edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7624] 
2.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on support for KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Apart from the enthusiastic support of the member I have received reports of support from a range of sectors including from AXA whose retirement survey found that 59 percent of New Zealanders who know about KiwiSaver believe that it will lead to an increase in their retirement savings. I have also seen reports from the country’s largest union the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union saying that it is prepared to include employer contributions to KiwiSaver as part of rather than in addition to its wage claims. 
Shane Jones 
: What alternative approaches has he seen to encourage savings in New Zealand? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As we have just been listening to one hand clapping—I have seen a very wide range from compulsion to extraordinary claims from the likes of the Business Roundtable that we do not have a savings problem at all. The one silent voice is that of the National Party which opposes KiwiSaver but has absolutely no alternative. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister seen recent media reports suggesting that KiwiSaver could be extended to all current employees; if so has the Government given any thought to that suggestion and to the timing and practicalities involved? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: KiwiSaver will of course be available to all employees; the question is whether they will be compelled to join. It is worth remembering that in Australia compulsion was introduced by way of an employer levy of 9 percent of wages in an era of high inflation and as part of a centralised wage bargain - imposed wage tax and superannuation trade-off. Such a trade-off could not be achieved in New Zealand under conditions of relatively low inflation and decentralised wage bargaining. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response but the reports I was referring to actually suggested simply automatic enrolment not compulsion with the same right to opt out as will be given to all people starting a job for the first time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will just say that I have not seen that report; if what the member means is a report that we immediately enrol everybody as an opt-out I think that the administration would be something we could not possibly gear up for by 1 July given the number of people involved. The advantage of phasing it in the way that we have is that anybody can opt in but all new employees are automatically enrolled—that is some 700000 people a year who are new employees.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
[Volume:637;Page:7621] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I think that Mr Dunne raises an interesting point but we cannot support him because clearly the only way that members of this Government communicate with one another is through the question and answer process. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising the issue and I say the member’s contribution is a matter for the Business Committee. It is a matter that some people have queried from time to time. The explanation from the Leader of the House was accepted at the time.
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
Dunne Peter: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
[Volume:637;Page:7621] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a separate point of order that arises out of the last one. It may be useful in the context of determining the allocation for you to offer a rationale to the House for the exclusion of members of the executive from the calculation given that members of the executive frequently ask supplementary questions.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
[Volume:637;Page:7621] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That was a conscious decision of the Standing Orders Committee at the time. Indeed I think I was the person who initially suggested that on the grounds that essentially of course it is members of the executive who answer questions within the House. That does not prevent within the Labour Party members of the executive asking supplementary questions but it seemed to be fair and appropriate that the allocation of questions should be based on non-executive membership. In the National Party of course that means there is a very powerful incentive to remain in Opposition because in that way those members get more questions.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
[Volume:637;Page:7621] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. By the interesting logic you put in front of us can we assume that if the Labour Party were to further decimate its extraordinarily large executive it might in fact not have to answer very many questions in the House at all? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows the Speaker does not work on hypotheticals.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
[Volume:637;Page:7620] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this matter now because it relates to question time specifically and I point to Standing Order 378 in doing so. We were notified yesterday that due to the decision by Taito Phillip Field to become an Independent member there would be some reallocation of supplementary questions. Over the last short while it has become somewhat of a formula to decide who gets supplementary questions how many and why that is the case. It would appear that the Labour Party having lost a member in fact drops one supplementary question but the National Party is required to drop two supplementary questions. That seems to be fundamentally unfair. [ 
Interruption 
] Labour Ministers will of course laugh because that means there will be 60 fewer occasions during a parliamentary year when they will have to avoid answering questions which they are all now so adept at doing. My request Madam Speaker is that you have a look at this matter recognise the authority you have under Standing Order 378 and give consideration to allowing the National Party to retain the number of supplementary questions we were allocated prior to the decision by the Labour Party to send Mr Field down the road.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Supplementary Questions—Allocation 
[Volume:637;Page:7620] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and he does raise a point that I know will be of interest to other members. In anticipation I do have a ruling to clarify matters for the benefit of members. If there is any further debate I suggest that people look at the ruling and perhaps raise it at the Business Committee. 
