edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
Locke Keith: Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:646;Page:15172] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think it is relevant to the point that has been raised to indicate that the identity of Pol Pot was not known at that time and that the New Zealand Government 4 days after the takeover of Phnom Penh recognised the new Government and said in this House that it would be willing to extend humanitarian assistance to Cambodia in any way. Mr Rowling said 4 days after the fall of Phnom Penh: “I am pleased to reaffirm our readiness to help in the task of reconstruction and development that lies ahead of the Cambodian people.”
Event: Members Sworn 
Event: Members Sworn 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
Members Sworn 
Madam Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Su’a William Sio who then took his seat in the House.
Wilson Margaret: List Member Vacancy 
Wilson Margaret: List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Su’a William Sio has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Dianne Fae Yates.
Members Sworn 
Members Sworn 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
Members Sworn 
Madam Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Su’a William Sio who then took his seat in the House.
Resignations — Dianne Yates NZ Labour 
Resignations — Dianne Yates NZ Labour 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
Resignations 
Dianne Yates NZ Labour 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Dianne Yates resigning her seat in the House with effect at the close of 29 March 2008.
List Member Vacancy 
List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
List Member Vacancy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Su’a William Sio has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Dianne Fae Yates.
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Dianne Yates NZ Labour 
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Dianne Yates NZ Labour 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Dianne Yates resigning her seat in the House with effect at the close of 29 March 2008.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No—I have given my ruling on this. I would also refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 127/2 and those rulings that follow it. This matter has been extensively ruled upon in the past and my ruling is consistent with that ruling.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted 
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have sought in your ruling to differentiate between what has been said by way of allegation about Mr Locke’s past political activities and how he perceives himself now. I hope you do not mean to say that we cannot say that what is a fact and is known by everybody continues to be a fact—that he did support Pol Pot. Whether the member supported what Pol Pot did after he came to power is a matter of the member’s judgment but he could have presaged that if he had known what he was dealing with at the time. He attempts to exonerate himself from his misjudgment and he seeks this House to do by way of its rulings and Standing Orders something that no one in this House has been asked to do in the past: to deny that a fact is a fact. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Point of order—
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Keith Locke has raised with me recent accusations made in the House that he supported Pol Pot. I remind members that Mr Locke has by way of personal explanation given an assurance to the House that he did not support the actions of Pol Pot after he took over Cambodia. Mr Locke’s word must be accepted and it is improper for members to continue to make such accusations. They are clearly disorderly and the Chair will intervene to protect the member.
Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted 
Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
Tuesday 1 April 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Keith Locke has raised with me recent accusations made in the House that he supported Pol Pot. I remind members that Mr Locke has by way of personal explanation given an assurance to the House that he did not support the actions of Pol Pot after he took over Cambodia. Mr Locke’s word must be accepted and it is improper for members to continue to make such accusations. They are clearly disorderly and the Chair will intervene to protect the member. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have sought in your ruling to differentiate between what has been said by way of allegation about Mr Locke’s past political activities and how he perceives himself now. I hope you do not mean to say that we cannot say that what is a fact and is known by everybody continues to be a fact—that he did support Pol Pot. Whether the member supported what Pol Pot did after he came to power is a matter of the member’s judgment but he could have presaged that if he had known what he was dealing with at the time. He attempts to exonerate himself from his misjudgment and he seeks this House to do by way of its rulings and Standing Orders something that no one in this House has been asked to do in the past: to deny that a fact is a fact. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No—I have given my ruling on this. I would also refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 127/2 and those rulings that follow it. This matter has been extensively ruled upon in the past and my ruling is consistent with that ruling.
Simich Clem: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14729] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There will be one debate on clauses 1 2 and 3 with three questions.
Pettis Jill: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14728] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14729] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14729] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Okeroa Mahara: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Okeroa Mahara: Building Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14727] 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are on to our 16th speaker and a motion was put almost 3½ months ago for the question to be put. I am just explaining where we are at. I will go to Bob Clarkson.
