at the same time it presents a definite level of support and regulation so that people can have confidence in insurers. The supervision to be provided by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand will be important in providing a mechanism to give that discipline to the industry. This bill is important as we look forward in providing a certain degree of regulation but not over-regulation of the industry. The Opposition talks about the need for monetary policy reform but that is not the answer. The answer is for New Zealand to be an export-led economy. That is what this National Government is about and what it has been working towards for the last year or so since it has been in office. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — First Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8324] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I also stand to support the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill. As many previous speakers have suggested this bill encourages the maintenance of a sound and efficient insurance sector. It is about promoting confidence and trust but also about promoting efficacy in how that sector operates within the New Zealand market. The bill replaces some of the rather outdated and disjointed insurance legislation that we have in place today and it aligns our insurance regulatory framework with the benchmarks that are set overseas. New Zealand’s financial markets do not operate within a vacuum but within a complex financial market that spans the globe. 
The economic conditions this year have been quite turbulent. They have resulted in the deepest recession that the world has experienced for a number of decades. But what this bill attempts to do is not to over-regulate this particular market; it is a light-handed way of approaching the markets. In terms of some of the scandals that have affected the financial sector we have to be careful as legislators that we do not try to legislate for honesty probity and those who are operating in markets in a very dishonest way. The bill is about setting the right frameworks. It is about allowing our regulators and those who oversee these markets to have the right tools with the right frameworks and also the resources are put in place so that they are able to oversee the efficient running of the insurance market. 
So what do we do? This bill establishes a system of licensing insurers which I think most in this House would agree with. It imposes prudential requirements on insurers and allows for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand which has overseen monetary policy in this country in an independent way to provide for compliance with certain requirements. It is also about allowing policyholders to trust that those participating at the corporate level in the insurance market are operating in the way that they are supposed to which is providing insurance products and services. It is a comprehensive bill because it covers life non-life as well as medical insurance. It is also designed to provide for and ensure that New Zealand’s financial markets are fluid. It is part of a series of reforms this Government is putting in place as a continuation of some of the reforms of the last Government that will allow for securities. As well as the corporate trustee model which has been reformed there are a number of reforms in the area of financial advisers that we are currently going through. 
So this bill is one small part of an overall reform of our financial and securities markets. It will be good for the select committee to look into the detail of the bill that is proposed and I look forward to discussing it within the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Jones Shane: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Shane: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8364] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate the Ministers of the day for advancing the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. It is a sad reflection of how entangled the law has become that applicants from either the Maori sector or the general industry sector have been frustrated in securing statutory entitlements to advance aquaculture so this type of innovation needs to be applauded. 
To the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and to the Minister of Fisheries I say that there was a time when Doug Kidd in an earlier life identified $2 billion in 1993 as the target that the industry would achieve through the infusion of aquaculture-based earnings; that target still eludes us. But if we can reduce the barriers and expedite the entry both of our own Maori people and also of the industry to higher levels then it is good for the country. Treaty settlements have to integrate our people into the business of earning real money through participating in industry sectors. 
We thoroughly support this initiative and wish the recipients well. We look forward to finding other ways to work constructively with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on other Maori issues in the spirit of reciprocity. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a second time.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8310] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to support the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill. In July this year despite the sideshows presented by the Opposition the Hon Bill English and the Hon Wayne Swann signed a memorandum of understanding to establish a trans-Tasman retirement savings portability scheme. That scheme as many have already mentioned today opens the way for New Zealanders to return home from Australia and bring their retirement savings with them. 
New Zealanders who have lived in Australia—and I include myself in that group—will be able to bring home their savings which are currently invested in Australian superannuation funds and Australian businesses and invest them in New Zealand businesses and New Zealand infrastructure. This bill will enable the exchange of funds. Of course some will take their KiwiSaver savings and transport them to an Australian fund but given the history of New Zealanders working in Australia and those who are now returning to live in New Zealand given the change of Government and given the optimism that this National Government has brought to this country the flow of those funds will undoubtedly be greater from Australia to New Zealand. 
