edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tremain Chris: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4043] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I am looking forward to Hawke’s Bay climbing the ladder once again and getting to the top of the Air New Zealand Cup competition. I know that is something that Mr Nash on the other side of the House will take on and we will be in that top four. I am looking forward to that. 
The pervious speech from Raymond Huo was a leadership bid in the making. We learnt that Mr Huo had two interviews about the Budget and that is probably two more than the Leader of the Opposition had on the Budget. No it was an excellent speech and we are all a lot further forward than we otherwise would be. 
I want to get to the essence of this debate and keep it very simple. First I want to take out the hyperbole the hysterics and the crocodile tears that the Opposition has laid out before us over the last few hours. The fact of the matter is quite simple: we are in the worst recession in 60 years. The impact of that recession has become hugely more relevant as we have got further down the track; nothing is simpler. My second point concerns the period before last election when we lined up on the stump—and the Labour Party members have created a lot of hyperbole about this. If we look at the Budget promises at that point in time we see that they are almost identical. In fact the National Party’s total tax cut package after we had made the tough decisions on KiwiSaver and the research and development tax credits was $200 million less than the Labour Party’s. 
So here we stand with those facts before us. There have been crocodile tears and hyperbole but in respect of the tough decisions in this bill I ask members which decisions a Labour Government would have made. I would love to stand here and say yes let us roll out the research and development tax credits and expand KiwiSaver to be as wonderful as it can be. I would love to say we were rolling out the tax cut package we talked about before the election. The reality is that we cannot do it. We are in a recessionary environment that does not allow it to happen. We have had to make some tough calls. We have had to cut our cloth to the state of the economy right now. Taxpayers our children and our mokopuna will thank us in years to come as our debt track starts to come down. 
By making these tough calls we have been able to deliver a whole lot of other things. There would be many many more problems if we had not delivered them. The entitlements to our superannuitants ensuring that 66 percent of the average wage would be delivered to them are being delivered. Ensuring that Working for Families stays in place is something we have delivered on. There is a raft of other things we have been able to deliver on including an insulation package. There is a raft of things we are doing as a Government and they are absolutely excellent. I stand today to acknowledge the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill and to commend it to the House.
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4043] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to move the members’ motion in the name of Lindsay Tisch forthwith. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Members 
: What! 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If members look at the Order Paper they will see that I congratulated the Chiefs on their win.
Garrett David: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Garrett David: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4038] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill in accordance with ACT’s confidence and supply agreement with the National Party. The tax cuts should not have been cancelled but it is certainly correct that to borrow to pay for them would be an even worse idea. Our major criticism of this Budget is not the cancellation of the tax cuts but the failure to fund tax cuts by a reduction in Government spending. 
The Government has missed the opportunity to cut Government waste by scrapping some Government departments altogether and by scrapping some Government functions. I do not think this speech will be very popular in some quarters but I ask why we need a Ministry of Women’s Affairs. We have a female Chief Justice and we have thus far had not one but two female Prime Ministers. We recently saw the back of the first female Speaker. The “Girls Can Do Anything” campaign—by its very language it shows just how long ago it was—was a resounding success. At the end of the Second World War the Special Operations Executive—those chaps we saw dropping into France in movies—was disbanded because the war had been won. So why do we need a Ministry of Women’s Affairs in 2009? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there might be a little bit of confusion in the House. Yesterday afternoon we adjourned the Budget debate and we are now on the third reading of the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill which is quite a narrow tax bill. I think the member might have his notes for the two debates mixed up. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to—[ 
Interruption 
]—I am on my feet. We are debating a bill that is quite small in its content. The member must bring the factors he is mentioning into the bill that we are talking about. I ask the member to continue. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. As I said the tax cuts should have gone ahead. They could have been funded in a different way. Having said all that the ACT Party will support this bill.
