edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Barker Rick: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barker Rick: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20280] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was just going to address the point that you have come to. I started to take a point of order but you continued on. I thought the way you were describing it then that if a motion to report progress was defeated then a motion to report progress could not be put again until the bill had completed its passage through the Committee stage. I thought that was several steps too far. But what I think you have done is clarify the situation to say that if a motion to report progress is put at a certain point and the Committee decides against it then that is a matter for that particular part or clause of the bill that is being considered. Once the Committee makes another decision such as deciding to approve that clause or part the Committee starts on a clean sheet of paper again and at that point the House can reconsider the matter if it wishes to. I think that is quite a sensible approach to take. If it had been open-ended then we could have had a bill for which a procedural motion to refer it could have been prohibited for the time that the bill sat in that particular Committee stage of the whole House.
Smith Lockwood: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20277] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. The first issue is that the motion that the Committee report progress can be made only by a member who has the call. It cannot be made by way of a point of order. So it may be questionable whether that motion was actually in order at the time. As I understand it though that is not the crucial issue that I have been recalled to rule on. 
The interesting crucial issue as I understand it that I have been recalled to rule on is whether once the Committee has made a decision the same procedural motion can be put an endless number of times. This is an interesting issue of order. I well understand why you Mr Chairman ruled the way you did because normally once the Committee or the House has voted—especially once the Committee has voted—on a matter that is normally the end of that matter in respect of legislation. If the Committee has decided on an amendment that is the end of that matter. Endless further amendments cannot be put to try to overturn that decision. 
With this particular procedural issue I must confess that I am not 100 percent certain that the same rules apply. I will seek some advice on this one. What troubles me—and I will be honest with the House—is that Standing Orders provide for the Committee to make a decision to report progress for the report to be made and for the House to then vote on that matter. If we end up in a situation where endless motions can be put to the Committee to report progress which are all defeated we end up in a totally unworkable situation. That clearly is not in the interest of the House. I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard before I seek advice on it.
McClay Todd: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
McClay Todd: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20299] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 The senior Labour whip is correct. However when he had finished his point of order and you had ruled you gave me the call at that stage. You called Todd McClay to speak. That was the point at which you gave the call to me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is my recollection so I will hear Todd McClay.
Mallard Trevor: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20276] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the motion to report progress was out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. [ 
Interruption 
] I think the Committee needs to just consider this. I will put the question again.
McClay Todd: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
McClay Todd: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20300] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hayes John: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hayes John: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20324] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
King Colin: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
King Colin: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20302] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mallard Trevor: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20281] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the motion to report progress was out of order. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Vote: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20283] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Sue Moroney. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call Moana Mackey.
Vote: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20275] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Committee report progress. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Progress reported.
Henare Tau: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Henare Tau: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20312] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call but I will take a call on clause 8 because the challenge from members opposite is about nothing more than snobbery. So what if I have not been to university? Whoop-de-do members opposite have been to university. We have heard really great stories about what universities have done and what students associations have done but not once did members opposite talk about the right of somebody to walk into a place and choose which organisation to belong to. I tell members what if membership of a students association was as good as that then people would sign up and join up in droves. If it was like membership of the National Party it would be damn good but if it was like membership of the Labour Party—falling and doing nothing—I would understand. 
When we have a debate about democracy and choice in this Chamber I love it when the Fabians opposite get up on their hind legs— 
Hon Member 
: The communists. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh look they talk about freedom and the rights of the individual but they want to force people— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Rubbish! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is not rubbish. We are not in Germany in 1933. We do not live in those times any more. Keith Locke talked about activism and the good old days of activism the Vietnam War the Springbok Tour and blah-blah-blah. This is 2011 and it is time that membership of a students association was made not compulsory but by choice. 
Like I say and I reiterate this point if membership was good and if it did what members opposite said it does then people would be lining up on orientation day to sign on the dotted line. But they are not. In fact thousands of students are forced into belonging to an association. I will give members an example. My son was signed up by a law not by the students association coming to him and talking to him about it. He was signed up and had to pay his money without a by-your-leave or a thank you very much. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Those members love it do they not? If that is the sort of democracy that members opposite love— 
John Hayes 
: More tax. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —and if that is the sort of tax they want on young people fine. 
