edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Barry Maggie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barry Maggie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1496] 
2. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What are the fiscal and economic benefits of selling minority shareholdings in four State-owned energy companies and Air New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The rationale is quite simple. The sale of Government shares would free up $5 billion to $7 billion less than 3 percent of taxpayers’ total assets of $245 billion to invest in priority assets like modern schools and hospitals without having to borrow more money on volatile world markets from overseas lenders. The Government is still spending and borrowing more than it can afford so it makes sense to reorganise the Government’s assets and redeploy capital to higher-priority areas so that we do not have to borrow more.  
Maggie Barry 
: What other benefits will the Government’s mixed-ownership programme deliver? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Under the mixed-ownership programme New Zealanders would have an opportunity to diversify their increasing savings away from property and from bank deposits which are growing quite rapidly at the moment and also the public listing of these companies will increase scrutiny of their decisions and encourage better business disciplines as well as deepening capital markets. 
Maggie Barry 
: What have recent profit and dividend payments been from the four State-owned energy companies? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Over the 6 years to 2011 ordinary dividends—that is dividends that exclude one-off sales of Government assets by these companies—have totalled $356 million. That is a 2.4 percent annual return to the taxpayer on the most recent commercial valuations of these companies. The Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit advises that the average cost of Crown borrowing over the last year is 4.5 percent; that is these companies are returning ordinary dividends of 2.4 percent per annum. The average cost of Crown borrowing is 4.5 percent. Estimates of 18.5 percent returns are quite misleading because they include major revaluations and changes in accounting methodology and also one-off large asset sales by these Government companies. 
Maggie Barry 
: Under the mixed-ownership programme what do comparisons of forecast loss of profits with expected savings on interest costs tell us? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: On its own comparing lost profits with reduced interest payments tells us nothing. As any owner of an asset will tell you it is not just what you forgo in profits that matters; it is the price received up front in the sale. If investors believed there would be strong profits from these companies then that would be reflected in a higher sale price. If they believe the profits will be weaker that will be reflected in a lower sale price.
Harawira Hone: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill — Third Reading 
Harawira Hone: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1492] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
: 
 I am a little disappointed in the previous speaker Parekura Horomia sitting down so early because he actually texted me a message to come and sing a song for him.  
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Oh! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: But he sat down so I will not be singing for him. Me mihi atu ki a koutou kua tae mai i te ra nei. Tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatau katoa. Me te mea ano hoki e tika ana kia mohio hakoa ko wai te pati ko wai te Maori e tu ana i roto i nga kaupapa nei e tu kotahi ana matau hei tautoko i te ’hakahokia i te iti mana ki roto i a koutou ano. Hara i te mea kia oti pai ai nga raruraru ta te Kawanatanga engari kia timatangia ai tenei hikoi kia tu rangatira ai koutou a nga ra kei te haere mai. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou kua tae mai i te ra nei. 
[ 
I must acknowledge you for coming today. Salutations and congratulations to you collectively and to us all. Furthermore let it be known that no matter which party it is that the Maori member is in on matters like these we are united in supporting the return of autonomy to you small as it might seem. It does not completely address the problems caused by the Government but it does herald the start of this journey so that you can stand proudly in the days ahead. So well done congratulations and salutations to you collectively who arrived here today. 
] 
My apologies for being late. I had to go and have a meeting with Mike Smith and he specifically asked me to ask for your blessings for when the hikoi comes through Maniapoto territory. I think it leaves from Te Rerenga Wairua on 23 Apriland is due down here on 5 May. I think it is coming down through your territory. He also asked for your tautoko so I hope you are listening Mike.  
Mihi atu ki a koutou ki a tatau ano. Engari tu ana au ki te tautoko i te kaupapa kia whakahokia mai he wahanga ki te iwi kia whakapaha mai te Kawanatanga mo nga tahae kua oti nei i nga tau kua pahure ake nei. No reira e te iwi kua tae mai tena koutou tena koutou huri atu huri noa kia ora tatau katoa. 
