edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hayes John: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill; and Bills Therefrom — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hayes John: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill; and Bills Therefrom — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5841. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It has been really an effort because this bill the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill is being directed at trying to improve the atmosphere around that member’s environment—Andrew Williams who has just resumed his seat—by pricing tobacco off his leader’s budget and thereby reducing the amount of smoke that that member has to inhale by association. I think he must be impacted by too much cigarette smoke because it is impacting on his ability to think clearly and logically. 
If the Government raises $528 million by increasing the excise tax—which I doubt very much because the whole idea is to drop that amount; we want to stop collecting excise tax on that by cutting out smoking—that money does not go into a big black hole Mr Williams. That money goes into providing health care for the people who are damaged by smoking. If he actually studied this issue before he got up in the House and fired off cliché after cliché after cliché he would discover that in the 1920s the connection between cigarette smoking and life expectancy was beginning to be drawn. It was only around 1932 that statistical evidence began to be collected on relating smoking to lung cancer. 
The second error of that member’s logic is to assume that increasing the excise tax is always going to go into just the Government’s budget. That is not the case at all because the Government has said: “OK we’re going to collect more money. We want people to stop smoking. We’re going to put $20 million over 4 years into smoking cessation and helping people to stop smoking.” I think that the policies are working very well. I pick up the point that my colleague the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Todd McClay mentioned which is the really significant drop in young people smoking—from 15.6 percent smoking every day in 1999 down to 4 percent in 2011. 
I would like to make just one point to the House as I conclude my support for this legislation. Recently I was watching some basketball players at the ASB Sports Centre at the bottom of Cobham Drive and I heard the young people calling out the term of derision “smoker” to their colleagues who muffed calls in the game. It was really fascinating for me to listen to these young people abusing their colleagues using this foul word. 
I have no hesitation in supporting this bill. As an ex-smoker and sometime smoker myself I know how hard it is to give up. But those people across in the Labour Party know about this business of raising excise taxes. I can remember one Arnold Nordmeyer who had his famous Black Budget. The next day my father stopped smoking because of that tax grab. This is not a tax grab. This is an inducement to the community to stop smoking by 2025. Thank you.
Goldsmith Paul: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill; and Bills Therefrom — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill; and Bills Therefrom — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5838. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I am very happy to support this legislation the purpose of which is to increase the excise tax to reduce smoking to dissuade young people from being involved in smoking and to improve the health of all New Zealanders. 
I just want to touch on a couple of quick points. One area that the Finance and Expenditure Committee looked at was this whole question of duty-free tobacco sales and the committee requested that the Government work to assess the compatibility of New Zealand’s duty-free tobacco concession with the goal of achieving smoke-free status by 2025. I did also want to note that the evidence we have had before the committee is that for every 10 percent increase in the price tobacco consumption falls by about 4 percent. It is very interesting to me to see that the Greens and Labour very much understand that price measures are the most powerful and that taxes affect behaviour and I do wish that they would extend that logic and abandon their constant desire to increase taxes on a whole heap of other things—work and savings—and follow that logic through to the rest of their political programme. But I support this legislation. I think it will make a great difference to the lives of many New Zealanders. Thank you.
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Urgent Debates — Social Development Ministry—Security of Private Information 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Urgent Debates — Social Development Ministry—Security of Private Information 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5825. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It gives me no pleasure to speak on this motion. I think I share the sentiments of all those in the House here today when we see a security breach where private information has obviously been put in the public domain unnecessarily. That situation is unsatisfactory and it is disappointing. I am sorry that this has happened. But it is about taking leadership and action and this Minister—and I stand to support this Minister Paula Bennett—has fronted with the chief executive she has fronted to this House today answering all the questions that have been put to her and she will continue to fight for vulnerable children and she will continue to fight for the truth in this matter. And the truth is that at this point in time no one knows. I do not know what happened and how this information became public. Lianne Dalziel does not know what happened. Across the floor here the Green and the New Zealand First members do not know what happened. But there is an independent investigation that is being carried out and no stone will be left unturned in order to get to the truth of the matter. We hear cries from the Opposition of royal commissions of inquiry and we hear cries for resignations when what is required here is calm what is required here is leadership and what is required here is restraint in order to get to the bottom of these matters. 