While I am on my feet I say that members opposite accused me of changing my mind. I have news for the Committee and I have news for the Labour Party. Phil Goff changed his mind on State asset sales. He is allowed to do that but I am not. What is the difference? I know what the difference is and the snobbery of Rajen Prasad and other members opposite about the fact that I did not go to university just shows where the argument is. I will close with this: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”.
Mallard Trevor: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20298] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s refusal to put a request for leave for a document to be tabled.
Motions — Syria—Shooting of Demonstrators 
Motions — Syria—Shooting of Demonstrators 
[Volume:674;Page:20241] 
Wednesday 3 August 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Syria—Shooting of Demonstrators 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this House condemn the shooting of peaceful demonstrators in Hama and other Syrian cities and call upon the Syrian Government to enter into a serious national dialogue to chart a transition to democratic government. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20275] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly reasonable point of order. Those who have been in this House for a while will well remember how this Standing Order is used. Any member although they cannot interrupt a speaker can when taking a call move that the Committee report progress. The House votes on that matter and it is the decision of the House to report progress. That is the end of the matter. The matter can come up again next sitting day. That is how the matter is handled. I do therefore set the bill down for further consideration next sitting day. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move that the matter that has just been set down for next sitting day be brought forward to today again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure under what Standing Order the member is moving that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One does not need a Standing Order to move a procedural motion. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are three subclauses to Standing Order 177. The member moved the motion referred to in subclause 177(1). That is the end of the matter. The House has voted on it. She did not move a motion along the lines of what is in subclause (2).
Douglas Roger: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Douglas Roger: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20294] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Points of Order — Care of Children Law Reform Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Care of Children Law Reform Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:674;Page:20241] 
Points of Order 
Care of Children Law Reform Bill—Leave to Introduce 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Care of Children Law Reform Bill—a member’s bill in my name—and to have it set down for first reading as member’s order of the day No. 1. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Barker Rick: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barker Rick: Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20297] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a submission from the Albany Students’ Association and its supplementary submission No. 7 to this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Point of order— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Just to interrupt that point of order I think you omitted to rule that the submission not be tabled. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: If I did it was an oversight. So leave is not granted.
Roy Eric: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20275] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
.
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:20019] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a third time.
Hague Kevin: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Hague Kevin: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19995] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Nga mihi nui ki a koe. The Green Party has supported this Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill at every stage until this time and we will continue to do so tonight. 
I will make a brief contribution to record the basis for our support because in recent days and weeks an unsavoury element has been creeping into New Zealand politics. It is an element that we reject. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand stands on our charter and our charter sets out four principles: ecological wisdom social responsibility non-violence and appropriate decision-making. It also stands on a preamble and that preamble commits us to honouring the Treaty of Waitangi. For the sake of clarity it is specific about our intent to honour the Maori wording of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—in other words the original Treaty that was signed at Waitangi. That Treaty in our view provides us with the licence for Pakeha people to live in this country. So for our nation to move forward we believe that it is important that we go back to that Treaty and that we do our utmost to honour its provisions. 
This bill is about attempting to be honourable about the breach—the disenfranchisement of a people—of that Treaty. For that reason we support the bill and will continue to vote for it including at this reading. That is all I have to say.
Quinn Paul: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Quinn Paul: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19997] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Tena koutou e te Whare. Being one who has always been conscious of my limitations and being advised to focus on my strengths I do not want in my contribution to this debate to comment on the spelling of “Whanganui” or “Wanganui” because I take my guidance from my relation across the other side and defer to him on matters of tikanga. I thought that I would focus instead in my small contribution to this debate on explaining firstly what is happening with this bill the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. What is actually happening is that having settled the Ngati Apa claim just one of many claims that this Government has settled in a very short period—I think it has been something like 16 or 17 claims in 3 years as opposed to how many in 9 years? 
Chris Tremain 
: 16. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Sixteen claims in 9 years. We have achieved in 3 years what the previous administration achieved in 9 long years. Having settled the Ngati Apa claim part of that settlement had half of the Wanganui Forest going to Ngati Apa. A cross-claimant to that forest was the Whanganui iwi group which had a claim to the bottom half of the forest and similarly with the Whanganui Prison land. Having if you will settled the rightful owners to those particular two assets the Government has taken a very pragmatic step. Because the Whanganui party agreed that in any settlement going forward it wanted those two assets this Government has got on with the job and given those assets on account as part of a future full and final settlement. That provides assets a capability and a resourcing to those claimants. 