[ 
I acknowledge you collectively and us as well. But I really stand in support of the philosophy of a partial return to the tribe and that the Government apologises for thefts made in past years. And so to you the people who have arrived salutations and congratulations to you and indeed to us all here there and throughout. 
]
Horan Brendan: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill — Third Reading 
Horan Brendan: Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1488] 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill and would like to say “Kia ora whanau.” This legislation is particularly dear to my Maniapoto heart. As with other settlements this journey has been arduous and was actually parked as an outstanding issue from the Tainui settlement in 1995. Included in those issues are the harbours of Whangaroa Kawhia Raglan and Manukau. Those matters are still under consideration and I hope that that process will proceed expediently and expeditiously.  
However in this particular legislation I am pleased that recognition is given by the Crown of the importance of our river. Maori and many other New Zealanders believe that our rivers contain the spirit of the blood and bones of our ancestors. It is common sense really. The rain comes down it falls over and through the soil over the blood and bones of our dearly departed and into our river system. The process is called leaching and it is our wairua. It is important we honour the wairua and in return it will honour us. Again it is common sense: a clean river bathes and feeds us. So we look forward to the restoration the quality and the continuing integrity of our rivers and our sacred waters.  
There are many who rejoice at this settlement both past and present. I know that presently Koro Wetere who is unable to be here today because of a bad leg will be sitting at home there in Te Kuiti smiling. I acknowledge his work and leadership as a former MP who intimately knows the parliamentary systems and processes but has still had to wait so long to see this bill come to fruition.  
 This bill is about people and spirit and wairua. So I would like to acknowledge a couple of past giants of Maniapoto. First my old friend Koro Tui. I knew him simply as Tui a friend beyond peer when it came to baking rewena bread and a wealth of knowledge on the healing plants of New Zealand such as harakeke koromiko karamu kawakawa and so many others. But Tui was a master of many talents. Tui was the orator who gave the oration to the elevation of the king. He was a spokesman to the Maori King and Queen and he was a teacher to all embodying knowledge humility and dignity. I am so proud that his sacred awa is in caring and responsible hands. Kua tu tona wairua.  
I will be brief and finish this New Zealand First contribution with a proverb by another giant of Maniapoto the late Dr Pei Te Hurinui Jones historian of the tribe and the first chairman of the Waikato-Maniapoto Trust Board until his death and now laid to rest in Te Kuiti. This is his whakatauki. Kia hora te marino kia whakapapa pounamu te moana kia tere te karohirohi i mua i tou huarahi. May the calm be widespread may the ocean glisten as greenstone and may the shimmer of life ever dance across your pathway. Kia ora tatou.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1434] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 16 in the name of Holly Walker to Part 1 be agreed to.
O'Connor Simon: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
O'Connor Simon: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1451] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on this. I just want to bring a bit of context back to the discussion here tonight and the context is a Government that has been progressing a number of bills for this country and for the betterment of it. And when we are talking about this Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill we are also seeing it in the context of a Government that is leading close to 28 high-level delegations around the world to try to secure better trade for this country—a cooperation that is global and a cooperation that is good for this country.  
The bill itself is relatively simple. It is a safeguard and it is hard to understand why any safeguard of this nature which enhances trade in New Zealand would be rejected. It is a safeguard replacing a prior measure. It is simplifying it for New Zealanders. It is here to stop as a member mentioned earlier the rapid influx of cheap imports. It is relatively simple. It is here to try to increase the time frame in which we can consider the need to safeguard our trade. It is simply to provide us with that opportunity to reflect rationally and appropriately and to take on and take in all the effects that we need to—the main one being that we do not end up in the World Trade Organization facing problems and financial problems we do not need.  
This is a responsible bill. It is a bill that highlights the continuing importance for this Government to promote good trade for the welfare of all New Zealanders and I totally support it. Thank you.
