edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:19054] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Firstly I congratulate the Minister of Health on his high degree of management and organisation in respect of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill. It exemplifies and sets a high bar in terms of how to manage legislation through the House. Many precedents have been created in the last 2 or 3 minutes and I thank the senior Opposition whip for assisting to move the motion. We would not want to see this bill delayed or implode on itself through a bungled legislative process. Putting that aside we did right in supporting the clean slate legislation and I think we should probably adhere to that principle as well. 
With regard to the Opposition I think there is unanimity on all sides of the House in all parties that this bill will be supported. I will not waylay it much longer. Suffice to say this is good legislation. It will provide some comfort and assistance to a large number of people and entities in Canterbury who in many cases are going through a living hell in respect of their businesses and in respect of their livelihoods. This legislation will take one small bit of stress out of a number of people’s lives. 
It should also be noted that through the earthquakes as I think all members have alluded to the generosity of spirit exhibited by people businesses and entities has been well beyond anybody’s expectation. Those of us who are Canterbury members of Parliament—I am sure this is shared on the other side of the House—have found out through these disasters firstly just how generous people can be and secondly the ability of community leaders councillors and others to make calls and simply ask for things. It is amazing what people will do and it is amazing what people do in terms of dipping into their own pockets and providing goods services and comforts. 
It is also noteworthy that a large number of employers treated their staff very very well and went beyond the minimal requirements. I think those who did that had the ethos that staff are the most important asset that organisations have. If they are looked after organisations will perform and perform well. 
Again it is with a great deal of pleasure that I commend the Minister of Health whom I suspect was dropped in it at the last moment to shepherd this legislation through its last stage in the House. He has shown amazing legislative and parliamentary flexibility and dexterity to make sure this bill goes through in a timely fashion and does not hit any roadblocks on the way. I give our thanks to the officials as well.
Wagner Nicky: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18983] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18999] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill be now read a third time 
. I need to report to the House that this bill which gives effect to the Budget’s provisions relating to some of the changes to KiwiSaver and Working for Families has been thoroughly considered by the Committee and has emerged without amendment. During the Committee stage of the bill there was a very rigorous set of debates but in many senses not a great deal of light was shed particularly from the Opposition on an alternative package. 
It is worth noting in respect of KiwiSaver that even after the changes that members opposite have so decried it is still anticipated that KiwiSaver membership will strike 2 million during the 2012-13 year. One of the points that is relevant to the reason the changes are being made—and I will respond to a point made by Mr Shearer late in the Committee stage—relates to the cost of KiwiSaver’s success. When KiwiSaver was introduced in 2007 the projection was that it would hit 700000 members by 2015. It now has 1.7 million members and that number is projected to be 2 million during the 2012-13 year. That is well over twice or nearly three times the original projection. Because of both the member kick-start—which is not being touched—and the member tax credit there is a significant fiscal cost to the Government associated with KiwiSaver and in order to sustain the scheme into the future these changes have been necessary given the extraordinary and unprecedented success of the scheme to date. The changes amount to about $2.6 billion in savings. 
The changes being made to Working for Families which will kick in from 1 April next year in some cases will take 4 years to be fully implemented and in other cases will take nearer to 8 years to be implemented. The changes represent a cost saving of approximately $447 million to the Crown over that time. 
The legislation gives effect to the Budget measures. The Budget was really about setting a path for returning New Zealand to surplus after some unprecedented experiences in recent years—the global financial crisis and now the Christchurch earthquakes—yet we are still predicting a return to surplus in 2014-15. The changes contained in this bill are part of achieving those policy objectives. 
I thank the officials who have served the House during the hours of the Committee stage. I thank those members who have participated in the debate. I commend the bill to the House.
