edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18648] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert “a contracting requirement” after “a control” in paragraph (a) of the definition of “existing commercial service” in clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18647] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert a definition of “contracting requirement” in clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18647] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in the definition of  
contracted public transport service 
 after “software” “ and all related hardware”.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18646] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 3 be agreed to.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18647] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in the definition of  
contracted public transport service 
 after “information” “and communication”.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18646] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit the definition of  
accessibility standards 
 and substitute the following definition: 
accessibility 
 in relation to a public transport service means the ease with which passengers or a class of passengers can access a public transport service and relate to how— 
(a)information about the service can be accessed: 
(b)the service can be identified: 
(c)the service can be boarded: 
(d)a passenger can pay the fare: 
(e)a passenger can use the service: 
(f)a passenger can identify the desired place to alight from the service: 
(g)a passenger can alight from the service.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18646] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “set standards for commercial public transport services provided in their regions” and substitute “adopt regional public transport plans which may include controls on commercial public transport services”.
Pettis Jill: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18646] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18646] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 248 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18630] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Gosche Mark: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18631] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The points raised by the Hon Maurice Williamson need to be responded to early in the debate in respect of the mistake made by the Clerk’s Office in not forwarding the normal letter from the Regulations Review Committee to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee thus not allowing us the opportunity to make the changes to the Public Transport Management Bill as it sought in the normal course. That is unusual and the committee dealt with that by meeting last week and seeking to make a special report to the House which it would have done had National members on the committee not denied us leave. So all the talk we have just heard is a little bit hollow. Maybe the honourable member was not aware of the situation and I give him credit that that was the case because he was replaced on the committee by another member. We attempted to make a special report but were denied the leave to do so. We wrote to the Minister outlining that we supported the Regulations Review Committee’s changes and would have said so in a special report but the National Party denied leave for that to happen. 
It is interesting because it is a normal procedure for the Regulations Review Committee to say that a select committee should look at this that and the other and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee did that. We found that with the advice of officials the Regulations Review Committee’s process was agreed to with a very minor difference. So we wrote to the Minister and asked her to make those changes by means of a Supplementary Order Paper if she considered it to be necessary. That leaves the matter as it should have been left. 
To raise that matter as some reason why the bill should not proceed quite frankly is nonsense because the recommendations of the Regulations Review Committee have been taken on board as they would have been had the committee received them in the normal course of events. Had the committee received them they would have been considered and deliberated on and they would have been part of the report made by the select committee in its normal time frame. We tried to fix that last week and we would have done so had there been cooperation. All that was needed was a simple resolution of the committee. Leave was needed so that the committee could proceed. That leave was denied and that is why there is no report lying on the Table from the committee. Given that people may have to look at the  
Hansard  
in the future if the legislation has to be adjudicated on I just needed to correct that matter.
Duynhoven Harry: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18629] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill 
 pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 233 
.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18629] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18629] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand National 47; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 231 and 232 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18629] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18628] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit subclauses (1) to (3) and substitute the following subclauses: 
(1)Part 2 of this Act comes into force on a day to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. 
(2)The rest of this Act comes into force on 1 September 2008.
Tizard Judith: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18625] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: There have been I think 16 speeches and I am a bit worried because there has been a remarkable amount of repetition. I do not know whether members know but I take notes of their arguments and I notice the level of repetition. I will take one or two more calls—I do not know exactly how many—but we must move to new material. Speeches are becoming remarkably repetitive. I call Shane Ardern and I live in hope.
Hobbs Marian: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18618] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Just before I give the call to anyone I ask members please not to bring the Chair into the debate by using the second person.
Hodgson Pete: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18615] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 We are about half an hour into the debate now and it is probably worthwhile taking a call in order to make just a couple of points. In response to the member who has just resumed his seat Shane Ardern I say—and I am sure this does not need to be said—that the Kyoto Protocol was put together with the idea that 1990 was year zero. It was done a long time ago. It was signed in 1987. It was signed by the National Party. That was 11 years ago and that is why trees are counted differently. Secondly on the issue of cogeneration I say that that decision was made by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Most of the members who have been speaking in the debate are on that select committee so I will not address that point but other members may wish to do so. 