Dean Jacqui: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1447] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Speaking to the second reading of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill I want to say that this bill repeals the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987 and implements a new safeguard regime for New Zealand that is consistent with World Trade Organization rules. I think that is particularly important to New Zealand’s economy because as this Government knows only too well enhancing and growing New Zealand’s international trade links and also opportunities is a pretty much key part of our plan to build a competitive and also productive economy. This bill is part of that. It promotes efficient transparent and objective investigative decision-making processes. Now to explain.  
Safeguard measures are emergency measures applied at the border usually in the form of a duty which is a cost to the importer to temporarily protect the domestic industry from a surge in imported goods. If you think about what kind of product that might mean you are talking about a container-load of cheap T-shirts maybe cheap socks or some product of that nature. The bill prevents New Zealand from receiving a rapid influx of cheap imports. What it does is allow New Zealand businesses time to bring themselves up to the level of international competitiveness required to stay competitive and afloat in this current economic climate. Again I need to say that it is a temporary measure. New Zealand consumers will continue to have the benefit of free-trade principles which are so important to New Zealand and underpin New Zealand’s trading environment. The bill creates—and this is also significant—a single point of contact for all trade remedy inquiries which of course is a plus for busy businesses and provides an effective safeguard regime that can help build support for future trade liberalisation among domestic manufacturers who compete with importer trade. I commend the bill to the House.
Mahuta Nanaia: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1436] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 That is a good point to continue because for those people who are currently identified as contact persons there should be some obligation I would think to notify them about the change of their status and the new expectations they will inherit as a result of this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. So the Minister in the chair the Minister for Courts should take a call on that particular aspect because it is only right that people are informed if there are new obligations resulting from this legislation.  
That communication should go out for a specific set of people who are currently identified as contact persons so that when the new bill comes into effect as of I guess 1 January 2013 because that section will be repealed they should be informed that they have identified with the current set of contact people and that they have new obligations and they should be asked whether they want to continue to be contact persons in the event that their children or whomever they are the contact person for may go overseas. I think that is a really important point and it is the point that I raised in the previous part.  
The opt-out provisions should be very clear for existing contact persons who no longer wish to continue to be of that status going forward. There should at least as a matter of courtesy be an opportunity to update and inform them about the new provisions of the Act and by default the expectations that they will inherit and secondly the opportunity to opt out should they no longer wish to be a contact person. That is more an obligation in terms of the Inland Revenue Department I would think rather than the borrower because this is something that is a carry-over function of the existing system. Kia ora.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1447] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1447] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1447] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put.  
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14. 
Motion agreed to.
Walker Holly: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Walker Holly: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1438] 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on Part 2 of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. I will not take up a lot of the Committee’s time but I would like to reiterate the invitation to the Minister in the chair the Hon Chester Borrows to take a call to answer some questions about this part. I thank the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for her contribution on this earlier. I would also like to know how the increased responsibilities for those who will be taking on the role of the contact person will be notified to those who are currently named as contact people in relation to this legislation. I would like to know whether they will have the opportunity to opt out of that and how they will be provided with that opportunity. I would like to invite the Minister in the chair to take a call to explain that to the Committee.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1440] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1435] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Roy Eric: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1434] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The first Grant Robertson amendment is essentially the same so it is now ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision.  
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to replace in clause 4 “365 days” with “2 years”; and 
to replace section 107B(3) in clause 17 with: 
(3)For the purposes of this subpart a borrower reaches the borrower’s limit if— 
(a)the borrower has had 1 or more repayment holidays granted under this Act for a period of 2 years or for periods that total 2 years; or 
(b)the borrower has had 1 or more repayment holidays under Part 3 of the Student Loan Scheme Act 1992 for a period of 3 years or for periods that total 3 years; or 
(c)the borrower has had— 
(i)1 or more repayment holidays under Part 3 of the Student Loan Scheme Act 1992 for a period of less than 3 years or for periods less than 3 years; and 
(ii)1 or more repayment holidays granted under this Act for a period that equals or for periods that in total equal the lesser of— 
(A)2 years; and 
(B)the remainder of the period of the repayment holiday to which the borrower would have been entitled under Part 3 of the Student Loan Scheme Act 1992 if that Act had been repealed; or 
(d)the borrower has had his or her repayment holiday under Part 3 of the Student Loan Scheme Act 1992 continued under section 108A(2) for the maximum period prescribed for that continuation; and 
to replace in new section 108A(2)(a) in clause 17 “365 days” with “2 years”.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1434] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to.