Collins Judith: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4034] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I will take just a few moments to reply to some of the most outrageous comments from the member opposite David Cunliffe. It is amazing to hear him talk about lies and cons because he is a member of a party that offered us the infamous “chewing gum tax cuts” in 2005 but straight after that election what happened to those tax cuts? The Labour Government of the day said they were unaffordable. And at that time that Government had the biggest surpluses this country had ever seen! 
This country is going through the toughest economic times that the world has seen in 70 years. Bill English has pulled together a magnificent Budget. The previous speaker who is now leaving the Chamber has never once told us what he would cut. Would he have cut the entitlements of the most vulnerable New Zealanders? Would he have done that? The answer is yes. That is exactly what he wanted us to do but we will not do that. We do not think it is fair to punish the most vulnerable New Zealanders for being the most vulnerable New Zealanders. 
The previous Labour Government took 9 years to deliver one personal tax cut after all the surpluses and all the opportunities. And it left the books in an utter mess. They have been rescued by this Budget. The Labour Party would rather we had borrowed on the credit card and invested the money in the bank at 5 percent interest. That is the sort of “Visa-nomics” being displayed by the Labour Party. That is why members opposite are so angry. They have no answers. That is why they were voted out and I hope they will continue to be voted out because that is what they deserve. It is an utter disgrace.
Vote: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4031] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Bridges Simon: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4031] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is that Part 2 stand— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Noes have it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have declared the result. I am now on to the next question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No. You said the Ayes have it and I said the Noes have it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: With all due respect the question had been put the vote had been cast and I had declared the result. There was no challenge to the question being agreed to.
Hutchison Paul: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4030] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The previous Chairperson Eric Roy wanted the debate to be relevant and to the point. We are getting very close to being off the subject. I will take one more speech from Mr Hipkins and I hope that he is on target.
Goodhew Jo: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4027] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4026] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a serious debate and coming as it does—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members can we just get to the gist of the point of order without prevaricating. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am speaking in support of your ruling. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next person who interjects on this point of order will leave the Chamber OK? This is a team warning. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am speaking in support of your ruling. I suspect that for people who are watching and listening this morning members are not doing credit to themselves or the subject matter. As you have said it is one thing to make witty and sometimes robust interjections—and I do so myself—but it is another for us to just drone on and drown out speakers. I think we have crossed the line this morning as a Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: With respect to the member I have dealt with that matter. I have done so already in respect of points of order. That was not a point of order; you were relitigating the point that I had raised. If you had wanted to reaffirm it you should have said so but it is not a point of order. I have dealt with the matter.
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4026] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Consequent to your ruling about appropriate interjections is it in order for a member to come into a battle of wits unarmed as Mr Quinn has? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order; that is an abuse of the process.
Horomia Parekura: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4026] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I feel really wounded by those callous remarks from the member directly across the Chamber. I demand that he apologise. I have never taken so much insult since I have been in this House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that I am not going to require that. If the member felt that he should have made a point of order at the time; he did not. I think this is a draw.
Barker Rick: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4026] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not need any assistance with this. The member is quite right: it is well ruled and it is well informed. I have been quite liberal about this rule because if everybody was required to sit in their seats the group would be scattered around the Chamber. I am quite tolerant of people moving forward so that this part of the Chamber is engaged when we are having a debate because I want it to be a debate. But having said that to sit in a position directly opposite the speaker and make a constant barrage of interjections that are not humorous or witty—and lack a whole range of things—stymies things. We are always open to humour and wit and a cutting remark adds to the flavour of the debate but the point that Mr Robertson has made is absolutely correct. I am not going to enforce the rule vigorously or rigorously if people do not take advantage of it.
Robertson H V Ross: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4025] 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. While we are on the subject members might like to look at Speakers’ rulings 63/3 and 63/1. They will note that it is incorrect to move to facilitate interjection. A number of members on the Government side of the Chamber are not sitting in their seats and are using their position to interject on members who are speaking. That is out of order.
