edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare Tau: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Henare Tau: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13370] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will be quick smart. The dragons across the House love to tell workers what to do. But whose week is it whose holiday is it? It is theirs—the workers’ holiday. Do workers get a chance to trade it for cash or to maybe even—how is this—take a holiday? Not under the Labour manual not under the left’s manual. It is all about telling workers what to do. It is all about telling workers how many days off they are allowed. It is all about telling workers “No you’re not allowed to trade your holiday for a bit of cash.” Well I can tell those members across the House that at the end of the day workers will be lining up for this—they will be lining up for this. They will want to trade their measly little week off for a bit of extra cash. It will be a great day when that happens. Do members know why? Because the decisions will be made by workers and not by Labour. 
Let me remind the House that Labour is full of chardonnay socialists. They say “No worker no worker you’re not allowed to do this.” but on the other hand they give one of their mates 8 weeks off for feeling a bit under the weather! That member can take 8 weeks off work. What did those members do? They told him to go; they said to take 8 weeks off. But the worker is not allowed to trade one of their days. In fact members opposite say to the worker: “How about a medical certificate?”. They baulk at workers having to provide medical certificates for 1 day’s leave but where is the medical certificate for Chris Carter? Where is the medical certificate for Chris Carter? Not one of those members is answering. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Where was yours? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Where is mine? The nursing staff at Auckland City Hospital were absolutely great. There is my record of service at Auckland City Hospital. That is my evidence. It was not a bit of indigestion; it was a real heart attack—a real doozy 60-odd days ago. Before I finish I tell members that I am still smoke-free.
Locke Keith: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13391] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The previous speakers have talked essentially about the upside of the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill—that is the expansion of particular dairy products in Hong Kong and related to that in China. They talked very little about the downside in terms of the effect on New Zealand manufacturing which continues to be undermined by cheaper products from China. It is not a level playing field for New Zealand manufacturers. 
I will address the question that John Hayes raised. His concern—and I am glad that he has the concern—was about the sale of the Crafar farms and perhaps other dairy farms to overseas interests. In this case we are talking about Chinese or Hong Kong interests. We are left with the problem in the dairy sector of perhaps expanding the exports to China and Hong Kong but perhaps losing the land to foreign ownership—to China or Hong Kong—that those dairy products come from. Let us look at the investment provisions—and they have been described by many speakers—the $100 million limit and under this agreement the $20 million limit. Unless a dairy farm is sold for more than $100 million it just goes through the system and a high proportion of our land can be onsold to overseas interests. We end up with our dairy farmers being tenant farmers on land owned by Chinese Hong Kong or other overseas owners. 
The Government and Labour should take note of the campaign started up by some very prominent Auckland business people to try to deal with this and to essentially say that we should not sell our farmland in this way. Other countries do not do it. China does not do it; it allows only leasehold. I think the very fact that quite prominent members of the business community are promoting this campaign and are getting some momentum should wake up both Labour and National. One of the problems is how under the ratchet clauses in this agreement as was explained by Russel Norman we can legally get the result that these Auckland business people want under what we have committed to in terms of the two agreements and other free-trade and investment agreements. It is very hard to legislate without violating what is written in the free-trade agreements. That is a quandary that I wish Labour and National would address.
Dean Jacqui: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13392] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I will explore a bit further the opportunities that will arise for New Zealand and particularly the agricultural sector as an outcome of the New Zealand - Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement. I note the stress that New Zealand sheep and beef farmers have been under for a number of years. Although this agreement provides an opportunity for that sector I believe that it is up to companies such as Silver Fern Farms and the Alliance Group to make sure that they maximise the opportunities and the returns for their shareholding farmers. Maybe that goes a little bit beyond having market access to Hong Kong and China; maybe it goes as far as branding New Zealand sheepmeat and beef which are highly regarded in that market. Making sure that they are fully signed up for things like— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member; it is time for dinner. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I will just finish off because I was mid-sentence. If I recall 1½ hours ago I was talking about the opportunities and the challenges for the New Zealand primary production sector and I was talking in terms of the sheep and beef industry capturing the value of their product. It is not good enough merely to grow it and ship it; it is about capturing the value. There are a number of Government initiatives and one of them is National Animal Identification and Tracing or NATE which tags an animal from pasture to market which is becoming increasingly valued in overseas markets. It is opportunities like that that the agricultural industry would do well to buy into in order to maximise the opportunities presented by things such as this free-trade agreement. Having finished that train of thought I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Hayes John: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hayes John: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13389] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is good to be able to support the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill in the Committee stage and I will do it fairly briefly. One of the things I draw the Committee’s attention to is the constant negativism and opposition of a misled Green Party which has a minority view in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s report. I simply say to the Green Party that as a specific result of our free-trade agreement with China New Zealand increased its exports to China by $860 million in the last 12 months. I ask members to think about the number of jobs that that is creating but the Green Party would like us to shut that down. A new market of $860 million is roughly the equivalent of finding a new market like Indonesia because our total exports to Indonesia are about $860 million. I say to this Parliament and to this country that when it comes time to tick the box for the party we want to vote for in the next election we should remember that the Green Party would like to close this down and close job creation down. When the select committee considered that issue we said it made no sense in our heads. 