It seems to me that so far there is really only one question asked by the member Tim Groser which probably does need a bit of exploration. I remind the member of his question—and perhaps I am using slightly different language from that which he used—which is that given that the Russian hot air units are off limits what does that do to price? The answer right now is that they do not alter the price at all because they are not on the market. Of course there is the possibility that they will come on the market but then again they are able to be used for wash-up purposes at the end of the quinquennium. At that point although one cannot make a prediction because one does not know how many are coming on the market one can predict that the price change may not be zero but it will be either very low or zero.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18606] 
9.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What recent reports has he received on developments in environmental policy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I have seen a very good proposed national environment statement on water flows. It will be particularly useful for estimating the impact of leaks in the longer term. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister expand further on any analysis that has been done on the water flows document? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I can. Leaks of course are occurring on a daily basis around the country and are becoming more frequent around Wellington at the moment. What is clear is that someone with access to National Party policy and caucus material is determined that there is a proper analysis of that policy and what is clear from the lack of denial from John Key today is that he did discuss Crosby/Textor funding with Lord Ashcroft and ways of doing that that kept it off the National Party books. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister intend to tell Owen Glenn to his face the things that he has been telling the press gallery about Owen Glenn? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is absolutely clear that some confusion is involved in this and that is what I have said.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18600] 
4.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What reports if any has he received about the research and development tax credit that was introduced earlier this year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Several reports are already to hand. Both anecdotal evidence and formal monitoring show that our best and most innovative businesses are the ones most likely to benefit from this policy. In short those businesses are delighted because it means they can expand faster and it means they are more and more competitive with Australia. The news from the policy leaked this morning that National intends to cut the credit will be received by many of those companies with dismay; it is a shameful policy. 
Sue Moroney 
: What other news on research and development has he seen this morning? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Apart from National’s plan to cancel New Zealand Fast Forward the main additional news is that there is no money—no new money—going into research and development in New Zealand for the next 3 years. That is to say the only new funding going into universities or Crown research institutes is money taken off some of the best businesses in this country. There is not one dollar of extra research and development in the next 3 years—not even one dollar of research into where all those leaks came from. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement by the Prime Minister Helen Clark who said: “the design of research and development tax incentives is difficult and … without great care one can see great leakage from the revenue base without the extra research and development you hope to attract.”; if he does not agree with that statement why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I do. That is why when this Government put the research and development tax credit together whilst we made sure that research and development was broadly defined—one of the best definitions in the world—we also made sure that some areas of research and development were capped most notably software so that the situation the member refers to will not occur. The member thinks that this is a great source of leakage of tax revenue into the private sector. My view is that this is the best and most effective way to ensure that the best most innovative businesses in our country have the opportunity they need to grow faster and to beat those Aussies. After all the National Party was on about that just in the last question.
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18597] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Climate Change issues—
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18597] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is impossible to hear. If members would just settle please and pay other members the courtesy of allowing them to ask and answer their questions so that others can hear them.
Wilson Margaret: Waste Minimisation Bill — Procedure 
Wilson Margaret: Waste Minimisation Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:650;Page:18593] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Minister for the Environment informing me that the Government with the agreement of the member in charge has adopted the Waste Minimisation Bill.
Waste Minimisation Bill — Procedure 
Waste Minimisation Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:650;Page:18593] 
Waste Minimisation Bill 
Procedure 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Minister for the Environment informing me that the Government with the agreement of the member in charge has adopted the Waste Minimisation Bill.
Wilson Margaret: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Wilson Margaret: Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:650;Page:18593] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Minister of Corrections informing me that the Government with the agreement of the member in charge has adopted the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill.
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:650;Page:18593] 
Tuesday 9 September 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Minister of Corrections informing me that the Government with the agreement of the member in charge has adopted the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill.
Tizard Judith: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4268] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I am grateful for the many contributions from members tonight. I am particularly grateful to Ron Mark for his useful and thoughtful contribution to this debate. I agree with his point and I think he reflects very deeply on the fact that international artefacts may well be of deep heritage value to New Zealanders and important in telling the New Zealand story. 