As the previous speaker the Hon Sir Roger Douglas mentioned this bill will not solve all our problems. I do not believe Rome is burning. But the bill is consistent with the raft of other legislation that we are putting in place to make it easier for businesses to raise capital and for funds to invest in the rundown infrastructure of this country. It will make it easier to create a single trans-Tasman market not just for goods and services but also for labour and a number of other investments that cross between our two countries. 
Some of the details of the bill will be discussed in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and throughout our deliberations. Key points are that the transfer of funds is voluntary and that the transfer between New Zealand and Australia will be exempt from any taxes which I think is particularly important. The amounts that are transferred between the two countries will not be available for investment in a third country. I support this bill and look forward to its implementation and we expect that to occur in the second half of 2010. The bill will assist us through the hard edges of the recession and I look forward to working through it with the select committee in the coming months. Thank you.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8290] 
6.  
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does he agree with the Community Energy Action charitable trust that a household is living in fuel poverty when essential energy services such as heating and hot water are unaffordable to the residents and what actions has he taken to address fuel poverty particularly for low-income New Zealanders? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Broadly yes. The biggest action the Government has taken to address fuel poverty is to introduce the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme. Those with community services cards are entitled to 60 percent off the cost of home insulation and $1200 towards a clean-heating appliance. Recently the Government also announced that the scheme would be expanded by an additional $24 million over the next 4 years to enable an extra 8000 guaranteed low-income households to have their homes retrofitted. 
Rahui Katene 
: What can the Government do to ensure that landlords comply with the direction of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in terms of all requirements in respect of buildings’ health and safety so far as they apply to the premises and specifically section 15 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 which state that every house should be free from dampness? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is interesting to note that the years 1986 and particularly 1947 are quite some time ago and there are a number of residential properties— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Well done! Genius! You’re a genius Gerry! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I offered that to Clayton Cosgrove as he is a young man who is not very good with his numbers. Under the programme that the Government has instituted nearly 3000 rental homes have been retrofitted with insulation and with a clean-heating device. I think that encouraging landlords through that method will see some of that long-term neglect being rectified. 
Rahui Katene 
: What progress has been made in working with Maori home insulation providers and installers and with Maori community groups and iwi to provide targeted support to low-income households in order for them to benefit from the home insulation scheme negotiated with the Maori Party? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Good progress has been made by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority in working with iwi to assist young Maori families through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart scheme. Iwi are coming on board in a variety of ways to support the scheme most notably in recently times as third-party funders and that is very good for all of those families.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8289] 
5.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by all his statements regarding the New Zealand Superannuation Fund? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is he aware that since he suspended contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund it has increased in value by over $2 billion; if so does he still maintain that “It makes little economic sense” to contribute to the fund? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I have explained to the member several times the Government’s decision to not contribute was made in fact because the Government has no spare cash to save. It was not to do with the performance of the fund. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It is always good to clarify what comes out of the Minister’s mouth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should just ask his question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Even—forgive me—if we do not like the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We see what happens when the Speaker is not quick enough in stopping this kind of thing. The member should just ask his question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Speaker I too withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just ask the question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did he use the global recession to justify his cutting contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund when all similar funds around the world were losing money; and in the light of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund’s recent gains does he accept that the decision was wrong and short-sighted? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member clearly was not listening to the answer to the first question when I said that the decision not to contribute was based on the fact that the Government has large cash deficits. One reason for those deficits is the global recession; the other reason for those deficits is the reckless fiscal management of the previous Government. When we have surpluses we will start to contribute to the fund again. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given the Minister’s aversion to reckless fiscal management including the $110 billion of pollution subsidies just awarded to large emitters does he stand by his statement that future contributions to the fund will be considered annually; if so can New Zealanders expect him to resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in Budget 2010 in light of those wonderful $2 billion gains in the fund this year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We consider the contributions annually because the decisions are made under the legislation passed by his party when it was in Government and which was supported by National. That legislation allows for the Government to suspend contributions. As I have said this Government did not believe that it made sense to borrow at the margin of New Zealand’s credit rating in order to contribute to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. When we have cash to save we will save it but I have to say that that is 8 to 10 years away.
