edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Schools—Public-private Partnerships 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Schools—Public-private Partnerships 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Trevor Mallard seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of the next step towards a public-private partnership for building and maintaining some new school property. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. This is an important matter but there must be an element of urgency for it to take precedence over other business. The announcement today is part of a continuing process. The business case is to be prepared which will include a decision on specific schools. In considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House it is also relevant to consider whether another parliamentary means of debating it is available. There will be other opportunities to debate the matter especially as the House will shortly debate the estimates. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter is one that can be considered over a longer time frame. The application is therefore declined.
Blue Jackie: Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Blue Jackie: Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12577. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I will speak briefly. I thank all members for their support of the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill. I am really pleased and delighted that it will go to a select committee and be merged with the Minister’s consumer reform legislation which he is bringing to this House hopefully later this year. I certainly hope it will be this year. I think the matters raised in this bill are urgent and have been of some concern for some time in the sector. The online issue is urgent because of the sheer number of transactions that occur on a daily monthly and yearly basis. I know that TradeMe has been extremely concerned. It brought in its own code of practice for professional sellers some 18 months ago because there was no legislation. It has been waiting for this legislation to come to the House. 
The loophole where if a consumer wins a competitive auction from a professional trader he or she is not covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act is not something that online bidders understand. Very good points have been made about educating the public about the Consumer Guarantees Act. Equally concerning is the issue of unnecessary extended warranties being bought. The fact is that often when consumers buy items and they buy extended warranties they are probably paying for protection consumers are already entitled to under the Consumer Guarantees Act or other consumer laws; or even their home and contents insurance policy may cover it and possibly the manufacturer’s warranty. But as the Minister indicated in her speech there may be situations where an extended warranty is entirely appropriate. 
Once again I thank members for their support. I think members have raised important issues which I am sure will be taken up at the select committee. I look forward very much to this bill becoming part of the consumer legislation the Minister is bringing to the House later this year. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12526. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent announcements has the Government made to get schools ready for ultra-fast broadband? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 At the end of last month the Minister for Communications and Information Technology and I announced the names of the next 239 schools to receive Government-subsidised network upgrades in preparation for ultra-fast broadband. These upgrades are being funded by the $37.5 million that the Government invested into making schools broadband-ready in Budget 2010. 
Louise Upston 
: How many schools has the Government offered upgrades to in total? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: With the addition of the 239 schools whose names were announced last month this Government has offered upgrades to 353 schools. That is huge progress over 21 months in the first term of this National-led Government. It also compares favourably with the previous Government which took from 2003 until 2008 to upgrade 259 schools. I look forward to making further announcements about upgrades again next year.
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12526. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Why did she sign off on a Cabinet paper which proposed removing 467517 hectares of land from schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 After a stocktake of schedule 4 officials recommended this figure. At the time the Minister of Energy and Resources and I were satisfied with the recommendation as an initial basis for discussion at Cabinet. As the member knows Cabinet subsequently reduced the proposal to a net total of 5000 hectares from schedule 4 and finally decided to remove nothing from schedule 4 and to add 12400 hectares. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: How does she reconcile her support for the removal of over 5000 hectares of land from schedule 4 protection with her statutory obligation under the Conservation Act to act as an advocate for the protection of New Zealand’s unique natural heritage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Quite easily. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What additional protections for conservation land have been agreed on by the Government? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: All land added to certain classes of protected areas will now be automatically added to schedule 4 without the need for a separate process. We will also require that significant applications to mine on public land are to be publicly notified. This was an issue that emerged from the submissions process which shows that we were listening. This process has led to some significant gains. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: How does she reconcile quite easily her support for the removal of over 5000 hectares of land from schedule 4 protection with her statutory obligation under the Conservation Act to act as an advocate for the protection of New Zealand’s unique natural heritage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have always said that I was happy to have a discussion paper—it was always a discussion paper not a decision paper—happy to go out to the public for feedback and then happy to listen to that feedback. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Why did not she as the Minister of Conservation approach John Key to scrap the Government’s mining plans on protected schedule 4 land rather than leaving it to Gerry Brownlee to do so as Mr Key told us happened yesterday? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think the member is making some misguided assumptions. There were many many discussions with Cabinet Ministers and members about the submission process the discussion paper and the public feedback that followed.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12525. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: What progress is the Government making with its multibillion-dollar infrastructure programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister for Infrastructure) 
: 
 Good progress while supporting thousands of jobs across New Zealand and helping the economy to grow faster. Today the Government announced that it would take the next steps towards a public-private partnership for building and maintaining some new schools. If the proposal proceeds the school land would be owned by the Government and the boards of trustees would remain wholly in charge of the governance and day-to-day running of the schools. Officials will now prepare a stage two business case which will include a decision on specific schools. The tender process could start early next year subject to Cabinet approval. 