Following the Business Committee’s confirmation of a revised roster for the allocation of questions for oral answer I have reconsidered the allocation of supplementary questions. Supplementary questions are of course allowed at the Speaker’s discretion. However over recent times Speakers have given an indication of the way that they may allocate supplementary questions. A revised allocation has been sent to all party whips and comes into force today. The Speaker’s indicative allocation of supplementary questions is based on the same system of proportionality that is used for the allocation of primary questions for oral answer. The allocations to parties are calculated as a proportion of the total number of members—121—excluding the 28 members of the executive. Each week 189 supplementary questions may be allowed; that is 63 each question time. Each party has been allocated its proportion of the 189 supplementary questions and those have been allocated across the three question times. The new allocation takes into account a member becoming an Independent member and the resignation of the Hon Jim Sutton who was not replaced as a Minister thus reducing the numbers in the executive by one. 
The impact on the Labour Party’s proportion of the reduction in the number of members of the executive on the one hand and of a member becoming an Independent on the other hand in effect cancel each other out. As a result all parties’ allocations are reduced relatively. The Labour Party is entitled to 20 percent of the supplementary questions and loses one question; the National Party is entitled to 50 percent of the supplementary questions and loses two questions. The changes in the proportions for the smaller parties are so small that they have no material impact on their allocations. The Independent member is entitled to two supplementary questions each week. Previously there were 190 supplementary questions each week. Now to ensure strict proportionality there will be 189. 
I must also say that when I went back and reconsidered this matter I found we had not taken into account the fact that the Hon Jim Sutton had resigned from the executive so in effect the National Opposition has had one question more than it was entitled to and the Labour Party one less. [ 
Interruption 
] I apologise to members for that and as the changes take place we will make the proportions change at that time. But that is why as Gerry Brownlee has raised quite properly the revised allocation may seem a little incongruous.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7619] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Judicial Retirement Age Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill. The first readings of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill will be held on Thursday. The Committee stage of the Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill which is a 4-hour debate will be held on Wednesday afternoon. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of next week’s programme. But I note that the Order Paper at the moment is extremely thin and that most of the bills on it are very non-controversial—bills on which the Government will find it relatively easy to have a majority. I wonder whether the Leader of the House might indicate under these new circumstances where the Government is able to hold office but not particularly to govern whether we can expect a revision to the year’s sitting programme in order that the Government will not be embarrassed by its very light work programme. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I note that in the last 6 months the minimum majority on a third reading was eight that the Government’s majority on confidence and supply is secure and that the Government is therefore extremely capable of governing. I look forward to continued rational treatment of the House’s programme for the remainder of the year and I can promise the member that there will certainly be some exciting measures that will no doubt work the National Party up into a frenzy of temporary anger before it later supports them.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7619] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I note that in the last 6 months the minimum majority on a third reading was eight that the Government’s majority on confidence and supply is secure and that the Government is therefore extremely capable of governing. I look forward to continued rational treatment of the House’s programme for the remainder of the year and I can promise the member that there will certainly be some exciting measures that will no doubt work the National Party up into a frenzy of temporary anger before it later supports them.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7619] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Judicial Retirement Age Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill. The first readings of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill will be held on Thursday. The Committee stage of the Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill which is a 4-hour debate will be held on Wednesday afternoon.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7619] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of next week’s programme. But I note that the Order Paper at the moment is extremely thin and that most of the bills on it are very non-controversial—bills on which the Government will find it relatively easy to have a majority. I wonder whether the Leader of the House might indicate under these new circumstances where the Government is able to hold office but not particularly to govern whether we can expect a revision to the year’s sitting programme in order that the Government will not be embarrassed by its very light work programme.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Interjections 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Interjections 
[Volume:637;Page:7619] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I was asked yesterday to rule on the permissibility of interjections during personal explanations. That point does not appear to have arisen before. 
