edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9253] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 23 be agreed to.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9253] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 114 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert new clause 33A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Bradford to section 96A(3) in clause 36 to omit and substitute the subsection be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Bradford to section 96A(5) to (8) in clause 36 to omit the subsections be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Sue Bradford to section 96A(11) in clause 36 to omit and substitute the subsection be agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Replies 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Replies 
[Volume:639;Page:9175] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Yes I will be discussing the matter with the member.
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9181] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a matter in respect of Standing Order 399. Prior to question time my office and also the office of Judith Collins received calls from Shane Wenzel who is linked to the company I will be asking questions about in the House today. He issued personal threats about what would happen should I pursue my question in the House. I seek your advice on what steps to take. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is a matter of privilege so the member will raise the issue with me in the appropriate way under the Standing Orders.
Locke Keith: Obituaries — His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II 
Locke Keith: Obituaries — His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II 
[Volume:639;Page:9172] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party fully endorses the comments made by Dr Cullen Mr Key and Mr Peters in mourning the death of His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili the revered head of State of Samoa. It reminds us of the very close relationship—the warmth and friendship—that New Zealand has with the Samoan people. We extend to the people in Samoa and to the Samoan community in New Zealand our greatest sympathy and we stand with them on this day. Thank you.
Robertson H V Ross: Budget Debate 
Robertson H V Ross: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9606] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members are advised that New Zealand First will be splitting its call. There will be two 5-minute calls and the bell will be rung with 1 minute remaining.
Bennett David: Budget Debate 
Bennett David: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9602] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Yesterday we saw the last of the Labour Party. We saw Michael Cullen at his worst. He was confused and upset because Bill English had him in a corner. Bill English asked him what Government services he was going to cut to achieve $1 billion in tax savings. He could not answer. He did not know what to say. He knew that he destroyed Labour’s election campaign last time and that he had destroyed its arguments for the next campaign. Even in the newspaper today Michael Cullen is reported as saying that personal tax cuts are on the agenda and that they will happen under the Labour Government at the next election. Labour members can no longer argue that it defeats health education and law and order spending. They now have to deliver those services as well as tax cuts because they have gone out there and mandated it. They have given National the support— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but there is far too much noise. Would members leaving the Chamber please do so and show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address it. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: This has given us the platform to go out there with tax cuts next year. Labour cannot say that services will be cut as a result because that is not true. Labour is willing to provide those services and tax cuts as well and so can National. It is something we have been looking for Michael Cullen to deliver for a long time. Today Michael Cullen had to stand up when his leader was in trouble. He had to ask her supplementary questions when she was on the back foot. He was the knight in shining armour to save a leader who did not know what happened in her own Budget—a leader who after the Budget could only say: “Is that it? Is that all you can deliver Michael Cullen after 8 years in this place?”.
Ryall Tony: Tabling of Documents — Advice to Welsh Labour Party 
Ryall Tony: Tabling of Documents — Advice to Welsh Labour Party 
[Volume:639;Page:9602] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a second report that shows that Labour’s coalition negotiations have broken down in Wales with the Labour Party’s proposals described as— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. Would the member please be seated when I am speaking. In future I will be enforcing that rule because members are abusing that procedure of the House in terms of not just identifying the document but giving speeches.
Ryall Tony: Tabling of Documents — Advice to Welsh Labour Party 
Ryall Tony: Tabling of Documents — Advice to Welsh Labour Party 
[Volume:639;Page:9601] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a report showing that the Minister of Health Pete Hodgson was giving advice to the Welsh Labour Party on how to form a new coalition Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9598] 
9.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: How will charities benefit from announcements in Budget 2007? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Acting Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: The Budget 2007 contained great news for charities. The threshold for donations made to charities by individuals Maori authorities and businesses will be gone by 1 April 2008. This will make it easier and more attractive for Kiwis and business to donate to charity because the rebate threshold will have gone. It is appropriate to acknowledge at this time the very good work done by the United Future Party in support of this policy work. 