Allan Peachey 
: Why is the Government considering public-private partnerships for building and maintaining some new schools? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government manages over $200 billion worth of assets on behalf of the taxpayer and we are willing to make use of any tool that will help us to do that. Public-private partnerships are proven internationally as a tool that can make a positive difference to the use of taxpayers’ assets. In April the Government announced that it intends to commission a new prison at Wiri to be built and operated under a public-private partnership. Post-implementation reviews of public-private partnerships overseas have found that often there is better financial risk management and better operational risk management and in the case of schools sometimes higher educational achievement. 
Allan Peachey 
: What are the benefits of public-private partnership - type procurement of school property? 
Hon David Parker 
: It hides the Government’s deficit! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Actually it does not because the public-private partnerships stay on the Government’s books and the member would know that if he knew what he was talking about. The main benefit is that— 
Hon David Parker 
: No you have to borrow less money. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker does not borrow any money. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member should do his homework; it stays on the Government’s books. The main benefit is that potentially principals and boards of trustees can get on with teaching without worrying about maintaining school property. But the Government is progressing cautiously in this area. The second-stage business case will be an opportunity to ascertain just what benefits there would be to principals and boards of trustees as well as what benefits there might be to the Government and ultimately of course to the New Zealand children who are educated in these schools.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12523. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: How was he able to make any estimate of the cost of taking GST off healthy foods when in his view defining what those healthy foods are is a real problem? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 On the face of it the member’s question may appear reasonable except that I did not make any such estimate. The estimate that I made was of the cost of removing GST from fresh fruit and vegetables which is a lesser figure. That estimate was made on the basis of figures used by Statistics New Zealand in calculating the rising costs of those items in the Consumers Price Index. 
Rahui Katene 
: Has he read my bill which defines “healthy foods” as including fruit and vegetables breads and cereals milk products but not cream lean meats and legumes; if so does he still stand by his statement that taking the GST off healthy foods is not viable due to the problem of defining healthy foods? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Yes and yes. The reality of the member’s bill is that it introduces a number of terms that will be difficult to quantify in practice. For example what is “lean meat” as opposed to “non - lean meat”? 
Rahui Katene 
: What analysis have his officials undertaken of the computerised model introduced in December 2009 by the Australian Taxation Office and does he agree that such a model makes GST food and beverage compliance extremely easy to manage; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The Inland Revenue Department has not spent a great deal of time analysing the ways in which other countries remove certain items from the GST net simply because it is not New Zealand’s policy to have a non-universal GST. When one looks at the experiences of defining some of these items in the Australian and the British context one sees that we would be extremely unwise to follow suit. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is the Minister prepared to push up taxes and prices on goods that the Government does not want people to consume like tobacco but not prepared to drop taxes and therefore prices on healthy foods like fresh fruit and vegetables when recent studies prove that this action leads to higher consumption of things that are good for people and is a very effective means of addressing the big obesity problem in New Zealand? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The answer is very simple: the products the member refers to are not easily defined. “Healthy foods” “fresh fruit and vegetables” or whatever other terminologies members choose to apply are very imprecise and difficult to categorise and simply make for ineffective law.