Barker Rick: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4025] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I take the next call I say to members that the Chair is not part of the debate: “you did this” “you did that” “what did you do”—[ 
Interruption 
] Excuse me I am on my feet. I say to members that the Chair is not part of the debate. [ 
Interruption 
] Are we listening here? The Chair is not part of the debate and I want members to desist from constant barrages of “you”. I want members who are speaking to address the Chair as “the Chair” and not “you”. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Point of order Charles Chauvel. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. While— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Excuse me a point of order was called by Charles Chauvel. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I am sorry Mr Chair; I was seeking a call and then Mr Robertson was— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call Ross Robertson for a point of order.
Gilmore Aaron: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Gilmore Aaron: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4024] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4014] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Bennett David: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4014] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Woodhouse Michael: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4013] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Adams Amy: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Adams Amy: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4009] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 This morning we are discussing Part 1 of the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill as we were last night. Part 1 provides for the deferral of the tax cuts planned for 2010 and 2011. This Government does not want to have to do that but we understand that when one makes decisions in Government one has to make decisions— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When you started this speech last night you were proud! 
AMY ADAMS 
: —I am proud—based on what is best for New Zealand here and now. Let me tell members that right now New Zealanders need two things: security and a strong economy. This Budget gives them the beginnings of that. I can tell members that right now if the choice is to have the tax cuts or to build our economy for a strong recovery to create growth to create jobs to look to the future and to keep an extra 1.5 percent off interest rates the New Zealanders I have spoken to since the Budget was presented are all of the same view and that view is that it would be irresponsible to give the tax cuts now and irresponsible to let our debt balloon to 70 percent of GDP which Labour would have us do so that every family of four would have effectively a second mortgage of debt around their neck of $180000 per family. That is what that party wants; that party wants New Zealand to have $180000 of debt per family so that it can keep spending—never mind the consequences chuck it on the plastic and do not worry about the long term! 
That party does not care about stability; it would not know how to build a strong economy. That is why in November last year the New Zealand public made its choice and chose John Key and Bill English to lead us through these hard times. The New Zealand public did that because they knew that Labour was incapable of getting New Zealand through this recession. They knew that it was very good at spending money—that is not hard—but when it came to making hard decisions in turbulent ever-changing times they put their faith in a National Government. Yesterday with Bill English’s first Budget and with the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill giving effect to the first part of that we can see exactly why New Zealanders made that choice. We are not going to let debt cripple future generations of New Zealanders. I do not want my children growing up with a debt burden around their neck that is so massive that they have no chance of getting ahead and no chance of building a strong economy. This economy needs to have a minimum amount of debt.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:4021] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Let me take a couple of minutes to respond to the quite useful contribution from the member who has just preceded me. I am aware that as I do so a bolt of lightning may well strike me. Be that as it may the member’s analysis of what has happened is quite correct in terms of the way in which the banks have proceeded. As I said earlier the net uptake is somewhat fewer than 600 across the entire scheme. If that is taken across the number of registered providers we are down to a handful of numbers per provider and in some cases probably fewer than 100 per provider. So the economics of those providers’ provision of this particular facility start to mitigate against it. 
The second point that I make which I should have made earlier concerns my reference to the fact that I looked at this in the light of the changes that were made to KiwiSaver late last year. As the previous speaker said when mortgage diversion was provisionally proposed I think that the original concept was that people could divert money directly from their KiwiSaver payment to their existing mortgage payment. In fact we know now that that has not been the way it has worked in practice. It was seen as an advantage for first or new homeowners for couples with young families and presumably for those at the lower end of the income scale etc. One of the consequences of the shift to the “2 plus 2” contributions last year has been that the maximum net benefit obtained from mortgage diversion has been applied to people earning $104000 and above per year. Clearly then the social consequences of mortgage diversion—even if the scheme is working as designed—have been changed by the change to that contributions regime. 