As I pointed out when the point of order was raised members do not have a right to interject at any time. Standing Order 132 allows a member to be interrupted in only two circumstances: by a point of order or by a matter of privilege relating to the conduct of strangers who are present. Of course the longstanding convention has been that reasonable interjections are permitted. That is acknowledged in Speaker’s ruling 57/2 given in 1932 where it is said that with the “tacit consent” of the House members may interrupt other members to ask “reasonable questions”. That latter reference gives the clue to what interjections are supposed to be about: they are contributions to the debate that is under way by way of contradiction elucidation or endorsement of what the member who is speaking has just said. Interjections provided that they are reasonable are thus clearly appropriate in a debate. 
But when members are making statements it has been recognised that interjections are not appropriate—see for example Speakers’ ruling 123/2 relating to interjections while the Prime Minister is delivering the Prime Minister’s statement. A personal explanation is a form of statement. Indeed Standing Order 350 specifically states that a personal explanation may not be debated. In these circumstances I consider that it is out of order for there to be interjections while a member is making a personal explanation.
Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Interjections 
Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Interjections 
[Volume:637;Page:7619] 
Thursday 22 February 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Personal Explanations—Interjections 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I was asked yesterday to rule on the permissibility of interjections during personal explanations. That point does not appear to have arisen before. 
As I pointed out when the point of order was raised members do not have a right to interject at any time. Standing Order 132 allows a member to be interrupted in only two circumstances: by a point of order or by a matter of privilege relating to the conduct of strangers who are present. Of course the longstanding convention has been that reasonable interjections are permitted. That is acknowledged in Speaker’s ruling 57/2 given in 1932 where it is said that with the “tacit consent” of the House members may interrupt other members to ask “reasonable questions”. That latter reference gives the clue to what interjections are supposed to be about: they are contributions to the debate that is under way by way of contradiction elucidation or endorsement of what the member who is speaking has just said. Interjections provided that they are reasonable are thus clearly appropriate in a debate. 
But when members are making statements it has been recognised that interjections are not appropriate—see for example Speakers’ ruling 123/2 relating to interjections while the Prime Minister is delivering the Prime Minister’s statement. A personal explanation is a form of statement. Indeed Standing Order 350 specifically states that a personal explanation may not be debated. In these circumstances I consider that it is out of order for there to be interjections while a member is making a personal explanation.
Goudie Sandra: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships  Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships  Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15564] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very proud to rise on behalf of National in opposition to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and for very good reason. Yet again members on the Government benches are misleading the New Zealand public about the reason for this bill because the only reason they could give—and this was canvassed exhaustively with the officials—was the opportunity for fraud. No evidence was provided of where this was in actual fact happening to any degree whatsoever. So the justification for this particular bill was spurious in the extreme. There was no correlation between fraud and access to information from the Births Deaths and Marriages records.  
I point out that the National Party tried to explain to the Government members what the real issue was. There is no problem with the information supplied to the public from the Births Deaths and Marriages register. There is no problem with their having access to that information. The problem lies in the fact that any member of the public can go and get an authorised document. It is one of the few Government departments that provides an authorised document without any identification whatsoever and the provisions in the Supplementary Order Papers that the Government will put through will not necessarily change that.  
The Minister has said to me in response to a parliamentary question about a fraud case that there is nothing to stop any member of the public from getting a properly authorised document in relation to anybody else. That is absolutely wrong. All that needed to be changed is for people to be told that sorry they have to provide some form of identification in order to get an authorised document. I make it clear that it is a properly authorised document. Instead of just doing that the Government is going to the extreme and saying that people cannot have information from the register which is patently dumb. It is a situation of a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut and Government members still do not get it. This is the very reason why National continues to oppose this Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill.  
At no point did the Minister give any relevant evidence in relation to fraud and access to information from the Births Deaths and Marriages register. For all of those genealogists’ groups lawyers and banks there is more justification for having access to that information than for not having it.  
Debate interrupted.
Henare Tau: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15559] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Ka tono au  
Kia takoto te patai. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I move 
 That the question be now put.] 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill without amendment and the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15559] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I thank the member Te Ururoa Flavell for his contribution. He raised an issue that I had not got to which is the relative positioning of the Maori and the English within the title of the bill. I think there is a question to be asked because clearly English has been the dominate language of legislation. There is a natural inclination to start in English and then to translate but I do not know whether there is a good reason for that especially when there is a bill that is looking at alternatives. A better example could be by turning the title around and having the “Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa (New Zealand Geographic Board) Act 2007”.  