This is a very brief bill. I draw the Committee’s attention to two points. First the bill includes a ratchet clause. This means that should there be any future trade unilateral trade liberalisation by Hong Kong in certain sectors such as education the Hong Kong Government will automatically be obliged to pass those benefits on to us. We believe that the most-favoured nation status and the ratchet clause will future-proof access for New Zealand for the service sector particularly to the Hong Kong market. 
Second over the last few months voters in my Wairarapa electorate have felt considerable concern about people coming into this country and buying up land. Two of the Crafar farms are located near Norsewood in my electorate. This agreement does not allow Hong Kong investors any exemption from the screening process and the regime set out in the Overseas Investment Act 2005. The Act requires overseas investors to apply to the Overseas Investment Office for consent to invest in New Zealand in respect of fishing quotas sensitive land or business assets over $100 million. However I stress to the Committee that the screening threshold for Hong Kong is $20 million. It is well below the threshold of the $100 million that is applicable to other overseas investors. With those few words I stress our total support for this bill. Thank you.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13389] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3 (Flavell Sharples Turia); Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9 Maori Party 2 (Harawira Katene). 
Bill read a second time.
Dean Jacqui: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13383] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 In my contribution on the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill I speak strongly in favour of it. I was interested in the contribution from the co-leader of the Green Party Dr Russel Norman. I think it is a shame that the permanent Green member on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Keith Locke has not had an opportunity to speak on this bill because at least he has gone through the select committee process and scrutinised the bill along with the Labour and National members on that committee. Although I accept that he will not vote in favour of this bill at least he has taken the time unlike the co-leader of the Greens to scrutinise the bill and its impact on New Zealand. 
Rather than playing the blame game about who first started the process of this bill—which Minister started the negotiations and who signed it—apart from congratulating the Hon Tim Groser on signing the deal I want to focus on the benefits for New Zealand and in particular on the benefits for the agricultural sector. I want to zero right down to a paddock of lambs that are being born in—well it is a bit early for Central Otago—the North Island where we now see lambs being born in the Bay of Plenty. We know that in little over a year a good proportion of those lambs will be on their way to the wet markets and supermarkets of Hong Kong courtesy of this closer economic partnership agreement the endeavours of the farmer and the processing and marketing industry in New Zealand. New Zealand lamb and sheep meat is highly valued in Hong Kong. We could probably supply more of it but with flock numbers falling unfortunately we seem to have a bit of a crisis in the sheepmeat industry in New Zealand. Things like this free-trade agreement can only do benefit to the health of the New Zealand agricultural sector. For that reason for those paddocks in the North Island and in Central Otago and for the farmers in that industry I believe that the closer economic partnership agreements with Hong Kong and China can only bring benefit to New Zealand. Thank you.
Hutchison Paul: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13384] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 The Government is indeed to be congratulated on the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill. It is very much in line with the Government’s aim to expand our trade. After all we are an exporting nation. That is something that has escaped previous speakers. We are absolutely dependent on our exports and we need to take every advantage we can. This partnership agreement with Hong Kong enables us to do so. It is part of a network that has been established over the years that includes our free-trade agreements with Thailand Singapore China Malaysia and Brunei and of course the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. 
It was interesting to hear the previous speaker the excellent Jacqui Dean from Otago talk about how vitally important this partnership agreement is to our primary products. I can say that the spring lambs are frolicking in the fields around Pukekohe Franklin and Karaka where I live. They along with the great produce that comes from the vegetable basket of New Zealand from the rich fertile soils of Franklin are the sorts of things that will benefit from this partnership agreement with Hong Kong. 