A very big issue in the Treaty settlement process is claimants having resource and this is one way that this Government has been able to help claimants to negotiate in a position of strength by providing these resources to them as they move forward in settling their full claim. I think that is a great innovation by this Government and one that I am sure we will take forward in future settlements. With those few words I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19988] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 The Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) is part of the reforms that were initiated by the National-led Government. The bill has support across all the parties of the House. The main changes in the bill are that voters can register online and change their details online. The bill also includes amendments that will give voters the option of enrolling and of communicating changes to their enrolment details via the internet. Initially the igovt log-on service was developed by the Department of Internal Affairs. Enrolment offences are to be amended to ensure they cover internet-based acts. The amendments will improve the enrolment service meet electoral expectation maximise enrolment and reduce electoral administration costs. 
This bill is stage one of a two-stage process that aims to eventually give electors the option of full online enrolment. For the full enrolment development a higher security level is required. The Department of Internal Affairs is developing the igovt identity verification service which is also known as IVS. It will require the users to verify their identity online in real time. The identity verification service is intended for use of the full online enrolment option. The two-stage process is necessary to ensure that the integrity in the electoral roll is maintained. I commend this bill to the House.
Finlayson Christopher: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19990] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill be now read a third time 
. As the introduction to the commentary to the bill says this is an on-account settlement bill. It is intended to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of on-account settlement relating to the transfer of assets in an on-account settlement of the historic claims of Whanganui iwi. The river and the land claims are yet to be negotiated although I am hopeful that we will do that very soon because Whanganui iwi have been waiting for a just and durable settlement of their grievances—particularly in relation to the river—for many years. It is interesting to look at the history of the river claim. It began in about 1887. Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of their case to the Court of Appeal. They desperately deserve a good settlement. 
This bill frankly should have been passed some months ago. Unfortunately the Committee of the whole House stage was evidenced by a very disappointing filibuster from Labour which was probably out of spite for Mrs Turia’s courageous and principled stand on the hated Foreshore and Seabed Act. After this debate I intend to copy the records of  
Hansard 
 of the Committee stage and send it to Whanganui iwi. They will see just how pointless and empty the Labour contribution to the debate during the Committee stage was. In 9 years Labour managed very few settlements indeed and all it could do with this on-account bill was filibuster. 
It is interesting that Mr Grant Robertson is in the House because I know he thinks he is the very apotheosis as it were of the art of filibustering because of his little Royal Society bill. The filibustering over that bill is nothing compared with what those members did with this bill. I am very disappointed in Mr Horomia because he and I always take a bipartisan approach to these negotiations. He is basically a good bloke but I have to say that the Labour contribution during the Committee stage was pitiful. The bill is very short. As I said it is an on-account bill. We really must move on so I commend the bill to the House.
Henare Tau: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Henare Tau: Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19993] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. It is lovely to see you again. I too will say a couple of words in support of the passage of the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. I congratulate the people at home in Whanganui the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister’s staff in the Office of Treaty Settlements on a job well done. I also thank the members of the Maori Affairs Committee who did a sterling job when we visited Whanganui and heard from the local people. Although there were a few raruraru I think we will always get that. 
I too use this brief moment in time to comment on the select committee’s recommendation that the word “Wanganui” be changed to “Whanganui” wherever it occurs in the bill—from clause 1 the title of the bill. I will read from the select committee’s commentary on the bill. “We heard from the Southern Whanganui Cluster Working Party that they strongly feel that the spelling of Whanganui should be with an ‘h’. On 18 December 2009 the Minister of Land Information announced his decision to assign the alternative official geographic names ‘Whanganui’ and ‘Wanganui’ and stated his expectation that Crown agencies would adopt the ‘Whanganui’ form over time. We also strongly feel that Whanganui should be spelt with an ‘h’. Accordingly we recommend amending the spelling of ‘Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison’ and ‘Northern Part of Wanganui Forest’ to ‘Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison’ and ‘Northern Part of Whanganui Forest’ throughout the bill with the exception of the reference in clause 4 to the Corrections (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison) Notice 2008 but including clause 1 the title clause.” 