We have the most perverse of outcomes now—and let us forget for a moment the total numbers of people who might have taken up mortgage diversion. We have in place a mortgage diversion scheme that was conceived to allow people to divert their KiwiSaver payments to pay off their mortgages but that has in fact ended up being a mortgage diversion scheme that means that people must meet their primary mortgage requirements and then they can use diversion for any additional payments. But really they have to be earning over $100000 for that to be worthwhile. I will make a partly political point: when members opposite talk about 3 percent of taxpayers getting 30 percent of the benefit from the tax cut package—we can debate that separately; and we will—the reality is that this would be exactly that type of instance. The number of people earning over $100000 in New Zealand is not great and the number of people earning over $100000 who are taking advantage of mortgage diversion is minimal. Frankly to address the provision seemed to be not worth the candle hence the decision simply to can it.
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3923] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Clause 1 not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will report the bill to the House informing it the Committee in rejecting clause 1 has rejected the bill. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3923] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3923] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Schedule not agreed to.
Peachey Allan: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3903] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am reluctant to take a third call on Part 2; however points need to be made. I am sick and tired of sitting over here listening to that Labour Party crowd over there rewrite history when the full truth was revealed in the Part 2 debate prior to the dinner adjournment. It was revealed by Mr Sio. 
I noted with interest the comment of the member in the chair that this bill was about looking after the most vulnerable. I would invite that member to reflect upon what she actually said just as I think that other members opposite need to do a little bit of reflection. They need to ask themselves where the consistency of their line is on the Part 2 debate because it became clear at about half past 5 that this was not all about the vulnerable it was not about the minimum wage; it was about the failure of the last Labour Government to live up to the crocodile tears that we are hearing tonight. That Labour Government when it had the opportunity could have hung its hat on a principle but no the need for Winston Peters to have a ministerial car a house and a self-drive car and the need for Labour members to keep their baubles meant that the people whom those members tonight in this Chamber say they care most about were expendable. 
Let us come back to Part 2. I come back again to the words “prescribed” and “Prescription” and I ask where this bill was in 2006 when Labour members were so busy doing their deals with Winston Peters to keep their salaries to stay in office and to have the nice cars. This bill was nowhere to be seen. In relation to the people they now claim to care most about—and the young member can take the snigger off his face because what I am saying is true—where was Part 2 in 2006? It was hidden because Labour had done a deal with Winston Peters. If one good thing has come out of the Part 2 debate it is that the truth has finally been revealed. Talk about shame—those Labour members should be ashamed of themselves.
Barker Rick: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3884] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This debate includes the schedules.
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3884] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Part 1 not agreed to.
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3884] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; 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.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3865] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not tell the House when he is questioning and he will take his seat. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am not questioning your ruling; I am questioning the member’s lies. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She just tells lies all the time. What am I to do about it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber for the rest of the day. I make it very clear that the member will be out of the House for the remainder of this sitting day. 
Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3864] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that Speakers in the past have taken a practice of playing a little bit of advantage when it is likely to lead to less disorder going forward. I want to tell the House—
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3864] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I finish the point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat when I am on my feet. The problem is that there is no provision under the Standing Orders for the member to question the quality of an answer. There is no provision for that and I cannot allow him to use a point of order to question the accuracy of an answer unless the member has taken personal offence and seeks leave to make a personal explanation. I did not write the Standing Orders but I have to uphold them. I apologise for sitting the member down but I have to do so.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Select Committees—Membership 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Select Committees—Membership 
[Volume:654;Page:3845] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Business Committee considered the matter only yesterday. I do not imagine that anything will have changed since yesterday evening so I do not propose to do that. There will be a Business Committee meeting next week and there will not be much business conducted by the special select committee in the meantime. As I understand it the committee has been called to meet for the first time tomorrow afternoon. The matter can be raised at the next Business Committee meeting if the member so wishes. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take a dim view of any wasting of the time of the House Mr Hughes. I have ruled on the matter. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see how it is possible to raise a further point of order but I will be generous and allow the member to try.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Select Committees—Membership 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Select Committees—Membership 
[Volume:654;Page:3845] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As long as it is not questioning my ruling. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No it does not question your ruling Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 182 which takes up the point you have made. It states that the Business Committee may appoint members to serve for a particular time on a particular matter. As you know the Business Committee is not scheduled to meet until next week. I wonder whether you as the chair of that committee would consider convening the committee so that we can have the issue resolved. I understand that the Government wants to get on with setting up the committee’s work and the Labour Opposition does as well but we are asking for some fairness around process. If you could convene the Business Committee we should be able to have the matter resolved.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Select Committees—Membership 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Select Committees—Membership 
[Volume:654;Page:3845] 
Mr 
 SPEAKER 
: I do not need further assistance on the matter because the point made by the Hon Rodney Hide is absolutely correct. The Speaker cannot overrule a decision of Parliament. As the Hon Darren Hughes has pointed out Standing Order 181 requires proportionality as far as is practicable; it does not say there should be absolute proportionality. The only option available to the member is to pursue the matter further through the Business Committee in the future should he so wish. I cannot as Speaker interfere in the matter now. That is where the matter must remain.