Woodhouse Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18939] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I thought it was very important to come back and complete my call given the confused look on the face of Labour’s spokesman on revenue when I tried to explain the answer to the question that Mr Cunliffe posed in his last call in respect of why top tax rates are sacrosanct. Well I would not say that they are sacrosanct but they are certainly at the appropriate place. He simply could not believe that the total tax paid by a family earning $90000 a year with two children under the age of 13 was 676 percent more than the same family earning $60000. The journey from $60000 to $90000 under the present regime is steep. The effective marginal tax rates are somewhere in the region of 56 to 58 percent depending on the earning trajectory. But it is challenging and it is one of the reasons why many people faced with that hurdle choose to go somewhere else like Australia for low effective marginal tax rates. 
We heard yesterday an absolute admission that Mr Cunliffe’s party will campaign this year on increasing the top tax rate or creating a new top tax tier. Labour members denied that when I challenged them on it yesterday. It means that the top tax rate of $70000 will probably stay at $70000. Those really big income earners in that earnings bracket like senior nurses and policemen—you know the real uber-rich that Labour is calling the rich pricks—will suffer the extra tax that that party would put in place were it to attain the Treasury benches. 
I am very grateful to Deloitte for its Budget 2011 perspective report which was released yesterday afternoon. It firmly confirms that last year’s tax switch was indeed fiscally neutral according to the tax bands. I paraphrase from page 18 of that report. In 2008-09 earners of over $70000 a year contributed 46 percent of the income tax base. This year after the tax switch which Labour members bang on about those earners of over $70000 will according to Deloitte—on reliable information that is better than the information Mr Nash got I have to say—contribute 51 percent of the income tax base. So rather than tax cuts for the rich that group is contributing another 5 percent to the total tax base. 
About 12 or 13 percent of the earning population are paying more than 51 percent of the income tax in this country and Labour wants to punish that group further. It is punitive. It adds to the confused fiscal and monetary policy that that party is coming out with: raising tax rates loosening monetary policy so that interest rates go up and increasing spending which will plunge our children into more debt by about $45 billion. At some point the rot has to stop. This legislation is really sensible and sound. If we put those top tax rates back of course the sorts of things that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Revenue talked about yesterday will certainly come back.
Woodhouse Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18937] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 So now we know that Labour is going to campaign in the general election on a new top tax rate. It was not very clear in what Mr Cunliffe said but if we take the Leader of the Opposition’s speech there will be a new top tax rate because the alternative is that Labour simply puts up the existing top tax rate. Let us analyse why that will be so bad for New Zealanders. I will give members a scenario. It is of a family with two kids under the age of 13 where the gross income is $60000. I will take another family with exactly the same circumstances but the gross income is $90000. 
Stuart Nash 
: Do you know the difference between income and revenue? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Yes indeed absolutely. This chartered accountant knows the difference. That is one-and-a-half times more income. A progressive tax system says that the higher-income family should pay more than one-and-a-half times more tax. How much more? Is it 200 percent or 250 percent? At the moment that family is currently paying 675 percent more in effective income tax than the family on $60000 pays. That is nearly seven times more income tax. They are looking at each other and saying: “How can that be?”. 
Stuart Nash 
: It’s called a progressive tax system. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: It is the system that the member put in place. 
Debate interrupted.
Borrows Chester: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18924] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to seek a clarification in respect of language used in the House. I was watching the debate earlier when the Hon Clayton Cosgrove was speaking and I believe I heard him refer to a member on this side of the House as “Sooty”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. Points of order have to be raised at the time. You cannot come down and do it later on.
Calder Cam: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Calder Cam: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18929] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 What a pleasure it is to rise to speak on the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill. That was a very learned discourse from the member opposite on the relative merits of lattes in Grey Lynn New Lynn and possibly St Mary’s Bay. There was a very brief discussion about taxes but he did mention at one stage that yes the default position is that he wants to raise taxes. Can members believe that? He wants to raise taxes. Actually I can believe that because that seems to be the default position of his leader Mr Phil Goff as well. 