Simpson Scott: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Simpson Scott: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1433] 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
O'Connor Simon: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Simon: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1431] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Goldsmith Paul: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goldsmith Paul: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1424] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I want to concentrate on two clauses in this very worthy bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill which I support wholeheartedly. One is new section 88A in clause 14 which is focused on the area of adjusted net income being a means of calculating the borrower’s income in accordance with a formula. The idea there is to maximise repayments from New Zealand - based borrowers. The bill makes amendments to exclude losses such as rental losses from the calculation of net income. I think this is very worthwhile.  
Ultimately what we are trying to achieve here is a higher rate of repayment. There is a very very large liability here on the part of the taxpayers as part of a very expensive scheme and the fact is that repayments are slow. We are writing it down to 54c for every dollar that we have lent. So any means that can increase the repayments I think are worthwhile. This new section 88A which excludes such things as being able to offset losses generated from rental properties is just one way to draw back to people their responsibilities for repaying these loans.  
The other area that I want to focus on is new section 107A in clause 17 which again is this issue of the contact person to be nominated. Here in subsection (3) it talks about specifying the details of the name of an individual a New Zealand postal address an electronic address if the individual has one—and we all do these days—and a New Zealand telephone number. Again this is very basic stuff in response to the reality that we have lost track of many of these people with student loans. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: As we were having our dinner break it gave me pause for thought to think about why this bill is particularly important. It is not so much a huge amount of money although it is not irrelevant; we are looking at potential increased repayments of around $14 million. I think that is a very conservative figure and that will reduce the need for further borrowing on the part of the Government—$14 million is probably an increase of 2 or 3 percent in the repayments and we are hoping for more.  
But that is not the key ingredient. The key ingredient is that it sends a clear message that when you do borrow money you should pay it back. This bill is all about just turning the knob a little in the direction of encouraging people and making it clearer that we need people to think about paying back those student loans sooner rather than later. I commend this bill to the Committee on that score. Thank you.
Hayes John: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hayes John: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1422] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. Can I discuss in this Committee the issue of fairness and opportunity raised by the previous speaker Dr David Clark. Here are some small facts. When we are considering the clauses of this bill we need to keep in mind that the Government lent $1.6 billion last year; it had $690 million paid back. The current value of new lending is 54c and the Government writes down 45c of every dollar lent. 
As of June last year overseas borrowers of these student loans which I absolutely support represented 15 percent of all of those students in New Zealand who took out student loans. Fifty percent of that 15 percent were in default and those who were in default owed 70 percent of the money that was overdue. That is why this bill has been put in place and I commend the Minister of Revenue for doing so. When we think about the fairness which the previous speaker spoke of it is worth keeping in mind that the median repayment time for overseas-based borrowers is 14.1 years. 
Hon Member 
: How long? 
JOHN HAYES 
: It is 14.1 years—compare that with borrowers here in New Zealand and you are talking 5.2 years. If you are going to borrow somebody’s money and you are thinking about fairness keep in mind that that money came from a taxpayer’s pocket. Many of them are not wealthy. Many of them are genuine hard-working people. If you are going to borrow somebody’s money you have got two choices: one is you pay the money back; the other is you default. It is not acceptable for a borrower to think that they can hide overseas. If I took the money it is not acceptable that I should think that I should be able to go overseas completely disappear and have no obligation to pay it back. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: You wouldn’t do that. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Not that I would do that and I am sure Chris Auchinvole would not do that—although he does try to hide on the West Coast.  