I want to make two particular points. First this closer economic partnership will ensure that New Zealand’s exports to Hong Kong are locked in for exporters. Only 14 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to Hong Kong are in tariff lines that are unbound. This means that Hong Kong is currently free to increase tariffs to any level without breaching its World Trade Organization commitments. Locking in New Zealand’s duty-free access will provide New Zealand exporters with certainty on tariffs that their competitors do not enjoy. Second the closer economic partnership contains phasing of the elimination of tariffs that exactly mirrors that in the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement in order to avoid creating any incentive for Chinese manufacturers to route their products through Hong Kong in order to take advantage of the more favourable access enjoyed by Hong Kong. This of course is crucially important. Although Hong Kong has a population of only 7 million people by about 2050 China will have a population of 1.5 billion people with a much higher per capita income than they have today. Naturally they will be hugely important for New Zealand exports. 
I too commend this bill to the House.
Douglas Roger: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Douglas Roger: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13373] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 We should be very clear in this House exactly what Labour is saying to workers. They are saying to workers that they are not able to make up their own minds that they are not smart enough that they are not intelligent enough to be able to make up their minds so Labour will do if for them. Labour is saying very clearly that average workers cannot be trusted to make up their own minds as to whether to take a week’s holiday or take pay in lieu. Labour says that Big Brother knows best and that no workers cannot be trusted to make the right decision for themselves and that Uncle Phil or Uncle Trevor knows best. If we cut everything else away that is essentially what Labour is saying. It is saying to workers who might be $600 or $700 in arrears on their mortgage that they cannot clean up that debt by taking pay in lieu but that they should go on holiday and get further in debt. That is essentially what Labour is saying. 
The truth is that as far as Labour is concerned we have two classes of citizens in New Zealand not because the Government is not doing enough for the less well-off but because Labour wants to deny them that choice. The Holidays Amendment Bill is about giving average New Zealanders that choice. Labour wants to deny their right to make their own decisions and their own choices. It wants to destroy that incentive for workers to get ahead and that would subject them to political abuse.
Woodhouse Michael: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13373] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I also want to comment on the aspect of the Holidays Amendment Bill relating to the ability of employees to request that a portion of their annual leave be paid out in cash. I listened very carefully to the chorus of disgust from my friends on the other side of the House in particular Lynne Pillay and Moana Mackey who as we know are at odds with the leader of the Labour Party who thought that the policy was pretty reasonable as long as employees entered into the arrangement willingly. 
We well know what the unions think of this policy simply because a National Government brought it in but I have a recollection of unions taking quite a different view in the past. I am sure that my colleague Tau Henare will remember that if one goes back to the award negotiations of the late 1980s a good number of the agreements registered with the Department of Labour provided for staff to receive a fourth week’s holiday—usually a reward for longevity of service of around 5 years or so. It was also very common for those agreements to contain a provision for the fourth week to be paid out in cash. Why? It was because not only did the unions accept at that time that it was OK to trade the fourth week but on many occasions they actually asked for it. Unions asked for the fourth week to be traded in for cash. So it was OK in the 1980s but now it is a hanging offence. 
I ask members to spot the difference because I cannot. The only difference I can see is that a National Government thought of it and for that reason Labour will oppose the bill vociferously. That is a shame because it is a very sensible measure and I look forward to hearing more about it in the select committee.
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13374] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Wilkinson Kate: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13374] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 consider the  
bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 5 November 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:666;Page:13374] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill and the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill; the first readings of the Legal Services Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill and the Insolvency Practitioners Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Limitation Bill the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill and the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill and any bills into which any of those bills may be divided; the first reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill; and the second reading and remaining stages of the Inquiries Bill.  
Urgency is being moved in order to gain extra sitting hours so that the House might be able to deal with a range of Government business where there is essentially quite a large amount of support from other parties in the House beyond those that are just part of the Government confidence and supply arrangements. 
Periodically the Order Paper will be crammed up with legislative requirements that the wider number of people in the House can support. In the end the orderly function of the House is assisted as the year progresses by occasionally having an extension of hours. I point to Government notice of motion No. 2 on the Order Paper where there has been an expression of desire by the Government to get more hours. I accept that for Opposition parties granting the extension of hours is quite an extraordinary thing. So we have developed a practice in this Parliament of notifying well in advance of when we intend to take urgency for this type of motion—a motion that has a number of bills well supported. How far we get through that motion is a matter for discussion. With those brief explanations I put the motion.
Mackey Moana: Urgency 
Mackey Moana: Urgency 
[Volume:666;Page:13374] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry I apologise to the Leader of the House if I missed this: did he confirm that we would be having question time each day? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It comes after. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Thank you.