I am not sure even on the question of the translation of “Act” because of the party. I have never seen a translation of its name—probably the type of party that ACT is means it is less likely to have a translated version available. But there is a question of whether the word “Act” could also be in Maori as well.  
I think this has raised an important issue. Style has developed. I am absolutely certain that at the time of Koro Wetere’s decision to change “Mount Egmont” to “Mount Taranaki” he would have contemplated—[ 
Interruption 
] I apologise to the member. I have climbed it but I probably cannot pronounce it. He is welcome to climb it. He can pronounce it but probably could not climb it. But going back to the time of the Hon Koro Wetere he probably would have contemplated having something like this bill but getting the widespread support of the Parliament at that time would have been unlikely.  
I think we have made some progress to get to this point but the question is raised as to whether the Minister has got it right with the first line of the title the precedents and what is in the brackets. I think probably with deference to the Maori Party Mr Henare and others who have made a contribution on this bill that we will probably have to put it through in the form it is in now and accept that as progress as far as legislation is concerned. But we should look at two issues: at the question of the order of the English and Maori in the title and also at whether in fact the style is something that is more generally applicable.
Hide Rodney: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15557] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I agree with Mr Mallard actually but having called Mr Chris Tremain the Chairperson cannot un-call him. What the Chairperson can do however is realise that Mr Tremain’s moving that the vote be now taken will not be agreed to and then the member from the Maori Party—Mr Flavell; I am almost too scared to say his name—but the Chairperson certainly cannot now drop off Mr Tremain and I am sure Mr Mallard would agree with me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I thank the member. I heard Mr Tremain I am declining his call to end the debate and I am now calling the member Te Ururoa Flavell—and I am practising my pronunciation.
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15557] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I think this is the second or third time the Maori Party member has attempted to get the call on this clause and for Mr Tremain to say that there has been no request made from members at that end of the Chamber is just incorrect.
Tremain Chris: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15557] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 The Opposition has had five calls on this part of the bill. We have requested two calls on this side and there has been no request made from members at the end of the Chamber for a call to be taken. As a result of that I moved that the question be now put.
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15557] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It does go to the precedents for calling in the House. We have had a party I think that has taken three or four calls on this clause we have had a party that has taken none and you have called again the party that has had a number of calls. My question is whether you did not hear the call from the Maori Party this time or whether there was a particular reason for not calling its members on this clause.
Tremain Chris: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15557] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hide Rodney: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15556] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek that the vote now be taken. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is the wrong wording I am sorry Mr Hide.
Brownlee Gerry: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15555] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I noticed that during the course of that commentary by Clayton Cosgrove he mentioned clause 1 clause 2 and some other such—I cannot remember—and loosely that would relate to any old bill whatsoever. But he made no substantive comments about the bill itself. That raises the prospect as my colleague Brian Connell put so well before of the Government either filibustering this bill or perhaps the Chair herself being distracted by some other antics in the Chamber which means she has not been able to keep an eye on what these members have been saying. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I do not actually take kindly to that sort of comment. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do apologise to you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I was fully aware— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is the end of the point of order. Madam Chairperson I seek the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I call Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No I have ended the point of order and I have called Gerry Brownlee.
Brownlee Gerry: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15555] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member spoke before you interrupted. He cannot speak and then move the closure. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I accept that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I took a point of order and then you gave me the call Madam Chairperson. Then I moved that the question be now put. It was perfectly in order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: OK. I do not accept the motion for closure. I am calling Rodney Hide.
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15551] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15551] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15550] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15550] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Parker David: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15549] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 In responding to two of the issues that the Hon Trevor Mallard raised with great interest I agree with the member that Ministers are concerned to protect the integrity of Treaty settlements. One of the provisions in the Treaty settlement with Ngai Tahu was to give them an official involvement in the naming of geographic features in the South Island. The Minister is quite proper in checking that in updating this legislation we are not undermining the intent of that Treaty settlement. Official involvement in naming is an important part of the Treaty settlement with Ngai Tahu. They would obviously be upset if we were undermining the integrity of their Treaty settlement by unwinding the benefit that was conferred upon them in respect of naming places in the South Island. 