Urgent Debates Declined — Schools—Public-private Partnerships 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgent Debates Declined — Schools—Public-private Partnerships 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Schools—Public-private Partnerships 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Trevor Mallard seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of the next step towards a public-private partnership for building and maintaining some new school property. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. This is an important matter but there must be an element of urgency for it to take precedence over other business. The announcement today is part of a continuing process. The business case is to be prepared which will include a decision on specific schools. In considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House it is also relevant to consider whether another parliamentary means of debating it is available. There will be other opportunities to debate the matter especially as the House will shortly debate the estimates. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter is one that can be considered over a longer time frame. The application is therefore declined.
Wilkinson Kate: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilkinson Kate: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8278. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I conclude very very quickly by thanking the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—its chair David Bennett and its members—for the prompt and efficient passage of this bill through the committee. I also thank the House for unanimously endorsing it at least to this level. 
As we have explained this bill will enable the Remuneration Authority to take into account adverse economic conditions and will allow it as a result to set remuneration at a rate lower than it would have otherwise determined. The bill aligns the Remuneration Authority’s reporting requirements and makes some minor and technical amendments. I commend this bill to the House.
Garrett David: Voting — Correction—Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Garrett David: Voting — Correction—Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8277. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I regret having to rise to do this but I seek leave to alter our vote on the third reading of the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will accept the member’s point of order. Can the member tell us what he wants to do? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I was under the impression that we were permitted to cast only four votes but I have now learnt that we have sufficient number of members within the precincts to cast five votes against the third reading of the bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to alter the ACT Party vote against the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill from four votes to five votes. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection. We will alter the record. The Ayes are 116 the Noes are 5.
Blue Jackie: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Blue Jackie: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8277. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill. This bill has the support of all parties in the House and that is because it is the right thing to do in the current economic climate. The bill was considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and no changes were made. We invited submissions from all those individuals who would be affected; all supported the bill. 
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that public salaries reflect the current economic situation. In January when the depth of the recession was becoming evident the Prime Minister urged the independent Remuneration Authority not to increase MPs’ salaries in the coming year. The Prime Minister wrote to the authority to express the Government’s view that the authority should exercise restraint when next considering salaries within its jurisdiction. This bill is responding to public concern that salaries have continued to rise despite the difficult economic circumstances. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time.
Quinn Paul: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Quinn Paul: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8273. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I thank the National whip for allowing me to take a short call on the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill because I want to say a few words. I want to record that at the start of the process notwithstanding that I was always going to support this bill simply on the basis that it is a Government bill I had some personal reservations about it. Those reservations were particularly captured in the contribution of the leader of the ACT Party. 
When I entered into the select committee process I did so with some trepidation about my personal views and the fact that this was a Government bill. I am pleased to be able to stand here tonight and say that through the Justice and Electoral Committee and particularly because of the contribution and guidance of the chairman of that committee Chester Borrows and also David Parker I was able to be persuaded in a personal sense to support this bill in its totality. A lot of my change of mind has been captured in this debate but particularly in the poignant contribution of Chris Carter and also Lianne Dalziel’s final contribution. On that basis I just wanted to say those few words. It gives me great personal pleasure to support this bill.
Hughes Darren: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8278. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I see that the only omission members made tonight in the Committee stage was not inserting a Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that temporary Speakers and temporary Chairs of Committee could be recompensed for the very hard work they have been required to do this evening. I think that is an oversight on behalf of the Government and the Opposition in that particular respect. 
I join with the Minister of Labour the Hon Kate Wilkinson in thanking the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its work. The truth is that these are never easy issues to deal with. Parliament is required to make a decision on these things and the truth is we are on a hiding to nothing whenever we try to move in this area. But the intention of members in this particular case has been to do the right thing. The motion that the House moved earlier this year was taken up by the Remuneration Authority and we are now passing a law to ensure that the conditions of the country in terms of the economy will be one of the factors considered by the authority in determining the remuneration of a small group of New Zealanders who are paid a lot more than the ordinary person. 