I think that his reflection on the Upham medals is a very good reminder that what is of particular and specific value for one generation may have a very different value for the next generation. I am often reminded of the huge response by New Zealanders to the Te Maori exhibition which included what is seen by many New Zealanders to be Maori decoration or craft. There was debate about what was art and what was craft—almost as if craft were something that was irrelevant. 
When exposed to an international audience suddenly many New Zealanders finally understood that it was great art on an international scale and fundamental to what New Zealand is. For me that was a great reminder of how we need to remind each generation of the values as well as the artworks and often the technology of a previous generation. The Protected Objects Amendment Bill is about trying to find an international standard by which each nation values what it has and asks other nations—other cultures—to respect that value and importance. Because only if we have reciprocal arrangements can we get what is valuable to us returned to us. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and no progress on the Coroners Bill. 
Report adopted.
Fairbrother Russell: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fairbrother Russell: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4265] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Chadwick Steve: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4266] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Dyson Ruth: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4264] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Chadwick Steve: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4262] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I think this is an incredibly important bill that is along the lines of what this Government is trying to achieve in terms of protecting the New Zealand identity. I have been dealing with an issue in my electorate regarding the loss of a Hinemihi pare a very significant carving to the Tuhourangi people in Rotorua. The carving was gifted—it was not illegally exported—and went under the care of the UK National Trust. We are now in the invidious position of trying to purchase it back for this country and we simply cannot afford it. Prices on the international market have become so inflated that it will become a difficult task for us to ever be able to get such objects back once they hit the market and cannot be sent back through trust and museum agreements. 
I think it is time for us to stop that bleeding of our cultural taonga internationally. I am very pleased to see this bill in the Committee at last. We will no longer see in future generations—and this is vital for intergenerational identity and cultural identity—the trading of taonga that this country will never be able to afford to retrieve. We have tried to recover the Hinemihi pare; we cannot go on the open market. There is no way we can get it back at $US1.9 million. We have trusts in Rotorua all of whom say the pare is a part of our identity—in fact it is Hinemihi’s body which was lost at the Tarawera eruption—and we are just grieving about that in our community. Benefactors went out and raised a substantial amount but nowhere near the target and there was no way we could afford to get the pare back. Those are the sorts of situations that this legislation will protect us against for generations to come. 
I congratulate the members of the Government Administration Committee; I think they have done a wonderful job on this bill. 
That little story reminds us of our New Zealand stories and of why we cling to all the things that we hold dear. This is a wonderful bill. It is a very significant bill and I am glad that the Opposition supports it.
Sharples Pita: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sharples Pita: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4252] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I will speak for the 7 minutes that Te Ururoa Flavell had remaining. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is welcome to have a new call.
Mark Ron: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4252] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you just explain to the House so that we are clear that if the Maori Party takes a second call which this shall be adjudged to be does that impact adversely on other parties that have not yet had a call? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Of course it will unless leave is sought. 
RON MARK 
: Through you Mr Deputy Speaker would it be timely for me to suggest to the Maori Party that it seeks leave to continue Te Ururoa Flavell’s speech using that time? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No Te Ururoa Flavell has already spoken. That is a speech. We have 12 speakers on this one. I have asked for a member to call. It may upset the proportionality if everyone takes their call and Dr Sharples has already had a go. Who wants the call?
Sharples Pita: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sharples Pita: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4253] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to take a 6-minute call on this bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is in addition to the 12 speakers. Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4252] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 73 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4252] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment)  
on behalf of the Minister of Commerce 
: 
 I move  
That the Business Law Reform Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee 
 for consideration that the committee report the bill by 19 October 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).
Dalziel Lianne: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Business Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4239] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House that the motion at the end of the debate on this bill include the following words: “and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders192 and195(1)(b) and (c).” 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Mahuta Nanaia: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4236] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
 for its consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 9 October 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:4210] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Seeing as the member is offended I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: We will just clarify the situation. The member just has to stand up and apologise. He cannot say: “Seeing as the member” first. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Are you requiring me to apologise? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well you did not require me to do so earlier Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Stop trifling with the Chair! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: There will be silence during points of order. I did not pick it up the first time Mr Mallard but the second time you did say: “Seeing as the member”. You are required just to withdraw and apologise so you will do that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise.