It is easy to sidetrack ourselves from the main part of the bill which is a Treaty settlement but the recommendation is really interesting and I commend the select committee for it. I also commend the Government and the House for accepting the recommendation of the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.
Goudie Sandra: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19978] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to take a call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). This is a bill that traditionally has the support of all members of the House. There is no need to expand on it at any great length. It will be going to the Regulations Review Committee for that additional oversight. I commend the bill to the House.
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19983] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). Electoral law is very very topical. That of course is because Labour does not seem to know how to follow it. I will not go through the history in 2005 2008 and then again most recently. I put it down to a lack of quality lawyers in the Labour Party. For a number of years now there has been a lack of quality lawyers. Of course there is Charles Chauvel but he was an employment law partner and I have had my doubts about employment law as an area of law for some time now. But in any event—[ 
Interruption 
] That got them going did it not? In any event it is good to speak on this bill— 
Hon Member 
: Lynne Pillay’s a lawyer. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: No she is a bush lawyer. It is good to speak on this bill which transfers the functions of the Chief Registrar of Electors to the new Electoral Commission— 
Lynne Pillay 
: Or so these notes say. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —and makes other changes. Well I would like to speak at length on this bill. The bill makes other changes to the administration of electoral enrolment as well. It is a technical and administrative bill. 
I see Stuart Nash on the other side of the House. He of course is probably single-handedly responsible for what Labour got wrong with its ads recently. But I do not have time for those sorts of comments. I commend this bill to the House.
Heatley Phil: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Heatley Phil: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19981] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move  
That the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its careful consideration of this bill and for its unanimous support. Widespread cross-party support will ensure that this reform is enduring and that we maintain a stable system of electoral administration. 
This bill is the second stage of the process to integrate New Zealand’s electoral agencies into a single agency. In October last year a new Electoral Commission was established which took on the functions of both the Chief Electoral Officer and the former Electoral Commission. This bill transfers the function of the Chief Registrar of Electors including responsibility for the electoral roll to the Electoral Commission. Having one electoral agency will allow a more cohesive and strategic approach to electoral administration and will provide an accessible one-stop shop for the public and stakeholders. 
The bill also implements three recommendations from the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry into the 2008 general election which are designed to improve the integrity of the electoral roll and maximise enrolments. The bill also provides for an online re-enrolment service which is the first step in a process that will eventually allow people to enrol using the internet. 
The main recommendation by the select committee is to bring forward the implementation date for the transfer of the functions of the Chief Registrar of Electors to the Electoral Commission from 1 October 2012 to 1 July 2012. This change will reduce administration costs by aligning the transfer date with the beginning of the 2012-13 financial year therefore avoiding part-year reporting. The committee also recommended updating the types of contact information that may be provided to the Maori Affiliation Service regarding consenting Maori electors. Finally the committee recommended a number of amendments to clarify drafting and make cross-references to the Electoral Act which will ensure that electoral legislation is accurate and up to date. I support the committee’s recommendations and consider that they will strengthen the bill and contribute to its objectives. 
In transferring responsibility for enrolment services to the Electoral Commission this bill improves the administration of our electoral system. The bill also takes advantage of modern technology to increase the efficiency of our enrolment service and to improve the integrity of the electoral roll. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Vote: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19980] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a first time.
Wilkinson Kate: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19970] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the  
Acting  
Leader of the House: I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be referred to the Regulations Review Committee for consideration that the committee report finally to the House on or before 12 September 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
This bill is required each year because it contains various orders and regulations that must be validated or confirmed by the Parliament. If the House chooses not to validate or confirm any items of delegated legislation they will lapse. This is a small but important bill that traditionally receives the support of all members of the House on the basis that the orders and regulations tend to be routine and technical in character. This is certainly the case again this year. The bill validates or confirms orders and regulations under a range of legislation including the Commodity Levies Act 1990 the Customs and Excise Act 1996 the Land Transport Act 1998 the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964 the Tariff Act 1988 the War Pensions Act 1954 and the Wine Act 2003. The bill will go to the Regulations Review Committee and as it does each year the committee will I am sure give the bill a careful and thorough examination on behalf of the House. I commend this bill to the House.
