edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Early Childhood Education Spending—Task Force Information Unauthorised Disclosure—Investigations by State Services Commissioner IHC Subsidiary Companies—Statutory Management 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Early Childhood Education Spending—Task Force Information Unauthorised Disclosure—Investigations by State Services Commissioner IHC Subsidiary Companies—Statutory Management 
[Volume:667;Page:14341] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Sue Moroney seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of the establishment of a task force to review the effectiveness of early childhood education spending. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The member in her application questions statements made by the Minister in making her announcement. These are matters that will undoubtedly unfold as the independent task force goes about its work. The setting up of such a review rarely justifies an urgent debate. The time to consider the work of the task force will be when it reports. I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to this particular issue over the other business of the House today. The application is therefore declined. 
I have also received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the findings of the State Services Commissioner on two investigations into the possible unauthorised disclosure of information. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government but I do not consider it to be a matter of sufficient importance to require the House to set aside its pre-arranged business. The test is a high one. These may be sensitive matters but they lack the exceptional policy substance necessary to justify the urgent attention of the House. There are other parliamentary opportunities in which they can be examined and that application is therefore also declined. 
I have received a further letter from the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement that the Government has put two subsidiaries of the IHC into statutory management. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However there must be an element of urgency for a matter to take precedence over other business. The statutory management is intended to preserve the provision of services by the companies pending the resolution of litigation and subsequent negotiations. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. That application is therefore also declined.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14338] 
10. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What is the purpose of the AA EnergyWise Rally organised by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The AA EnergyWise Rally is a biennial event designed to raise consumer awareness of fuel-efficient vehicles and fuel-saving driving techniques. Choosing a fuel-efficient vehicle and driving smoothly reduces fuel bills saves money and is environmentally friendly. The rally started in Auckland yesterday and those taking part will travel 1780 kilometres around the North Island. Forty-nine cars from 10 manufacturers have entered this rally. 
Melissa Lee 
: What awards are available to be won as part of the rally? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Certainly not one for speed I can assure members. The supreme award in the rally is for the vehicle that costs the least to complete the 1780 kilometre route including fuel and road-user charges. There are also awards for the most efficient hybrid diesel and petrol vehicles along with the most efficient driver and the most environmentally friendly car. This is just another part of the Government’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions in New Zealand.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14337] 
8. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: How is the Government working with Fonterra to progress its capital restructuring plans? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Fonterra’s achieving a successful capital restructuring is vital to the New Zealand economy. That is why officials led by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are working closely and cooperatively with Fonterra as it develops its capital restructuring plan in detail. This is to ensure that the Government’s public policy requirements are addressed and that officials are in a position to design and implement an appropriate regulatory regime. 
Shane Ardern 
: When does the Government expect to be in a position to implement a new regulatory regime? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Fonterra aims to launch its new capital structure by November 2011. The Government is working hard to ensure that a new regulatory regime can be developed and implemented in time for this. However it is important to note that a November 2011 time frame is very ambitious. Any slippage in the joint process will mean that that timetable will be hard to meet. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Will the capital restructuring allow foreign investment in Fonterra and will the National-ACT Government intervene to stop the sale of the dairy industry to foreign buyers? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Although trading amongst farmers is finally being developed by Fonterra it is difficult to answer that question in detail but I do not expect it to allow foreign investment in Fonterra in any way at all.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14330] 
3. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What actions has the Government taken to increase student places at universities? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to report to the House that the Government will invest a further $55 million to fund almost 3000 more university undergraduate places over the next 2 years in response to higher demand for undergraduate places. That increase in places will help the wider economy as we ramp up the number of graduates which we are doing over time and we are expecting at least 20 percent more graduates in 2013 than in recent times. The number of full-time places funded at universities next year will be the highest ever at about 119000. That is over 7000 more than 3 years ago and it has all been achieved within existing appropriations. 