Guy Nathan: Tabling of Documents — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board 
Guy Nathan: Tabling of Documents — Hawke’s Bay District Health Board 
[Volume:645;Page:14727] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the terms of reference for the feasibility study of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Mallard Trevor: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14719] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I will respond briefly to the points that the member Richard Worth made. 
I will not refer much to his comments with regard to clause 3. It is clear that this bill is a minor bill and it is clear also that major work is going on and that major legislation will follow on from the digital review. 
On the question of the commencement date I generally agree with the member’s comments. Whenever there is a substantive amendment I think it is important to be clear. The approach in clause 2 is one that does leave a lot of power in the hands of the executive. I was trying to bring to the front of my mind a particular piece of legislation that was passed when National was in Government I think in coalition with New Zealand First that was never brought into effect because the Order in Council was— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act was a very good illustration. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We will just leave that. I think the point needs to be made that this approach leaves a lot of power in the hands of the executive rather than in the hands of Parliament. I agree with the member that with especially something of substance—I am not pretending that this is substantive legislation; it is minor legislation—it is important to be clear. 
On the first point that the member made I was surprised by it. He is an experienced member and he is a lawyer. He should know by now that the Clerk’s Office does amend and it is within the discretion of the Clerk’s Office to amend legislation for things like the date. 
John Carter 
: He knows what he is talking about unlike the Minister. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I know what I am talking about. Members do not have to have been here for as long as I have to know that the date of an Act is something that is amended on the way through after this process by the Clerk’s Office. Doing it that way saves another printing of the bill. It saves us a bit of money and I think it is a logical thing to do.
Paraone Pita: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14718] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I hope that my short contribution will not be regarded as frittering away the Committee’s time. I just want to go back to clause 14. I ought to say that the English teacher at the Motatau Maori District High School would probably have used the word “grammar” as opposed to “stylistic”. But I want to commend the Minister for actually using the word “stylistic” because in the mid-1970s to early 1980s there was a group called the Stylistics a Motown group from America. I think it is just appropriate that it is used here in a bill called the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Before my time! 
PITA PARAONE 
: Yes that is true. But I would have thought that if previous speakers who have spent a bit of time talking about whether that was the right use of language felt so strongly about it they would have submitted a Supplementary Order Paper and I perhaps might have supported it. But in the absence of a Supplementary Order Paper I just want to reiterate and congratulate the Minister on his choice of words in this part. Kia ora. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14716] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on Part 2 of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. It is a brief part that contains the miscellaneous provisions. 
I do not want to dwell on clause 14 “Stylistic amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989”. These amendments were ably covered by my colleague from Auckland Dr Richard Worth and they were covered again by the Minister in the chair. It is not clause 14 that I want to cover in any detail; nor is it clause 16 “Remedial technical amendment to Television New Zealand Act 2003”. No it is in fact clause 15 that I would like to focus on in some detail. 
Clause 15 is entitled “Spent sections of Broadcasting Act 1989 repealed”. That clause gets to the heart of some key National Party policies. It is about driving out bureaucracy and driving out regulation—taking bureaucracy and compliance costs out of the marketplace and out of legislation. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill does that in clause 15. It is at the heart of what the National Party stands for—getting rid of compliance costs for small businesses and allowing them to get ahead without the burden of undue compliance costs. We see this in clause 15—in some detail. 
Clause 15(a) repeals section 92 which was a transitional provision in relation to the broadcasting station levies. Clause 15(b) removes section 93 which was a transitional provision in relation to the Broadcasting Tribunal. Getting rid of bureaucracy and getting rid of compliance costs are at the heart of the National Party’s vision for this country. We want to make it simpler for businesses out there to get ahead to grow their businesses to improve their profitability and ultimately to improve the wages they pay to their employees. That is a core part of National Party policy. 
Clause 15(c) which repeals section 94 drives out more compliance and more regulation. Clause 15(d) takes out section 95 which was a transitional provision in relation to radio apparatus licences. It is a provision that we no longer need and it needs to be driven out of the bureaucracy and out of the legislation to ensure that we reduce compliance costs. 
