edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18778] 
4. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by the statement he made in his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday that “Everyone needs to understand that what Don Brash is talking about is hardcore”; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; I was thinking of some of the policies from the 2025 Taskforce when I made that comment about the task force that Dr Brash chaired. These included for example abolishing all KiwiSaver subsidies introducing interest rates back on to student loans lowering the top personal tax rate to 20 percent selling all State-owned enterprises in New Zealand encouraging local government to sell all its trading companies winding up the Superannuation Fund and reducing the minimum wage. I think most New Zealanders would consider those policies to be hard core. This Government has chosen to take a more balanced approach to management. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he think it is hard core to have one law for all New Zealanders a policy that National campaigned on at the last three successive elections; if not why is he not implementing that policy? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No; and we do. 
John Boscawen 
: What is hard core about a plan to return Government spending as a percentage of GDP to what it was under Helen Clark? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The ambition of reducing Government spending as a percentage of GDP is one that this Government holds dearly and that will be reflected actually when one looks at the Budget tomorrow. But it is about the pathway to get there and I go back to the member and I say to him that this is what Don Brash wants to do: abolish KiwiSaver subsidies put interest back on to student loans drop the top personal tax rate sell all State-owned enterprises raise the age of eligibility for the pension encourage local government to sell all its trading companies wind up the Superannuation Fund and reduce the minimum wage. I think that is hard core. 
John Boscawen 
: What is hard core about the statement that youth rates give “employers a reason to hire younger people and give them a chance to get experience” as stated by the then Leader of the Opposition John Key in December 2007 and supported by the ACT leader Don Brash? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Given that I said it nothing. The basic point here is that although that may be one particular small part of the tranche I think we all understand that the range of policies being advocated by ACT is extreme and hard core. That has not changed; that has always been the position. It does not mean we cannot have a constructive Government with ACT as we have enjoyed for the last 3 years.
Ardern Jacinda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Jacinda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18781] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
:  
My question is 
to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and asks: does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement in relation to Christchurch— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me for interrupting the honourable member. When members interject it is surprising how difficult it is to hear sometimes with sound echoing around the Chamber. Once a question has been dealt with there is no need for ongoing interjection. I do apologise to Jacinda Ardern.
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
[Volume:672;Page:18799] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I just wish to advise members for their benefit that every time a member uses the word “you” the member is referring to the Chair. The member must refer to a Minister or another member as “the Minister” or “that member”; that is in the third person. I refer members to Standing Order 103.
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18685] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Roy Eric: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18685] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We move now to Part 2 clauses 12 to 14. I say to members that we have had the philosophical debate. I ask members to debate clauses 12 to 14.
Burns Brendon: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18687] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I started my career as a young broadcast journalist with what was still the NZBC and I also remember— 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18685] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to.
Quinn Paul: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Television New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18685] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tremain Chris: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18673] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I feel a real need to respond to Mr Jones following his 10-minute diatribe. One of the things Mr Jones said was that the Minister Mr Williamson had failed egregiously in bringing the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill to the House. Let us reflect on the situation. If we take the PricewaterhouseCoopers report we are talking about anywhere between 22000 and 89000 homes that are affected by the leaky homes issue. That is a major problem for people around this country and it is one that gained huge momentum during the 9 years of a Labour Government. To say that Mr Maurice Williamson has failed egregiously is so far from the truth that it is ridiculous. Mr Williamson has come up with a solution to solve the problem. 
Anybody who runs a constituency office will have had many many meetings with constituents who have major issues with leaky homes. It has not been the issue in Hawke’s Bay and Napier that it has been in the likes of Auckland in particular and in other parts of the country but I have dealt specifically with two or three cases where people have this issue—one on the Napier hill and one in Greenmeadows—and where quite frankly builders had walked away from the situation. The builders carved up their companies become insolvent and walked away from the issue and from homeowners who had invested their life and soul into those properties. The time it takes for these people to resolve the issues caused by their leaky home is really heart-wrenching in this whole situation. It leads to poor health and major stress and is a real issue for these people. 