English Bill: General Debate 
English Bill: General Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:4210] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Apologies count under the Standing Orders. The member should be asked to apologise properly. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: He did— 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: One cannot qualify an apology in this House Madam Assistant Speaker and you should know that.
Rich Katherine: General Debate 
Rich Katherine: General Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:4210] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Trevor Mallard finished his speech with a comment that you might not have heard. He implied that some of the National Party women MPs should be sold on the street. I take personal offence at that. The member should stand and apologise for that comment and for the implication. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I did not pick it up. Was an insult offered? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the member feels offended I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: An apology has been given.
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:4210] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the presentation that I have here from Greg Sheehan who was the general manager of the National Party. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will do so immediately after my colleagues have used it.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:4209] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order is slightly unusual. I appreciate that the Hon Trevor Mallard has highlighted for the country the vast breadth of the National Party’s reach across the country. I simply extend an invitation to him to be part of our future advertising. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:632;Page:4206] 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: What submissions and evidence have been heard on the Westpac New Zealand Bill? 
SHANE JONES (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 The Finance and Expenditure Committee heard evidence from the Westpac Banking Corporation and received advice from the Reserve Bank Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department. 
Rodney Hide 
: Were submissions called for more widely particularly giving an opportunity for the customers of Westpac to make submissions? 
SHANE JONES 
: The member will be aware that under our Standing Orders the member in charge of this private bill petitioned the House for it to be introduced. As a part of the petition the member in charge of the bill gave notice to the House that the bill had been published for 2 consecutive calendar weeks in newspapers and that the bill was given to persons having a direct interest in it. I am only sad that the member who asks these questions has been absent from all of those meetings.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:632;Page:4206] 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Member in charge of Westpac New Zealand Bill 
: Is she proposing any amendments to the Westpac New Zealand Bill to advise New Zealand customers of Westpac what assets will be backing their deposits before her bill shifts them into the new company Westpac New Zealand Ltd; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Member in charge of Westpac New Zealand Bill) 
: 
 No. The amendments are in the hands of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she think it is fair on the customers of Westpac to be compulsorily shifted into a new company without knowing what assets and liabilities will back their investments particularly when the Government is being careful with its $750 million tax claim against Westpac which will not be with the new company that is being set up? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I have two responses. First of all the vesting order process provides I think transparency for New Zealand customers. Second I am slightly worried by the compliance costs that would be borne by the New Zealand customers of Westpac if his process were carried out.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:632;Page:4205] 
12.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: How long does he estimate the varroa bee mite has been in the South Island and why did surveillance not pick it up sooner as it has been confirmed in at least 41 sites over a 40-kilometrearea? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry estimates that varroa bee mite arrived in the South Island about 9 or 10 months ago. The surveillance programme that detected it is conducted each year in May and June. The varroa was first found on 15 June this year. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why did the Government not already have in place a funding approval for an attempted eradication of the varroa bee mite in the South Island given that the Minister himself has stated that it was only a matter of time before the bee mite would reach the South Island and we know from past experience in the North Island that delays in response eliminate the opportunity of eradication and is there no one in this Government who is willing to make a decision given that the Minister himself is overseas at the moment? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not think it was ever accepted that it was inevitable. I think Biosecurity New Zealand and the bee-keeping industry tried very hard to keep varroa from the South Island. The pest management strategy that was agreed to by the industry had an annual monitoring programme varroa was detected and Biosecurity New Zealand has acted immediately on that. It has to clearly identify the extent to which varroa is present in the Nelson region and a decision on whether eradication or management will take place will be made very soon. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Do I take it from the Minister’s answer that he is absolutely sure that the varroa bee mite cannot be eradicated completely from the South Island? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The full report is yet to be analysed by the Minister. I would love to think that eradication was possible. The reality is that unless every single bee-keeper and keeper of bees in the Nelson region is prepared to be part of a management or eradication programme it is virtually impossible to guarantee absolutely that eradication can take place.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:632;Page:4205] 
11.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will he be insisting that Westpac Banking Corporation advise their New Zealand customers what assets and liabilities will be backing their investments before they are shifted across to the new company Westpac New Zealand Ltd as a condition of him advising the making of an Order in Council which states the new company’s assets and liabilities as provided for by clause 6 of the Westpac New Zealand Bill; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Assuming the bill remains unchanged on its passage through the House and of course I cannot pre-empt that the answer is no. I am advised that that would not be necessary. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he think that is adequate disclosure when essentially the 1.3 million customers of Westpac are to be shifted into a new company compulsorily and only after they have been shifted will they discover what their financial assets and liabilities are through his Order in Council? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is I think factually incorrect. What is happening here is the culmination of a policy under certainly successive Governors of the Reserve Bank in terms of local incorporation of Westpac. I am advised that the Reserve Bank will ensure that Westpac advises its customers of the transfer and the disclosure statement for the new entity showing its likely balance sheet will be available to customers before the transfer occurs. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister tell us why it is important that Westpac New Zealand Ltd be registered as a bank in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is important in terms of the general framework of prudential regulation and in fact because Westpac was different from all the other Australian-owned banks in terms of the structure it had.