Tim Barnett 
: Will charities that employ paid staff be eligible for the new KiwiSaver employer tax credit? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: An unqualified yes. Charities can be certain of this because the $20 per week KiwiSaver employer tax credit is administered through the PAYE system. One thing that is not certain however is whether National supports KiwiSaver. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that improving the rebate on charitable donations was publicly signed off as part of United Future’s supply and confidence agreement with the Labour-led Government in 2005 straight after that election and not in response to a National Party media release and what feedback has the Minister received from organisations such as Philanthropy New Zealand about this United Future Budget gain? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can confirm that and I can confirm for the House that this policy work was being undertaken and documents were released under the signatures of Dr Michael Cullen and Peter Dunne in October last year. That was at a time when the current leader of the National Party was still plotting his challenge against Don Brash. I can further say that the charitable sector has been overwhelmingly positive about this because this Labour-led Government with United Future is doing things; National simply talks.
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9590] 
3.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What action is the Government taking to encourage higher levels of private sector investment in research and development? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I have truly excellent news. The Labour-Progressive Government is providing a major tax incentive worth $630 million to boost private sector investment in research and development. Businesses investing in research and development can earn a 15 percent tax credit on that spending. For example a company spending $100000 on research would get $15000 back in a tax rebate. The aim is to help raise the rate of private sector investment in New Zealand which is currently only a third of the OECD average. 
Lesley Soper 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the response to this initiative? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Too many to go right through them but I will give some headlines. Anthony Scott of the Association of Crown Research Institutes predicted that Budget 2007 will be remembered as “Kickstarting an R&D culture”. Global Positioning System technology firm Rakon says that it may help change the minds of companies considering doing research and development elsewhere. Andy Hamilton of Icehouse said that it was a great thing the Government was doing. The  
National Business Review’s 
 Paul McPadden said that the Government has clearly signalled it wants to boost New Zealand’s investment in research and development. And Deloitte says that the 15 percent rate compares favourably with those already in existence in other jurisdictions. The only sour note is the absolute failure of the National Party to back what is an excellent policy. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that giving businesses better tax incentives for productivity improvements is contained in the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have great pleasure in confirming that that is part of the confidence and supply agreement with the New Zealand First Party which has always emphasised the need for New Zealand productivity.
Tabling of Documents — Advice to Welsh Labour Party 
Tabling of Documents — Advice to Welsh Labour Party 
[Volume:639;Page:9601] 
Tabling of Documents 
Advice to Welsh Labour Party 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a report showing that the Minister of Health Pete Hodgson was giving advice to the Welsh Labour Party on how to form a new coalition Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a second report that shows that Labour’s coalition negotiations have broken down in Wales with the Labour Party’s proposals described as— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. Would the member please be seated when I am speaking. In future I will be enforcing that rule because members are abusing that procedure of the House in terms of not just identifying the document but giving speeches.
Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3755] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to cover a couple of issues surrounding the two handwritten amendments I have put forward in my name. I firstly respond to Doug Woolerton who accused the National Party of trivialising the issue. I simply say that I consider it is trivialising the issue to bring in something that does not effectively do anything to stop dogs from biting people. That is the first thing. It is trivialising the issue to recognise that there is a problem with unregistered dogs that menace and bite people but to do nothing to solve that. On the contrary it is trivialising the issue to put in place a regime that is likely to increase the number of unregistered dogs out there. 
I say to Mr Woolerton and to those on the other side of the Chamber that they should have a look at my amendment that will require that any dog savaging a child under the age of 13 is put down. Let us see the colour of that member’s commitment to actually deal with the problem. Who is now trivialising the issue? 