Lastly clause 15(e) repeals a small section section 96. It takes out of legislation the requirement for a final report of the Broadcasting Tribunal. Who needs a final report? We do not so let us get rid of it. Again getting rid of compliance costs and driving them out is at the heart of National Party policy. That is why the National Party will be voting for Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call Dr Jonathan Coleman I say that you are the last person I will call. I think we are almost frittering with the Committee’s time. The last speeches we have had have been actually reading the bill.
te Heuheu Georgina: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14715] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I can see that my colleague has very cleverly motivated the Minister to take a call and we look forward to that shortly. I thought that my colleague raised some very very important issues. If he does not mind I just want to mention one that I do not think he mentioned. Again reading from the schedule to the bill it is in relation to a change under section 71(4) where it states: “Omit ‘77A’ ”—with a comma—“and substitute ‘77A’.”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: With no comma. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: —with a full stop. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: The comma’s been lost. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The comma has been lost. It is absolutely intriguing. I can see that the Minister has hurriedly pulled some book out of the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The dictionary. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: It is the dictionary. We await his response with keen anticipation at 4.30 on a Thursday afternoon with some MPs contemplating flying out of Wellington this evening. Who knows the Minister’s contribution in a few minutes might be just the tonic we all need to send us on our way at the end of what has been an interesting week. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I’m ready to go. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: OK—all right. Just one thing though that I want to pick up from my earlier contribution is that National would be concerned if Television New Zealand thought it could use the funding for content that comes through pay telephone. I am not sure how we monitor that. Some of these new platforms are so clever. I hope the Government knows just exactly how it will keep an eye on those matters. This is taxpayers’ money we are talking about that has come through both New Zealand On Air and Te Mangai Paho. As such the content that it funds no matter which platform it comes through must always be freely available to all New Zealanders.
Worth Richard: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14714] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 When I first looked at Part 2 I thought there would probably be little in it. After all it is headed “Miscellaneous” and it comprises only three clauses which are numbered as clauses 14 15 and 16. But then my attention was drawn to the heading to clause 14 which is “Stylistic amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989”. The clause referred us to the schedule to see exactly what those stylistic amendments were. I do not believe that they are stylistic amendments at all. They are not issues of style; they are issues of grammar and issues of punctuation shortfall. 
The amendment to section 4(1) which is the first item identified in the schedule states: “Omit ‘which’ and substitute ‘that’.” Is that a style change? I think not. Those of us who have suffered under the hands of stern grammar masters and mistresses know that they would not have us yield to an argument that that was a style change. Then I looked at the amendment to section 6(1)(ba) and saw: “Omit ‘seconds’ and substitute ‘seconds’ ’ ”. I wondered what the change was there. Well it is quite subtle. It is an apostrophe after the second “s”. Is that a style change? I would say that it is probably a grammar change. I do not believe that it is a punctuation change. In the amendment to section 16(2) we are treated to another example: “Omit ‘unless—’ and substitute ‘unless—’.” I wondered what the significance of that might be if a court came to interpret the provisions of section 16(2) which in some particular setting might assume critical importance. 
I then noted another issue which was the amendment to the heading to section 70C. There was a bold plan there: “Omit ‘Contents’ ”—which is in bold script—“and substitute ‘Particulars’.” which is similarly in bold script. I invite the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard who clearly is familiar with this legislation to explain why that—it seems to me—particularly subtle change was necessary. What is wrong in the context of section 70C with using the word “Contents”? Why must later generations who look at this legislation be forced to speculate on the reason for the change from “Contents” to “Particulars”?
Harawira Hone: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14711] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. I also want to speak to this bill. The Maori Party will also be supporting it but I will take the opportunity to raise a couple of issues. 
One is an issue that I raised in my speech yesterday which was that in 20 years there has been only one operational increase in funding for Maori radio stations. That increase was a one-off and it came last year. That is a record to be ashamed of considering that the funding came as a result of a High Court decision that obligated the Crown to take steps to protect Maori language and culture. 