So I stand to support the Minister I stand to support the independent investigation that is going on and I stand to support the reforms that this Government is doing in the area of social development. That includes welfare reforms in terms of streamlining those reforms. It includes the white paper reforms that the Minister clearly outlined last Thursday. It includes reforms to help the vulnerable the poor and those in need. So I am not happy to speak on this motion but I am certainly here to say that this Government is doing everything in its power to get to the bottom of this case to get to the truth and to ensure that in future systems will be put in place in order for us to protect and safeguard the private information of our citizens. It is about the confidence and trust in our Government and that is what is being done. Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates — Social Development Ministry—Security of Private Information 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates — Social Development Ministry—Security of Private Information 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5824. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I think the Minister for Social Development has done all that she could in the last 48 hours or so since learning of this appalling breach of privacy. No one is arguing that it is anything other than just that. For the Opposition to say that the Minister is insincere I think does obscure the problem that we have to deal with here. It does make it very personal when in fact the reality is that this is something that could have happened to any Government at any time. It is not unique to the current circumstances. If members are realistic and honest about it they will accept that these systems have been in place for a very long time and therefore have had some of the vulnerabilities that have occurred or come to light I should say in the last several months. What it does indicate is that we are now living in a world where a great deal of our information is held electronically not just by State agencies but by many private sector agencies as well. Very few people would write cheques these days for example preferring to do everything by electronic means. It is simply the world that we live in. That does not excuse the appalling breach of security that has occurred inside this system. I am very very certain that the Government wants to get to the bottom of this particular issue and to sort it out. 
I am also very much in admiration of the Minister for being so upfront in saying exactly what it is—an appalling breach of private security—and not trying to create any degree of obfuscation through various excuses that might have previously been offered by other Ministers and I speak about Ministers from other Governments in the past. The reality is that the Minister has done all that can be done at this point and continues to supervise a programme that will fix this problem. Mr Chauvel calling for a royal commission on this shows I think that he has not thought through exactly what he is asking for. This is an issue that is not necessarily confined to the State sector. It is one that could well affect the private sector. Indeed there are some very interesting cases before the courts at the moment about privacy about breaches of privacy and about the way in which people’s individual intellectual property in fact is dealt with as well. We live in an age of increasing electronic activity. We live in an age where all of these things do need to be well looked after and the commitment from the Minister and from the Government is to sort this matter out.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Social Development Ministry—Security of Private Information 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Social Development Ministry—Security of Private Information 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5812. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The fourth and fifth applications are from Jacinda Ardern and Metiria Turei seeking to debate the Government’s failure to protect private information at the Ministry of Social Development. The failure is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The requirement of recent occurrence refers to when the member became aware of the matter rather than when it actually occurred. Given the need for public confidence in the Government’s handling of sensitive personal information particularly at this time when and in an area where further shared information systems are proposed I consider the matter important enough to warrant the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate. As Jacinda Ardern lodged her application first I call on Jacinda Ardern to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Rail Napier-Gisborne—Decision to Shut Down Line Government Communications Security Bureau—Briefings and Unlawful Interception of Communications Earthquake Christchurch—Review of Civil Defence Emergency Management Response 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Rail Napier-Gisborne—Decision to Shut Down Line Government Communications Security Bureau—Briefings and Unlawful Interception of Communications Earthquake Christchurch—Review of Civil Defence Emergency Management Response 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5812. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have received five letters seeking urgent debates under Standing Order 386. The first is from Phil Twyford seeking to debate the mothballing of the KiwiRail line between Napier and Gisborne. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility of the Government. However the business of the House should not be set aside just because an announcement has been made. There will be other occasions on which this matter can be debated. Members may raise such matters of concern to them during the general debate. That application is therefore declined. 
The second application is from David Shearer the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate further revelations about the unlawful interception of communications of certain individuals by the Government Communications Security Bureau and the Prime Minister’s knowledge of such events occurring. A proposal to discuss a continuing problem such as this is not one contemplated by Standing Order 386 as a particular case of recent occurrence. Furthermore the House has recently considered the matter. An urgent debate was held immediately before the adjournment on 27 September. Every subsequent press release on the matter will not necessarily require the immediate attention of the House. That application is therefore also declined. 
The third application is from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate the Government’s decision in response to the recommendations of the independent report commissioned by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management entitled  
Review of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Response to the 22 February Christchurch Earthquake 
. The release of the Government’s decisions is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. The business of the House should not be set aside just because a ministerial announcement has been made even though it may be important. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. A corrective action plan for work programmes over the next 2 years is being developed. I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to this particular issue over other business of the House today. The application is therefore also declined.
Walker Holly: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Walker Holly: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5811. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill 
: Has she received any advice on other parties’ support for the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill? 
METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The Maori Party New Zealand First and the Mana party are all supporting the bill. Labour has agreed to support it at its first reading. I want to thank those parties for their support. 