The other issue I wish to bring before the Committee—and I have delivered an amendment on it to the Table—concerns the “reporting dead dogs” clause. An issue has been raised with us several times about the cost of compliance. Let us put microchipping aside for one moment and look at where this bill starts seriously to increase costs. If members look at clause 9D which inserts new section 41A they will see that: “(1) The owner of a dog must notify the territorial authority with which the dog is registered if the dog dies.” Well there are several standards of untruths about dogs. There is a serious untruth a “dog lie” if one says that one’s dog is dead when it is not. Members can understand that that is serious if the authority is really wanting to keep its database in order. 
But I simply cannot understand the logic of requiring local authorities to have “dead dog counting officers” or whatever to literally ensure that the authority is notified about dead dogs. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3754] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Following on from the fine speech of my colleague Moana Mackey I will make just three points to clarify matters now that we are coming to the end of the night because Opposition members have said some blatant mistruths. The first one relates to the issue of costs. There has been a lot of misinformation coming from Opposition members around the issue of costs but the costs they could be talking about are the costs attributed to the national dog database. To implement the national dog database across all of New Zealand will cost about $1.1 million in total. So while that database beds in the Government has agreed to meet governance depreciation and capital charge costs which account for just over half of that amount—and that is a fact. Apart from a small fixed cost faced by all local authorities the remaining costs of implementing the national dog database will be levied on councils according to the size of their area’s population and the number of registered dogs they have in that area. 
Universal microchipping will assist territorial authorities to impose a registration regime to make sure all dog owners are brought into a responsible dog ownership framework. That means generally that smaller rural councils with fewer people and fewer registered dogs in their areas will pay less than urban councils—and that is a fact. 
The next issue concerns dangerous dogs. Dangerous dogs must be classified and existing dogs that are classified as from 2003 must be microchipped—so that is a fact. 
The other issue was on the relevance of statistics and I just want to follow up on a comment that was made previously. A survey was conducted by the Department of Internal Affairs which is on the department’s website if people want to look at it. Thirty councils responded to that particular survey and of those councils 56 percent reported attacks by dogs that were registered for the period of 2001-02. So a lot of mistruths have been coming from members on the other side of the Chamber and it is important to put facts on record in that regard.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3729] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Sutton Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Sutton Jim: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3731] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of State) 
: 
 The debate on this issue has been the most overblown that I have heard for a long time. Microchipping is just a better more modern way of identifying dogs. Dog collars break they come off; identification tags come off; and one cannot tell whether a dog without a collar has been registered. Collars get lost and they break whereas a microchip stays put. It is there for life. 
I have heard it suggested by some of the opponents to this legislation that farm dogs do not bite people. What a lot of rot. Dogs bite people. When I was 9 years old I was bitten on the face by a neighbour’s sheepdog while I was waiting for the school bus. Now that is not such an unusual thing. To say that farm dogs never bite people is utter nonsense. To say that farm dogs never stray is more utter nonsense. To say that farm dogs never run away and worry other people’s stock is more complete nonsense. Microchipping dogs does help to get those sorts of issues under control and that has been well demonstrated in for example some of the Australian states that introduced dog microchipping some time ago. It does encourage over time more responsible dog ownership. I think that is very worth while doing. 
I know that New Zealanders do worry about the odd dog attacks and we should do things that encourage more responsible dog ownership. Microchipping discourages the keeping of inherently dangerous and aggressive breeds of dogs and this measure is a pretty good place to start. Before Federated Farmers got off on their annual subscription drumming-up exercise the campaign for dog microchipping was led by dog control officers around New Zealand employed by our territorial local authorities. Those people were on the front line of trying to combat the plague of dangerous uncontrolled dogs particularly in our cities and suburbs and in areas around our cities and on farms where dogs do not so much worry people but livestock; where they are a plague on the farmer who wants to keep his stock undisturbed. 
I say that this measure will help. It has arguments to and fro but it will help. We should just get on with it.