I am thankful that we do have Maori radio and Maori television and I think that they provide our country with an opportunity particularly to hear Maori music. Maori music was simply not getting played anywhere until Maori radio came along. In fact when we started our Maori radio station in Kaitaia back in 1989 on 17 December at 6 a.m. we had only a half a dozen CDs apart from music by Howard Morrison and a couple of others. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: They were good. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: They were not good; actually they were fabulous and we played them time and time again. Howard is the guy they called in for Labour but he is actually a signed-up member of the Maori Party. 
Be that as it may; the important thing is that there have been positive steps but I would like to see not just a commitment to ongoing funding but a commitment to an ongoing increase in funding if for no other purpose than to match the rate of inflation. There has not been any operational increase per station since that time. So it is an issue that we would like to see considered. 
We would also like to see whether it is possible to consider the make-up of Te Mangai Paho itself which is done by ministerial appointment. I use as an example the appointment of the board for Maori television which is a joint exercise between the Crown and a Maori electoral college known as Te Putahi Paoho. That model has been used in fisheries and in a number of other activities as a result of Te Putahi Paoho first being used to establish a Crown relationship in the appointment of bodies like the Maori Television Service board. 
I was the first chairperson of Te Putahi Paoho and I think that the model is a particularly worthwhile one to be considered for the appointment of members to Te Mangai Paho and possibly even Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori. That is a different entity again from broadcasters but Te Taura Whiri has a role in the establishment and monitoring of standards for Maori broadcasters so it makes sense to consider whether those governance functions should be established in the same manner. Koina no taku korero. 
[ 
That is my address. 
] 
Thank you very much Madam Chair.
Paraone Pita: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14710] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to continue our support for this legislation which the Minister is responsible for bringing to this Committee. I will comment in relation to the extended functions provided to Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi under Part 1 of this bill. The Government ought to be lauded for providing this extension given the advancements made in technology and the uptake that the people of New Zealand are making in terms of this new technology. But I tell this Committee—and I am glad that the officials are present—that with these new extended responsibilities I hope that when the budgetary round comes around and bids are made the funding for Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi also known as Te Mangai Paho will be increased to match the increased responsibilities that have been extended to that organisation. 
Allied to that of course is the fact that—as I understand it and as alluded to by the previous speaker Dr Richard Worth—the charter is currently being reviewed. I hope that as a consequence of this bill people like those in Television New Zealand will not exercise their licence to include such programmes as those that have been referred to like  
Location Location Location 
 to address their commitment to the charter of meeting that particular requirement. I wanted to mention that in this debate and to reiterate the point that New Zealand First certainly supports the intent of this bill.
Worth Richard: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14710] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I would say that we should be able to feel immensely proud of our public broadcasting system but we have not actually got to that stage yet. We have not got there I think because we have created a situation that is almost impossible for public broadcasters and in particular for Television New Zealand. We require that it acts in a commercial manner but we also require that it fulfil the provisions of a charter—and I will briefly touch on that. 
I would also say that it is unfortunate that we are not presented with a greater opportunity in this bill to make the sorts of changes that I believe should be made. There was the opportunity in this bill for example to provide security of funding flows to Television New Zealand to New Zealand On Air to Maori radio and to Maori television. We have not done that. There was also an opportunity to put in some hard measurable goals so that those organisations responsible for funding could have confidence that the money would be wisely spent. We have not done that. National is supporting this bill but we say it is a pity because it could have gone so much further and been so much better. It could have been a seamless web but in fact it is now rather a tangled web I would say. It could have been clear of ambiguity in those areas of broadcasting where there is ambiguity but that has not been done. I would say that the objectives for public broadcasting should be spelt out with a clarity that incentivises those who are involved in public broadcasting and for those who are in that body of listeners or viewers who can gain pleasure and enjoyment in knowing that professional product is being delivered to their ears and to their eyes. 