Adams Amy: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8306] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call in the first reading debate on the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill. Although the debate has been reasonably wide ranging this afternoon it is probably worth coming back to the fact that the provisions in this bill are reasonably simple straightforward non-controversial I would suggest and from what I can garner very well supported in the House. 
Those provisions are very simple really. The main provision is around the portability of superannuation savings between Australia and New Zealand. It will take us a step closer to that common single economic market between us and our closest neighbour and friend. I think that is an important point because a huge amount of money gets left behind lost and disassociated from its owners in superannuation schemes particularly in Australia which has had a history of compulsory superannuation. Those schemes have a vast pool of money that does not find its way back to its appropriate owners. There is a good chance that a large chunk of that money relates to New Zealanders who have done some work in Australia come back here to live and really forgotten about it or lost track of it. This bill will allow New Zealanders coming home to consolidate their financial affairs in New Zealand bring that money back put it into their KiwiSaver scheme and run their retirement savings through one pool which is very sensible. It is a good initiative and certainly one I support. 
The bill also confirms the annual tax rates and makes important remedial changes to the KiwiSaver provision specifically and most important to how it applies to those aged under 18—getting them into the scheme whose consent is required the deductions from PAYE where child rates apply and the like and a number of other tidy-up measures. 
The only other point that I wanted to touch on—and I did hear the Minister talk about this in his opening remarks—is the removal of gift duty for gifts made to donee organisations which is income tax language for charities. That is a very important step forward because for too long a gift to charity has certainly been deductible for income tax purposes but if one was not careful it would attract gift duty if one managed to cross the threshold of $27000 a year. That is a significant barrier to large-scale donations to charities. It is a provision that I could never see the sense in and I am very pleased that it has been picked up on and addressed in this bill. I hope that encourages New Zealanders in their philanthropic efforts. It is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Foss Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Foss Craig: Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8301] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Talking of contradictions I am not quite sure whether the previous speaker the Hon David Cunliffe wants the Government to borrow a whole lot more to fill up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Right now we are borrowing $250 million or $300 million a week simply to keep the lights on and that member wants us to borrow $600 million a week to top up the fund. I just cannot work the numbers out. I am looking forward to discussing those facts with the member as Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill moves through the Finance and Expenditure Committee which that member is a part of. I just cannot understand how in one breath those members are concerned about the debt under any measure and then every time they want to spend more. And right now they want us to borrow more money to put in the fund to invest in New York or somewhere. I just cannot quite work that one out. It is the same with the accident compensation scheme. The sage-type investment advice we are getting from those members on whose watch we lost $10 billion to $12 billion last year is very interesting. I think we need to test them against that. But I digress somewhat. 
It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill. I will speak briefly to it. The Minister outlined the key points to it. There are a couple of points that I am very interested in and I look forward to further discussions in our committee. I think we will have quite a few submissions on those particular points about providing certainty to some of the binding rulings and improvements such as the ability to rule when matters are before the courts and clarifying existing legislation and intent. This has been an ongoing issue for the professional sector. The sector has been concerned about the uncertainty and the bottlenecks in disputes procedure in taxation law and looks enviously across the Tasman where the sector has that nailed down in a much better way than we do. Having said that I am looking forward to many submissions on that particular part of the bill when it comes before the Finance and Expenditure Committee after its first reading. 
