edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16318] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I accept some of the points that the member Lockwood Smith makes. There is some volume and some formulae in the bill do take a little bit of working through in order to make sure they are right but I give the member the assurance that a lot of thought has gone into this. 
I accept that having these extra pages of legislation is a result of bringing in changes for half a tax year rather than for a full tax year. The Government made the decision and I might say it was finally tuned—not on the basis of need; need was pretty clearly established. Anyone who looks at petrol prices and the prices of some items of food—the cost of some items of food has dropped—knew that it did have to come in on 1 October if it was practically possible. The approach that is taken here in our opinion makes sure that that is the case. 
In order to be clear in response to the questions that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith was making about sections LC1 and LC2 I point out that these are the low-income rebate arrangements which create an effective tax rate of 15c and 21c. They have been replaced by new statutory rates of 12.5c and 21c as I think members are becoming increasingly aware.
Hughes Darren: Budget Debate 
Hughes Darren: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16251] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Sio Su'a William: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Sio Su'a William: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16293] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take this short call to speak in support of the Budget. Being the newest MP in the House I am proud to be associated with the ninth Budget by Dr Michael Cullen. It has been a privilege to listen to Dr Michael Cullen present this Budget. It has seen quite a bit of expectation and quite a bit of anticipation from the wider community. 
This Budget provides more than just tax cuts. It continues the work of this Government with regard to providing the health care services that many people throughout this nation of ours really really need. There is a young man in his 60s going on 70 by the name of Bill Wiki of Ngapuhi descent lying in Middlemore Hospital where he has undergone surgery on his hip. He texted me recently in support of this Labour Government and congratulated it on the way that it continues to provide investment in the health sector. 
This Budget reminds me of the biblical story of Joseph which some members of this House may be familiar with. Joseph had been sold into slavery in Egypt where he was eventually put in charge of the wealth of Egypt because he was able to interpret a dream that the Pharaoh had had. The dream showed 7 years of boom and wealth followed by 7 years of famine. In those 7 years of boom and wealth Egypt collected food in preparation for the bad times. After 8 years of boom wealth and high employment and in the face of rising global food and petrol prices this Budget recognises the need not only to provide tax relief that helps buffer the assault of global events but also to continue to provide essential health services and to invest in our schools. 
That is significant because if we truly care about increasing the skill level of our community and developing the skills of our young people to prepare them for the future and to prepare them for leadership roles then the investment that this Government is making in our schools the investment that this Government is making in tertiary education and the investment that this Government is making with its skills package are things that people ought to sit up and recognise. 
It is sad that I earlier heard members on the other side of this House criticising this Budget yet all the time they were not able to present anything else. They talk about tax cuts being the priority but they have not been able to reveal their policy on that. When ordinary people who listened to their speeches earlier and who are listening to this particular debate hear National members they will surely hold up the Tui sign that says “Yeah right!”.
Robertson H V Ross: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16271] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I advise the House that this 10-minute call will be divided between Labour and National with 5 minutes each.
Brownlee Gerry: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16259] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you suggesting that Mr Woolerton should give his speech in silence? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No I am not suggesting that; I am suggesting that the barrage that goes on between the two major parties can at least lower in volume so that the other parties can have a say.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:647;Page:16251] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill 
. 
This motion is moved so that the Government’s planned tax reductions can be put into law as quickly as possible so that there is certainty for all involved. 
Motion agreed to.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:647;Page:16251] 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill 
. 
This motion is moved so that the Government’s planned tax reductions can be put into law as quickly as possible so that there is certainty for all involved. 
Motion agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Budget Debate 
Wilson Margaret: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16233] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would point out to the member—who has been in the House for some considerable time and will actually know—that it is recognised in the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that when there is a prepared speech the convention is that there is no interruption because there is no opportunity for the person giving the prepared speech to respond. After that the debate commences. I did listen and from all sides of the House from time to time there was robust and vigorous participation within the debate. That is what will continue. From my point of view the most important thing is that people can be heard and I thought that Mr Key could be heard.
Brownlee Gerry: Budget Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16233] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It was very noticeable on this side of the House that throughout the speech delivered by Michael Cullen there was orderly behaviour within the House and respect was shown to the Minister of Finance who was reading a prepared speech. Some of us were moved to think that the Labour backbench was so unenthusiastic that those members looked more like people on death row than cheerleaders for the Government. But during the Leader of the Opposition’s reply there was a considerable barrage and there was a considerable change for the worse in the standard of behaviour. We hope that the same courtesy if it is extended to the Prime Minister will not bring your wrath.