To think that during the 9 years of a Labour Government it never reached a solution that could help move this thing forward begs a whole lot of questions that National members asked during the 9 years of the Labour Government. 
We have reached a solution here. It may not be the ultimate thing that all homeowners wanted but the assistance package of 25 percent from the Government 25 percent from local government and 50 percent from homeowners provides us with something to move forward with. I think that for many homeowners around the country who are affected by this issue the bill is a major step in the right direction. For Mr Jones to say that the Minister has failed egregiously is so far from reality that it required me to stand up and take a call to debate that. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time.
Wagner Nicky: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18667] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 At last there is a possible solution for owners of leaky homes. The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill now in its second reading will provide a new option and a faster fix for leaky and rotten homes. 
Leaky homes have been a nightmare for thousands of New Zealanders and their families. It is estimated that approximately 24000 apartments townhouses and stand-alone homes are affected. They were mostly built between 1992 and 2005 and they have proved to be an expensive disaster right across the country. Although the majority of leaky homes are in Auckland my home town of Christchurch has had its share. But because of our cooler climate it is expected that even more will be identified in the coming years. As an MP I have been personally involved with some of the cases so I understand the stress the anxiety and the fear of homeowners. I have seen some really desperate situations. 
Although the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service claims process was introduced in 2006 it proved to be a complex lengthy and expensive exercise. In some cases the cost of the process proved to be more than the cost of the actual repairs or rebuild. Only about 4000 leaky homes have actually been repaired so we need a much faster much more effective fix. We cannot continue to argue and debate. We want to stop litigation and start the repairs. 
This bill moves us on past the blame game and provides a financial package so that people can get their homes rebuilt in a better faster and cheaper way. The financial package may not be perfect but the Local Government and Environment Committee believes that it is fair and effective and that it will spread the costs as evenly as possible. The committee received 39 submissions and overall there was general support for this solution. The package is a partnership. It is a partnership between local and central government with each paying 25 percent of the total cost while the homeowner is responsible for the remaining 50 percent. That 50 percent is backed by a Government loan guarantee. The package is totally voluntary for homeowners but we expect that perhaps 70 percent of owners will take it up. It is an attractive alternative funding option and it will deliver for affected families. 
Local authorities have supported the project because although it is a huge expense for councils it caps the percentage of liability for the homes involved. The Government’s contribution is estimated to be a cost of about a billion dollars over the next 5 years but both local and central government are supportive. They are supporting this financial package because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for the families who are affected and it is a way for all of us to move on. Thank you.
Vote: Motions — Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board Notices 2010—Disallowances 
Vote: Motions — Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board Notices 2010—Disallowances 
[Volume:672;Page:18655] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the House disallow clauses 3(1) 3(2) 8(1) and 8(2) in the Schedule to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Plumbing Registration and Licensing) Notice 2010; clauses 3(1) 3(2) 3(3) 3(4) 8(1) 8(2) 8(3) and 8(4) in the Schedule to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Gasfitting Registration and Licensing) Notice 2010; clauses 3(1) 3(2) 8(1) and 8(2) in the Schedule to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Drainlaying Registration and Licensing) Notice 2010; and clauses (6) and (7) in the Schedule to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers (Fees) Notice 2010 but that disallowance of clauses (6) and (7) in the Schedule to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Fees) Notice 2010 not take effect until 31 March 2012. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18647] 
12. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What recent developments have been made to help tradespeople become licensed building practitioners? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 As part of the licensed building practitioner scheme an online service has been launched by the Department of Building and Housing. The website will allow licensed building practitioners to register online edit their profiles and update their skills and expertise. Licensed building practitioners are an essential part of bringing a qualified professional workforce to the building and construction sector. Under the restricted work programme which commences in March of next year only a licensed building practitioner will be able to carry out and/or supervise the design and construction of restricted building work. Anybody else who does so will be acting illegally. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How does the website help the general public especially Christchurch residents? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: This database will double as a tool for consumers to check whether practitioners are licensed and a means for them to obtain the latest information about them. The licensed building practitioner scheme will be important for the Christchurch rebuild. Of the 8848 licences already issued over 2000 have been issued to licensed practitioners in the Christchurch area. 