Allan Peachey 
: How does this increase fit into the wider value-for-money push in tertiary spending? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The extra funding comes from changes announced last week to lift the performance and accountability of the industry training sector as well as to reprioritise underspending in that area. This shift in funding is part of the Government’s push to get higher productivity out of the $4 billion we spend annually on tertiary education. It also reflects the nature of the economic cycle as New Zealand recovers from recession. There remains strong demand for full-time training places and currently there is less demand for industry-based training. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister confirm that the funding cut from industry training would have supported 55000 industry trainees and is robbing Peter to pay Paul the best we will get from this National Government? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I can confirm a number of things about the industry training budget including the fact that it has nearly trebled over the last 10 years. As a result the Tertiary Education Commission has done exactly the right thing—it has looked for value for money in that appropriation and it has made some changes to operational policies in order to maximise the number of credits achieved in industry training. I struggle with the member’s concept because he seems to be saying we should never shift any appropriations from one thing to another and we should just blindly keep spending—which I struggle with hugely.
Calvert Hilary Jane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Calvert Hilary Jane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
1. 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will he support my proposed amendment to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to include a specific prohibition on customary title holders charging for public access to New Zealand beaches such as is provided for in the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The bill as drafted does not allow customary title holders to charge for access in the marine and coastal area; I refer the honourable member to clauses 27 60 and 63. However it has been suggested that the bill could be made more readily understandable by inserting a direct statement that charging for public access is not allowed. I am certainly willing to consider that and I would welcome receiving the member’s proposed amendment. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Does he consider a couple having their wedding photos taken on a beach to be a simple issue of access for which customary title holders should be prohibited from charging; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Under the bill as drafted it is not possible to charge for public access. A customary title holder will have the right to permit or decline activities that require resource consent—that is activities that have a significant environmental impact. I would not have thought that taking wedding photos was likely to require resource consent. 
Hilary Calvert 
: What redress does he think there should be for wedding couples should local iwi demand payment for photos on the beach? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I have said there is no right to charge for public access. I think the example the honourable member has alluded to may have actually happened under the existing law not under what is proposed in the bill. Of course the bill has not been enacted. We currently have laws in place that prevent people from restricting New Zealanders’ lawful freedom of movement and freedom from intimidation and this legislation will not change that position. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does he recall his statement in the House at the first reading of the bill on 15 September 2010 about the rights associated with customary marine title that those rights do not include charging for access and what does he believe is the motivation for certain parties to continue to talk about charging for public access when such a concept does not even exist in the bill? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes I remember the statement and I stand by it. The bill does not permit charging for public access. I can only assume that the motivation is the desire for absolute clarity or because of some confusion. As I said I am happy to consider any matter that satisfies the legitimate concerns of those parties.
Smith Lockwood: Business of the House 
Smith Lockwood: Business of the House 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Hilary Calvert to make her maiden statement following consideration of members’ notice of motion No. 1.
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill 
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Correction—Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The result of the vote on the question for the first reading of the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 64 and Noes 54. The correct result is Ayes 62 and Noes 54. The record will be corrected.
Event: Members Sworn 
Event: Members Sworn 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
Members Sworn 
Mr Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Hilary Calvert who then took her seat in the House.
Smith Lockwood: List Member Vacancy 
Smith Lockwood: List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Hilary Jane Calvert has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of David Arthur Garrett. I understand that Hilary Calvert is present and wishes to take the oath.
Smith Lockwood: Resignations — David Garrett ACT 
Smith Lockwood: Resignations — David Garrett ACT 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from David Garrett resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight on Thursday 23 September 2010.
Urgent Debates Declined — Early Childhood Education Spending—Task Force Information Unauthorised Disclosure—Investigations by State Services Commissioner IHC Subsidiary Companies—Statutory Management 
Urgent Debates Declined — Early Childhood Education Spending—Task Force Information Unauthorised Disclosure—Investigations by State Services Commissioner IHC Subsidiary Companies—Statutory Management 
[Volume:667;Page:14341] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Early Childhood Education Spending—Task Force 
Information Unauthorised Disclosure—Investigations by State Services Commissioner 
IHC Subsidiary Companies—Statutory Management 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Sue Moroney seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of the establishment of a task force to review the effectiveness of early childhood education spending. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The member in her application questions statements made by the Minister in making her announcement. These are matters that will undoubtedly unfold as the independent task force goes about its work. The setting up of such a review rarely justifies an urgent debate. The time to consider the work of the task force will be when it reports. I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to this particular issue over the other business of the House today. The application is therefore declined. 