Holly Walker 
: Is that sufficient support for the bill to pass? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Unfortunately for New Zealand’s poorest children it is not sufficient. I have asked Peter Dunne to consider various options for supporting the bill but I am advised by his office that he does not consider that the Government can afford to assist the poorest children in New Zealand. Given that the cost of leaving these kids in poverty is estimated at $6 billion a year I would have thought that $300 million to $400 million for these poorest kids was an investment—a wise and just investment—in them and their futures.
Walker Holly: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Walker Holly: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5811. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill 
: What reports has she seen relating to reform of the In-work Tax Credit through the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill as a measure to address child poverty? 
METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The recent report of the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty for the Children’s Commissioner notes that my bill is before Parliament and welcomes the opportunity for a debate on child-related benefits. I also note that working paper No. 10 accompanying that report recommends that the hours worked test in the in-work tax credit regime be removed. My bill does as that working paper suggests. I have also read reports by Professor Susan St John of Auckland University who says that my bill “provides a practical and just way to make an immediate difference to New Zealand’s disgraceful child poverty problem.” and that “There are many … ways to make work pay that don’t involve punishing the poorest children.” 
Holly Walker 
: What reports has she seen about the impact of the in-work tax credit on poverty rates overall? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I have read Government reports stating that the in-work tax credit has been responsible for halving poverty among children whose parents meet the work hours requirement—halving it to just 8 percent. These same reports reveal that poverty among the children of beneficiaries has remained unaffected at 70 percent. My bill would give those children the opportunity to have a good life and a better fairer future which the children of working parents have.
Walker Holly: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Walker Holly: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5810. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill 
: Does the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill attempt to fix discrimination in the current Working for Families tax credit scheme? 
METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 Yes it does. The Human Rights Commission has found that the current in-work tax credit discriminates against the poorest families on the basis of income source. That is because poor families on benefits student allowances or superannuation do not receive the payment but those who work a minimum of 20 hours do. That is discrimination under New Zealand law on the basis of employment status. 
Holly Walker 
: Is this discrimination acceptable given that 270000 children in New Zealand live in severe poverty? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: No it is not acceptable and New Zealanders do not believe it is acceptable either. Any policy that leaves 270000 Kiwi children in severe poverty—the highest number that New Zealand has seen since the early 1990s—is deeply unjust. The Child Poverty Action Group is appealing a recent decision of the High Court in this matter and I hope the appeal is successful as no child should be discriminated against in New Zealand law.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5807. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We come now because the Rt Hon Winston Peters is not here for question No. 8 to question No. 9.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker receives such letters on a frequent basis. There is nothing unusual about that. In fact the Prime Minister’s response on this occasion was received yesterday and the matter is being considered today.
Chauvel Charles: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would it be possible—I am asking as a member of the Privileges Committee on this occasion—for you to give the House an indication of when you might have concluded an answer to the request set out in the letter please?
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 






Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
O'Rourke Denis: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two letters to you from the Rt Hon Winston Peters one dated 3 October 2012 and one dated 15 October 2012 concerning a request for an investigation to be undertaken into a breach of parliamentary privilege by the Rt Hon John Key.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the letters to you from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have ruled on that matter and that is the end of the matter. I am sorry but all members have to be treated the same. The matter is not a matter legitimately raised by point of order in the House and that is the end of that matter.
O'Rourke Denis: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On that same matter surely the House is entitled to an explanation—
O'Rourke Denis: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5795. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters wrote to you on 3 October 2012 with a reminder yesterday on 15 October 2012 concerning an investigation into a breach of parliamentary privilege by the right honourable Prime Minister—
Key John: Personal Explanations — Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Briefings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Key John: Personal Explanations — Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Briefings 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5794. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct answers I gave to oral questions during the last sitting week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: A number of oral questions put to me and the Minister answering on my behalf in the House between 25 and 27 September were based on public statements by me that the first I knew of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s involvement in the Dotcom matter was on 17 September. That response was based on my recollection. It was shared by the director of the bureau. 
 A subsequent review of all material held by the bureau found that on 29 February I had viewed a presentation that was not related to the Dotcom file during a visit to the bureau. I am advised that the talking points for the presentation included a short reference to the Dotcom arrest as an example of cooperation between the bureau and the police. The cover slide was a montage of 11 small images one of which was of Dotcom. Neither the presentation nor the talking points were provided to me in hard copy. Neither the director of the bureau nor I can recall the reference to the Dotcom matter during the visit but I accept that it may well have been made. 