Vote: Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3729] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06) Supplementary Estimates Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:3728] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bills read a second time.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3682] 
7.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What has the uptake of the meningococcal B immunisation programme been amongst the Maori population and what impact has that had on cases? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Almost half a million Maori children have now been immunised. There has been a 90 percent reduction in epidemic strain cases in Maori in the northern region since the immunisation campaign began. That is a huge achievement— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How can there be half a million? There are only 400000 Maori. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Because they have more than one dose. This is a huge achievement for Maori and the New Zealand health community and I applaud them for their efforts. [ 
Interruption 
] It is also an example of what happens when health funding is targeted by ethnicity and the National Party opposition to that sort of initiative is a disgrace. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is impossible to hear the answers from here. A challenge came from across the Chamber as to how there could be half a million children immunised. I know there is a logical answer to that but I could not hear it. Could we have a repeat of it please? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please repeat his answer—succinctly if he can. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There has been a 90 percent reduction in epidemic strain cases in Maori in the northern region since the immunisation campaign began. That is a huge achievement for Maori and the New Zealand health community and I applaud them. It is also an example of what happens when health funding is targeted by ethnicity and the National Party opposition to that sort of initiative is a disgrace. 
Maryan Street 
: How has the programme’s success impacted on young Maori in South Auckland? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am advised that the campaign has prevented two cases of epidemic meningococcal B every week just in South Auckland and that awareness of the need for all immunisations has improved dramatically. That is what can be achieved in our communities when a Government is willing to invest in the health of New Zealanders.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3690] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3728] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3685] 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I can advise that at the end of May the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit has decreased to 41000. That is 9000 fewer people receiving the unemployment benefit than at the same time a year ago and it is 120000 fewer people receiving the unemployment benefit than there were when this Labour-led Government first came into office in 1999. That is a 75 percent reduction in unemployment benefit numbers under our Government. 
Steve Chadwick 
: When was the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit last as low as that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In order to find that date we have to bypass the whole period of the last National Government and go way back to 1986 to find the time when unemployment benefit numbers were as low as that.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:632;Page:3684] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that I have inadvertently misled the House and I want to rise and apologise in case I have. I had meant to say and may not have said that almost half a million doses have been administered to Maori children but I think I said that almost half a million Maori children had been immunised or similar. If I said the latter I withdraw and apologise. It is half a million doses of course—a spectacular result. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If the Minister is quoting from an official document could we ask that that document be tabled. We are particularly keen to find out what percentage of Maori have received full immunisation under this Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the Minister quoting from an official document? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: No. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister is not.
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Petition—Microchipping of Dogs 
Copeland Gordon: Points of Order — Petition—Microchipping of Dogs 
[Volume:632;Page:3673] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to present a petition from Peter Buckley and Federated Farmers of New Zealand Waikato province respectfully requesting that the House repeal the legislative requirement to microchip dogs. 
Petition presented.
Goodhew Jo: Motions — Snow Event—South Canterbury 
Goodhew Jo: Motions — Snow Event—South Canterbury 
[Volume:632;Page:3673] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I move  
That this House acknowledge the plight suffered by South Cantabrians since last Monday’s extreme snow event and also acknowledge the plight of those people who will remain without power for some days to come. 
Motion agreed to.
Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill — Third Reading 
Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3729] 
Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3728] 
Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06) Supplementary Estimates Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3690] 
Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Points of Order — Petition—Microchipping of Dogs 
Points of Order — Petition—Microchipping of Dogs 
[Volume:632;Page:3673] 
Points of Order 
Petition—Microchipping of Dogs 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to present a petition from Peter Buckley and Federated Farmers of New Zealand Waikato province respectfully requesting that the House repeal the legislative requirement to microchip dogs. 
Petition presented.