Incidentally we heard Mr Goff make the breathtaking assertion in the House earlier today that the global financial crisis finished in 2009. What then is happening in Portugal and Ireland—Mr Goff has completely missed that on the radar—as well as in Greece and Spain? He seems to be completely unaware of the EU bail-out or in fact the IMF bail-out masterminded by DSK before he himself bailed out. There were billions of dollars in quantitative easing. 
Tax borrow spend and hope seems to be once again the default position of the Labour Party. We heard Mr Phil Goff confirm that Labour members have not learnt. Punitive pusillanimous and pathetic describe Labour’s politics of envy as it once again wants to hit the 13 percent of New Zealanders who pay over 50 percent of tax in this country. Labour members want to wallop the wealth creators evict the entrepreneurs and bash the businessmen and businesswomen who are so—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Hon Pete Hodgson knows he cannot be on his feet while interjecting. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: —crucial in growing the economic cake for the benefit of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. 
National’s tax changes will provide more money for hard-working New Zealanders. We heard from the Prime Minister this afternoon that three-quarters of New Zealanders pay a top marginal tax rate of only 17.5 percent. Despite international pressures on food and petrol tax reforms have allowed after-tax wages to go up faster than the cost of living. Wages have gone up 7.1 percent in real terms. If my memory serves me well in the blighted 9 years of the previous administration real wages went up 3 percent. 
As a result of our tax changes a typical married couple on superannuation has seen their joint income increase by $166 per fortnight. That is almost 20 percent over the last 3 years; 8.5 percent if adjusted for inflation. Interest rates have fallen dramatically to their lowest level since 1964. Our tax rates have put more money in the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders. I commend the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill to the House.
Barker Rick: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Barker Rick: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18926] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. First I say that I accept without reservation the Chair’s uncontested right to make a decision on when to put a closure motion. But this is very heavily contested ground and I want to make a point before we get into the Committee stage—right from the outset—about the rules of engagement. The first point I make is that the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill has not been to a select committee. This bill has only just been put on the Table today and therefore I think the Chair needs—and I am just asking before I come to the matter later—to ensure that the rights of the Opposition are well protected and that the rights of the Opposition to examine a bill extensively are taken into account. I hope that the Chair is very lenient in consideration of when to put a closure motion because I have no doubt that the Government members— 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Oh there’s nothing in the bill. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Points of order are to be heard in silence and the member has the floor. There will be no other comment. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This bill has not been to a select committee. The Opposition has had limited time to read the bill. I know it is not extensive. I know it is short and that there are lots of numbers in it but I hope that the Chair will give a lot of forbearance in allowing the Opposition to have plenty of calls and to put plenty of questions to the Minister in the chair recognising the fact that we are in urgency and the bill has not been to select committee. I hope that the Opposition is given plenty of time to examine the bill over time. I just make that point before we start. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. This is an important debate. It confirms the annual tax rate and I thank the member for his contribution. The member will be aware that the discretion to accept a closure motion is that of the Chair. The Chair will always be looking at the relevancy. I hear what the member says and this is an important debate. I am sure that we will have a lively debate and there will be full participation from all sides of the Chamber.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18926] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill be now read a second time. 
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. 
Bill read a second time.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18905] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill addresses two of the bigger programmes administered through the tax system—Working for Families and KiwiSaver—and the changes foreshadowed in the Budget brought down earlier this afternoon. The changes proposed in this bill are about making those programmes more sustainable by focusing them better to ensure that Government spending is directed to where it is needed most and eliminating spending that is not. 
Working for Families recipients on higher incomes will therefore find that the changes the bill makes will reduce their tax credits at a faster rate and their reductions will begin at an earlier point in their salary scale. In brief the changes introduced to Working for Families are an increase in the abatement rate by 1.25 cents at every inflation adjustment from 1 April next year until it reaches 25c in the dollar; a decrease in the abatement threshold at every inflation adjustment from 1 April next year until it reaches $35000; and the removal of the inflation adjustment for family tax credit amounts for children 16 and over from 1 April 2012 until the amounts for children aged 13 to 15 catch up. Once these amounts equal the family tax credit amounts for the oldest child the inflation adjustment will apply again. Because these changes take effect from the beginning of next year they need to be put in place at this point to allow systems changed to cope. 