Hayes John: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hayes John: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13378] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I suggest that we on this side of the House did not find it surprising at all that this bill referred to sustainable development and the importance of having sustainable economies. In fact this bill had its gestation in 2001 but it hit the wall in 2002 when the Government of the day—I think they might have been people from the other side of the House—decided to abort the dialogue between New Zealand and Hong Kong. It was only in 2009 when we had a new Prime Minister the very active non-bogged-down-in-process John Key who engaged in dialogue with his counterpart in Hong Kong David Tsang that at a meeting in Singapore effectively this agreement was concluded. It will bring huge benefit to every New Zealander and particularly to all the exporters in the Wairarapa electorate that I represent. For 9 years we sat here—9 years of frustration—while that Government took no action at all. But—hello—John Key our very excellent Prime Minister has been given the opportunity to drive this country ahead and that is what he has done. If we look at the record of that previous Labour Government through 9 long years we see that it lifted our wages in this country by a magnificent 3 percent in real terms— 
Todd McClay 
: Is that all? 
JOHN HAYES 
: —3 percent in real terms. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: Each year—it must be? 
JOHN HAYES 
: No no not each year—3 percent in 9 years. There was a 3 percent increase in GDP in 9 long years. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: That’s a third a year. 
JOHN HAYES 
: That is dead right. But I draw this country’s attention and particularly the attention of that party to the activities of John Key in 18 months. He has lifted real wages in this economy by 8.7 percent in the last 18 months. How has he done that? He has done it by refusing to get bogged down in process and arguments and he has driven this country forward in a very practical way. This bill is a part of that process. This bill will boost innovation and it will improve export access to world markets which is one of the National Government’s six policy drivers for a step change in our economic performance. 
The agreement with Hong Kong a market of 7 million people is an important part of our focus on free trade and the improvement of access for our exporters to world markets. That is very important in my electorate. The agreement is a priority and it was included in the Prime Minister’s statement to this Parliament in February. Our Prime Minister has made it very clear that it is only by lifting our economic performance that we can create jobs boost incomes improve living standards and provide the world-class Public Service that Kiwi families deserve. I am fully in support of this bill and will support it through its second reading stage. Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:666;Page:13375] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 25 August and on Thursday 26 August and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372 notwithstanding that the House is sitting under urgency. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Pacific Economic Development Agency—Calls for Bids for Funding 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Pacific Economic Development Agency—Calls for Bids for Funding 
[Volume:666;Page:13364] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Su’a William Sio seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement from the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs that a range of organisations will now be asked to bid for the $4.8 million that was specifically earmarked in this year’s Budget for the Pacific Economic Development Agency. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. There must however be an element of urgency for a matter to take precedence over other business. The announcement today is part of a continuing process. Organisations have been asked to submit tenders but no final decision has yet been made by the Government. I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter is one that can be considered over a longer time frame. The application is therefore declined.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13401] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3 (Flavell Sharples Turia); Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2 (Harawira Katene). 
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13361] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient from the member. I am not about to revisit that decision. The Standing Orders around tabling documents are very simple. Where leave is sought to table documents it is to provide information for the House. Trying to score points—“I’m right; you’re wrong”—is not the purpose of tabling documents. If members do not have the intellect to ask hard questions and to show through their questioning that they are putting Ministers on the spot and to embarrass Ministers they should not be members of this House. They should not waste time—[ 
Interruption 
] The Hon Tau Henare will be silent while I am on my feet. Simply making a political statement by way of a supplementary question then seeking leave to table a document is not what question time is about. If the member does not want to join his colleague this had better be a very good point of order.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:666;Page:13375] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13363] 
3. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How many submissions did the committee both receive and hear on the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill that related to the provisions to reduce the blood-alcohol content for young drivers? 
CHESTER BORROWS (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): 
 Of the submissions received by the committee 31 related to blood-alcohol content for young drivers. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Has the committee requested any reports from the Ministry of Transport on clause 56 introduced during the previous Labour Government’s term which prohibits drivers who are under the age of 20 and without a full licence from having any alcohol in their blood when driving? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for the committee; it is not a matter on which the chair can be questioned in the House. Members know that the Standing Orders on questions to members are very tight.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13363] 
1. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: When will the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill be reported back to the House? 