Motions — Snow Event—South Canterbury 
Motions — Snow Event—South Canterbury 
[Volume:632;Page:3673] 
Tuesday 20 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Snow Event—South Canterbury 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I move  
That this House acknowledge the plight suffered by South Cantabrians since last Monday’s extreme snow event and also acknowledge the plight of those people who will remain without power for some days to come. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11216] 
11.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What reports has she received on the success of Youth Parliament 2007? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Alongside the many positive media reports a report outlining the procedures of Youth Parliament 2007 was presented and tabled in the House on Tuesday 14 August. This report details the activities that contributed to Youth Parliament 2007 including an advance copy of the  
Hansard 
 for both sitting days the Household Response to Climate Change Bill 2007 and the 10 select committee reports. The report will be made publicly available on the Youth Parliament website by the end of the week. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister tell the House how she intends to build on the contribution of the Youth Parliament? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Of course; I know that a lot of young people are interested in this answer. I have directed the Ministry of Youth Development to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of Youth Parliament 2007 and to report to me about proposals for future improvement and development of Youth Parliaments. I expect to receive this report from the ministry by the end of August. I have also asked the ministry to work with a range of agencies to develop a broader youth citizenship work programme. This will focus on a range of initiatives to enhance understanding and foster greater democratic participation by young people. Active citizenship is what it is all about.
Vote: Immigration Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Immigration Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11250] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:641;Page:11208] 
5.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What reports if any has he received on the benefits to New Zealand of the Tui Area oil development project? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 There has already been $330 million invested in this project. Dollars spent are of course multiplied in the economy and that means jobs—skilled jobs in engineering. Four hundred and fifty people have been employed directly during the development plus there are 70 permanent roles and a new apprenticeship training scheme. Tui Area is expected to yield 30 million barrels of oil and at today’s prices that is worth about $2.8 billion. 
Maryan Street 
: How does the Tui oil project contribute to the objectives the Government is seeking to progress in the New Zealand Energy Strategy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In the transition to lower emissions and increased renewable energy we will have reducing but still significant use of fossil fuels. What is important is that each country takes responsibility for its emissions. Japan takes responsibility for the coal it imports from New Zealand and we take responsibility for the emissions from our oil use whether the oil comes from Saudi Arabia or New Zealand.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11201] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 My understanding is that that was so in the Government Administration Committee but I understand there are one or two parts I think on which there is objection. Those parts of course will not be proceeded with at the Committee stage of the bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11201] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House would be so kind as to ensure that all of the aspects of the Statutes Amendment Bill which appears as item No. 18 on the Order Paper have been signed off by the Opposition.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11201] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Income Tax Bill. In accordance with the agreement in the Business Committee it will be a 4-hour debate and taken as one question. At the conclusion of the Committee stage the Minister in charge will move the third reading but leave will be sought to adjourn the debate immediately until late October. This is to avoid a full reprinting of the bill between the Committee stage and the third reading as the Business Committee has discussed. It is a rather large bill to be reprinted for that purpose. 
The Government will also next week seek to make progress on the remaining stages of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Major Events Management Bill; the first readings of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill; and the third readings of the Wills Bill the Succession (Homicide) Bill and the Arbitration Amendment Bill.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:641;Page:11201] 
Thursday 16 August 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Income Tax Bill. In accordance with the agreement in the Business Committee it will be a 4-hour debate and taken as one question. At the conclusion of the Committee stage the Minister in charge will move the third reading but leave will be sought to adjourn the debate immediately until late October. This is to avoid a full reprinting of the bill between the Committee stage and the third reading as the Business Committee has discussed. It is a rather large bill to be reprinted for that purpose. 
The Government will also next week seek to make progress on the remaining stages of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Major Events Management Bill; the first readings of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill; and the third readings of the Wills Bill the Succession (Homicide) Bill and the Arbitration Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House would be so kind as to ensure that all of the aspects of the Statutes Amendment Bill which appears as item No. 18 on the Order Paper have been signed off by the Opposition. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 My understanding is that that was so in the Government Administration Committee but I understand there are one or two parts I think on which there is objection. Those parts of course will not be proceeded with at the Committee stage of the bill.