Mr Mallard raises a consequential amendment listed in schedule 2 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill which refers to the repeal of section 270 of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. I assure the member that that does not derogate from the rights of Ngai Tahu to participate in the naming of South Island geographic features. I am advised by officials that the representative that Ngai Tahu has on the New Zealand Geographic Board is Sir Tipene O’Regan who is obviously well versed in the detail of the Ngai Tahu settlement because he was so involved in the negotiation of it. I am informed that he is comfortable with the repeal of this particular section which does not derogate from Ngai Tahu’s rights to be involved in the naming of these features in the South Island but rather repeals a provision in the old Act that has become out of date because of changes in circumstances since it was put in. I hope that explanation deals with the concern the Hon Trevor Mallard had. 
In respect of the role of the Minister for Land Information in naming features there are various parts of the Act providing that proposed decisions are proffered by the New Zealand Geographic Board to the Minister having gone through various procedures before the board comes to making a recommendation. The Minister to whom it generally makes a recommendation in respect of most features is the Minister for Land Information and then in accordance with the terms of the Act I—or whoever is the Minister for the time being—have rights to either approve or decline the name proposal that is proffered. I think that addresses the other concern the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 35 be agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15548] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 This is a bill that on the face of it is relatively minor but I think it needs a little more discussion from the Minister for Land Information David Parker and there are some questions I would like to ask him. 
I particularly go to clause 35 “Validation of certain names” and ask whether this bill is an appropriate vehicle for the validation of particular decisions that have been made. In particular I ask whether the provision in relation to the geographical features of the Ross Dependency is appropriate for the bill. What does the Minister mean by “Crown protected area under an enactment”? Which particular type of Crown protected area is he referring to? 
I also ask the Minister to go to schedule 2 which relates to consequential amendments which come in through Part 3—and I am sure that Mr Connell having been on the Government Administration Committee that wrote the commentary on the bill is well aware of that. I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that the amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 particularly those amendments to section 260(1) are in fact appropriate for this bill. I ask about consultation on the repeal of section 270 of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act. Has there been proper consultation with Ngai Tahu on that question? Consultation is something that I think most Ministers have taken seriously and I want to ensure that officials have had a discussion with Ngai Tahu. 
I do not want to be accused as a Mallard of any self-interest but in respect of the insertion into the Ombudsmen Act 1975 of “New Zealand Geographic Board Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa” after “The New Zealand Game Bird Habitat Trust Board” I want to make sure given my surname that there are no implications as far as the Game Bird Habitat Trust Board is concerned. As a Mallard I would be concerned if there were any denigration or unfair reference around that particular question. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s a very valid concern. Don’t duck the issue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think there is not much ducking of the issue as far as I am concerned although possibly once or twice it could have been better if I did. 
In respect of the consequential amendment to the National Parks Act I want to check whether it is the Minister of Conservation who is referred to. It is a little unclear on the face of it whether it refers to the Minister for Land Information or the Minister of Conservation. I presume it is the Minister of Conservation because it is a consequential amendment to the National Parks Act but I think it is important that we have that clarified. Similarly with the amendment to the Conservation Act 1987 I think it is almost certainly the Minister of Conservation who has to refer the proposed name to the board but I ask what the role of the Minister for Land Information is in that particular case. Thank you Madam Chairperson.
Parker David: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15548] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I am very happy to respond to that last contribution which suggested that some new provision was being sneaked in against the interests of New Zealanders that required proper names to be used. Of course this clause merely carries forward on this occasion a provision that has been in the law since 1946. It has been in the law since 1946 for a good reason. If for example someone was producing a map that tourists were to use it would be quite unhelpful if people started to call Auckland “Dunedin” and Dunedin “Auckland” because people might go to the wrong place. It is quite a sensible provision for those providing information for tourists and if a place has an official name such as “Auckland” it is quite sensible that that place is actually labelled as Auckland on a map.
Simich Clem: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15547] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Part 3 includes debate on schedule 2.
