edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
King Annette: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4452. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I seek leave to table version two of the Department of Internal Affairs’  
Better Local Government 
 which has got the figures removed from it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is that—[ 
Interruption 
] Hang on. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes it is available.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4452. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! I will put leave. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
King Annette: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4452. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the figures in the first version of the Department of Internal Affairs’  
Better Local Government 
 only for them to be removed a few days later. I then seek leave— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is this a public document? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. I tell you what: it has been removed so it ain’t public. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: This is a public document. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it is not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! There is a point of order being heard. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it is not available because it was on the website and then removed—
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4452. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.
Auchinvole Chris: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4445. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I am very grateful indeed for the support of all the parties that have spoken this evening. I note the concern expressed principally by those who are of an academic bent but I would like to just refer back to my opening speech where I think I said I gave an undertaking to Sir Geoffrey Palmer that I would do this and I am fulfilling that obligation. So I do not— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: With you and him in the room it wouldn’t be a short conversation. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No it was a tremendous occasion and well I could talk about that later on if you wish. But I do not resile from the appropriateness of bringing this Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill before the House on members’ day. 
I do not resile from using the good offices of the Law Commission in doing the preparation. Not everything it does is perfect. Not everything it does has an untrammelled passage through this House. I think in this case it is a honey of a little bill. I have been to Runnymede I have involved myself in reading the history and I think it is a very appropriate bill to bring forward because it will work and it is of interest to the common people. It would be of interest to me on a technical point having listened to Charles Chauvel saying that they made provision to process revised bills—I would like to know how many they actually processed. 
Darien Fenton 
: Who’s “they”? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: He did not say and declined to say. It would be interesting though. 
I was grateful to Andrew Little for his contribution. I respect his legal experience and his acknowledgment that practices that use habeas corpus as a device for delay or devious purposes need to be addressed. This bill—joke about it if you will—has a serious aspect to it. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Oh it’s a honey of a little bill. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is. 
The contributions from all the parties have shown I think—including the last one which I enjoyed—that we as a Parliament take serious matters seriously all jokes aside. All parties have given careful consideration to this bill before giving their consent for the bill to go further. To all thank you; to those who have spoken thank you; and to members of the Justice and Electoral Committee which will handle this bill if its first reading is passed I am sure that you can be entrusted to handle it with an efficient effective and careful level of consideration. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Faafoi Kris: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Faafoi Kris: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4443. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in the first reading of the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. It is always a pleasure to follow Dr Cam Calder in this House. He is always entertaining but rarely informative. This bill is in the name of Mr Chris Auchinvole and I will congratulate him and commend him for the fact that he has had this bill pulled out of the ballot. It is a pleasure I have not had in my time in the House. 
This bill has come about because there was a perception that the procedure for dealing with habeas corpus applications has been misused where some applicants have used it to obtain priority on hearings that should have been dealt with by other means. It does come about from a Law Commission report in 2007 that my legally learned colleagues Andrew Little and Charles Chauvel have already talked about and there are examples within that report. Because of the nature of its being a Law Commission report as Charles Chauvel and Andrew Little have said we will be supporting this bill through all its stages. 
As Charles Chauvel pointed out in Labour’s first contribution on this bill we do question why this law is navigating its way through this House as a member’s bill. We do believe it should be a Government bill. I did congratulate Mr Auchinvole on his luck in getting the bill pulled out of the ballot. We do think that it could have been given more priority and probably a little bit more seriousness if it had been a Government bill. 
There were some comments made earlier by Tim Macindoe that our comments in regard to this bill and how it is navigating its way through this House were that we were ignoring the issue. We were not. We are not ignoring the issue. We absolutely fundamentally support the substance of this bill. As I say we just question the manner in which the Government has brought it through this House. We also praise the initiative of Mr Auchinvole for submitting this as a member’s bill but there is not so much initiative when you just highlight your name then push Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V on a Law Commission bill that has been submitted. 
We will be supporting this bill in the House but as has been mentioned earlier in our contributions this is just a tactic by the Government to use up members’ time.
Chauvel Charles: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4437. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 This bill the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill would implement word for word the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 30-page 2007 report  
Habeas Corpus: Refining the Procedure 
. Law Commission reports normally have great merit. This one does. Labour will therefore support this bill through all its readings and all its stages. 