I have also received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the findings of the State Services Commissioner on two investigations into the possible unauthorised disclosure of information. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government but I do not consider it to be a matter of sufficient importance to require the House to set aside its pre-arranged business. The test is a high one. These may be sensitive matters but they lack the exceptional policy substance necessary to justify the urgent attention of the House. There are other parliamentary opportunities in which they can be examined and that application is therefore also declined. 
I have received a further letter from the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement that the Government has put two subsidiaries of the IHC into statutory management. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However there must be an element of urgency for a matter to take precedence over other business. The statutory management is intended to preserve the provision of services by the companies pending the resolution of litigation and subsequent negotiations. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. That application is therefore also declined.
List Member Vacancy 
List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
List Member Vacancy 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Hilary Jane Calvert has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of David Arthur Garrett. I understand that Hilary Calvert is present and wishes to take the oath.
Resignations — David Garrett ACT 
Resignations — David Garrett ACT 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
Tuesday 12 October 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
David Garrett ACT 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from David Garrett resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight on Thursday 23 September 2010.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Hilary Calvert to make her maiden statement following consideration of members’ notice of motion No. 1. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Voting — Correction—Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill 
Voting — Correction—Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
Voting 
Correction—Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The result of the vote on the question for the first reading of the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 64 and Noes 54. The correct result is Ayes 62 and Noes 54. The record will be corrected.
Members Sworn 
Members Sworn 
[Volume:667;Page:14327] 
Members Sworn 
Mr Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Hilary Calvert who then took her seat in the House.
Vote: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14325] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand National 58; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14324] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 3; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 64 Noes 54.
Bridges Simon: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14324] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I can sum up my views on the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill very briefly: I really really like the idea of Kiwi families being eligible to share their income for tax purposes. I like it because it is pro-choice and it is pro-families. 
However in relation to this bill I suppose I reserve my judgment on its practicalities particularly in the tough times we are in when this policy will be an expensive one for the taxpayers’ coffers. Therefore I think we really do have a high threshold to cross; the bill must be very high-quality law before in the end analysis it would be signed up to by National. 
I will say again why I like the idea with an example. I went very recently to a decile 10 school in my electorate. It is a fantastic little school and as I said it has the highest rating that can be achieved so the students if you like have very wealthy parents. But when I went into the first-year class of new entrants I was astounded to learn from the teacher that over the last 5 or so years she had noticed a real change whereby children were coming in who did not know the alphabet who did not even know numbers and who did not know any nursery rhymes. The growth in those children was astounding. We talked a bit about that and effectively we came to the view that it was because mums and dads both work. They are busy and when they get home they are tired and the like. 
This idea of sharing incomes for tax purposes is pro-choice and pro-families. It allows families to do something to have more options and it could—and I will not be naive about it—be a nudge in the direction of ensuring that children get a much better start. 
I know that Labour says that income sharing does nothing to address child poverty and child poverty is a very important issue. No one disputes how important child poverty is. No one disputes what an issue we have with child poverty in this country but that is not a reason in principle to not do something for other families who may not be scraping the bottom of the barrel but who nevertheless deserve and could do with some additional choices. The idea of income sharing provides for that. 
As I said I very much like this idea. I am looking forward to seeing how things go through the select committee process. There are serious practical issues and there is the cost of this policy but in principle it is a very good idea.
Bennett David: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
Bennett David: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14319] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill and to follow on from the last speaker Russel Norman I think it is a bit rich for the Green Party to come into this House and try to put fear into New Zealanders and say certain people will miss out with this scheme. 
Taxation law is targeted. It is targeted in the Working for Families package at people who have children. If people do not have children then they miss out. This bill is targeted at those families who have children. It is a tax break for them. That is the nature of it and it is being considered as part of the coalition agreement. The Green Party says it is the party that looks after the vulnerable and the weak. It is very sad to see that the Green Party’s whole argument against this bill is based on trying to make out that the vulnerable and the weak as the Greens perceive them do not benefit from legislation and therefore the Greens will not support the legislation. That is a sad indictment on the Green Party’s politics. 