I have made comment about the Television New Zealand charter because of course these organisations that we have identified—in particular NZ On Air—have that funding responsibility. The charter as I said last night is in the process of review. Indeed it is a plan for the Commerce Committee to look at its content in the next short period by way of inquiry. But the charter itself is so broad-based it is so aspirational it is so meaningless and it is so lacking in measurable goals that it is in need of substantial rewriting. One needs only to look at the way it is structured to see that that is quite clearly so. I gave as an instance the section in the charter that is headed “An Informed Society” and if one follows through the particular parts in just that section one sees how inadequate and broad-brushed those provisions are. 
So in supporting the legislation I express the hope that the next time broadcasting legislation is presented to us in bill form it will achieve some of the objectives that are so clearly lacking here.
Swain Paul: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Swain Paul: Broadcasting Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14709] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I do not see much need to prolong the agony of this tiny little bill which brings us 10 years up to date. Essentially as has already been said the funding agencies are currently allowed to fund content that can be watched only on television. The Broadcasting Amendment Bill broadens the role so that the agencies Te Mangai Paho and the Broadcasting Commission can fund content to be used in other forms such as the Internet and cellphones as well as television. 
Although I think it is very interesting to hear a wider debate and discussion about whether the charter has met its objectives funding issues etc. the reality is that this bill is a tiny little thing. It simply takes us into this century and I— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Probably hardly that. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member is probably right. All I recommend is that we progress this matter as soon as possible.
Mallard Trevor: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14705] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The member Simon Power asked what is happening here. The definition he refers to is in fact not a new provision. Although Supplementary Order Paper 176 places it in clause 4 of the bill it was previously in clause 86. So it is a matter of clarity of drafting rather than any change of substance. The definition has just been brought forward in the bill. It is the same provision. 
Simon Power 
: So it wasn’t taken out and reintroduced? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was moved forward.
Power Simon: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Power Simon: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14704] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I note the generous comments offered by the member opposite Hon Paul Swain in respect of Mr Brownlee’s chairmanship of the Commerce Committee’s examination of the Limited Partnerships Bill. No doubt Mr Brownlee has noted those comments and after a change of Government Mr Swain’s CV will be considered accordingly. 
I refer the Minister to one particular point with regard to Supplementary Order Paper 176 because in fairness to the Hon Paul Swain some quite substantial amendments are proposed in this Supplementary Order Paper. Although at first many of those appear to be consequential amendments it would be worth the Minister taking just a moment to take a call to explain the insertion of the definition of “overseas limited partnership”. That is new and it would be worth his allowing members on the National side of the Chamber to be satisfied with that particular provision. 
I note Supplementary Order Paper 175 to split the bill into two bills the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill. No doubt the Hon Paul Swain will have more to say about the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill because we trust that he got his head round those income streams and the taxation effects that may or may not occur as a result of the passing of this bill. 
What is interesting about the Limited Partnerships Bill is that substantial amendments were made in the Committee stage as I indicated in the second reading in the House last night. Supplementary Order Paper 176 adds to those amendments in a reasonably substantial way—certainly at the front end of that Supplementary Order Paper. This means that an opportunity should be taken to reinforce the comments of Gerry Brownlee and the Hon Paul Swain that the select committee certainly added value to this process; without its contribution some of these questions may have gone unanswered. I thank the Minister for his acknowledgment of that fact. 
I think though in all seriousness that the Minister could take just a short call to explain this definition of “overseas limited partnership”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I could do it by response. 
SIMON POWER 
: No I ask the Minister just to wait and take a call because as I understand it we are not allowed to speak from the chair next to the Chairperson. It would be helpful because we want to make sure that that definition does not place any restrictions or difficulties on the original concept of the bill relating firstly to the attraction of venture capital and secondly to the changes in the taxation regimes relating to those investments. I think in fairness it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could clarify those two points.