Cullen Michael: Budget Statement — Budget Debate Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Budget Statement — Budget Debate Procedure 
[Volume:647;Page:16229] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Budget 2008 Speech the Executive Summary the Fiscal Strategy Report 2008 the Economic and Fiscal Update 2008 (B.2 and B.3) the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2009 (B.5) the compilations of information supporting the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2009 (B.5A Volumes 1-10) and the departmental statements of intent. I move  
That those papers be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16215] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:647;Page:16215] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2008 and supporting information (B.7). I move  
That that paper be published. 
Motion agreed to.
Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16215] 
Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:647;Page:16215] 
Thursday 22 May 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2008 and supporting information (B.7). I move  
That that paper be published. 
Motion agreed to.
Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16129] 
Family Courts Matters Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 15 April. 
Part 7 Family Proceedings Act 1980 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It has been my pleasure to be a member of the Social Services Committee and particularly to be its deputy chair during the course of the hearings on consideration of and deliberation on the Family Courts Matters Bill. We have had a great deal of cross-party agreement on a lot of things and that has extended all the way through really. 
Nathan Guy 
: That’s a surprise. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes it is a surprise. I think it is very difficult to look at these matters in relation to the Family Court and not to do so without I think a degree of humility and gratitude that there are people who work in this area —judges in particular as well as lawyers social workers and others—whose concern it is to try to take a very difficult situation and make it as least difficult as possible. We see that is so particularly when we look at clause 50A which concerns the duty of legal advisers to promote reconciliation and conciliation. That is not a new thing. We have always had that duty but it is not one that many people expect of lawyers. 
We have gone further than that in this bill and promoted mediation as a primary role within the Family Court when people come before it with issues that they have not been able to resolve beforehand. I am a great believer in mediation having dealt with it over the years as a lawyer and having promoted it not only in Family Court matters but also in commercial matters. At the end of the day most issues that come before the Family Court will at some stage involve children and most do involve children for most of the time. Those children who are the innocent victims of their parents’ behaviours difficulties issues and unresolved conflicts are the ones who suffer the most. Adults I have always believed are pretty good at looking after themselves. Children however do not get a choice in terms of the behaviour of their parents. 
Mediation is the most reasonable way for people who have been unable to see eye to eye with one another over their children or over relating to their children to actually come together and be encouraged to promote the interests of their children first. I do not know of any parents who when confronted with what is in the best interests of their children do not in their heart of hearts want to do the best thing for their children. Often they simply need to be shown the way and to be given the assistance of trained mediators and facilitators to help them to work through that. Mediation is a pretty difficult process but in my experience it generally works. It is very seldom that it does not work. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill with amendment and progress on the Family Courts Matters Bill. 
Report adopted.
Collins Judith: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Family Courts Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16129] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It has been my pleasure to be a member of the Social Services Committee and particularly to be its deputy chair during the course of the hearings on consideration of and deliberation on the Family Courts Matters Bill. We have had a great deal of cross-party agreement on a lot of things and that has extended all the way through really. 
Nathan Guy 
: That’s a surprise. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes it is a surprise. I think it is very difficult to look at these matters in relation to the Family Court and not to do so without I think a degree of humility and gratitude that there are people who work in this area —judges in particular as well as lawyers social workers and others—whose concern it is to try to take a very difficult situation and make it as least difficult as possible. We see that is so particularly when we look at clause 50A which concerns the duty of legal advisers to promote reconciliation and conciliation. That is not a new thing. We have always had that duty but it is not one that many people expect of lawyers. 
We have gone further than that in this bill and promoted mediation as a primary role within the Family Court when people come before it with issues that they have not been able to resolve beforehand. I am a great believer in mediation having dealt with it over the years as a lawyer and having promoted it not only in Family Court matters but also in commercial matters. At the end of the day most issues that come before the Family Court will at some stage involve children and most do involve children for most of the time. Those children who are the innocent victims of their parents’ behaviours difficulties issues and unresolved conflicts are the ones who suffer the most. Adults I have always believed are pretty good at looking after themselves. Children however do not get a choice in terms of the behaviour of their parents. 