I think we should congratulate the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne on this bill. He has been an advocate for this measure for many years. When members meet people in the street they hear them talk about this quite often. People understand the concept and they are very keen on it in many ways. It is in the best interest of this Parliament to have the debate and to see the bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee so people will have a chance to have their say. We congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward.
Bennett David: Electricity Industry Bill — Third Reading 
Bennett David: Electricity Industry Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14299] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on the Electricity Industry Bill. The Government supports the bill; contrary to what Opposition members have been saying this bill is in the best interests of the electricity industry. It will promote competition and that is in the best interests of consumers. National is very proud of the way that prices have stabilised under this Government compared with those under the previous Government. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. I call on Government orders of the day Nos 2 and 3.
Moroney Sue: Electricity Industry Bill — Third Reading 
Moroney Sue: Electricity Industry Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14299] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We called for a party vote on the bill but no party vote was taken. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am afraid I did not hear a call for a party vote. The Labour Party supported the bill; only one party voted against it. 
Sue Moroney 
: Oh no. We opposed it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am happy to reconsider the matter. If I was wrong I am certainly happy to reconsider it. 
Hon John Carter 
: Point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: One moment. I am getting some advice.
Carter John: Electricity Industry Bill — Third Reading 
Carter John: Electricity Industry Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14300] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to have a vote on the Electricity Industry Bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14300] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electricity Industry Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 40; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just make the point that when a party is calling for a party vote it needs at that time to exercise its right to call for a party vote. I cannot second-guess and I certainly did not hear that call for a party vote. I apologise to the member but I did not hear her call. Had I been remiss at the time the call for a party vote should have been brought to my attention by way of a point of order. Of course I had moved on to the next order of the day and I am informed that I am not obliged to go back. However leave was sought and I was prepared to accept it. In future can we make it very clear that if a party wishes to exercise its right to have a party vote it does so at the time and not when we have moved to the next course of business.
Finlayson Christopher: Business Statement 
Finlayson Christopher: Business Statement 
[Volume:667;Page:14273] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: The House will lift this afternoon for a 2-week adjournment. When it resumes on 12 October priority will be given to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill and the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill. The Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban will deliver her valedictory statement on Tuesday 12 October at 5.30 p.m.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:667;Page:14273] 
Thursday 23 September 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: The House will lift this afternoon for a 2-week adjournment. When it resumes on 12 October priority will be given to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill and the Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill. The Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban will deliver her valedictory statement on Tuesday 12 October at 5.30 p.m. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 The Opposition just wonders what the future is for the Identity Information Confirmation Bill which we notice has slipped even further down the Order Paper this week. We are wondering whether that bill will reappear in the next sitting. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I first congratulate the member on his promotion and tell him that the bill will be dealt with in due course. I can understand the member’s concern that the movements of Chris Carter be better monitored but until then Labour will have to rely on eyewitness reports and grainy amateur video footage or phone Helen to find out where he is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker remains none the wiser.
Finlayson Christopher: Business Statement 
Finlayson Christopher: Business Statement 
[Volume:667;Page:14273] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I first congratulate the member on his promotion and tell him that the bill will be dealt with in due course. I can understand the member’s concern that the movements of Chris Carter be better monitored but until then Labour will have to rely on eyewitness reports and grainy amateur video footage or phone Helen to find out where he is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker remains none the wiser.
Williamson Maurice: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — First Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14310] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That the Commerce Committee 
 consider the  
Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 February 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and 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).
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:667;Page:14281] 
6. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What new legislation introduced by her is coming into force next week? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Two new pieces of legislation come into force next week. Both of these deliver on National’s pre-election manifesto promises. The Social Security (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Act comes into force on Monday and the Fresh Start Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Act comes into force next Friday 1 October. 