Mackey Moana: Waste Minimisation Bill — Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Waste Minimisation Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18838] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the third reading of the Waste Minimisation Bill. I think it has all been said before here this afternoon and in the previous readings as well. But I do want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee. Most of the processes we go through in that committee are just fine and we work together quite well but it was particularly nice to be working on a bill towards a common purpose. We all agreed on the intent and we all wanted to get the best outcome possible from the bill before us. The bill went through a rather dramatic transformation at the select committee. It was there for so long because given the extent of the changes we wanted to give submitters the opportunity to come back and submit on the extensive Supplementary Order Paper that ended up becoming part of the bill. 
I pay tribute to all the former members of the Green Party under whose names this bill was registered. Mike Ward was one and also Nandor Tanczos who took the bill through the majority of the select committee hearings. I really do want to thank the select committee for the numerous meetings we had during adjournments so that we could get the bill passed before the election. I congratulate Russel Norman whose name now heads this bill. Even though it is here as a Government bill it is still a Green Party bill. We just want to make sure that the Government acknowledges that and that the bill is passed. 
This is a very important bill. I doubt whether this is the last Waste Minimisation Bill we will ever see before the House. This really is the first step. There will be further iterations I am sure as different needs arise and issues change. But it certainly is one of the most important bills we have seen go through this House. It marks a sea change in the way we deal with waste and the way we look at recycling. This is more than something that is feel-good; it is something that is good for the economy and good for the environment and it needed to be taken a step further. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. It is very pleasing to see it finally being passed.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18817] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What is it about? 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
:  
It is about Mr Peters’ outrageous claim. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a statement in relation to the matter that was raised by Mr Peters. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Barnett Tim: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Barnett Tim: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18854] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I listened intently to the previous speaker in the hope that with the extension of his time to 10 minutes we might hear something interesting at the end and sure enough I was waiting for this Government to be attacked on the basis that we are a busy Government. We have 56 items of legislation all of which have gone through a planning process all of which have been negotiated through the MMP system and all of which are sitting on the Order Paper of this Parliament. I think it must be many years since a Government with 9 proud years behind it has had a good 6 months of House business sitting there on the Order Paper ready to go. So if I could respond initially to that I think that having 56 bills on the Order Paper far from being a sign of Government arrogance is actually a sign of Government confidence of Government efficiency and of a Government that understands how the MMP system works. 
We are here this evening to talk about the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill. This is a good example in spite of the factional nature of the last speech of MMP in action because this matter has taken what one could reasonably call a casual and an elongated route through to our Parliament starting with the Rules Committee beginning to redraft the High Court Rules back in 2004. Now here we are four-and-a-bit years later at the end of that process. The legislation is massive; it is detailed. In that sense in my head it is very similar to the process we recently went through on the Income Tax Act which produced equally voluminous legislation and was a good example of parties in this Parliament working together to good advantage. Next on our Order Paper is the Walking Access Bill which again in a shorter period has produced a similar level of agreement. 
I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time and a third time.
Jones Dail: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18852] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is a very big important and excellent bill. By contrast this speech is short and sweet. New Zealand First supports the bill.
Locke Keith: Standing Orders 
Locke Keith: Standing Orders 
[Volume:650;Page:18846] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this motion. We are a bit upset that the code of conduct that the four smaller parties—ACT the Greens the Maori Party and United Future—developed has not been adopted. We had a signing ceremony a couple of years ago now and we have been trying to get the rest of the House to adopt it in order for its members to have higher standards in terms of the way they treat each other. It is a bit unfortunate that the Standing Orders Committee did not adopt it. I think the public is still rather alienated from the political process as a result of the conduct they commonly see in the House particularly from the two major parties. We in the smaller parties and I think Hone Harawira will testify to this are trying to set a higher standard with our code of conduct. Hopefully in the future we will be able to incorporate a code of conduct into the Standing Orders. Thank you. 
Motion agreed to.
[Volume:650;Page:18844] 
The review was very well outlined by Dr Michael Cullen when he spoke earlier. In essence this review occurs during each parliamentary term. We are in the 48th Parliament now. This process enables the public to have their say as well as enabling the whole of Parliament to have its say. It is very much a fine-tuning process. There are significant changes but they are being made to try to make this place operate in a smoother fashion than it currently does. 