The changes to KiwiSaver are intended to ensure that the scheme continues to make it easy for people to save and so be better off in retirement while reducing the cost to taxpayers of the subsidies to individual accounts. All employer contributions to employees’ KiwiSaver accounts will be subject to the employer superannuation contribution tax and the member tax credit is being halved for the next member tax credit year which ends on 30 June 2012. The minimum employee contribution rate will rise from 2 percent to 3 percent from April 2013 as will the default contribution rate and compulsory employer contributions will similarly rise from 2 percent to 3 percent at the same stage. Those changes are not included in this bill. They will come in legislation due later in the year. 
These are the major measures contained in this bill. The bill also confirms the annual tax rates for the 2011-12 tax year as is the customary process. With those few comments about the measures which I think are about ensuring a fairer more balanced tax system that is part of the Government’s overall strategy to return New Zealand to a pathway of economic recovery I am happy to commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18905] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill be now read a first time. 
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; Independent: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a first time.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:672;Page:18884] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill and the passing through all its stages of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill.  
The Government has read the Budget today— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot yet see the taxation bill on the Table in front of me. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have been advised that it has not yet been introduced. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can we have notice from the Minister as to how far away that will be? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister has to give reasons now for putting the House into urgency. I expect him to do that during his motion but this is not a debate. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is not a debate but when urgency is taken and the Government is introducing bills once urgency is agreed to by the House the bills are introduced and therefore are made available. That has been the case for some decades and I would have thought members who had been here for a while would know that. 
In introducing the Budget this afternoon some measures were outlined in it relating to changes to Working for Families and the KiwiSaver scheme. It is important that New Zealanders know exactly what the intentions are of this Government so that they have an opportunity to make choices. Further when it comes to the disaster in Canterbury an extraordinary amount of generosity was extended by a number of firms throughout New Zealand as well as of course many people who live in Canterbury that could in fact put them in an uncertain tax position. The second bill is designed to ensure that that tax status is made very very clear.
Brownlee Gerry: Budget Statement — Budget Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: Budget Statement — Budget Debate 
[Volume:672;Page:18884] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
Motion agreed to.
English Bill: Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18857] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
English Bill: Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18857] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the 2011 Budget Minister’s Executive Summary the speech the Fiscal Strategy Report the Economic and Fiscal Update (B.2 and B.3) the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2012 (B.5) the information supporting the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2012 (B.5A Volumes 1-10) the departmental statements of intent and the Supplement to the 2010 Investment Statement of the Government of New Zealand (B.8). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
English Bill: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
English Bill: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:672;Page:18857] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand and supporting information for the year ending 30 June 2011 (B.7). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:672;Page:18884] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill and the passing through all its stages of the Taxation (Canterbury Earthquake Measures) Bill.  
The Government has read the Budget today— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot yet see the taxation bill on the Table in front of me. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have been advised that it has not yet been introduced. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can we have notice from the Minister as to how far away that will be? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister has to give reasons now for putting the House into urgency. I expect him to do that during his motion but this is not a debate. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is not a debate but when urgency is taken and the Government is introducing bills once urgency is agreed to by the House the bills are introduced and therefore are made available. That has been the case for some decades and I would have thought members who had been here for a while would know that. 
In introducing the Budget this afternoon some measures were outlined in it relating to changes to Working for Families and the KiwiSaver scheme. It is important that New Zealanders know exactly what the intentions are of this Government so that they have an opportunity to make choices. Further when it comes to the disaster in Canterbury an extraordinary amount of generosity was extended by a number of firms throughout New Zealand as well as of course many people who live in Canterbury that could in fact put them in an uncertain tax position. The second bill is designed to ensure that that tax status is made very very clear. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
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.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:672;Page:18885] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
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.
Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18857] 
Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the 2011 Budget Minister’s Executive Summary the speech the Fiscal Strategy Report the Economic and Fiscal Update (B.2 and B.3) the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2012 (B.5) the information supporting the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2012 (B.5A Volumes 1-10) the departmental statements of intent and the Supplement to the 2010 Investment Statement of the Government of New Zealand (B.8). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:672;Page:18857] 
Thursday 19 May 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand and supporting information for the year ending 30 June 2011 (B.7). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Prasad Rajen: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Prasad Rajen: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18854] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman and a big namaste to you. I thought you might have as is your practice used our indigenous or cultural greeting but I will greet you in mine Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Namaste. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Thank you and namaste again. I am pleased to take a call on clause 5(2) of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and I am really pleased that here are the beginnings of additional free thinking regarding the sciences and regarding the work of the Royal Society which now includes a missing link a huge knowledge base and the many subjects that are part of the humanities discipline. I note that the interpretation clause does not give an exhaustive list of the subjects that are in the humanities. It simply states that the humanities include certain subjects and therefore it does not exclude many other subjects that are part of the discipline of the humanities. I urge the Royal Society to look at this more broadly when graduates of other subject areas want to apply for membership of the Royal Society through this provision. I hope it will be so. 
As a social scientist— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to report progress. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Westpac New Zealand Bill without amendment and progress on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted.
King Colin: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18851] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 4 agreed to.
Roy Eric: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18828] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member has made the point very splendidly but I am going to give the Committee the opportunity to determine whether it is time to close the debate. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Adams Amy: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Adams Amy: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18820] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Gilmore Aaron: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Gilmore Aaron: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18811] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
King Colin: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18812] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Preamble agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 118 Noes 4.
Goodhew Jo: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18849] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barker Rick: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18828] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know it is perfectly within your realm to make the decision about whether to put the closure motion and I will accept your decision without quibble or qualification but I make the point that this is members’ day. On members’ day it is very unusual for the Government to use its majority to foreclose on debates. I make the point that if the Government wishes to do that then that will change the nature of members’ day. I think the Government should reflect on that before it does it. We are perfectly happy for the whips to ring this side have a talk to us about matters and negotiate these things but that has not happened. I just want to make the point very clear to Government members that we need cooperation in this Committee.
Adams Amy: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Adams Amy: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18808] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
McClay Todd: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
McClay Todd: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18828] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the question be now put.
Foss Craig: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Foss Craig: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18801] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the Westpac New Zealand Bill to thank and acknowledge members in the Chamber who will no doubt speak to the bill the Business Committee for helping with the process of this bill and of course the members of that Business Committee. It goes without saying that I am also thanking party leaders around the Chamber and acknowledging their cooperation—in and out of the Chamber I guess—various finance spokespersons people who were referenced to help with this legislation and of course members. I also acknowledge Finance and Expenditure Committee members. I was absent during the second reading but I looked at and reviewed some of the speeches there and those members captured what we did at the select committee pretty well I think. 
I will make just one quick point because I noticed that a point was raised and a question asked of me as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the member whose name is on the bill about whether there were any issues with the bill. I can assure the Committee and the Chair that all processes and procedures were correct and that members were always aware of the bill and able to make fair representation on it. I can assure the Committee that no issues whatsoever were raised. Nor do I think there are any issues. 
The bill is relatively straightforward. Some members in the Chamber would have spoken on the previous bill upon which this bill rests which was the bill of 2006 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs. That bill turned into the Act of 2006. 
There has been quite a bit of consultation about the bill. There is general and very good understanding of what the bill is actually facilitating and members have been very reassured I believe by the assurances from the Reserve Bank from the Inland Revenue Department from Treasury and from the Ministry of Justice under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the checks and balances that the ministry does. Those organisations have all given the bill a tick. 
I guess that members may speak to a couple of changes made to the bill at the select committee but the changes were very very minimal. The bill is now almost identical to the previous bill. I am sure that some members may want to speak to some of the minor changes and I look forward to contributions from the Committee.