Chester Borrows 
: What changes will these two pieces of legislation make? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The social assistance legislation rebalances expectations and obligations and supports this Government’s belief that those who can work should be actively looking for work. The Fresh Start legislation is aimed at the country’s 1000 most persistent serious young offenders. It means that from Friday 1 October Youth Court judges will have a greater tool box of options including new parenting mentoring and drug and alcohol rehabilitation orders. This allows young offenders to be held to account while providing the greater supports that are so necessary to turn their lives round. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Will the introduction of work-test requirements for recipients of the unemployment benefit and the domestic purposes benefit in Canterbury be delayed due to the effects of the earthquake; if so how long will they be delayed for? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. Cabinet approved delays to those on Monday. They will be delayed until 1 March next year. 
Chester Borrows 
: How many people will be better off because of these changes? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The Social Security (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Act means that all 336000 beneficiaries will benefit from the legislated CPI changes. About 28000 people will benefit from increased abatement levels which will cost $53 million. This means that those on the invalids benefit and the domestic purposes benefit will get more money in their pocket if they are working part-time. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: How much additional funding has been invested in alcohol and drug programmes since she created the new alcohol and drug orders and does she believe that this will be sufficient to cope with the 80 percent of young people appearing before the Youth Court who committed their crime under the influence of drugs or alcohol? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Between the mentoring parenting and drug and alcohol orders there will 1232 new places. For the drug and alcohol issue by itself there are 32 places in residential drug and alcohol programmes to combat the very serious end of it. About $9.4 million is going into those sorts of programmes. Contracts have been negotiated and are going out to community organisations to date.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14325] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14178] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to insert new clause 124BA be agreed to.
Young Jonathan: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — First Reading 
Young Jonathan: Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14307] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am sure the Hon David Parker realises that there is going to be recovery of assets. I will not proceed to talk much further than that other than to say that the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill are strong and good legislation that will bring great robustness to our regulatory framework. When shocks and quakes come they reveal where weaknesses exist. Prior to the quake everything looks integral but when a shift and upheaval come vulnerabilities are exposed. That is exactly what happened when the global financial crisis hit. It was felt in nearly every sector of our economy and the economies of the world. But the fractures came where inherent weaknesses existed. This Government has undertaken the rebuilding of the regulatory infrastructure of the financial sector and in the case of this legislation now before the House the establishment of a Financial Markets Authority. 
Although a low Government debt compared with those of other advanced economies puts us in a stronger place according to the International Monetary Fund in order to withstand future financial shocks we need a robust regulatory infrastructure in place. I congratulate the Minister of Commerce the Hon Simon Power on his leadership and the hard work he has put into this rebuilding. As much as the Hon Gerry Brownlee is present and hardworking for the people of Canterbury in their quake the Minister of Commerce has put in an enormous effort to ensure that strength confidence and stability surrounds our financial markets sector. He said at the end of April 2010: “Over the past year it has become increasingly clear to me that one of the missing pieces in the regulatory landscape is a single regulator focused on proactively monitoring and enforcing securities law. On too many occasions in finance company collapses we heard of investors’ money falling to the floor through the cracks between regulators. This has damaged investor confidence and if we are to restore that confidence we need to make changes.” 
National is focused on boosting growth and creating jobs. Only a strong economy can provide financial security for families real opportunities for young people safer communities and the high-quality education and health services that all New Zealanders need. This bill will go a long way towards providing the environment and framework for that to occur. Thank you.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14179] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14179] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Papers 154 and 166 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to Part 5 be agreed to.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14179] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Robertson Grant: Business Statement 
Robertson Grant: Business Statement 
[Volume:667;Page:14273] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 The Opposition just wonders what the future is for the Identity Information Confirmation Bill which we notice has slipped even further down the Order Paper this week. We are wondering whether that bill will reappear in the next sitting.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14178] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 154 in his name to clause 126(3)(d)(ii) be agreed to.
Mahuta Nanaia: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14181] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the Electricity Industry Bill—in fact it should be called the “Electricity (Not Fair Does Not Deal with Prices and Does Not Address the Issue of Environmental Sustainability) Bill”. Time and time again members on this side of the Chamber have raised very serious issues in terms of the price differentials between domestic users and industry users of electricity. What did we hear from John Hayes on the other side? We heard babble. That is what he called the very important issues that members on this side of the Chamber have raised—babble. Shame on him. The issues that we are raising in the Chamber are the ones that consumers are raising with us every day. They are worried about increasing power prices. They are worried about bills becoming harder to pay. They are worried that when the increase in GST comes in the proposals in this bill will not do anything to lessen the increased domestic power prices that they are faced with. 