CHESTER BORROWS (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): 
 The report back was postponed to allow for the publication of the Law Commission’s paper  
Alcohol in our Lives: Curbing the Harm 
 which was available a year earlier than it would have been on the previous Government’s time line. The committee is due to report to the House by 1 October 2010. The extension was supported by all parties. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Did the committee resolve to make available the submissions on that bill in order to inform the development of the alcohol law reform package announced by the Government yesterday; if so why? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This seems to be a matter for the committee and is therefore not a matter for the chairperson. The bill has not been reported back as we have heard and therefore I do not believe the matter is within the Standing Orders for questioning in the House. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The regulatory impact statement on the alcohol law reform Cabinet paper which has already been publicly released states that the submissions on the bill were considered as part of the package and I would like to know why. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The chair is not responsible for that matter; it is a matter for the committee. In the House during oral questions to members we can ask the chair only about matters that the chair is responsible for. The chair is not responsible for the decisions of the committee.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13361] 
11. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What were the findings of the adventure tourism review? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Adventure tourism is a $3 billion industry; 850000 tourists partake in some form of adventure activity each year. For the most part safety practices are first rate and operators take their responsibilities very seriously. They know that getting people home safely is a priority. Although the majority of operators are managing risks effectively for some activities there are gaps in the safety management framework that could allow businesses to operate at a lower standard than industry experts consider acceptable. The review made a number of recommendations to provide assurance that the entire sector is operating as safely as possible. 
David Bennett 
: What decisions has the Government made to improve safety in the adventure tourism sector? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The Government has accepted the review’s primary recommendation and has agreed in principle to look at creating a registration scheme with upfront safety audits based on the risks of a particular sector. By introducing a registration scheme we will know exactly what commercial adventure activities are on offer and all users whether they are tourists or New Zealanders can be assured that any associated risks are being managed. I have also asked the department to complete further work on other initiatives discussed in the report. The Tourism Industry Association has offered to work with us to progress these recommendations. Everyone in this industry wants to protect New Zealand’s reputation from any perceptions that safety here is not up to scratch. Some adventure activities like mountaineering come with high risks. No law can prevent every accident from occurring but we can offer assurance that every practical step is being taken to manage the risks.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13361] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. The member is questioning my ruling and he will resume his seat. The easiest thing in the world is to ask some questions that put a Minister under such pressure over the facts that if the Minister has been wrong in his or her answer he or she is forced to correct it. That is the toughest way to deal with these things. It is not to make a political statement then seek leave to table a document. I tell members to ask the tough questions.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13361] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order pertained to the longstanding ruling and Standing Order whereby a member’s word if questioned should be honoured. I am not seeking to make a political point; I am asking for your assistance and simply for some consideration of this matter. There have been a number of occasions over the course of weeks where it was a matter of “he said she said”. We members have contested as the Prime Minister did the accuracy of a statement—or whatever. If I could finish—
Tremain Chris: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13389] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill to be taken as one question with a wide-ranging debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for clauses 1 to 4 to be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13361] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to simply reflect on a matter that I raised with you a couple of weeks ago which has been illustrated today. Without wishing to take the time of the House these matters could be well resolved if you were to revisit your ruling in respect of tabling public documents. The simple dilemma that has been placed before the House today is one of whom we believe without getting into the detail. The member rose to table yes a document—
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13361] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If Parliament already has the statement there is absolutely no need to table it whatsoever. It just wastes the time of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] Another point of order is being called but I warn members that my patience is wearing thin.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13357] 
8. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports on his statement in Budget 2010 which forecast the growth in non-residential business investment to be 6.2 percent for 2011 increasing to 10.3 percent in 2012 and does he think these forecasts are important components of his Government’s plan to close the wage gap in Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the forecast 6.2 percent increase in non-residential business investment by next year a milestone upon which his Government is willing to be held accountable in respect of its election promise to close the wage gap with Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Hon David Parker 
: If by June next year his Government has not even restored the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia to what it was when National took office will he accept that his Government has failed in its election promise to close the wage gap with Australia? 
Rt Hon John Key 
: Done that already. 
Hon David Parker 
: That is nonsense Mr Prime Minister. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the National Party economic policy document dated 1 August 2010 make no reference to closing the wage gap with Australia and why has it dropped any reference to the promise of a step change in the New Zealand economy which was in the February 2010 version? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The document that the member is referring to sets out in detail the Government’s plan for lifting economic growth. We are proceeding with that plan despite two major difficulties. The first is the damage done to this economy by the previous Government and the second is the world economy which is patchy in its recovery. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a February document entitled  
The Economy: Our 2010 Priorities 
; a National Government document that included a step change in the economy more mining and a financial services hub. 