Swain Paul: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Swain Paul: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14704] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I will be very brief too but I think it is fair to say— 
Simon Power 
: Tell us about the tax implications. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well if the member would just listen I may get to that in time. What I can do is to make just two quick comments. 
The first one is in relation to what the chair of the Commerce Committee said about extremely good work having been done on this technical bill. Basically he implied that there were not going to be any changes to the bill. I must say that I am a little surprised as are some other members to see Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I just say to the Minister that I think it would be very helpful as a general rule to ensure that when bills such as this are being considered at the select committee stage that the select committee gets a chance to have a look at some of the additional Supplementary Order Papers before the bill comes back to the House. I know the Minister will be busy and I know the officials will be busy. But I think given that the Commerce Committee spent considerable time and effort on this bill that as a general rule these kinds of changes are better if they come from the select committee when it has had a chance to look at them in detail than they are if they come to the Committee as they have done now. So that is just a little note for the future—a little flag to remember. 
Now that I have said that I do want to say that the select committee did look at this bill extremely thoroughly under the wise stewardship and leadership of the chair. We had to address a number of critical issues particularly about how transparent the registers should be etc. We came to the view that what was being recommended was positive. If we remember that the ultimate objective of this measure is to encourage foreign venture capital into New Zealand in order to help with some of our fledging new enterprises we realise this is a good move. It brings us into line internationally with other countries and I certainly support the progress of this bill.
Mallard Trevor: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14703] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I will just give my colleague Simon Power a little time to acquaint himself with Supplementary Order Paper 176 and explain to the Committee that it now has a split commencement clause—Parts 1 to 4 on a date to be specified by Order in Council and the rest of the Act to come into force on 1 April 2008. Also there are a number of changes around the timing of the tax clauses. There are a few cross references; although the Commerce Committee did a wonderful job with such a substantive bill one occasionally gets slight slips and those have been fixed up. There are a few other technical matters and just to make clear for the avoidance of all doubt a limited partnership is a company for GST purposes. These are relatively minor matters in the scale of things and I repeat my thanks to the select committee for the very good work that it did. Also I thank Mr Power for his work in developing and supporting the Supplementary Order Papers which we are about to speak to.
Brownlee Gerry: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14703] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I want to make very brief comments and those really are in support of the bill. I think the workings of the bill were well covered in the second reading debate that was heard by the House last night. I think that the Committee stage should be to examine whether the bill itself needs to be further altered in order to achieve the outcomes proposed within it. It is our consideration that the Commerce Committee has done such a splendid job that no such alterations are necessary. We note that the Minister has no amendments to put forward in this case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes I have. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My apologies; he has. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Splitting the bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Oh splitting the bill. Well that is OK. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And Supplementary Order Paper 176. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My colleague Mr Power will make some comments on that. 
We have already decided that the House does not need to go into a long clause by clause or part by part debate. Can I simply express the view that when one makes changes of this nature it is seldom that one gets the endorsement of all parties who are likely to be affected. That has been achieved in this case making it a somewhat rare occurrence in my view and with that I commend the process for the rest of the afternoon to the Committee.
Wilson Margaret: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14703] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Limited Partnerships Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14703] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I notice that the next order of business for the House is the Committee stage on the Limited Partnerships Bill. I seek leave of the House for there to be one debate in the Committee stage with one question.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:645;Page:14700] 
11.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: Has he received any reports about the number of newborn babies in New Zealand? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Yes indeed. I have received a report from Statistics New Zealand that shows that last year 64040 babies were born in New Zealand—the highest number for 44 years. One hundred percent of these babies are born into a country where there are 14 weeks’ paid parental leave 20 free hours of early childhood education free before-school health checks and low doctor and pharmacy fees and where three out of four families can get Working for Families tax credits. We have a plan for the future for these new Kiwis. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the birth rate in New Zealand? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Yes I have. This 44-year high in our birth rate means a replacement rate of—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No one can hear anything that is happening. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister does not often get an opportunity to speak and I would like to hear what he has to say. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes we will now hear him in silence. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: It is not as much fun in silence Madam Speaker. This 44-year high in the birth rate which is 2.2 is above the required replacement rate. This is particularly good news I can tell the member as similar countries to ours have a birth rate below the replacement rate. I refer to countries such as the United Kingdom France Italy Japan and—the Opposition will be delighted to know—even Australia.