The bill finally removes one of the two barriers to the 500000-odd New Zealanders who now live in Australia coming home. Sadly many of them will now be permanently there but this will remove one barrier to their mobility back home. The other barrier that was removed to allow New Zealanders to return home was on 8 November last year with the change of Government. Many New Zealanders are starting to look fondly towards moving home. I look forward to debating this bill further in the House.
Norman Russel William: Points of Order — Select Committees—Private Clauses in Public Bills 
Norman Russel William: Points of Order — Select Committees—Private Clauses in Public Bills 
[Volume:659;Page:8285] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt you. I am seeking some indication from you given the very high level of public interest of when you will make a ruling as to the inclusion of private clauses in public bills by select committees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am happy to inform the honourable member that I will be dealing with the matter when the bill comes before the House for its second reading.
Wagner Nicky: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8344] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I too am delighted to support the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill and I agree with the Hon Ruth Dyson that it will be a most interesting bill for the Health Committee to consider. 
As we have already heard this amendment bill does three things. It clarifies uncertainties in the existing Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act of 2004 and it deals with the issue that right now some fertility clinics are unintentionally breaking the law regarding the storage of gametes and embryos. It also clarifies the role of the ethics committee and the advisory committee in decisions on the storage periods for gametes and embryos. 
In vitro fertilisation or IVF has been available in New Zealand for more than three decades. It got its name which means “fertilisation within glass” because early biological experiments that cultivated tissues outside living organisms were carried out in glass containers. Researchers used beakers test tubes and Petri dishes. We still talk of test-tube babies but in vitro fertilisation is done in the much shallower Petri dishes. 
New Zealand has a low fertility rate. In comparison with the highest world rates in places like Niger and Afghanistan where women have more than seven children each in New Zealand our rate is less than two and our mothers are getting older. The median age of women giving birth is 30 years which means half of all women who give birth are aged over 30. Birth rates for women aged over 30 have been increasing over the last 10 years. The median age of women giving birth to their first child is 28 years old. The average number of births per woman is decreasing. In 1971—almost 40 years ago—it was just over three; today it is under two. 
About 15 in 100 couples in New Zealand have difficulty conceiving a child. About five in 100 couples have in vitro fertilisation treatment and one in 100 babies is a successful in vitro fertilisation or test-tube baby. About 900 in vitro fertilisation babies are born in New Zealand each year. With older parents and lowered sperm counts in New Zealand men the demand for in vitro fertilisation treatment in New Zealand is growing. The  
British Medical Journal 
 suggests that infertility rates could double in the next decade simply due to poor health and lifestyle choices. Many couples are finding that having a child is more difficult than chucking out the contraceptives and dimming the lights. 
It is important that this legislation on the process and in this case the storage of gametes and embryos is clear. I fully support this amendment bill.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8296] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I seek leave for this question to be put across to the next sitting day. The Minister responsible for Ministerial Services has just skipped out of the Chamber— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave that this question be deferred to the next sitting day. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8294] 
10.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he agree with the recommendation of the independent ministerial review panel that if the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 is repealed then “Reasonable public access should be defined and provided for by statute”? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Attorney-General 
: Yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: If the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 is amended or repealed to allow customary title to be sought for areas of seabed or foreshore then is legislation likely to be needed to prevent the conversion of such customary titles to alienable freehold titles? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Although I cannot answer the specifics of that question in the Attorney-General’s absence I am prepared to say I understand that the Attorney-General himself met briefly with the member at the airport this morning and offered him the opportunity to have a direct conversation about issues similar to those he has just raised. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the threshold tests for the establishment of customary interest in the foreshore and seabed be altered from those that currently apply under the Foreshore and Seabed Act; if so will those new thresholds be defined in statute or left to the courts? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Those matters are part of a thorough and consultative process which the member is welcome to join at any time. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did representatives of Ngati Porou request the National-led Government to honour the foreshore and seabed agreement that they reached under the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act with the previous Government and to proceed with the resultant Nga Rohe Moana o Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Bill? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am sorry but I do not have that specific information with me. If the member wishes to raise that matter by way of a written question or with the Attorney-General I am sure he will be able to get an answer to his question.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8294] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Attorney-General is not here today so I seek leave for this question to be carried over until tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8289] 
4.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What steps has he taken to reduce compliance costs for road transport operators? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Today I announced the introduction of electronic distance recording and electronic display of road-user charges licences to be used from next year as a voluntary alternative to the paper-based system. The Government is working hard to reduce compliance costs across industry and the move to electronic road-user charges is just another example of the regular and ongoing moves that taken together bring real benefit to the transport industry and the economy. 