One of the important points I wish to raise and that Dr Cullen has outlined is the code of conduct being promoted by one of the Labour MPs and supported by some of the minor parties. National has some real concerns around the code of conduct. In essence we have the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and since 1867 a contribution has been made by Speakers through that document. We also have the Standing Orders—we have 402 of those. We also have the court of public opinion where ultimately people decide whether MPs get back into Parliament. We in National believe that those two documents are paramount in keeping order in the House as ultimately is the Speaker. 
The other significant issue I wish to raise is the provision for emergency situations in relation to the suspension or adjournment of Parliament which I believe the Speaker now has the right to do. It is quite appropriate today is it not? It is 11 September. We all need to acknowledge what happened with the twin towers. I am thinking about the flag that I just went past in Parliament House that managed to survive in the wreckage over there. Of course if we had something happen to us here then it might be necessary for the Speaker to say that we need to suspend the House and meet somewhere else. So that is an important aspect. We could also have something like the bird flu—although of course we hope we never have terrorism and we hope we never have something like the bird flu. This provision for emergency situations is also a significant change. 
The other change Dr Cullen mentioned is around the tabling of documents. We have seen many examples of MPs standing up and seeking leave to table documents yet I know from experience that sometimes when one goes to look for those documents they are not actually there. A change is being made with amendment 40 which states the tabling must be “within a reasonable period as determined by the Speaker.” There are also some rules in amendment 3 on TV coverage which is also very important. 
I conclude by saying thanks very much for the process that the Standing Orders Committee went through. I thought it was extremely thorough. I also thank the officials who provided us with very very good advice. National is supporting this motion today.
Guy Nathan: Standing Orders 
Guy Nathan: Standing Orders 
[Volume:650;Page:18844] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I wish to take a call on the review of the Standing Orders which is Government motion No 4. In particular I will talk about some of the significant changes that have been made.
Simich Clem: Standing Orders 
Simich Clem: Standing Orders 
[Volume:650;Page:18842] 
Hon CLEM SIMICH (National) 
: 
 I rise to make just a few brief comments on the motion. Firstly I thank the Leader of the House the Minister of Finance for his work on the Standing Orders Committee and say what a pleasure it is to work with him because he has a vast knowledge of the issues surrounding the Standing Orders. 
I think the decision in regard to the Prime Minister’s statement was the right one and will be helpful to all members of the House and indeed to the Prime Minister. Members seem to like the way the Minister of Finance has presented his Budgets. His Budgets are both entertaining and informative and the wish was that he continue to do it that way. So we cut it in half! These reviews of the Standing Orders are conducted once in each term of Parliament generally and this one has been quite extensive. 
I mention the matter in regard to the Business Committee. The Business Committee has had restrictions on its membership before in that not all small parties could be represented there. The change made now is that all parties can be represented. It is not really a change in procedure because it has been the practice of that committee to allow all small parties to be there anyway but that is now set out in the Standing Orders. 
On the matter of television broadcasting from the House the media raised considerable issues in regard to some matters therein including in regard to satirical presentations of the Chamber and the proceedings here. That matter has been clarified. Those presentations went way beyond the intent of the original guidelines and directions but the matter has been clarified so that the provisions apply only to the media organisations themselves not to the broadcasting that Parliament has in place at the moment. 
I commend the motion to the House. These are all sensible changes and they were all agreed to unanimously. The committee deliberated on them over quite a lengthy period and it has come up with these amendments. I commend the motion to the House.
Carter John: Waste Minimisation Bill — Third Reading 
Carter John: Waste Minimisation Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18840] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House—and I have just checked this with the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee and with the Minister in charge of the Waste Minimisation Bill—to table a paper that I forgot to table in my third reading speech. It is to do with the solids produced from waste-water treatment; it is a short statement about how the bill affects that. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Bill read a third time.