Phil Twyford 
: Has the Minister heard reports that many builders are reluctant to be licensed because of the expense and the paperwork; if so has he considered automatically registering experienced builders in the licensing regime to shift the burden of the paperwork from the builders on to his department? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I heard those complaints at the very beginning of the system but we have streamlined it dramatically since those complaints were heard. I am now told by a huge number of people from the industry including master builders certified builders and others that the online registration tools the ability to update their profiles online and the quite significantly reduced fee structure that we brought in place have been really good steps in the right direction. 
Phil Twyford 
: What feedback has he received from builders around the country about reports that thousands of builders from Indonesia and the Philippines are heading to New Zealand since his Government slashed trade training and will these overseas builders qualify under his licensing scheme? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I have not heard anything about a flood of people from Indonesia of any sort but by the same token if they are qualified builders they apply to become licensed building practitioners and they have the skills and the competence we will welcome them because we will need those skills for both the Christchurch rebuild and a lot of work around the rest of the country.
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18646] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 To the Minister of Defence: what is the total cost of the two Defence Force flights that foreign Minister Hon Murray McCully took to Vanuatu on 13 February and returning on 14 February including fuel salaries of staff allowances accommodation maintenance landing fees and all other costs associated with the flights? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. I accept the question was not read strictly as on the Order Paper but the meaning was very clear. But because of the excessive interjection I invite the member to repeat his question.
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18646] 
10. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Why has the Government decided to transfer responsibility for the Retirement Commissioner from the social development and employment portfolio to the commerce portfolio? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The Government has decided that the functions and objectives of the Retirement Commissioner align better with the commerce portfolio particularly as we focus on improving the financial literacy of mum and dad investors. The change will take effect from 1 July. 
Louise Upston 
: How does this change align with the wider financial market reforms that this Government has implemented to date? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Very well. The focus of the Government’s reforms to date has been to improve the quality and consistency of the information received by investors. We have already seen the new Financial Markets Authority act swiftly to ensure that the recipients of unsolicited low-ball offers receive more objective information about these offers. However improving information can only ever be part of the financial literacy equation and over the next few months I will be looking to work with both the public and private sectors to identify steps to improve investor knowledge and understanding of matters financial.
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18646] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Commerce and asks: why has the Government decided to transfer responsibility—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. It is definitely the Labour Party at fault here. It is unfair to members at the back. The interjections are totally unnecessary and unhelpful. I want to hear the question being asked.
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18643] 
8. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What progress has the Government made in improving ACC’s financial performance after the 57 percent increase in claims costs and the 109 percent increase in liabilities between 2004-05 and 2008-09? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 We have made very good progress. The large— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Did you just learn to calm down and take a breath? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Here is the guilty lady piping up again. The large increases in claim costs and liabilities resulted in ACC making losses of $2.4 billion in 2007-08 and $4.8 billion in 2008-09. But by better managing costs and with a real focus on the importance of rehabilitation ACC made a surplus of $2.5 billion in 2009-10 and I am expecting a significant surplus this year. This turn-round is good news for taxpayers and levy payers. We have been able to secure savings of $638 million for Budget 2011 over the next 4 years from lower costs in the non-earners account. I am also hopeful that if we get a good financial result for this year we can look to see some reduction in levies for next year which will be great news for households and businesses. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What are the areas in which ACC has made the significant savings in costs and how do these compare with the claims made by Opposition parties on how the turn-round has been achieved? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Claim costs in the last year are down by $350 million or 15 percent from the peak at the change of Government. The biggest share of this is the weekly compensation which has reduced as a consequence of ACC’s significant improvement in rehabilitation rates. Claims that the savings have come mainly from elective surgery are incorrect as those costs are down only slightly and make up only 2 percent of the improvement. Claims that the turn-round in ACC has been due to investment ignore the fact that only 10 percent of the record losses in 2008-09 came from investment losses. The primary reason for the turn-round is that ACC is getting people back to work earlier and I think all New Zealanders should welcome that.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18642] 
7. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What plans does she have for early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 We have many many exciting plans for early childhood services including projects around the country to increase participation plans to improve flexibility and reduce bureaucracy and projects to ensure that children in Christchurch get back into early childhood education following the earthquake. We are doing all of this while being very responsible with taxpayer funds. 