But I do want to say this: Law Commission reports should be progressed by the Government. The last Labour Government introduced procedures in its third term of office to ensure that Law Commission reports would be expedited. Those procedures have been abandoned by the present Government and that is why so many Law Commission reports now sit on the list of unactioned items from that body. Instead of the Government of the day implementing Law Commission reports we now see this tactic from the National Party backbench of using up members’ day time by putting up— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: —Law Commission - recommended bills. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: This is cutting! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: This is not the purpose of members’ day. Although members opposite think that this is a joke I know that those watching Parliament and listening to Parliament tonight will not be impressed by the fact that this tactic involves the Government of the day getting two bites of the cherry at Law Commission recommendations and essentially stopping every other member of the House from using members’ day for what it was intended to do—to progress important matters of conscience or other issues that matter to them. 
Well the Government might decide that this is an appropriate use of the House’s time. I think it is disrespectful to Parliament and to the Law Commission which is entitled to have the time and the public money that it expends on its law reform work better credited. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Do you remember the Parana Park bill? How long did you spend on that? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: It should be responded to by the Government of the day by way of Government legislation. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Mr Chauvel you shame yourself. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: The Government members of the Justice and Electoral Committee ought to listen carefully to this point. Rather than waste the time of that committee as well on protracted debate on a bill that has been extensively researched and is the subject of a 30-page report of the Law Commission I am going to do now what I am going to suggest in the committee and that is commend the Law Commission’s 30-page report to every member and suggest that we get on and not waste time debating this bill but spend much more time on the important and genuine members’ business that remains on the Order Paper.
Vote: Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4435. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Roy Eric: Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4427. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired.
Tisch Lindsay: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand the member is taking just a 5-minute call so I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4391. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation on the matter that has been discussed. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] There is objection. Point of order the Hon Trevor Mallard. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! A point of order has been called. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! No the honourable Leader—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! No no I am on my feet now and the member must stop interjecting. Any member has the right to deny leave. It is most unusual I say to those newer members to deny a member the right to make a personal explanation. That may not be something well known to newer members and I am prepared to allow the member to seek leave again.
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4392. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: During our processing of an application by Natural Dairy to acquire the Crafar farms it came to our knowledge that a consortium consisting of May Wang Jack Chen and others had already gone ahead and bought four dairy farms without seeking any approval at all from either the Overseas Investment Office or indeed the Minister. As we began process to make them divest themselves of those farms we were notified by the courts in Hong Kong that charges of corruption had been laid against those people and a stay had been put on those farms as they were assets involved in the court case. Now that that case has finished and the stay has been removed the Overseas Investment Office has decided to bring civil proceedings under section 47 of the Act to make those farms be down-sold. I repeat again: no approval was ever sought from anybody nor was any approval ever given by a Minister or the Overseas Investment Office.
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4391. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation on this matter.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4391. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the Minister erroneously used a Standing Order and he should have been stopped not given a chance to twice get out his erroneous explanation. That is my point of order and I have got every right in this House as a member to tell you what that point of order is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the right honourable gentleman.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4391. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No no. Members should not be interjecting on a point of order. I read the Speaker’s ruling that the member is referring to and I will investigate that ruling on the basis of the Standing Orders to make sure that I am absolutely satisfied with it because what is hugely important in this House is that the point of order process is not used to question statements by other members. During question time Ministers have the right to answer questions and if there are errors in questions the proper process is to deal with that while the question is being answered. If the matter relates to another member or Minister those members have the right to seek the leave of the House. I want to avoid points of order being used to question what other members have said because that tends to lead to disorder. However I will undertake to further explore the issue that the member has raised in respect of Speaker’s ruling 163/1. [ 
Interruption 
] Does the honourable Minister wish to raise a point of order? I had better come first to the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4391. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Yes Mr Speaker. I thought you might have come to Speaker’s ruling 163/1 in this and indicated to the Minister concerned that in fact he did have a right to object at the time and effectively have that part of the question struck out if he had taken a point of order in an appropriate way at the right time. That is my first point. The second point is that of course this is a ministerial action and not a personal action and he does not need the leave of the House in order to tell the House what he did. [ 
Interruption 
]