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:632;Page:4204] 
10.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: How many new regulations affecting business has the Government introduced since 1999 and does she agree that this has put additional pressure on businesses? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 It is not possible to provide the number of new regulations affecting business gazetted since 1999 in the time available as that would require an individual search of each regulation to identify whether it affected business and then whether it was new or whether it replaced in whole or part an existing regulation. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister accept Business New Zealand’s calculation that since 1999 over 2000 new regulations affecting business have come into existence many of which were not needed; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I understand that that is not a net figure. 
Maryan Street 
: How does New Zealand compare to Australia in light of Gary Banks’ report  
Reducing the Regulatory Burden: The Way Forward 
? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: New Zealand compares very well to Australia and I remind the House that Gary Banks said we should not: “engage in a ‘race to the bottom’ and abandon worthwhile regulations. There are important economic social and environmental goals that warrant regulation and should not be traded off simply to improve business competitiveness.” 
Katherine Rich 
: What is her response to the Business New Zealand - KPMG compliance cost survey showing that the average compliance cost per firm has risen from $45000 in 2003 to $53000 in 2005—a 17 percent increase in just 2 years? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am advised that the reason why the member left out reference to the 2004 year in that question is that in fact between 2004 and 2005 the costs of compliance recorded by respondents actually fell. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does she consider the $28000 spent on her business consultation website to be value for money given that out of the 41 submissions received in the first 2 months of her review 30 of them were entered into the website by her own officials? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As the member has been advised that is a result of people who have been writing to me setting out their concerns. As we have not yet actually advertised the website I would say we are off to a very good start. 
Katherine Rich 
: What does she consider to be the greatest concern for business: her Government’s 2000 new regulations since 1999 the increase in compliance costs by 17 percent in just 2 years or the fact that she told the Commerce Committee that she models her commerce and small-business role on that of Judith Tizard Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The most important thing for businesses is that they have the opportunity to succeed. They need to have the economic and social environment to do that. This Government is delivering for business.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:632;Page:4203] 
9.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What is the latest projection of New Zealand’s emissions balance for the first commitment period from 2008-12 under the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that the 2006 annual update of the projected emissions balance for the first commitment period is 41.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. This is a decrease from the 64 million tones deficit calculated in December last year. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What expectation does the Minister have for the emissions projection and future? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The projection is based on many variables and change in any one of them will affect the total. This volatility will reduce over time as we move from projections to measuring actual emissions during the first commitment period. That said the climate change work programmes we announced earlier this month will deliver durable long-term policies which I expect to improve New Zealand’s emissions profile. 
Hon David Carter 
: What confidence can New Zealand have in the new calculations considering the Government’s earlier claims that we as a country would be banking a cheque for half a billion dollars with the ratification of Kyoto? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I already acknowledged there is some volatility in these figures because they rely upon a number of variables but as I also made clear that volatility will reduce as we get closer to the actual measurement of figures rather than projections. 
Metiria Turei 
: Now that the liabilities are looking better how much of the remaining liability does he think can be met by decreasing emissions and increasing sinks in New Zealand rather than buying credits from overseas? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Members may be aware that the work programmes that have been announced include a framework for assessment of the carbon emissions reductions expected as a consequence of the work programmes. So as those policy positions are finalised the carbon effects of them will become clear.