Time and time again members on this side of the Chamber have raised the critical issues in a broader context but more particularly to deal with the aspects that this bill purports to affect. We are concerned about the asset swaps. There is no clear evidence that asset swaps are clever. This is more about politics rather than substance. We believe it will affect the Waitaki catchment significantly. The Government may well have to come back and deal with the effects of a bad decision. 
Although we are dealing with the title the bill does not address in any way whatsoever the issue of fairness in terms of price setting. We are worried about that. We think that any change to the electricity sector should at least try to give some guarantee on the fairness of price setting. Chris Hipkins has very well constructed the issues that Labour is most concerned about and that is to ensure greater affordability of electricity prices especially in addressing the differentials between domestic and industrial users. In looking at security of supply in terms of greater renewable energy generation there was no clear signal or leadership on that front or on greater price predictability and we believe that consumers deserve it. 
There was no response from the Minister and not even a contribution from any Government member to explain why there are glaring omissions like the ones that Labour has raised. The bill should be called the “Electricity (Not Fair and Not Dealing with Increased Domestic Power Price Users) Bill”. I do not agree with the bill and Labour does not support it. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14181] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14169] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14172] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14169] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14158] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to clause 45 be agreed to.
Adams Amy: Electricity Industry Bill — Third Reading 
Adams Amy: Electricity Industry Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14294] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the third reading of the Electricity Industry Bill. As this bill progressed through the House and the Finance and Expenditure Committee there was good opportunity to traverse the detail within it and I do not want to go over that again. 
I will summarise in very fundamental terms what this bill is driving at which is really three things: it is putting in place more effective and efficient governance in this most important of sectors; it is increasing competition particularly in the retail sector—which is of interest to me being from the South Island—and it is focusing on improving security of supply. 
If anyone is in any doubt about how fundamentally important it is to get our electricity sector working well they have only to look at the chaos that was brought about when electricity was taken away from much of Canterbury after the earthquake and when it was taken away from much of the North Island after the recent storms. We all know how dependent we have become as a nation on an effective electricity supply. 
Equally we know that over the last 10 years the growth in power prices has been unacceptably high. We saw growth of 72 percent under the 9 years of the Labour Government. National has never pretended that we can stop power prices rising but what we absolutely must do is slow the growth in power prices. We are determined to do that and this bill is fundamentally a step in the right direction towards that. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14158] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I have listened this afternoon. I have listened to some pretty sour debate and I have listened to some pretty poor arguments. The Electricity Industry Bill is about reforming the electricity industry. I will just give the Opposition a little bit of history about what we are doing here and what this bill is about. This bill is in response to a review that was conducted last year. The review was done by a number of experts in the industry. The Electricity Technical Advisory Group was chaired by Brent Layton and there were a number of other industry experts like Professor Evans Miriam Dean Toby Stevenson and David Russell. 
We have heard a lot of rhetoric from across the Chamber. We have heard from Mr Hipkins that National said on the campaign trail that it would lower prices. That is factually incorrect. When I was campaigning in Maungakiekie I said to people that we would limit price increases which were prevalent under the previous Labour Government. As has already been stated by my colleague Aaron Gilmore the cost of electricity went up by 72 percent over 9 years while inflation went up by 24 percent. What does that mean? It meant that it was three times the rate of inflation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on Part 3. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I am just responding to some of the arguments— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No we are on Part 3. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I am sorry Mr Chairperson. I will continue. This bill is about security of supply. It is about affordability and sustainability which is what Mr Hipkins has already referred to. 
Hon Members 
: What does Part 3 do? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Part 3 is right here. It is about the separation of distribution from generation and retailing. But I digress. If people think it is just National that is in favour of this reform I tell them that it is not. I quote from a  
Press 
 editorial: “Changes made by Labour”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14157] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to clause 18 be agreed to.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14158] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14158] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 154 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to Part 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity Industry Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:667;Page:14158] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.