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4391. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Typical. This is typical. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had better be a little careful. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I understand the rules of this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member clearly—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will be leaving if he does not desist immediately. The member clearly does not understand because the Speaker’s judgment was being questioned. The Speaker ruled that the right honourable member’s question was absolutely in order. Therefore the member has no right of grievance at all because the Speaker ruled that his question was in order. The matter that remains is should a member wish to seek leave if a member feels they have been wronged by any statement made by a member they can seek leave to make a personal explanation and that is in the hands of the House. I will hear further from the Hon Trevor Mallard.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The fact is that this Minister has raised a Standing Order and then misused it. He had the full opportunity twice to lay out his case even though he is erroneously reciting the nub of the question. I am happy to give him my question—it is written here—because what he said was his reason for a complaint is not part of the question. My point is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: You heard him; now how about hearing me? After all I am the one who is being offended here not you.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No no. I do not think I—[ 
Interruption 
] No no I do not need further assistance on this. If a Minister feels that he has been—if a member any member feels that they have been wronged by any statement of any other member in the House there is a standard procedure under the Standing Orders. Instead of the Minister raising a point of order to question the appropriateness of the question the correct course of action would have been for the Minister to raise a point of order to seek to make a personal explanation. That would have been the correct course of action. I am sure the House would have granted leave for the member to make a personal explanation because I can see that the member feels that there is an understanding left in terms of the behaviour of the Minister in relation to a certain issue that is wrong in the Minister’s eyes. I can sense that. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to raise a point of order and seek leave to make a personal explanation but not to question the right of a member to ask a question. That would be the correct procedure. Now I will hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The right honourable member—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I apologise to the Leader of the House. I will come to the member. The member may note that I have actually been defending his right to ask his question and he should not interject when a point of order is being heard. I want to hear from the Leader of the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the first point I would make is that the Hon Maurice Williamson was not asking you to rule the question out. He deliberately waited until the end of question time to speak to you by way of point of order about the matter. Earlier in question time you made it very clear to the Hon Phil Heatley that although he himself knew that he was not in a place when the questioner asserted that he was in a place the questioner’s word could not be contested. Similarly I think that if Mr Williamson is now saying that in fact the information is wrong it would not be inappropriate for the Speaker to at least give the opportunity to the questioner to withdraw and apologise for the assertion.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Thank you—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have called the Leader of the House and I want to hear from him. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How about some fairness here? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well it is not a contest I did not think. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is so.
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
I will hear further. I will hear first from the Leader of the House the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I invite the honourable Minister just to reflect on what he is putting to the Speaker though. What he is asking the Speaker to be able to do is have sufficient knowledge of all matters to know whether the content of a member’s question is right or wrong and the Speaker cannot do that. I mean there is no way the Speaker is in a position to know whether or not a member’s question is right or wrong. That is why—I accept that when there is a Minister answering on behalf of another Minister the risks of not being able to answer so accurately are higher. I accept that absolutely. But there is no way in my view that the Speaker could have ruled that question out because the Speaker is not to know the matters relating to whether or not the Minister for Land Information had approved a certain purchase or not. The Speaker has no way of knowing that. I think the question was in order because it asked whether the Prime Minister had confidence in a Minister because of a certain event that the questioner believed had taken place. The Speaker cannot judge the accuracy of that. Although I fully accept that it related to a decision of another Minister I think that all the House can hope for there is that Ministers answering questions even on behalf of other Ministers have sufficient information to correct matters if they think there is error contained in a question. But I do not see how the Speaker could have ruled that question out because it was asking about confidence because of a certain event that the questioner believed had taken place. It was up to the Minister answering. If the questioner was wrong in believing that the event had taken place it was up to the Minister answering to point that out. The Speaker cannot rule out questions on the basis of judgment as to whether they are right or wrong.
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I think you are absolutely right were a question of that nature asked to the Minister of the portfolio who should know the answer and should be able to respond. But the question today was asked to an Acting Prime Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister: did he have confidence in another Minister and then an allegation that that Minister had done something. The assertion was that the Minister for Land Information had approved the sale of those farms to May Wang. You could not expect an Acting Prime Minister to be on top of every portfolio on every matter and therefore—
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No order! Members have a right to ask questions. The member is correct that under the Standing Orders questions should not contain more alleged fact than is necessary to make the question intelligible. That question clearly required that bit in it to be intelligible. Whether or not the member’s question was right is something that can be dealt with in the answer. I mean as Speaker I have tried to allow the House to flow during question time. There are many supplementary questions that do contain far more allegation of fact than the Standing Orders really envisage should happen. When that happens I allow Ministers more leeway in answering those questions. The more unsubstantiated the more politically loaded the allegations of fact in the question asked the more leeway and latitude I will give Ministers in responding to them. To me that is the most appropriate way to handle this rather than have the Speaker endlessly ruling out questions because the Speaker considers they contain one phrase too many of suggested supposed “fact”—in inverted commas—that may or may not be correct. Members cannot though raise by way of point of order allegations that other members have matters wrong. That is to be dealt with in answering the question. Points of order should not be used to challenge whether or not members are right. That is why you have not answered the question because if a member in asking a question is wrong the Minister answering can point that out and that is a perfectly fair answer to a question. If I have misunderstood the member’s point of order I am very happy to hear further.