It is really important to think about this issue of fairness. If you are going to take money it does not grow on trees. It comes out of other people’s pockets and it needs to be repaid. As a community we are giving a good opportunity to young people to educate themselves and what I can say to this Committee is that that money has to be paid back and if they do not pay it back it is unfair. If the borrowers do not pay it back if they disappear off and they think they can have an extended 15-year payment holiday then you have got to think about whether that is fair and reasonable to the person they borrowed it from. I do not believe it is. That is why I absolutely support this bill and that is why I support clauses 1 to 33. Thank you.
Upston Louise: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Upston Louise: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1434] 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
O'Connor Simon: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Simon: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1439] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorely tempted.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1435] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to.
Upston Louise: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — First Reading 
Upston Louise: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1414] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 The issue of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill has been well covered in the first reading debate. I just want to reinforce the fact that at the heart of this bill is the confidence members of Parliament and Ministers need to have from members of the public that they are conducting their business in the way they need to and that there is a level of independence in terms of their salary which is currently reviewed by the independent Remuneration Authority. But this bill takes it a step further in terms of looking at the services MPs require to undertake their jobs in terms of travel accommodation and communication costs as well. So I think this bill is a good move. It has been well discussed today. It is uniformly accepted and agreed to in this House so I do not intend to take much more time on it.  
I think the interesting thing is that the members of Parliament on the Government and Administration Committee have obviously put quite a lot of thought into some of the details. I acknowledge Chris Hipkins for some of the issues he has raised in terms of making sure that those who leave Parliament after an election are not unfairly treated or penalised. 
I do want to come back to the issue the Hon Trevor Mallard raised in his speech on this bill and that was around the issue of having a time frame by which the bill would be reported back. The concern he raised was there could be a perception from the public that members of Parliament were rushing this process. There is absolutely no intention to do that because this is all around transparency and it is all around the provision of independence. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has agreed and realises it is important that this process be done and done well without a time frame. So there will not be a motion at the conclusion of this debate for a time frame for the select committee to report back to the House. 
I do want to add though that I think it is fair to say that the Government Administration Committee will have every intention of progressing the business so there will be no intention of dragging the chain either. That tidies up the issue that the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. There is nodding-around-the-House agreement for that. So I am pleased to conclude this first reading of the bill.
Wagner Nicky: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — First Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1413] 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I support this Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill as does the rest of the House. Like most MPs I am very pleased to see this bill come into the House. It seems that there has been a public perception out there that somehow MPs are getting something for nothing or that they have entitlements way beyond what MPs are worth and that they—the public—do not know about it. There is also a belief actually that there is a whole heap of amazing out-of-this-world perks and self-indulgences that we are all lining up to grab. I have to say if that is true I have not found them yet. But that sort of mistaken public belief is not good and at times makes MPs feel pretty uncomfortable and upset. So I welcome this new legislation.  
The legislation is all about making MPs’ and Ministers’ entitlements more transparent more independent and non-partisan. It will be much better if the public knows and understands MPs’ travel and accommodation entitlements so that they can have confidence that nothing is being hidden from them.  
The public were absolutely fascinated by and entertained with the expense scandals of the British Parliament. We found it really hard to believe that British MPs could legitimately have their moat fixed or employ gardeners or butlers on the taxpayer. It turned out that we were right and four MPs and two members of the House of Lords have ended up in jail. Once we had enjoyed that sort of scandal the New Zealand public took a look at what was happening in New Zealand and wondered whether they could find anything similar. I think it was to Parliament’s credit that they could not find anything significant. But it did raise the issue of transparency and this bill has resulted from that.  
The legislation is based on the recommendations of the Law Commission made in December 2010. After the legislation is passed travel and accommodation entitlements will be set by the independent Remuneration Authority rather than the Speaker of the House as happened in the past. It will also not allow the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services to make any rules either. Many months ago the Government introduced a voluntary regime to report on travel and accommodation expenses and now this bill will make it a statutory requirement.  