Sue Moroney 
: What has caused the delay in the release of the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education report she commissioned which was initially due in March 2011 was then postponed until the second week of April and has still not been released to date? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The task force is doing an extremely thorough job. As I told the member just recently I expect it to report back soon. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does she intend to publically release the work of the task force in the aftermath of next week’s Budget so that the task force’s response to the 330 submissions it received calling for 100 percent qualified staff which she cut in February gets buried in the bad news of the Budget? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I just said in response to the question before last the task force is doing an extremely thorough job and it intends as I understand to report back soon. Of course we would want all its work to be available to the public. 
Sue Moroney 
: When was she advised that the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education had completed its report and placed it on her desk? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have not seen the final report from the task force. I have been advised that it is due soon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 8. [ 
Interruption 
] Sorry—I just say to members that I have to be able to hear calls please. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does she agree with Diana Anderson National Manager of Evaluation Services for the Education Review Office that Maori children learn better when their education is put in a Maori context; if so what initiatives is the ministry putting in place to ensure widespread adoption of such an approach? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes I absolutely agree. There is plenty of evidence to show that that is absolutely correct. I would say particularly in respect of early childhood education that this Government has called a halt to the previous Government’s “build it and they will come” attitude for Maori youngsters particularly in South Auckland. The Government is working with communities to make sure that we design services that suit their needs that are culturally appropriate and that deliver early childhood services in a way that each community in particular wants to see. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the summary report on submissions to the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education dated 18 February 2011 prepared by the task force secretariat. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document? Is there any objection? There is objection.
Smith Nick: Tabling of Documents — Freshwater Management National Policy Statement—Legal Advice 
Smith Nick: Tabling of Documents — Freshwater Management National Policy Statement—Legal Advice 
[Volume:672;Page:18635] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 During question time on Tuesday Russel Norman asked me a question in respect of the release of legal advice. I have checked and had clearance from the Attorney-General so I seek leave of the House to table the extract from the Ministry for the Environment’s briefing dated 10 August 2010 on the legal advice in respect of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:672;Page:18635] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 The shadow Leader of the House can be assured that all matters relating to any legislation that has a direct relationship with the Budget will be well canvassed at the Business Committee on Tuesday.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Volume:672;Page:18635] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I just have an assurance from the Acting Leader of the House that as part of the Budget legislation urgency will not be taken to take bills through past the point of a select committee hearing for legislation that does not come into effect until after the end of November.
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18643] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister for ACC: what progress has the Government made in improving ACC’s financial performance after the 57 percent increase in claims costs and the 109 percent increase in liabilities between 2004-05 and 2008-09? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister I say to both front benches that discourtesy to a colleague who is asking a question is unacceptable. Both Labour and National—it was not the minor parties—were equally at fault and that will not continue. It is very discourteous. I invite Dr Jackie Blue to please repeat her question.