David Bennett 
: What other initiatives is the Government working on to reduce compliance costs for road transport operators? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Other road-user charges initiatives that the Government is working on include simplification and modernisation of the road-user charges system. Proposed changes include the removal of operator-nominated weights removal of time licences and consolidation of vehicles that are exempt from road-user charges. All these steps and other steps that we are taking in transport will reduce compliance costs for the transport sector and help to lower the costs for exporters to get their goods to the market.
Shanks Katrina: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8366] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand and support the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2009. Firstly I thank the Social Services Committee members especially my colleagues Chester Borrows Hekia Parata Todd McClay and Tim Macindoe who were very constructive when we were looking at the bill. I also acknowledge Sue Bradford who was an important member on the committee when we were looking at the bill. She was a huge advocate for those who are more vulnerable than others in our community. I acknowledge the officials who played a very strong supporting role in helping to form the bill and the submitters who came along to the committee. We had a huge number of submitters who came and spoke to this bill. In fact we contacted additional submitters—for example students associations—to come and give us their view on how the tenancies legislation will affect students and their accommodation. 
This bill covered many contentious areas. One area was in respect of cleansing orders whereby a landlord is issued with a cleansing order because there is a P lab in the house. 
Debate interrupted.
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8287] 
2.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 A number of market forecasters have indicated that the outlook is a little brighter than it was foreshadowed to be partly because the free fall in global economies has stabilised and partly because the Government’s policies to fight the recession continue to be effective. However the outlook remains uncertain. For instance the tax take from companies is around $1 billion lower than was expected as recently as the last Budget and the Government has continuing concerns about the rise in unemployment. 
Craig Foss 
: How will the Government’s economic priorities change over the next year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Our priority in the first year was to come to grips with the recession and to understand just how deeply the misdirected policies of the previous Government had affected the economy. We will be continuing with our comprehensive plan to improve infrastructure boost skills have a better and smarter Public Service have less red tape and have a modern taxation system.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:659;Page:8285] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion in the Business Committee last week I seek leave for Wednesday 9 December 2009 to be a day where private and local orders of the day and members’ orders of the day take precedence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General Australia—Public Hospital System Select Committee Legislative Council Tasmania Parliament 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General Australia—Public Hospital System Select Committee Legislative Council Tasmania Parliament 
[Volume:659;Page:8285] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in further informing members that the Tasmanian Public Hospital System Select Committee of the Legislative Council of Tasmania led by Ivan Dean is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General Australia—Public Hospital System Select Committee Legislative Council Tasmania Parliament 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General Australia—Public Hospital System Select Committee Legislative Council Tasmania Parliament 
[Volume:659;Page:8285] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Dr William F Shija Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Dr William F Shija accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Heatley Phil: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Heatley Phil: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8335] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Government Administration Committee consider the Statutes Amendment Bill 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 April 2010. 
Motion agreed to.
Boscawen John: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Boscawen John: Legal Services Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:659;Page:8353] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I do not intend to speak for a long period of time but I want to make some follow-up comments to the comments made by my colleague David Garrett. It was very sad to be honest that no sooner had David Garrett made his comments and sat down he was followed by the Hon Lianne Dalziel and if I heard the Hon Lianne Dalziel correctly she said words to the effect that she could not possibly agree with anything Mr Garrett had said. 