I wish to make it clear that I was not briefed by the bureau on its role in the Dotcom matter nor any issues of potential illegality until Monday 17 September. This information affects the answers to three specific supplementary questions during oral question No. 1 and oral question No. 10 on 26 September and oral question No. 2 on 27 September but I also accept that it did impact on the questions that were asked during the course of the week. My answers to questions were based on my recollection at the time and the view of the director. There was no intention to mislead the House.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Cook Islands—Speaker House of Representatives 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Cook Islands—Speaker House of Representatives 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5793. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Speaker of the Cook Islands House of Representatives the Hon Niki Rattle is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that she be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Hon Niki Rattle accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The right honourable Prime Minister.
Woodhouse Michael: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5856. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 Well how lucky were we to have 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes from the previous speaker the Hon David Cunliffe. I feel that all of the issues have been so well traversed that it leaves it for me simply to sum up by saying this is good legislation. It needs to be passed into law and I support it. 
Bills read a third time.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5810. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission 
: What is the objective of the Government review of the EQC? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission) 
: 
 Recently the Minister of Finance and I announced a review with the objectives of learning the lessons from the Canterbury earthquakes for New Zealand disaster insurance arrangements. The Canterbury earthquakes have generated 698215 exposures for the Earthquake Commission and this has proved to be the biggest test of the current legislation since it came into operation in 1993. The commission has been an important part of the Government’s overall management of disaster risk and recovery in New Zealand and the review will ensure that the legislation provides the best possible protection for New Zealanders’ homes in the future. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What will the review focus on? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The review will focus on what types of property the Earthquake Commission insures including structures that are built and the extent of Earthquake Commission cover for land; how the Earthquake Commission prices its insurance; the institutional structure and design of the Earthquake Commission itself including its roles; and the financial management of the Crown’s risk and its exposure and how that should be financed moving forward.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Call Seeking—Speaker’s Acceptance Privilege—Procedure for Raising Alleged Breaches 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5795. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will resume his seat or he will be—the member will resume his seat. That has nothing to do with the proceedings of the House. Those matters are dealt with by a letter to the Speaker and the matter is being dealt with. It is not a matter to be dealt with—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. The member will learn to respect that or he will be joining his leader. It is his choice just like I warned other members. It is their choice. They comply with my rulings or they leave the House.
Barry Maggie: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill; and Bills Therefrom — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill; and Bills Therefrom — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5845. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Other Government members have detailed the excellent measures within the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and I commend the Associate Minster of Health Tariana Turia for her excellent work in this area. I commend too the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Todd McClay who has done an outstanding job of shepherding through some of the people who for example think that smoking is good for you and say that they enjoy it. There is one in particular on the Finance and Expenditure Committee who has taken a fairly mischievous outlook on this all the way through but let us not relitigate all of that. 
I think that this bill in its third reading actually does all that it sets out to do. [ 
Interruption 
] OK two of them smoke; that is true. This is an excellent bill. We know that 80 percent of people who smoke wish they had never begun. Once people are addicted once they begin the process it is a very very difficult thing to give up. As W C Fields said: “Smoking is easy to give up. I’ve done it thousands of times.” It is a difficult process but we in this Government are unashamedly encouraging smokers to quit. For every 10 percent increase in the price tobacco consumption falls by 4 percent. That is good enough for me. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill read a third time.
Walker Holly: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Walker Holly: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5810. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill 
: What is the purpose of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill? 
METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The purpose of the bill is to transform the in-work tax credit into a child payment for the poorest New Zealanders and their children. The payment will apply to New Zealand families whose incomes fall below a certain threshold whether they are in work or receiving a student allowance a benefit or New Zealand superannuation and will assist in bringing 100000 New Zealand children out of the severe poverty that they currently suffer. Every child is entitled to a good life and a fair future and my bill will make sure the poorest kids get that same opportunity to enjoy those rights. 
Holly Walker 
: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that the bill will give rich families even more money; if not why not? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: No the Prime Minister is wrong. The payment will be available to the poorest New Zealand families not the richest as my bill ensures that the means test will stay in place. My bill is a step towards a universal child payment as recommended by the report of the Children’s Commissioner.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill; and Bills Therefrom — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill; and Bills Therefrom — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5846. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 23 
Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Hutchison Paul: Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5861. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 5 be agreed to.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5809. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in Hon John Banks; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working Minister. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is it still his policy as he told media on 30 April this year that a Minister who lies or misleads about his actions would lose his confidence as Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think Mr Banks has met this standard after he told the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 14 September that the police were responsible for his witness statement being withheld when in fact it was he who asked for it to be withheld? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have no knowledge of that. That is a matter for the Minister. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from David P H Jones QC Mr Banks’ lawyer to the New Zealand Police dated 10 August 2012 which says that disclosure of any material relating to Mr Banks is opposed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why is he hanging on to John Banks as a Minister when sworn witness statements of others and Mr Banks’ own actions show that he has lied to New Zealanders or is the Prime Minister simply prepared to put his own political interests ahead of the high ethical standards New Zealanders expect of Ministers? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I accept the member’s word that he has complied with the law.