Power Simon: Business Statement 
Power Simon: Business Statement 
[Volume:672;Page:18635] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 May the Government intends to progress the first readings of three Treaty bills as cognate bills. The Government also intends to move that the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) be read a second time. Wednesday is a members’ day and Thursday is Budget day.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — France—France - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — France—France - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group 
[Volume:672;Page:18635] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the France - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group of the Senate of the Republic of France led by Senator Marcel Deneux group president is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Tabling of Documents — Freshwater Management National Policy Statement—Legal Advice 
Tabling of Documents — Freshwater Management National Policy Statement—Legal Advice 
[Volume:672;Page:18635] 
Tabling of Documents 
Freshwater Management National Policy Statement—Legal Advice 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 During question time on Tuesday Russel Norman asked me a question in respect of the release of legal advice. I have checked and had clearance from the Attorney-General so I seek leave of the House to table the extract from the Ministry for the Environment’s briefing dated 10 August 2010 on the legal advice in respect of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:672;Page:18635] 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 May the Government intends to progress the first readings of three Treaty bills as cognate bills. The Government also intends to move that the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) be read a second time. Wednesday is a members’ day and Thursday is Budget day. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I just have an assurance from the Acting Leader of the House that as part of the Budget legislation urgency will not be taken to take bills through past the point of a select committee hearing for legislation that does not come into effect until after the end of November. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 The shadow Leader of the House can be assured that all matters relating to any legislation that has a direct relationship with the Budget will be well canvassed at the Business Committee on Tuesday.
Visitors — France—France - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group 
Visitors — France—France - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group 
[Volume:672;Page:18635] 
Thursday 12 May 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
France—France - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the France - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group of the Senate of the Republic of France led by Senator Marcel Deneux group president is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Power Simon: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Power Simon: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18541] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Services Committeeconsider the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 18 August 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18541] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Harawira. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a first time.
Tisch Lindsay: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18527] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Members the question is that clause 4 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye the contrary No. The Ayes have it. I will report this bill without amendment.
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18522] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 In the same vein as the previous speaker Colin King I say that clause 4 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill is really the guts of the bill. It is about having one market in the South Island. This bill includes the West Coast Regional Council as part of the South Island threshold for the market share. As has been said before we have 1.4 million tonnes of milksolids and a large amount of milk to deal with. Clearly with better transport across the Alps the inclusion of the West Coast is now very appropriate. I am very pleased that the submitters to the Primary Production Committee were very happy we included this particular clause. I guess the opportunity is now given to the Minister of the day to provide or get that conclusive evidence that the threshold has been reached and then the competition involvement prevails. 
This particular part of the bill also clearly defines “dairy farm” and “milksolids”. In the past we used to use the term “milk fat” but there was a change a number of years ago to sell the milk products on the basis of “milksolids” rather than just “milk fat”. I think that was a very good extension because “milksolids” includes the protein and the fats. It is fantastic. As I said this is the guts of the bill and we are quite happy to support it.
Ardern Shane: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18520] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Clause 4 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill effectively does three things. It extends the period before the sunset provisions will be met. That is it lowers the threshold for that to happen. Under the 2001 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act that threshold was likely to have been met within about 12 months of the Minister starting to discuss this amendment which was likely to come up either next season or the one after it in the South Island and a year after that in the North Island. 
The bill extends that period and lowers the threshold to about 80 percent of New Zealand’s total milk production going through Fonterra as opposed to what it was before which was a formula based on litres and percentages rather than the 80 percent straight out. Also the sunset provisions will not be triggered entirely unless both islands are triggered. That is another addition. Of course the Minister has to certify that the market shareholding has met that level before anything happens. The Minister can reconsider it in the event of that threshold being met in one island much quicker than in the other or suchlike. That is what clause 4 does—no more or less than that.
O'Connor Damien: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18519] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the call Mr Chair; I did not want to let it go as easily as that. 
I have a question for the Minister in the chair the Minister of Agriculture. Will he wait until his review has come up with some recommendations in respect of the larger issue of Dairy Industry Restructuring Act milk and will he delay the date on which this bill comes into force and receives the Royal assent or will he just let this bill go through and then muddle around as he has done on most issues for a lot longer? The meat industry for example is desperately in need of some leadership and that Minister has not committed to any dates at all. 
As clause 2 the commencement clause is so important maybe the Minister can learn from the issues here and the questions in respect of when he should bring this bill into effect when he should review it and when he should change it. Parliament does not have a huge amount of time between now and the election and he has to realise that if he does have a plan or an agenda—and he and his colleagues do not seem to have come up with any—then he has only a few months to implement it. After that it will be our agenda and our plan and I look forward to that. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Ha ha! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Coleman is living in hope. 