I think that the privilege we have in serving in this House and being servants of the public means that we have to be mindful that many of the people who send us here to advance their views and values regardless of how they may vote are paid a lot less than we are and work equally as hard. Those values will now be reflected in the Remuneration Authority Act and that can only be a good thing. The non-partisan nature of the passage of this bill shows how serious parliamentarians are about serving all of the communities that we represent. The Opposition commends the bill for its third reading. 
Bill read a third time.
Bennett Paula: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett Paula: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8266. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the partial defence of provocation. Provocation is included in section 169 of the Crimes Act and states that a verdict of murder can be reduced to manslaughter if the offender can show that the crime was committed under provocation. Recent examples have illustrated the significant issues posed by this defence. Extensive consideration by the Law Commission and other bodies has emphasised the need for the defence to be abolished. It is with pride that I stand in support of the bill on behalf of my party. I will defer to the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee Chester Borrows who will contribute more fully to this debate on our behalf.
Vote: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8266. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Report adopted.
Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8266. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted.
Vote: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8265. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5; 
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 117 Noes 5.
Groser Tim: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Groser Tim: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8258. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee on the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill to take the bill as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.
Quinn Paul: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Quinn Paul: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8254. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill but in doing so I register a note of caution in terms of comments that the previous speaker Charles Chauvel made about submissions from the Law Society and other law-associated organisations. He cast them off as mere contributions from a trade union which in itself I find ironic. 
I note that my two esteemed lawyer colleagues Simon Bridges and Chester Borrows sympathise with those comments but I as an ordinary simple man think that some caution has to be registered. In my view we cannot lightly dismiss the cautions and expressions of concern that the Law Society and various law-associated groups have expressed. 
The commentary on the bill shows that the select committee members agreed that sufficient flexibility is provided by section 9 of the Sentencing Act. In reality that places a very heavy burden on a judge and our system of justice is actually based on 12 ordinary people. I want those comments to be registered and on that basis I am very happy as part of this Government to support the bill.
Beaumont Carol: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Beaumont Carol: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8265. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Did the Maori Party just cast 5 votes in favour? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes the Maori Party cast 5 votes in favour.
Vote: Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8248. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Hughes Darren: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8278. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 Part 1 sets out the countervailing economic conditions that the Remuneration Authority will be asked to take into account while making its determination as it is required to do on an annual basis. I think it is important for the record of the House to point out that although in the current economic conditions this year members of Parliament recommended that there be no salary increase this bill is written in a way so as to not ensure that that is an annually recurring thing—that the wages of members of Parliament would be frozen. To give that effect would have had unintended consequences right across the public sector and indeed into the private sector. Rather by structuring the bill in this way the Government has ensured with the support of the Opposition parties that the economic conditions of the day are one of the many factors that the authority has to consider. So Part 1 is certainly supported by us and that provision is the bulk of that part. 
Part 2 sets out a number of other amendments to the principal Act including a change in the date of the annual report of the authority. I am not clear from the bill or the select committee report whether that alters the date that the determination is required to be made or whether the authority will continue to be required to make a 1 July determination. Often the authority misses the date for its determination and it reports maybe in October or November but for the period that we are already in. The Minister of Labour is indicating to me that that does not alter the requirement for the determination—simply the annual report. The Minister of course in her second reading speech outlined some of the other positions that are required to be adjudicated on by the authority that it is important are brought up to speed. 
It is a very small bill; there are only three debatable questions here at the Committee stage with two parts to the bill. I have referred to Part 1 the bulk of the bill and Part 2 has consequential amendments. So that is the only contribution that the Labour Opposition on behalf of all Opposition parties wishes to make at this time. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Kedgley Sue: Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kedgley Sue: Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8245. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The previous speaker Craig Foss said that there was consensus all round on the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill. I will clarify by saying that actually there is not complete consensus in this House because the Green Party will be opposing this bill. 