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I chose to wait until the end of question time to raise this point. It is to do with Standing Order 377 particularly Standing Order 377(1)(a) which says that questions must not contain “statements of facts … unless … [for example].” In question time today in question No. 3 the Rt Hon Winston Peters asked a question of the Acting Prime Minister: did he have confidence in me as Minister for Land Information for having given approval to May Wang to buy four farms? May Wang has never been given approval to buy any farms—
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4388. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: How will the Financial Reporting Bill reduce compliance costs for small and medium size businesses? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The recently introduced Financial Reporting Bill overhauls financial reporting rules and cuts compliance costs for small and medium sized companies. It will remove general purpose financial reporting requirements for small and medium companies. Small and medium sized companies should not necessarily have to produce the same complex financial statements that are required of large companies. Cutting down on expensive and unnecessary reporting obligations will assist to build a more productive economy. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What reports has he seen supporting the introduction of the bill? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I have seen a report from the New Zealand Bankers’ Association welcoming the introduction of the bill. It has commended the Government’s decision to streamline financial reporting requirements. It acknowledges that this will support New Zealand business growth and development which is vital to improving our economic performance.
Yang Jian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Yang Jian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4385. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress can he report on the Government’s Voluntary Bonding Scheme which incentivises and rewards graduate doctors midwives and nurses in hard-to-staff regions and specialities? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 For the 4th year in a row registrations for the Government’s hugely successful Voluntary Bonding Scheme have attracted great interest with a total of 2300 health graduates now accepted on to the scheme. The scheme encourages New Zealand health graduates to stay in New Zealand after graduation. This year we have accepted all 510 health graduates who applied for the bonding scheme. 
Dr Jian Yang 
: What payments have been made under the scheme so far? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Payments totalling almost $3 million have been paid out to 278 graduates who have completed their first 3 years on the Voluntary Bonding Scheme and more payments will be made as these young people bring forward their claims. These graduates will join the 1000 extra doctors and over 2000 extra nurses working in our public health services as compared with 4 short years ago. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How is it then that the Resident Doctors Association has described the administration of the scheme as being like shifting sands making up the rules as they go along and that some 17 only of the 100 who should have received payment by August 2012 received it? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: First of all I would say that that is what you would expect from a union that opposes the Government at every opportunity. The fact is that we have got lots of young people receiving benefits under this scheme as part of the Government’s plan which has delivered over 1000 extra doctors and over 2000 extra nurses into our public hospitals.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4383. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement “The Government is committed to investing in modern infrastructure that helps build a faster-growing economy with more exports and more real jobs without borrowing more from overseas lenders”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Under the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill will the New Zealand Transport Agency be borrowing to pay for modern infrastructure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In fact the New Zealand Transport Agency has arrangements that allow it to do some borrowing now to smooth out the profile of projects. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the reason his Government plans more borrowing to pay for infrastructure because he has failed to grow jobs and exports? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Hon David Parker 
: When he said he was selling State assets instead of borrowing to pay for infrastructure was he misquoted and did he actually mean he was selling assets and borrowing to pay for infrastructure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well as outlined in the last Budget the Government is setting up the Future Investment Fund. The proceeds of the share sales will go into that fund. Some commitments have already been made against that fund particularly the rebuilding of our schools. That will enable us to borrow $5 billion to $7 billion less. I am still waiting to hear from the Labour Party as to whether it plans to buy back the assets with borrowed money.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4382. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4382. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 My question is: what prompted the urgent review of the Whanau Ora Whanau Integration—[ 
Interruption 
]
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4453. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It is not on the website so I will put leave for this purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 






Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4452. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have already ruled on that and that is the end of the matter. Leave is now sought to table— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I object. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well I have not put it yet. Leave is now sought for—[ 
Interruption 
] You cannot say that. Leave is sought to table this letter. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Roy Eric: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4415. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call Andrew Little—my apologies. I have a habit of doing that. It is Andrew Williams—sorry.
Heatley Phil: Personal Explanations — Estimates Debate Vote Energy—Number of Houses to be Insulated 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Personal Explanations — Estimates Debate Vote Energy—Number of Houses to be Insulated 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4376. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to correct a figure that I gave about 15 minutes ago. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The Minister may proceed. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: In my speech about 10 or 15 minutes ago I said that the number of houses we are seeking to insulate is going from 188000 to 240000. The increase is actually about 40000. I should have said that the number is going from 188000 to 230000 not 240000. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Minister.