Tisch Lindsay: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3924] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The House having adopted the Committee’s report that it has rejected all the bill’s provisions does not set down the bill for a third reading despite Standing Order 301.
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3923] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
New Part 3 not agreed to.
Henare Tau: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3918] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I speak on behalf of the privileged party. It is a privilege to be a member of the National Party and to be in Government. I start with a quote—and I apologise to the writer if I get it wrong—with words to this effect: “The high rate of unemployment among teenagers and especially black teenagers is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum wage laws”. These have been “one of the most if not the most anti-black laws [ever]”. That quote was from Milton Friedman. I go back to what my colleague Mr Woodhouse said. This is not an argument about the minimum wage per se. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Yes it is. He hasn’t read it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I tell the member to pipe down or go back to kindergarten. 
This is not about the big battle of the minimum wage. It was the National Government under Rob Muldoon that brought in the Minimum Wage Act in 1983. The war the battle has been won and lost and stored away for posterity. We have here a way of creating another set of victims in society. The Labour Party acts like a predator on those victims. That is what this is about. This debate has astounded me with the abject lack of passion shown by the Left over this issue. This bill is nothing more than an apology for not doing anything in 9 years. All that Labour members can talk about is McDonald’s. Well no one on this side said anything about workers at McDonald’s. We said something about people who like to frequent McDonald’s but we did not say anything about those who work at McDonald’s. 
I heard Mr Bridges ask over and over during this debate which of the Labour members has had experience of doing a paper round. Not one! Well obviously Mr Hipkins has—he just finished it tonight. He was out on his little Raleigh 20 doing the paper round and supplementing his parliamentary wages. It is good that Mr Hipkins has finally owned up to giving up his paper round over the last couple of months. 
Seriously Part 3 is nothing more than some sort of Draconian buy in. Labour members want to show their political buy in to their mates in the unions—to show they have political commitment to a minimum wage. I tell members that the political commitment to the minimum wage is embedded in the Minimum Wage Act 1983. It is already there so it is nonsense to say that the National Government is against the minimum wage. It is like trying to go back to Gallipoli to fight the same battles but have a different outcome. We cannot change history. The battle about the minimum wage—in fact the battle about class—was won and lost in another era. We cannot turn back the clock to the good old days of the 1951 strike where everybody tattooed on their arm “I was a supporter of the ’51 strike!” and proudly wore that as some sort of badge of honour. This bill is nothing more than a sop.
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3914] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Part 2 not agreed to.
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3914] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to.
Peachey Allan: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3893] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am grateful to have the opportunity to continue my contribution to the debate on Part 2 of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. I note with interest that the previous speaker Grant Robertson did not seem to appreciate that he really needed to debate this part of the bill if the debate is to continue any longer. 