Foss Craig: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Foss Craig: Westpac New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18820] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Some issues were raised in the debate on the previous part that are pursuant to Part 2. As I noted earlier the start of the Westpac New Zealand Bill rests very very heavily on the earlier 2006 Act in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs which is where the definitions that the previous speaker Stuart Nash talked about were all prescribed. That member’s party and I think the whole Parliament at the time agreed with those definitions. One other point that has been raised is why we are having this bill now and whether there will be another one. There could be another one; I do not know. The Labour members in particular of the Finance and Expenditure Committee will know and they may want to share with their colleagues that the liabilities cap was originally NZ$10 billion when Westpac was originally incorporated here. It was extended to $15 billion in 2007. Westpac is well within those caps generally but through the global financial crisis in 2009 there was an issue and the asset/liability mismatch started to throw that out of whack. Therefore the whole point of this bill is to add assets and liabilities to the security of Westpac New Zealand Ltd taking those assets and liabilities from the Westpac Banking Corporation’s New Zealand institutional bank. 
Finally a very important point and one I am sure colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee would like to share with their other colleagues is that questions have been raised about tax definitions and tax issues in Part 2. I refer members to clause 21. For the record I would like to read it: “The purpose of sections 22 and 23 is to ensure that the vesting of the designated assets and liabilities in Westpac New Zealand under this Act does not give rise to tax consequences under the Inland Revenue Acts for Westpac Banking Corporation or Westpac New Zealand that would not have arisen if they were the same person.” Members will also note that we took comfort at the Finance and Expenditure Committee from letters from the Inland Revenue Department as well as the Reserve Bank etc. 
Another point to note is that the Reserve Bank is very satisfied with where this bill is at regarding these various definitions and clauses. Of course Westpac Banking Corporation is Westpac New Zealand Ltd and essentially under tax they will be treated as the same entity for the purposes of this bill.
Cunliffe David: General Debate 
Cunliffe David: General Debate 
[Volume:672;Page:18793] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 106 it is required to wait until the end of a member’s speech before seeking a point of misrepresentation. The member has grossly misrepresented the Opposition who has never suggested— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Standing Order provides for a member who has been grossly misrepresented not for a party to claim gross misrepresentation. If the member wishes to come back into the debate it has to be that he has been misrepresented. If that is the case I will hear from the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Speaking to your ruling Mr Speaker I appreciate that it must be a personal reference to a member. As the party’s finance spokesperson I do take a personal inference from the suggestion that we and therefore I—I am responsible for this area of policy—have advocated a turnover tax. That is certainly not Labour’s position. It was not contained in the Leader of the Opposition’s questions today. If a journalist writes that on the front page of the newspaper we cannot be responsible for journalism. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have had sufficient on that. I have allowed the Hon David Cunliffe to do this. There is some question though as to whether I perhaps should have but I have allowed it on this occasion. [ 
Interruption 
] That is not helpful from the honourable deputy leader of the Labour Party. I will not take it any further because I do not want it repeated.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18784] 
11. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government’s Housing Innovation Fund? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 On Monday I announced a further three projects in Hamilton Flaxmere and Napier that will receive $2.7 million from the fund. They include an 11-bedroom home in Flaxmere to be used as an affordable rental property for kaumatua four properties in Hawke’s Bay for people experiencing mental illness and seven accessible homes for affordable rental in Hamilton. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What is the aim of the Housing Innovation Fund? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The fund encourages partnerships with community housing organisations. It is about making the taxpayer’s dollar go further. So far this year the $6 million contributed by the Government to help to fund new houses has been met by $7.1 million from community organisations. As part of this Government’s commitment to increase the quantum of social housing I am currently looking at ways to move from the Housing Innovation Fund to an even more attractive deal for third sector organisations. We want to work with them. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that New Zealand is not facing a housing shortage; if not will he guarantee that Labour’s Housing Innovation Fund will continue in one form or another in the next financial year with the increase in funding that he has been promising the sector? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: In the time that National has been in Government we have funded with community organisations 212 houses. Under the Labour Government’s Housing Innovation Fund which Ms Mackey mentioned the previous Government funded barely any houses. Interestingly enough we are into housebuilding. That Government was into capacity building which did not keep the rain out.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18783] 
9. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent announcements has she made to support community social services? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We have announced the successful applicants to the sixth round of the Community Response Fund and I am pleased that nearly $14 million has been granted to 345 organisations. We created this fund to help organisations to keep delivering services to families through tough times and it has done just that. Since the fund began more than $55 million has been paid out to 694 community organisations and on top of that there was a special round just for Canterbury of $7.5 million. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Has the Community Response Fund provided any support for budgeting and financial services that are facing an increasing workload? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes $2.3 million has been given to 57 organisations in round six. To date under the Community Response Fund budgeting and financial assistance organisations have received about $5.3 million in total.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18781] 
7. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What was the motivation behind the decision to remove regulatory forbearance from the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Although the telecommunications industry is overwhelmingly supportive of the ultra-fast broadband policy some stakeholders were concerned about the regulatory forbearance over the 8½-year build period of the contract. I think these concerns were more theoretical than real given that everybody has been happy with the very competitive prices announced by Crown Fibre Holdings to date. But we have been able to find an alternative solution that continues to provide confidence to the network builders to be committed to their low capped prices and confidence for customers that they will continue to get the best prices over that 8½-year period. I thank the Maori Party for its assistance in developing this change. 
Rahui Katene 
: What confidence can Maori have that there will be specific opportunities within the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and the Rural Broadband Initiative that will assist in lifting economic development for Maori? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: A lot of confidence. The prime motivation for Crown involvement in the ultra-fast broadband development is to foster economic growth. Fibre will transform this country with enhanced productivity improved global connectivity and enhanced capacity for innovation becoming available for everybody. In particular for Maori the Minister of Maori Affairs and I have developed Nga Pu Waea to assist the Government on Maori interests and development opportunities in broadband and to work to ensure that Maori communities as well as Maori health and social service providers benefit from the roll-out of broadband wherever they live. 
Rahui Katene 
: How can Maori constituents consumers and industry participants all of whom are affected heavily by telecommunications costs be assured that pricing is appropriate and competition is encouraged? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There are two safeguards in place to ensure competitive pricing. Firstly by prescribing for a wholesale-only open access network we will ensure the maximum competition at the retail level. As mentioned in answer to the primary question everybody has been happy with the very competitive wholesale price caps announced by Crown Fibre Holdings today. Secondly the Commerce Commission retains its ability to investigate and recommend regulations should anti-competitive behaviour emerge. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Has the Government agreed to any further spectrum for Maori as part of this arrangement? 
Hon Member 
: What do you know about broadband? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: A lot more than that member. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No nothing about spectrum has been considered in the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18780] 
6. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What reports has she received about the first year of container units being used in New Zealand prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that New Zealand’s first prison unit constructed out of second-hand shipping containers is outperforming all expectations. The unit which was 30 percent cheaper to build than comparable traditionally built units houses 60 prisoners at Rimutaka Prison. In its first year of operation the number of incidents within the container unit has been significantly lower than in standard units. There have been no incidents involving drugs alcohol cellphones or weapons and there have been no assaults on staff. Maintenance costs for the unit are 34 percent lower than expected and vandalism is extremely low. 
Allan Peachey 
: How could containers be used in future to meet prison capacity needs? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The department will now conduct a full evaluation of the unit and consider how containers can be used further in the New Zealand prison environment. However given their speed of construction and flexibility in terms of design the department has developed up to nine different layout configurations including multi-storey options that could be used in future. Container cells could also be used for other purposes—for example to provide a low-cost option for adding audiovisual links between prisons and the courts. The container unit is attracting a lot of interest including from corrections operators in other countries that are keen to learn from our success in this area.