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. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table the 1 August 2010 equivalent which has no reference to closing the wage gap or a step change or a financial services hub. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13356] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a completely separate point of order. I put this question down to the Minister for Economic Development but it was redirected by the Government to the Minister of Finance. I seek leave to put it to the Minister for Economic Development who is in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. The— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see what the further point of order is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think you will have to wait and hear it Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard but I am getting a little tired of the time being spent this way. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I would like to refer you to Speakers’ rulings 144/2-3 and 144/5 and ask you whether this is one of those questions where the power taken by previous Speakers to refuse to allow the transfer could be invoked in light of the fact that this Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will resume his seat right now. It is absolutely the Government’s prerogative which Minister is to answer a question. This question as I read it contains issues to do with the Budget; Budget 2010 is specifically mentioned in the question. The fact that it has been transferred to the Minister of Finance to answer is nothing unusual whatsoever and there will be no further points of order on the matter. The Hon David Parker will ask his question and we will move on. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard will leave the House and he will do so without any scene or I will name him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13356] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you after question time to go away and reflect on this matter. The statement made by Mr Mallard before was in itself an admission that quotes are actually being paraphrased incorrectly because members opposite are not happy with the answers they have been getting from you Mr Speaker. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not take that any further. I have to say to the right honourable Prime Minister that that was not helpful. 
Rt Hon John Key 
: Well it’s accurate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister will not argue with me in the House. Even the Prime Minister has been known to leave the House. Ministers need to be a little bit realistic about this. There are some components of a question that I cannot judge in the House as Speaker. Sure I can rule out outlandish assertions but if a question contains a quote how is the Speaker to know that the quote may be out of context or may not be strictly accurate? The Speaker cannot judge that in the House and that is why it would be wrong for the Speaker to try to rule in too hard a way on some questions. But Ministers do have the last say. Ministers when they hear a quote that is unreasonable or that has misrepresented their point of view in answering the question can say that and I will absolutely support Ministers in pointing that out; it is a fair answer to the question. I do now want to move on because the House has taken a lot of time on this. I think the exchange has been worthwhile because I have been very disappointed with today’s question time. I think the time taken to sort through this issue has been worthwhile but I will look forward to an improvement in quality as we move forward.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13355] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to take your ruling a step further and also reflect on the letters that you have received and replied to on the question of privilege by way of answer. If members on this side of the House are required to be accurate in their questions I ask that the same standards be applied to answers because you have repeatedly ruled that they do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think that is very helpful in terms of where the House has got to now. If one looks at the way in which I am applying the Standing Orders in question time one would have to accept that on a strict interpretation of the Standing Orders I am being somewhat harder on answers than I am on questions. My judgment was that it was preferable for me not to be ruling out questions that do not really comply with the Standing Orders; it was better to leave them in the hands of Ministers to deal with. Ministers are perfectly capable; when they hear a question that is outside the Standing Orders they do not need my help to know how to answer and it makes question time flow better. I do not want to come back to applying the Standing Orders strictly. However if I feel that question times too often end up like question time today I will do that. 
I have to say that it is my feeling that I have been harder on answers than I have been on questions because from time to time I have insisted on Ministers answering questions. But if I am to apply the Standing Orders strictly many questions will be ruled out because many of them contain superfluous statements and are often just purely thinly disguised political statements and strictly do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders at all. 
All that I ask members to think about in response to the last point of order is that being careful with what one says in this House is important. I have given the matter a lot of thought actually and I will have some discussions with the Standing Orders Committee about it because I am concerned that at times not enough care is taken with what is said in this House. All I would ask is that both sides of the House be careful in what they say and what they allege because this is Parliament we are elected members of the House and we should be careful with what we say in this place. That is just an appeal to members to be careful. I would like us now to move on to try to get through question time.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13355] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to go away and later on reflect on Speaker’s ruling 156/3. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have the Speaker’s ruling right in front of me. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I go back to the point I read out before: “if the report is paraphrased in the question the paraphrase must be a fair one.” That is my point Mr Speaker. The questions coming out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition are not fair because they make an assertion that is different from the quote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members asking questions do need to be careful not to be making assertions in the question. A question is meant to be a question not a statement. I accept that there is a point there. What worries me is that if I were to apply the particular Standing Order that covers that issue I would be ruling out more than half the questions and I do not want to be doing that—I do not want to be doing that. But at the same time Ministers need to remember that if they feel that a question made an incorrect allegation about something that they have said they can simply say that in answering the question. They can clear up the matter and deal with it at that time by saying “That is not what I said.” That is a perfectly good answer to the question.