Burns Brendon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Burns Brendon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:19950] 
9. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement on the BBC Hardtalk programme where he said he didn’t share Massey University scientist Mike Joy’s view on the state of our rivers saying “he’s one academic and like lawyers I could provide you with another one to give you a counter view”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and ain’t that the truth! 
Brendon Burns 
: Can we presume that the Prime Minister does not share the counter view of Professor David Hamilton president of the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society who said that the Yale University research the Prime Minister used to justify his “100% Pure” claim is outdated and has no credibility? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I have the Yale University report with me. It is from 2010 so I do not think it is terribly outdated because it is a year old. Maybe I could quote from one of the other scientists who presented at the same conference that Mike Joy attended Ken Hughey from Lincoln University. His slide said that the “Perceived state of NZ freshwater is good—a view supported by science;”. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that Professor Hamilton leads research on the $90 million clean-up of the Rotorua lakes which the Government is funding and that although Waikato University has unsuccessfully requested the data used by Yale University Waikato University’s own independent research suggests that New Zealand is in about the middle of the international water quality scale not at No. 2 as the Prime Minister would have us believe? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If New Zealand is at the level that the member is proposing why did he sit around for 9 years and let Labour do absolutely nothing about it other than allow further deterioration? 
Brendon Burns 
: Does the Prime Minister also doubt research by Waikato University PhD student Jonathan Abell who compared 134 New Zealand lakes with 1500 internationally and found that our lakes have a water quality score of 66.7 percent as opposed to the 99.2 percent overall rating the Prime Minister quoted to the House on 10 May? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not seen the research but the member is backing up my exact point: there are scientists and some hold one view and some hold another. Just like lawyers and just like economists they all have a range of views. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government’s new National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management does not require regional councils to adopt water quality standards until 2030 and can he identify any other water quality scientist who says the Government’s national policy statement is sound environmental policy? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and that is what the board recommended.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:19945] 
5. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “we have always been clear that if there was to be any change to our policy on State-owned assets in any way we would seek the support of New Zealanders at an election and that is exactly what we will do”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. The Government said it would not sell shares in State-owned companies in this term of Parliament and we have not. We said if the policy changed we would tell New Zealanders and campaign on it in the next election. That is what we will do. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: In light of his promise not to change his policy on State-owned enterprises before the election why has Treasury appointed Deutsche Bank and Craigs Investment Partners to prepare the four State-owned energy companies for sale? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: To do exactly that: prepare them for sale in the event that a National Government is re-elected. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that Budget 2011 banks $3.6 billion in revenue for asset sales for future spending does this show that his income tax cuts—42 percent of which went to the top 10 percent—were unaffordable and have left the Government’s books in a very poor state? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. What it shows is that Cabinet made a decision to have a net zero capital allowance over the next 5 years. The way that we intend to do that is to extend the mixed-ownership model as the previous Government did with Air New Zealand. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why is Treasury spending $6 million before the election to begin carrying out his change in policy on State-owned assets when he promised that “if there was to be any change to our policy on state-owned assets in any way we would seek the support of New Zealanders at an election”—if there was to be any change to his policy in any way? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We have made it quite clear to the New Zealand public what we are campaigning on. We will be going to the election with that policy and not one share will be sold prior to the 26 November election. In the rare event that Labour is elected it can reverse that policy if it wishes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Can the Prime Minister then confirm that New Zealanders can stop the sale of State-owned assets only by voting out his Government on 26 November? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: What I can say is that this Government is absolutely committed to the mixed-ownership model. We believe it is right on a number of fronts and we look forward to having that debate with the New Zealand public on the campaign trail.
Adams Amy: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Adams Amy: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:674;Page:19986] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call in support of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). I think after listening to the debate on this bill this evening that its scope and what it achieves has been fairly well canvassed and I do not intend to waste the time of the House going over it again. I will take just a moment to commend the Minister of Justice for his ongoing programme of work to reform and modernise our electoral laws. It is one of a number of steps this Government has taken. 
I also acknowledge and commend Chester Borrows as the chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered the legislation. The committee works exceedingly well under his chairmanship and has led to significant improvements to this bill and other legislation that has come before it. 
It appears that this bill has the support of the House so I will add my voice to that support and commend the bill warmly to the House. Thank you.