I acknowledge my colleague from Auckland Mr Sio who unlike so many of his colleagues attempted a reasoned and fair approach to the debate. By and large it has been a good debate with ideas flowing freely across the Committee which is how it should be. But Mr Sio finally hit the nail on the head. The difficulty Opposition members have had in debating Part 2 is that they actually cannot debate it. They are not prepared to confront the word “prescribed” which as I have already said in this debate occurs three times in three and a half lines five times in three clauses and again in proposed new section 6A. The difficulty that Labour has is that until Mr Sio spoke it did not adequately address the question of why if this bill and these clauses in Part 2 are so important to Labour it did not address them when it was in Government. 
Chris Hipkins 
: So much other good legislation. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I have long wondered what Mr Hipkins’ role is in the Labour Party. Now I realise he is there to make Mr Hughes look old. That is his sole function and it is good that they sit together in this Chamber. 
I will come back to my point. The reason Labour chose not to continue to pursue this bill when in Government was finally revealed. If members listen to what Labour members say they have to draw the conclusion that Labour let down their heartland supporters—those workers who through generations of family come good or bad voted Labour. Why did Labour do that? It did so because it chose instead to give the baubles of office to Winston Peters. That in effect is Labour’s explanation for why it did not die in a ditch and make the ultimate sacrifice for people who for generations and through families voted for Labour. I would think that the lower-paid workers in this country will be reflecting on that tonight and reflecting that the previous Labour Government would rather have given Winston Peters somebody to open the door of his chauffeur-driven car than have kept faith with its core supporters. It will not be lost on those people that it was the National Government that acted so quickly and so decisively to boost the minimum wage. That was even after the previous Government’s Minister of Labour Mr Mallard said in this Chamber that he did not have enough money to increase the minimum wage. Is it not interesting how keen those members are to spend other people’s money and to structure clauses in Part 2 that are clearly unworkable. It is important that this bill be defeated and I suggest to this Committee that it defeat it now.
Katene Rahui: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Katene Rahui: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3889] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I want to let it be known that the Maori Party feels so strongly about the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill that we are not only using our own votes we are co-opting members from outside of the House to vote with us. We are very clear about the need to do all we can to support whanau ora and to ensure that all whanau have the opportunity to set and achieve their ambitions in education employment health housing and so on. We are very pleased to take a call to support this bill as a component of building whanau ora in Aotearoa. It gives legal muscle to the principle of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. 
There has been a considerable amount of debate on the bill so far with lots of point-scoring backward and forwards but the actual matter at hand is very simple: all workers should have the right to minimum wage protection. In the current economic situation of decreasing job security and increasing living costs it seems more important than ever that all workers be guaranteed at least a minimum wage and all whanau be guaranteed a level of income that allows them the chance for whanau ora. The economic cards seem stacked against whanau at the present time. The price of petrol has increased by 39 percent in the last 5 years the price of food has increased by 22 percent in the last 5 years and there are 33700 more people out of work than this time last year 11200 of whom are Maori. In fact the unemployment rate for Maori has rocketed up from 8.9 percent to 12.6 percent in the last 12 months. 
Wages continue to be low. The median weekly income for Maori is $500 per week which is the average wage while the median wage for Pakeha is $575 per week. We remain in a situation where almost half of New Zealand taxpayers earn under $25000 per annum. This translates into too many whanau living in significant hardship including according to the  
Social Report 2008 
 16 percent of the children in New Zealand. That is the context that I urge members to consider in this debate. We also know—and this is backed up by local and international research—that the ability to earn a decent wage is important in order to combat not only the reality of poverty but also the social and cultural disconnectedness that economic violence brings in its wake. 
With job security plummeting the need to establish an official poverty line and set a date for its elimination is more critical than ever. Changes in the minimum wage over the last 10 years—from $7.55 in 1999 to $12.50 in 2009—have been hugely important in offsetting inflation rates over that period. Because all whanau are subject to inflation all workers and their whanau need the protection of minimum pay rates. Tena tatou.
Peachey Allan: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3884] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the chance to take a call to speak to Part 2 of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. If my history is as good as that of my colleague Mr Henare the year 1983 is of considerable significance. 