People have suggested that it is simply a technical bill and it is true that there are some technical issues in here that the Greens support. The bill clarifies issues around for example the waste disposal levy which the Green Party supports but overall the consequential changes in this bill are changes to the original bill. It was introduced in mid-December 2008 just after the election and it was a bill that we strenuously opposed. These changes flow out of that original bill and for that reason the Green Party opposes them. We oppose them because we oppose the giving of very large very substantial tax cuts to the well-off while giving absolutely zero—zilch—to those who earn under $40000 a year. We believe it is immoral and unethical because by doing that we are further increasing the already huge gap between rich and poor in New Zealand and the incredible inequality we have in New Zealand. 
The extraordinary thing is that thanks to the policies of the 1980s and 1990s New Zealand has become a world leader in inequality. New Zealand may not be a world leader in many things any more but it has become a world leader in inequality because our society is becoming more and more unequal. In fact it has become more unequal at a faster rate than any other country on the planet. That is extraordinary. It is something we should be deeply ashamed of and this bill which amends the original bill will continue to make our society more unequal at a faster rate than that of any other country on the planet. This bill is making amendments to a bill that gave very substantial tax cuts to the well-off and nothing to those who earn under $40000 a year. Through that original bill we effectively will force New Zealanders to borrow around $10 billion over the next 10 years because of those tax cuts to the wealthy. This means that we will have to borrow more from future generations to fund those tax cuts. 
I also point out that not only is it unethical to have this sort of tax policy but also it is bad policy. When tax cuts are given to those who are paid under $40000 a year they tend to spend that money so it is stimulatory whereas when tax cuts are given to the very rich as the original bill did in general they tend to save that money. The Green members think that although this bill contains a number of consequential and technical amendments that we do not oppose we opposed the original bill and therefore we oppose these amendments to that original bill. Thank you very much.
King Colin: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Colin: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8280. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak during the third reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. In doing so it would be appropriate to bring to the House’s attention that the bill was sent to the Primary Production Committee on 8 September and here we are it is only 26 November and the bill is being read a third time. That illustrates the urgency with which the Government is implementing appropriate biosecurity deterrents for people who arrive here by ship or by plane. Essentially that is what the bill is dealing with. 
The bill amends the present Biosecurity Act and it does so because as was mentioned in the first reading debate a tension now exists between the importance of agriculture and the importance of tourism. We have some 3 million - odd visitors a year coming to New Zealand and we have to have appropriate border controls so that we also protect our agricultural sector. In the first instance we have raised the instant fine to $400 and in a case where court action is necessary we have raised the fine to $1000. The bill also implements a single infringement regime and the Act itself then empowers the fines and appropriate infringement regime into regulation. It is also important to realise that MAF Biosecurity is doing a lot to improve the declaration that people will be given. 
It is important for New Zealand to maintain its “100% Pure New Zealand” image and its clean green perception throughout the world because we have a platinum level of food safety. When we look back over the last 9 years of the previous Labour Government we see 340 biosecurity incursions. It is very very important that we do better than that. This Government is determined that its performance around that will be measured in a far brighter light because we realise that the economy of New Zealand today has two very strong twins. One is tourism and one is agriculture. As long as we have people coming through our ports we will find that we need to be very vigilant. This is the first time in 10 years that those fines have been raised. Where the level of the fines sits at the moment has got to the stage where people are tempted to not declare or dispose of things that they should not have in their possession. 
I speak in support of this bill and it is a pleasure to do so during its third reading. The amendments this bill brings to the Biosecurity Act are very very appropriate. On that basis I support this bill and recommend it to the House.
Vote: Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8243. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Parts 1 to 5 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Parts 1 to 5 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8237. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee on the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill to take the bill as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection.
Vote: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Tariff Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Tariff Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8237. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Tariff Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bills read a third time.
Dean Jacqui: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Tariff Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Tariff Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8235. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading debate on the Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill which has been divided. In his speech in the second reading Green member Keith Locke raised his concern with regard to free-trade agreements and the amendments contained in this bill. The Government Administration Committee looked very carefully at those issues and clause 23 of the original bill inserts a couple of new sections into the Customs and Excise Act to allow provisions contained in or prepared under international trade agreements to be incorporated by reference into regulations under the Act. This means that instead of repeating the provisions in the Act the regulations can simply refer to them. The provisions would be given legal force by the regulation but would not be set out in the regulations themselves. 