I will not speak long on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill other than to ask the Minister whether he will if this bill comes into force on the day it receives the Royal assent turn round and release the review of the substantive Dairy Industry Restructuring Act issues. He is muddling around with his papers just as he has with this bill. Maybe he can take a call and give us a time line for further change and reform of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act regulations. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Ardern Shane: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18519] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18518] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 This academic certainly loves dairy and certainly loves farming. I have spent my life in one way or another in farming or helping farmers along with my colleague Damien O’Connor who is a good dairy farmer— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Who is also leaving Parliament. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: That is fine; that is all right. I am leaving the Parliament in a very happy way. Do not worry about it. We still have a lot to contribute to agriculture. 
The Primary Production Committee received 13 submissions on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill. We heard eight of them and most of them were in support of the bill. 
Clearly this is a very small bill. It basically extends the market-share threshold for the expiry of the pro-competition provisions of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. The Labour Party and the Government both want to see more competition in the market. We want to see healthy domestic dairy prices and good processing markets for everyone concerned whether for local domestic consumers or for export. This bill extends the threshold. 
We are delighted to support this bill because it clearly increases competition and particularly because it includes the West Coast in the South Island market share. In the past it was excluded but this bill now includes it. 
I think it has been mentioned earlier when we were discussing the Environmental Protection Authority Bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are debating the title. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: I know but I think this is part of it. The processing of dairy impacts on our environment and our income and this particular bill certainly increases competition and the welfare of our people. It enhances the market and that is good. 
As has been said before this bill is only one part of the wider dairy industry restructuring. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will come back to the House in the not too distant future to get it right. We have to get it right because this is something that both sides of the Committee support. Dairy is our main industry and it is the future. In my view this is not a sunset industry. I spent my life in the industry and I fully support this bill. Going forward I can see opportunities particularly in China India and the whole Asia region. That will be the future for this country. I commend this bill to the Committee.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18516] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Smith Nick: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18516] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Environmental Protection Authority Bill the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill (No 2) the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill the Ozone Layer Protection Amendment Bill and the Resource Management Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 240 
.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18516] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Foss Craig: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Foss Craig: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18498] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18516] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18514] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18513] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18513] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18513] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 7 agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18513] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 6 agreed to.
King Colin: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18522] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Clause 4 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill is the material part of the bill and I want to concentrate on three particular areas. It is worth mentioning that this country produces 1.4 million tonnes of milksolids. When we look at new section 147 substituted by clause 4 we see that there is a change from kilograms as far as the formula for the trigger goes to a percentage. If members work out 20 percent of 1.4 million tonnes of milksolids they will see that somebody would have to be taking in the region of 280000 tonnes of milksolids before they triggered it. So there is a more pragmatic approach to the sunset provisions in this bill—if that makes sense. 
Interestingly the submitters from the West Coast really got the Primary Production Committee thinking. They were very straight-up and honest. They said that the opportunity was there and they would take advantage of it. That sits on our minds and no doubt the Minister of Agriculture is very aware of it. As we speak there are plans to have a collection centre set up in Rolleston where milk can be collected and then taken on the railway line through the Otira tunnel and so on. It is quite important and it is a forward movement that we have actually included the West Coast in the bill. It is quite pragmatic. 
One thing that is quite curious is that the original bill did not clearly define what a dairy farm was the thing we were actually talking about. So in substituted section 147(5) we defined what a dairy farm is: “a farm in New Zealand that produces milk from dairy cows as a business or part of a business.” That bit of work was needed to clarify it. 
An enormous amount of thought and work has gone into section 147 to ensure we have very robust and consistent transition sunset provisions and on that basis I think clause 4 really does address the matter adequately.
Smith Nick: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18510] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to provide the member Brendon Burns with just one very simple reassurance. The criteria regarding resource management matters going before the Environmental Protection Authority are exactly the same as the criteria that currently exist for Ministers to be able to call in and deal with consents of national significance.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18509] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5B as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 5B as amended agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Environmental Protection Authority Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18509] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Amendments agreed to.