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes certainly Mana’s call has been allocated to the Greens but according to my schedule you are actually wanting more than that. If that is not the case you might like to come up here so we can discuss that further.
Hughes Gareth: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand that we have still got two calls. I understand that we have got one of Mana’s calls. It might be best to approach the Table to discuss it.
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Green Party has used its allocation of speeches now. This is just a point because it is not only the Green Party but also New Zealand First. I note further down on the list that you are actually going to seek some calls but you have now used all your allocation just as New Zealand First has. That is the reason I pulled you up here. So if you want to take other calls then you will need to negotiate with the other parties. Unfortunately I cannot give you a call yet I note on the schedule here that you are wanting to take calls in other votes.
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4342. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Just before I call the next member the Maori Party has used its allocation. If the member wishes to take other calls they will have to talk to one of the other parties.
Roy Eric: Urgent Debates — Overseas Investment Rules—Sale of Crafar Farms 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Urgent Debates — Overseas Investment Rules—Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4326. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: By agreement of the parties the next two 5-minute calls have been merged to a 10-minute call.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Education National Standards—Decision to Release Data 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Education National Standards—Decision to Release Data 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4313. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s decision to publicly release school national standards data this September. The decision is a case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. However not every ministerial decision will warrant an urgent debate. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. The authentication for the member’s application reveals that this is the first time the national standards data will be published on the website but that the Minister has developed a 5-year plan to improve year-on-year quality and the use of national standards data. The issue is a developing one. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the setting aside of the House’s business for an urgent debate today can be justified. The application is therefore declined.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Overseas Investment Rules—Sale of Crafar Farms 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Overseas Investment Rules—Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4313. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s decision to approve the sale of Crafar farms to a foreign purchaser Milk New Zealand Holdings Ltd. This is a decision that involves ministerial responsibility. Although the decision was actually made on 20 April it was the subject of an appeal. The Court of Appeal has now found that the Ministers acted reasonably in granting consent for the sale under the Overseas Investment Act 2005 and dismissed the appeal. The judgment was given on 8 August 2012. This is the first time that the matter could have come before the House and it is therefore one of recent occurrence. Given the significance of the matter I consider it important enough to warrant the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. I therefore call on the Hon David Parker to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.
Hague Kevin: Motions — New Zealand Defence Force—Deaths of Lance Corporals Pralli Durrer and Rory Malone in Afghanistan 2012 Olympic Games—Success of New Zealand Team 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Motions — New Zealand Defence Force—Deaths of Lance Corporals Pralli Durrer and Rory Malone in Afghanistan 2012 Olympic Games—Success of New Zealand Team 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4295. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I want to join other parties—and I am sure New Zealand First as well shortly—in welcoming home our Olympians and congratulating them on a fantastic effort. It has been a great Olympics. I think Britain did a superb job of hosting the games starting with Danny Boyle’s “camp-tastic” opening ceremony and right through until the close of the games this week and all of our athletes have done us proud. This is arguably our best ever Olympic Games because I think most of us would put an asterisk next to the Los Angeles Olympic Games with all of the countries that stayed away. I think the effort this year has eclipsed that one. 
 My personal favourite moments from the games were Nathan Cohen and Joseph Sullivan pulling it out in that last 500 metres to take out the double sculls and Jack Bauer’s effort in the men’s road race—fantastic. But as the Minister for Sport and Recreation said it is invidious to select individuals and those are just my personal choices. 
Although winning medals of course feels good I was most impressed with the gracious modest and heartfelt comments made by all of our Olympians either in winning or in defeat. I believe that that is the mark of true champions and all of our team did us proud in that regard. 
I am looking forward to the Paralympian team’s efforts which are coming up and hopefully we will also as a nation share in the joy and the triumph of that team. 
I want to close with the words of our silver medal - winning BMX racer Sarah Walker. She said that being from a small town does not matter; it is possible to dream big and achieve those dreams. It is our job here in this House to enable all of our kids to be able to dream big and to empower them to achieve their dreams. Thank you.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4312. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the petition of Meng Foon “that the House of Representatives note that 10240 people have signed a petition calling on KiwiRail and the Government to repair the Gisborne to Napier railway line and that the House support this demand”? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 The committee received one submission. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is the reason that the petitioners have not been asked to provide a submission because Government members voted to block— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a supplementary question that is in order. That is a matter for the committee not for the chair and—[ 
Interruption 
] No the question is out of order and the member will not interject when the Speaker is ruling.