Mediation is the most reasonable way for people who have been unable to see eye to eye with one another over their children or over relating to their children to actually come together and be encouraged to promote the interests of their children first. I do not know of any parents who when confronted with what is in the best interests of their children do not in their heart of hearts want to do the best thing for their children. Often they simply need to be shown the way and to be given the assistance of trained mediators and facilitators to help them to work through that. Mediation is a pretty difficult process but in my experience it generally works. It is very seldom that it does not work. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill with amendment and progress on the Family Courts Matters Bill. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16128] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16128] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 190 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clause 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16128] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16128] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field;. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Simich Clem: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16125] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: These are clauses on the title the commencement and the principal Act being amended. There will be one debate and three votes.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16125] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16125] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16125] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16124] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16124] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16124] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16124] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16123] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16123] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Burton Mark: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16122] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16123] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16123] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 190 191 and 198 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 1 be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16114] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill be considered by the Standing Orders Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 21 July 2008. 
Motion agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16113] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future joins other parties in supporting this bill. I will not go over the history of the reasons why such a measure is necessary. I want to make just one observation. It is a sad commentary on our times perhaps that we now face the requirement to legislate for what was always regarded to be the case. In fact in earlier times we would have simply carried on the way that we were and none would have been too concerned about it. I recall the famous case of the gentleman whose name temporarily escapes me who in 1954 took this Parliament to court because he discovered that the writs for the calling of the 1946 election had been issued improperly and he therefore contended before the court that not only was that election invalid but every subsequent action of the Government between that date and the date in 1954 when he lodged his action was equally invalid. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Was it Kevin Brady? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No I do not think his name was Brady. When the Supreme Court heard the case it ruled that he was correct but that the consequences of giving some effect to the decision would be simply impractical so it let matters lie. That was an eminently sensible solution. Unfortunately such solutions do not seem to be de rigueur today and when we become apprised of a situation such as this which we all know is a nonsense we have a requirement for legislation to put right what we have always thought was the case. If that is the way we do things in this day and age so be it. However it is an unfortunate situation and it makes one wonder what else we will discover in due course that we have long thought was legal and permissible is not and needs to be corrected. 
This is not a particularly controversial matter. It is a straightforward matter and I welcome it going to the Standing Orders Committee and soon being back here to be passed into law so that the next group of members of Parliament who may be affected by it can rest easy on election night that whatever their fate they will at least get their allowances paid between that date and the return of the writs. 
Bill read a first time.
Guy Nathan: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16113] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I want to make a short contribution on the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill. In essence this bill is a bit of a tidy-up because currently there is no legislation to cover the gap between the time of the polling booth closures and the time when candidates officially become MPs and take office. 
This bill is an important step forward and we have heard from previous speakers that it is important particularly in relation to covering office rentals and telecommunications. We all know that if those services are not continued then there is a reconnection fee and that would be of considerable cost to the taxpayer when it is weighed up across all MPs’ offices and the vital communication services that are provided to them. 
The crux of this bill is covered in subsection (3) of new section 9B in clause 4. It will allow the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service to cover the criteria. The directions will come through the Speaker as is set out in new section 9C. New section 9D is also an important aspect for the Standing Orders Committee to look at. 
National supports this bill. One of our MPs actually came into the House for just a few weeks at the 2005 election. Katrina Shanks came into the House at that time but when the special votes were counted she unfortunately could not stay. Lo and behold when Dr Brash stood down Katrina Shanks came back into Parliament and she is making a wonderful contribution. This bill will cover the period of 2 weeks that otherwise would not be covered by legislation. 
I was pleased to hear from Mr Hughes tonight that he has ruled out an early election. This bill will come back to the House at the end of July and be passed in August. I have heard from Dr Cullen and Mr Hughes that an early election following the Budget has obviously been ruled out and that we will have to hang on until August and possibly right through to November and we are ready for that. National supports this bill. We look forward to the Standing Orders Committee reporting it back in July.
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16111] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 This Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill is one of those bills that is necessary for the protection and indeed the promotion of democracy in our country. I think Dr Cullen has very adequately outlined what the bill sets out to do. He used the example of the Green Party facing some difficulties as a result of this law or potentially facing those difficulties but what I would add is that all of the parties in this Parliament have I think faced that situation at some time or another. 
The reality is that in New Zealand we take a pretty simplistic approach to things. We have just the one House and we have a complex electoral system in MMP. The two of them need to be melded in a way that means that if someone is thought to be or is declared to be the winner on the night of an election and the party wants to engage in activities that are appropriate beyond an election as Governments are formed etc. then the expense of calling that person to Wellington is quite rightly met from a fund that recognises the costs of running the democratic institution. Certainly people have come here immediately after an election only to find themselves 2 weeks later to be no longer part of the institution and out. I do not think it is right that those people should face that expense on their own. I think it is only appropriate that when people are summoned here they should have their basic expenses met. 