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15547] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15547] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Parker David: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15543] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I will respond to a comment that was made by Dr Nick Smith. He said—and I think Mr Ardern raised concerns about it too—that somehow clause 24 would do the public out of their right to be involved in processes that involve proposed changes to names. Members will note if they read clause 24(2) that that provision occurs in a very limited situation where the New Zealand Geographic Board finds it is being asked to approve a recorded name. So this would be in the case of something that has had a recorded name for some historical reason and there are no alternative recorded names for that geographic feature. So rather than adding to bureaucracy which I thought was one of the concerns that the National Party had this provision says that in such a case if it is obviously not controversial the board does not have to go through a fully public objection process because that process would be a waste of time and money. The other exception to the normal rule of giving public notice is recorded in clause 24(2)(b) which states that the board does not have to give public notice to discontinue the use of an official geographic name for a geographic feature. 
Both of these are very limited examples and I do not think there is any serious concern. In fact I do not know that this provision was an issue. I do not think it was raised by people as being of concern at the select committee— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Absolutely it was. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Sandra Goudie said it is an issue that was raised at the select committee. Well it is a real shame that the select committee could not agree to a report back to Parliament to advise Parliament of that concern. I understand that that was because the National members were not cooperating in that regard. So they get what they deserve.
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15541] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15541] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Parker David: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15540] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 The member who just took his seat might wish that was so but I am afraid that the reality is more prosaic. The current legislation is over 60 years old. Legislation has to be updated periodically to take account of changes. 
The big change—and I am very surprised that the members of the National Party have not yet become alert to this issue—is that New Zealand’s territorial waters have been extended to include the continental shelf. The area that is under the jurisdiction of New Zealand—that New Zealand has sovereign rights over—extends well beyond our land area to include an area undersea that I think is about 24 times the area of our land area. At the moment the Geographic Board has no power to name features in that area. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My constituents are really worried about that! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is an important issue here I say to Dr Smith even though he makes light of it. There is considerable potential wealth in our sea area not only in terms of the fisheries but also in terms of the mineral wealth. I am sure that Mr Brown—as a person who has experience of our maritime area—understands this. Our maritime area is of considerable economic potential for us not only in terms of petrocarbons but also in terms of minerals and fisheries. If we want other people to respect our rights to areas over which we want to exercise dominion we have to do the things that Governments do in respect of areas that they assert rights to. We have to exercise our rights of governance and sovereignty. That is what this bill takes a small step towards. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What are you scared of? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am not scared of anything. I am explaining the need for this legislation which extends the rights of the Geographic Board to include naming features in that area. That is one of the things a country does to assert rights in respect of areas of the continental shelf. It is given effect in Part 1 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and it is an important advance. 
The National Party may make light of the issue but the reality is that it is important. For that reason the Government is very pleased to support this bill. The other functions of the board are largely unchanged. This legislation will not cause undue costs to taxpayers but it will help New Zealand assert its sovereign rights in respect of an area 24 times the size of our land area that lies underwater on the continental shelf. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to.
Simich Clem: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15539] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 1.
Hereora Dave: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:646;Page:15538] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I stand in support of the bill and thank the Minister for that clarification because as we heard from the Opposition speaker previously I did think that National was losing the plot on the intention of this bill. But clause 5 “Electricity governance regulations” inserts section 172D(1)(22A) which states: “providing for the terms and conditions on which electricity retailers must provide domestic consumers with billing and payment options …”. Now I think that drives at the very heart—the very essence—of the intention of this bill. Because we have heard of what obviously very tragically happened with the Muliaga family but I recently fielded a call from a constituent a solo mother with three children at 5 o’clock in the evening who had her power cut off. Obviously during that time of the day when one has children one has to cook and the children have to be cleaned. There was no way she had the opportunity to continue with those services because her power was cut off. What does one do? At the end of the day one can imagine how that solo mother felt. She was literally left in the dark. That can be isolating. 
The question I pose to the Opposition is who has that social responsibility to ensure that people are looked after. I believe that clause 5 represents the very essence of this bill. It also acknowledges the moral issues surrounding the reason why we are regulating in this case. I thought I would contribute that and I thank the Minister for his clarification. 
Clause 5 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.