The objectives of the legislation are: to ensure the orderly administration of the law to modernise legislation to meet new technologies such as SmartGate to rectify legislative gaps and inconsistencies identified within border legislation and to fully meet our international obligations including very importantly those relating to cross-border crime. This legislation achieves those objectives. 
I thank the members who sat on the select committee for their good work. I also thank the officials who assisted the committee. I commend this legislation to the House.
Wilkinson Kate: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilkinson Kate: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8277. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee on the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill to take the bill as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection.
Williamson Maurice: Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williamson Maurice: Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8228. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee on the Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill to take the bill as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not.
Vote: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Carter Chris: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter Chris: Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8265. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I stand to support the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill. After listening to the previous speaker David Garrett I say that I am a parent and I am a gay man and I could hear the dog whistle in that speech. It was all about molestation; all that emotive stuff that has been used all too often as an excuse for bigotry and prejudice. 
Mr Garrett did not say it although I did sense that it was there in the background but all too often people have stood up in the New Zealand courts and said: “I killed that guy because he hit on me.” I would like to ask the women in this Chamber how many times they have been hit on in their lives when they did not want it. It is probably lots of times. It was offensive degrading and it made them angry but it did not give them the excuse to kill someone. They did not have that excuse but that excuse has been used so often in the defence of people who killed gay men. They said they were so offended that a guy hit on them. I say again that the women in this Chamber know what that means. They know how offensive it is but it does not give someone an excuse or a reason to kill another person. Saying no is enough and if that does not work there are other strategies and mechanisms that can be used but we do not kill someone. 
I do not think there is any excuse to give someone a licence to exhibit their prejudice. After all where would end? It still sits there with gay men. It used to sit there with race. I suspect in some cases it probably still does and that is totally unacceptable. Once it sat there with religion. My ancestors came from Ireland which is a nation that was divided on religion. Religion was used as an excuse to kill people. No one would accept that today and no one should accept sexual orientation as a basis to kill someone or to excuse their actions in murder or violence. 
I say to Mr Garrett and to those who are opposed to this legislation that our law is robust. It is designed to keep people safe and it has processes that are tried and true. There should be no loophole for a person to use prejudice to excuse actions that are illegal. Thank you.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8217. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12.  
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What is the Government doing to make government data more easily accessible to New Zealanders? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Earlier this month the Government launched a new website administered by the Department of Internal Affairs called data.govt.nz. The website is a catalogue of publicly available Government data and is a great resource for the public. This is part of a drive to make non-personal Government data more discoverable usable and relevant to all New Zealanders. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What feedback has the Minister had on this new initiative? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: There has been a great deal of positive feedback about this new website in particular from the  
National Business Review  
and from people in the UK USA and Australia. I understand that Opposition MP Chris Hipkins is also a big fan. He has publicly commented: “I think it would be hugely useful for researchers journalists analysts businesses in fact just about anyone! Keep up the good work DIA …”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is coming close to the end of a sitting period so I guess a bit more noise is to be expected.
Macindoe Tim: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:8219. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Members of the public who were listening to that contribution from Dr Prasad on the Corrections (Use of Court Cells) Amendment Bill or who perhaps were following this debate before the lunch adjournment must be bewildered and confused by the inconsistent and dogma-ridden contributions of the Opposition members. Yet again we have heard Labour members conveying one view with their tone their body language and most of their comments but another view altogether when they actually stated their voting intentions in respect of the bill. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Come on Van Dyck! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: It is not too late for Mr Hughes to go online and donate generously to my Movember effort and I welcome and look forward to his contribution. Please do that Darren; I need all the friends I can get! 
Along with my colleagues on the Government side of the House I welcome this measure which will certainly be of benefit in the Waikato region where the problems that this bill is designed to overcome are of increasing concern. [ 
Interruption 
] It is a very good moustache Ms Dalziel; thank you for your admiration of it. The issues and purposes of this bill have been well explored and articulated by my Government colleagues during this debate. I join them in commending this measure to the House.