I know that people listening out there will be thinking that this is some sort of a clever featherbed deal. It is not. It is pretty straightforward. It will not cost the State any exorbitant amount. I think people should rightly accept this cost as being part of our democratic arrangements ensuring that in a country like New Zealand access to the legislature is not determined by a person’s own resources but rather by the people who choose to elect them on a ballot paper. 
We look forward to the deliberations of the Standing Orders Committee. We will participate fully in those. There will be an opportunity for people to make submissions to that committee over a relatively brief period of time and I suspect that the basic principles outlined in this bill will be upheld. 
The National Party is very keen to support this bill through its first reading to ensure we uphold the idea that anyone who is elected can come to Parliament freely and unimpeded by any personal situation or for that matter any barrier put in front of them by the State. With that I will conclude my remarks and repeat that the National Party will support the first reading of this bill.
Mahuta Nanaia: Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16109] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill be considered by the Law and Order Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 August 2008. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16109] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16096] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Copyright (Artists’ Resale Right) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Vote: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16083] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16059] 
9.  
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree with Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan that the recent Human Rights Review Tribunal ruling on ACC is “a landmark in human rights law in that it shows how any New Zealander can challenge legislation they believe to be discriminatory and impacts upon them adversely”; if so what action will she be taking with relevant Ministers to advise them of this landmark ruling? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes the Minister for ACC is already aware of the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal and has legislation in front of the House that addresses the issue of access to vocational rehabilitation. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister aware that the Child Poverty Action Group has initiated legal proceedings regarding the Government’s in-work tax credit claiming the policy is discriminatory on the basis of parental work status and does she believe that more work should be done to advise Ministers how to remove discriminatory effects from their policies? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I am aware that proceedings have been filed which means it would be inappropriate for me to comment. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What impact does the Minister think the ongoing human rights proceedings concerning the discrimination in Government policies such as the in-work payment and the in-work tax credit have on the credibility of that scheme in the Government’s work programme? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is the matter that is still the subject of proceedings and therefore it would be inappropriate to make a determination as to whether that is in fact the case. If it is in relation to the matter that was determined in the case in the substantive question the matter is being addressed by Parliament. There is a bill in front of the select committee right now. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister aware that the Human Rights Commission has received complaints in relation to the spelling of Wanganui prompting the Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres to conclude that “revisiting the names and spelling of place names and the correct use of te reo Maori is part of an ongoing process of negotiation and reconciliation between Maori government and non-Maori community members” and what advice will she be providing to the Wanganui District Council in light of this finding? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I was not aware that the Race Relations Commissioner had made that announcement.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16057] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In the absence of the Minister of Immigration I seek leave for the question set down in my name to that Minister to be deferred until tomorrow so that the Minister can answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16057] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a very convenient answer and of course we accept the honourable member’s word but it does beg the question why the question which has been set down on the question sheet for today for some 4 hours was not directed to the Associate Minister of Immigration. We know that when there is a severe political problem Michael Cullen is the man they go to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think explanations have been given. Of course the member can always seek leave to have the question deferred if he wishes to do so. If not then I will call— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am unclear: should Dr Smith seek that leave or should I on his behalf? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Dr Smith is asking the question so he should seek leave if he wishes to do so.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16057] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This question is set down to the Minister for Immigration. That Minister was in the House until just moments ago. It appears that he has had to scurry off somewhere and therefore is not available to answer this question in the House. Although I am sure you will refer us to Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that make it clear that a Government can have whomever it likes answer a question in the circumstance where the Minister himself has a number of things that he should answer it does lead to the suggestion that such a practice may well be trifling with the House.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16057] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Let me give an assurance to the House that the Minister in fact has a longstanding prior engagement related to small-business matters. It is outside Parliament. He has had to leave to go to that engagement. He has arranged for me to answer the question on his behalf. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will proceed then.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16056] 
7.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What steps has the Government taken to increase protection for women from the risk of cervical cancer? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Recently the Prime Minister along with David Cunliffe and me announced a major immunisation programme to fight cervical cancer. Over the next 5 years the human papilloma virus—HPV—immunisation programme will be offered free to more than 300000 young women aged 12 to 18 years and over. Trials have shown that this vaccine is highly effective against the most common causes of cervical cancer—two types of the human papilloma virus. 