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:19946] 
6. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does the Government have any plans to disestablish separate Maori electorates; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No because it is not part of the Government’s electoral law programme. This Government’s priority in electoral law has been to put an end to what had become routine abuses of electoral law and public funding by parties whose conduct is repeatedly referred to the police and to restore freedom of speech by repealing Annette King’s Electoral Finance Act. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Is it the Government’s intention to abolish the Maori seats once the historical Treaty process has been concluded as set out in National’s 2008 election policy; if so what progress has been made toward the goal of abolishing the seats? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have already in the answer to the primary question outlined what the Government’s priorities have been. A constitutional review has been planned and announced by both the co-leader of the Maori Party the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister. The issues surrounding Maori seats can be addressed in that context. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is it the Minister’s opinion that disestablishing the Maori seats will do nothing more than create a wedge between Maori and Pakeha at a time when the country is trying to move towards a united Aotearoa; if so why does he think this debate has been brought back into the public arena? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There are a number of interesting questions concerning Maori representation. The issue of Maori seats in Parliament as I said in my answer to Mr Boscawen’s second question will be the subject of a constitutional review which has been outlined by Dr Sharples and Mr English. Those issues can be addressed in that context. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Is it not true that if Maori voters were on the general electoral roll they would have 70 members of Parliament working on their behalf not seven? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The member is trying to engage on the question of Maori representation and the other matters I have referred to in answers to these questions. They are part of the review which has been announced by Dr Sharples and Mr English and the member will have ample opportunity to make all the points he wishes to make to that review at that time.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:19952] 
12. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What recent announcements has he made regarding lotteries funding for the community? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Last week I was very pleased to announce that the Lottery Grants Board has allocated $154 million to the community raised from the proceeds of games like Lotto Instant Kiwi and Keno. In addition an allocation of $6 million will go to the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal to help Canterbury get back on its feet. An extra $250000 has also been given to the Lottery Canterbury / Kaikoura Community Committee. This is on top of the $8.2 million that was raised for the appeal by a special Lotto draw held earlier this year. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How will lotteries funding be allocated to different community groups? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The $154 million will be divided amongst 11 regional lottery committees 11 national committees and four statutory bodies—Creative New Zealand the New Zealand Film Commission the New Zealand Film Archive and Sport and Recreation New Zealand. A huge variety of organisations have benefited from the funding in recent years including Age Concern St John Ambulance Barnardos etc. This funding helps to build strong and sustainable communities.
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:674;Page:19951] 
11. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he stand by his statement of 23 June that the price difference between building flat deck rail wagons in New Zealand and overseas was in the order of 25 percent? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Transport 
: 
 Yes. 
Clare Curran 
: Will he confirm that it makes economic sense to procure these wagons in New Zealand given that the Government collects income tax when wages are paid and GST when wages are spent even if Chinese wagons are a bit cheaper; if not why not? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: All that the Minister has asked of KiwiRail is that it gets the best price and quality possible for the tender and he believes that it has done that. It is up to KiwiRail to take those things into account when it awards a tender. It is not for politicians to intervene. 
Clare Curran 
: Is the Government saying that when it comes to a choice between a Kiwi build and an overseas build KiwiRail should always choose the cheapest price even if the price difference is very small; and what is a tolerable price difference? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I come back to the substantive point that there is a 25 percent price differential. The proposal from the Hillside workshops was third equal out of nine tenders. KiwiRail took into consideration all of the differences in the tenders and made its decision. It is interesting that this Government is just following on from Labour’s policy of August 2007 on Government procurement in New Zealand. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question about not that sale but tolerances and whether the Government would ever approve a tender with a price higher than that of another tender. It was very carefully drafted and very specific. The Minister talked about the old sale but did not look forward in the way that he was asked to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question actually sought an opinion. It asked the Minister at what point the Government would see this differently and I think the Minister pointed out in his answer that the Government has required KiwiRail to consider these matters and therefore he declined to express a view on any price difference. It is difficult for me to pull a Minister back when an opinion has been sought in the question and the Minister chooses to answer it in that way. I accept the point the member is making that the member had tried to get the Minister to express a view but I cannot get a Minister to express the particular view members might want. When an opinion is sought— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Any view would do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! When an opinion is sought it is a bit difficult for me.