Clause 5(1) states: “After the commencement of this section the principal Act is called the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Act 1983”. If my recollection is correct in 1983 a National Government was in office. From 1983 through till today Labour has had 15 years in office. It has had two terms and every opportunity to have this sort of legislation sponsored by the Government. But no we find ourselves in a new Parliament with a Government that is facing some of the most severe financial and economic circumstances that this country has faced—not since 1983 but for 70 years—and we are still debating a member’s bill long after the electorate has spoken. I invite the member in the chair to consider that for a few moments and to consider whether it is her wish actually to proceed. We must be very clear about this. 
Some of the debate this afternoon has really troubled me as it did the last time we debated this bill a couple of weeks ago. To suggest that National is not committed to a minimum wage is wrong and bringing up that argument brings no credit to members on the other side of the Chamber. It is just as wrong to claim that National does not have a commitment to minimum protections for lower-paid workers. That sort of argument does no credit at all to the Labour Party for two very simple reasons: firstly 1983 was the year when the National Government brought about minimum wage legislation; and secondly—and of course the Labour Party has great difficulty with this now—it is a National Government that has moved very quickly and decisively despite financial and economic pressures to increase the minimum wage. We have to ask the question: if it was so simple and straightforward for a newly elected Government despite all the problems it inherited to do that why could not a Government that had been in office for 9 long years have acted as decisively? 
The other point of reference I make is to new section 4A “Prescription of minimum remuneration” inserted by clause 7. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the words “Prescription” “prescribing” and “prescribed” because they occur no fewer than five times in the space of only three subsections. In fact if we look at subsection (3) in new section 4 we see that “prescribed” occurs three times in three and a half lines. I suggest with all courtesy and humility to the member that a visit to  
Roget’s Thesaurus 
 might have given a few more alternative words to use. But I then remind myself that the Opposition is basically socialist. The term “Fabian” used in a description by my colleague was very well-used. The words “prescribed” “prescription” and “prescribing” are so much part of the socialist lexicon that that is why this bill must fail.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3864] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make this point relatively briefly; it relates to the answers to questions given by the Minister of Education. Twice or possibly three times during her answers she referred to comments that I had made when I had actually not made those comments—
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3862] 
11.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What plans does the Government have to support communities during the economic downturn? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Last week I was pleased to announce that we are establishing the Community Response Fund as a short-term fund to respond to immediate pressures faced by critical social services. Up to $40 million will be available in the first year for communities to support services they need with more available in year two. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Has the Minister seen any reports in the media about the Community Response Fund? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I have. An article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
titled “Social services welcome National’s Budget boost” said: “Social service agencies can hardly believe their luck after a National Government yesterday gave them more money for the coming year than the former Labour Government had planned despite intense pressure to cut spending in the recession.” The  
Otago Daily Times 
 said that voluntary organisations have welcomed this Government’s handouts to help them through the recession. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Could the Minister comment on the reaction of the non-governmental organisation sector to the announcement? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. I have had an extremely positive response from sector representatives. In particular I have seen media releases from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services that praise the Government for social services support. Relationship Services welcomes the new funding announcement. Barnardos welcomes the new Community Response Fund. Women’s Refuge said the Government’s plan to establish the new Community Response Fund is a “sensible measure to address the imminent impact of the recession.” 
Hon Annette King 
: Did she create a $40 million emergency fund that provides only one-off funding to hide the fact she intends to cut over $210 million allocated to help fully fund the essential services of up to 800 community organisations; if not will she give those groups her personal assurance today that they will receive the increases of up to 20 percent they were expecting in 2009 and 2010 as not to do so will mean a cut for those organisations? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am very pleased to answer the question. This Government has brought forward $20 million on top of the $20 million that was available via Pathways to Partnership because we understand that in this recession those social services desperately need the support now. They have an increase in demand and a decrease in the money coming in. I can assure the non-governmental organisations out there that the money from Pathways to Partnership is staying there. We are going to be working closely with them as we have in the past with this fund to discuss how to fund them and how to move forward in the future.