Lesley Soper 
: What is the Government committing in Budget 2008 to the human papilloma virus immunisation campaign? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: The Labour-led Government is committing around $164 million in new funding to this immunisation programme. It is expected to save around 30 lives every year. We also expect to see a reduction in the number of abnormal smear results. Although the National Cervical Screening Programme has been a huge success screening alone can never prevent all cancers. The human papilloma virus vaccine is another prevention strategy that along with screening can reduce the burden of this disease even further. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What steps has the Government taken to increase protection for men from the risk of prostate cancer considering that the number of deaths annually from this type of cancer is now greater than the annual New Zealand road toll? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: When we have access to good new technologies that are cost effective and have proven benefits then we should use them. To date the expert clinical advice is that technology is not effective enough to support a prostate cancer screening programme. However if men are concerned about their health they should talk to their family doctor or nurse. 
Lesley Soper 
: What responses has the Associate Minister received to the launch of the human papilloma virus immunisation initiative? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: The Cancer Society has welcomed the initiative saying that it will not only ensure equitable access to the vaccine but it will mean that those women who are at increased risk of developing and dying from cervical cancer can be immunised. Although I hear that the National Party is in favour of women these days I note that we are yet to hear whether it would continue to fund this programme.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16055] 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the tax cuts he announced but then cancelled: “The difficulty we’ve had obviously with the 2005 announcement is that we didn’t legislate” and that “Other priorities took charge after that”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister therefore confirm that he is planning to legislate Budget tax cuts this year because the public do not trust him to keep any promise on tax cuts; and worse than that that it is clear from those comments that he does not trust himself to keep a promised tax cut unless there is a law against his breaking that promise? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One of the differences is that at least I can go 24 hours with the same promise unlike the member’s leader who gave three different promises within 24 hours on tax cuts. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Did he promise during the 2005 election to deliver tax cuts; if so were they delivered? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. We promised tax cuts for families worth some $500 million. These were delivered as promised and opposed by National. We have also delivered tax cuts to business and tax cuts to savers. Every one of those tax cuts was opposed by National. I look forward to on Thursday evening the National Party opposing tax cuts again and again. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister believes that he can go 24 hours without changing his promise will that period be long enough to have the legislation passed to make sure that he does not break it 36 hours later? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would love to promise that we could pass the legislation in 24 hours. Of course if for once National members actually vote for what they support—that is tax cuts—the legislation could be passed within a matter of minutes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that he cancelled the tax cuts promised in the 2005 election campaign because he needed the money to pay for the expensive promises that had been made during that election campaign and does that not mean that the public is right to believe that it is highly likely that he will do it again—make expensive promises during the campaign and cancel tax cuts afterwards if he is re-elected? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I thank the member for his confidence that the current Government will be re-elected. I will refer that to my colleague Mr Goff. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister think Mr Goff will change his mind? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not think Mr Goff has ever changed my mind but we tend to be of the same mind on most issues so it is not a problem.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:647;Page:16049] 
1. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What recent progress has been made towards improving New Zealand’s trade relationship with Japan? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 Last week the Prime Minister Helen Clark secured from Japanese Prime Minister Fukuda agreement to undertake a joint Japanese - New Zealand study into an economic partnership arrangement which is a free-trade agreement between the two countries. This agreement is a major breakthrough with Japan which is our third-largest export market. It takes New Zealand exports to the value of about $3.4 billion a year. It is the first time that Japan has signalled readiness to enter into discussions about potentially removing trade barriers to New Zealand goods and services. That is a great step forward. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What would the value to New Zealand be of a free-trade agreement with Japan? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the agreement were to be as high quality and comprehensive as our recently signed free-trade agreement with China the economic benefits would be very significant indeed. Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has not done its own detailed analysis of it independent analysis by University of Otago economists this year estimated the benefits at around US$395 million a year and that is simply the gain from removing tariffs. If one considers the benefits of reducing non-tariff barriers and the dynamic benefits from trade such as competition and investment effects one finds that the gains are likely to be much greater. 
Martin Gallagher 
: If the benefits to New Zealand are so significant what benefits will accrue to Japan; and how does the Minister account for Japan’s change in position in agreeing to a study on a free-trade agreement? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the major benefit to Japan is that a free-trade agreement with New Zealand would give that country assurance of access to our high-quality safe foods. Japan produces only about 39 percent of its own food and is a net importer of food. Previously it was concerned that without protection its farmers would be swamped by more efficient suppliers such as New Zealand dairy farmers. But with the long-term trend of demand exceeding supply in commodities like dairy Japan’s major concern is now food security. Japan is also beginning to see that a close trade relationship with New Zealand is certainly of benefit to its consumers but also potentially through collaborative relationships of benefit to its producers.