I guess the point Mr Garrett was trying to make was that the Government has a fixed budget for legal aid that the first charge on that budget is for criminal legal aid and that what is left over is for civil cases. What Mr Garrett was saying was that the more we spend on criminal aid the less there is for civil cases. What made Lianne Dalziel’s comments surprising to me was that she then went on to talk about the coroner’s inquiry into deaths at Christchurch Hospital in 1996. Clearly as a Christchurch MP she is aware of the parties involved. She would be intimately aware of the distress that was caused to the families of the victims. She talked about the legal resources—the legal aid—that was available to the hospital the legal aid that was available to the doctors and to the registrars. The point I took from Lianne Dalziel’s speech is that the only parties that were not represented by lawyers were the families of the victims. Am I correct? Lianne Dalziel is acknowledging that the point she was trying to make is that the only parties not represented by lawyers at that coronial inquiry were the relatives of the victims. The point Mr Garrett was trying to make is that it is those very people those very ordinary citizens who have a need for legal assistance and cannot get it under the current arrangements. They cannot get it because the more money that is spent on criminal legal aid the less money there is available for civil legal aid. 
I thought Mr Garrett’s points were very well made and it was disappointing to hear them so ridiculed and dismissed by Lianne Dalziel when she rose to speak. She is clearly concerned that the people who most need legal representation cannot get it when they need it. Had legal assistance been available to the families of the victims they may have had better representation at those coronial inquiries.
Points of Order — Select Committees—Private Clauses in Public Bills 
Points of Order — Select Committees—Private Clauses in Public Bills 
[Volume:659;Page:8285] 
Points of Order 
Select Committees—Private Clauses in Public Bills 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt you. I am seeking some indication from you given the very high level of public interest of when you will make a ruling as to the inclusion of private clauses in public bills by select committees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am happy to inform the honourable member that I will be dealing with the matter when the bill comes before the House for its second reading.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:659;Page:8285] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion in the Business Committee last week I seek leave for Wednesday 9 December 2009 to be a day where private and local orders of the day and members’ orders of the day take precedence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General Australia—Public Hospital System Select Committee Legislative Council Tasmania Parliament 
Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General Australia—Public Hospital System Select Committee Legislative Council Tasmania Parliament 
[Volume:659;Page:8285] 
Tuesday 8 December 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Dr William F Shija Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Dr William F Shija accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Australia—Public Hospital System Select Committee Legislative Council Tasmania Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in further informing members that the Tasmanian Public Hospital System Select Committee of the Legislative Council of Tasmania led by Ivan Dean is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8598] 
10.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What priority will the Government give to responding to the recommendations of the Capital Market Development Taskforce? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 It will give that a high priority. The Prime Minister will lead the Government’s response with an announcement early in 2010. I take this opportunity to thank the members of the task force for their service and in the spirit of Christmas to acknowledge the previous Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel for establishing the task force. 
Jonathan Young 
: What priority has the Government given to earlier recommendations of the task force? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In response to the task force’s interim report the Government worked quickly to implement a number of important measures including passing legislation to enact new simplified disclosure prospectuses bringing in new securities regulations and helping to facilitate changes to the NZX listing rules in order to make it easier for firms to access capital. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Will he rule out the task force’s recommendations for the partial listing of Government assets in line with the pre-election promise from the Prime Minister that there would be no sale of State assets in this term; or did that promise not extend to partial privatisation? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No. The promise relates to any dilution of equity in this term. The member is quite aware of that.
Boscawen John: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Boscawen John: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:659;Page:8639] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an extract—page 81—from the Strategic Finance financial accounts for June 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I seek leave to table page 54 of the Strategic Finance financial accounts for June 2009 in which the asset values of 2008 are actually restated. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I seek leave to table for the benefit of consistency the full accounts for 2008 and 2009 so that those two documents can be read in context. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8617] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.