Wall Louisa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wall Louisa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:645;Page:14698] 
9.  
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What are the benefits of installing digital recording and transcription in High Court courtrooms? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The key benefits of this technology are that participants can speak at a normal speed meaning that trials can be heard more quickly. This technology is estimated to reduce court hearing times by between 20 and 30 percent. The new system was used in a recent murder trial in Wellington where it was a key contributing factor in reducing the trial time from an expected 8 weeks to 4 weeks. The trial time was cut in half. This technology has enormous potential benefits in reducing court waiting times. Another benefit will be the ability to transfer the transcription of a local trial to another part of New Zealand if local transcription staff are unavailable. 
Louisa Wall 
: Kia ora. In addition to this technology what other initiatives are being undertaken in the High Court to assist case throughput? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Our range of initiatives includes new pre-trial processes whereby conferences are held 1 to 2 weeks before the trial date to ensure that everything is ready; regular review of pending cases in the District Court destined for the High Court to identify an early trial date rather than waiting until the case reaches the High Court; regularly held inter-agency meetings at a national level to resolve any issues holding up a trial—for example technical issues around methamphetamine science—implementation of a national roster; flexibility for judges in cases; and better use of settlement conferences and mediation in civil matters which results in more cases being settled without needing a full hearing.
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:645;Page:14686] 
3.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is the Government considering an application by Nutritek Overseas PTE Ltd for consent to acquire shares and the effective ownership and control of New Zealand Dairies Ltd? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Has the Minister approved the application by Nutritek Overseas PTE Ltd to acquire shares and the effective majority ownership and control of New Zealand Dairies Ltd? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Two Ministers make that decision: me and Mr Parker. I am not aware yet whether Mr Parker has considered the papers. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Why is the Government favourably considering an application that gives a grouping of Russian businessmen who are probably ex-KGB operatives a share of New Zealand’s critical dairy industry? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: New Zealand Dairies is a relatively small player. It is also one that has been in significant financial trouble in recent times and the consideration of the approval will be given in part against that kind of background. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Government favour Russian businessmen over our hard-working farmers who are having this asset virtually stripped from them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: From the farmers’ perspective—although I know there are concerns from farmers—the key issue is what price they get for the milk. There is a very real possibility that they will get a higher price for the milk in terms of a change in ownership than they would otherwise get.
Locke Keith: Motions — Columbia Revolutionary Armed Forces—Hostages 
Locke Keith: Motions — Columbia Revolutionary Armed Forces—Hostages 
[Volume:645;Page:14683] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this House note with great concern that Ingrid Betancourt former Green Presidential candidate has now been held for over six years by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) since her abduction on 23 February 2002 and that her health is now reported to be in a critical state and call on FARC to show compassion and immediately release Ingrid Betancourt and declare our solidarity with the other hostages detained in Colombia and support for a humanitarian solution that will allow them to be released as soon as possible. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14683] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Item No. 21 will remain on the Order Paper giving trout a feeling of great protection despite the bill’s lack of passage. As I am sure the member is aware the numbers are not in the House for the passage of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. As for the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill time will tell.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14683] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication. Can he tell us what the intentions of the Government are with regard to items Nos 18 20 and 21 on the Order Paper those being the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill and the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill?
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14683] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Limited Partnerships Bill the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Building Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. The debate on the Budget Policy Statement will be held on Wednesday in place of the usual general debate. That debate is a 2-hour debate.
Vote: Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
To add to the referral motion the words “and that the committee finally report to the House on or before 7 October 2008”. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Horomia Parekura: Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14584] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee.
Robertson H V Ross: Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14584] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: First of all there is an amendment in the name of the Hon Tau Henare that we have to vote on.
Vote: Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a first time.