Personal Explanations — Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Briefings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Personal Explanations — Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Briefings 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5794. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Personal Explanations 
Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Briefings 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct answers I gave to oral questions during the last sitting week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: A number of oral questions put to me and the Minister answering on my behalf in the House between 25 and 27 September were based on public statements by me that the first I knew of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s involvement in the Dotcom matter was on 17 September. That response was based on my recollection. It was shared by the director of the bureau. 
 A subsequent review of all material held by the bureau found that on 29 February I had viewed a presentation that was not related to the Dotcom file during a visit to the bureau. I am advised that the talking points for the presentation included a short reference to the Dotcom arrest as an example of cooperation between the bureau and the police. The cover slide was a montage of 11 small images one of which was of Dotcom. Neither the presentation nor the talking points were provided to me in hard copy. Neither the director of the bureau nor I can recall the reference to the Dotcom matter during the visit but I accept that it may well have been made. 
I wish to make it clear that I was not briefed by the bureau on its role in the Dotcom matter nor any issues of potential illegality until Monday 17 September. This information affects the answers to three specific supplementary questions during oral question No. 1 and oral question No. 10 on 26 September and oral question No. 2 on 27 September but I also accept that it did impact on the questions that were asked during the course of the week. My answers to questions were based on my recollection at the time and the view of the director. There was no intention to mislead the House.
Simpson Scott: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Simpson Scott: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5785. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In just over 2 years and some months 25 April 2015 will be the day that our nation commemorates the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landing at Anzac Cove. Both my grandfathers served there. Both fortunately came home although one was wounded and—can you believe it—was patched up and then sent to Passchendaele before coming home. At Gallipoli 103000 New Zealanders served 50000 were wounded and 18500 made the ultimate sacrifice. At the time we had a country with a population of just over 1 million people. That was a sacrifice almost intolerable to bear. 
So nearly 100 years on it is with great pride and I guess expectation that I support the passage of this legislation the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill through the House. I want to commend the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the diligent chairmanship of David Bennett who has guided this legislation through the select committee process. I am looking forward along with all other New Zealanders to seeing this new memorial park built in time for the commemorations on 25 April 2015 and I commend this bill to the House with pride and expectation. Thank you.
O'Connor Simon: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Simon: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5783. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I think the place of memory is incredibly important. I was struck over the weekend as I was joining the Scouts of Glendowie and St Heliers celebrating their 100-year anniversary that they drew my attention towards a little water fountain that sits in St Heliers as a memorial to one of their first Scoutmasters Guyon Brookfield who served and died. Awareness of that memorial was being reignited if you like in the young people of today and they are being made aware of it and they were able to connect with that. It reminded me that that is just a small-scale version of what we are talking about here today: a National War Memorial to all our war dead throughout a variety of wars and the importance of allowing their memory to live on in our hearts and minds. I think it is very important that we come together as one House to support this bill the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill and I encourage our colleagues in the Green Party to support this bill. Principles are important but principles do not exist in a vacuum. So once again I encourage the House to join in one voice to remember those who have served this country so finely.
Roy Eric: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5786. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Do the Greens want a call there? A split call—right? 
Hon Member 
: No. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: OK thank you. You can have the full 10 minutes.
Prasad Rajen: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5791. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I was rather hoping that the last member Jonathan Young would take his full call and we would come back for a fresh start in a couple of weeks from now but this is how it is. It is my first time on this Commerce (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and the legislation arising from it. I have not been involved with this legislation at all. Therefore it is always instructive when you have to prepare yourself to take a call at the final stage—when one has to take a call at the final stage—and I have enjoyed doing that. 
The purpose of the legislation has been well read by the Minister from the— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I’m helping you—I’m getting you to the bell. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well I am happy to go to the bell and I shall come back after the bell. It might be better for me to simply respond and wait for the bell so that I can have a fresh start the next time I come or I can actually talk about the timing factors that Lianne Dalziel has already spoken about. Of course what she has not spoken about is how quickly the Australians did this. They had the memorandum of understanding in 2006-07. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5787. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill be now read a third time.  
Ayes 104 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time.