It is quite clear that the public expect that decisions around MPs’ and Ministers’ entitlements should be beyond reproach and putting decisions in the hands of this independent Remuneration Authority will ensure that they will be. So I commend this bill to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — First Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1413] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Mr Speaker thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill on its first reading. The legislation once again highlights this National-led Government’s commitment to transparency. This bill is the result of the Law Commission’s 2010 report and repeals the Civil List Act 1979. The Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill empowers the Remuneration Authority to decide on the travel and accommodation entitlements for MPs and Ministers. Earlier these decisions used to be undertaken by the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services or the Parliament’s Speaker. 
The bill further adds to the steps that the honourable Speaker and the Government have already taken to improve transparency around entitlements. In fact this will create public confidence in the regime for setting entitlements for Ministers and MPs. Furthermore up until now the disclosure of MPs’ travel and accommodation was voluntary. This bill will make it a statutory requirement for all MPs and Ministers to disclose their travel and accommodation. This bill does not just ask MPs to disclose their accommodation and travel expenses it also ensures that in the case that they do not attend Parliament they are penalised and not just for name’s sake. Earlier the penalty for MPs missing Parliament was $10 a day. This bill increases that to $270 a day.  
It is important the public has confidence in the management of setting MPs’ and Ministers’ entitlements. These amendments which put more power in the hands of the independent decision maker will improve the trust. The authority will have members with appropriate knowledge skills and experience to ensure that balance is maintained between zeroing the misuse of taxpayers’ money while ensuring that MPs and Ministers have enough support to support their constituents and carry out parliamentary business. This bill will provide that the Office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives will continue to make decisions on MPs’ entitlements to communication services travel for inter-parliamentary exchange and allocation of party and members’ support funding.  
There is a groundswell out there to take action to improve transparency. The Government is therefore listening to the people and taking action. I support the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill on its first reading.
Walker Holly: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Walker Holly: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1442] 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the title and commencement of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. I would like to do two things and the first is to make a suggestion for an alternative title of the bill which is the “Student Loan Scheme (Reining Student Loans In) Amendment Bill”. That of course is what John Key said recently to an audience of property developers in Auckland he wanted to do with the student loan scheme. Of course as we all know John Key would really like to get rid of interest-free student loans but as he outlined to that audience he does not see that as politically feasible and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! The same rules apply: title and commencement. That is the subject of this debate. 
HOLLY WALKER 
: Thank you Mr Chair. That is why I am suggesting that the title of this bill should be the “Student Loan Scheme (Reining Student Loans In) Amendment Bill” because it is the only way that National can find to rein in student loans in the absence of doing what it really wants to do.  
I want to move to a more substantive point which is about the commencement. I note that there is a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table from the Minister of Revenue relating to clause 2(4). That clause states: “The rest of the Act comes into force on 1 April 2012.” The Supplementary Order Paper replaces that word “comes” into force with “is deemed to have come” into force. I want to raise a serious concern about this because what this essentially does is make the bill retrospective and I would submit to the Committee that this is bad practice and bad lawmaking. We should not be in the practice of making retrospective law in this Chamber. If the bill cannot be passed in time to meet the commencement date set out in the commencement clause then that date should be extended. We should not be retrospectively applying this bill. So I want to raise a serious concern about that and invite the Minister in the chair the Minister for Courts to take a call to explain to us why it is so important that we need to enact retrospective legislation in this Committee in order for this bill to come into force. I suggest that a far more transparent and democratic approach would be to extend the time of commencement and I will invite the Minister to take a call to explain that.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1384] 
11. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What information has he received on preparations for the 2013 Census? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to bring more good news from the department of statistics. I am pleased to tell this House that it is now less than 1 year to go before we will conduct a census on 5 March 2013. The House will remember that the 2011 census could not be held because of the 22 February earthquake. I have been advised by Statistics New Zealand that preparations are well on track for this event. About 7000 census collectors will be employed to both personally deliver the forms and assist people with filling them out. But for the census next year the real thrust will be going on promoting completing your census online. We are hoping to get really really large uptakes with the internet so the census will give the Government some very valuable information for health education roads public transport and recreational facilities that will actually inform us for good decision-making. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: Will the information from the census be ready in time for setting up electorate boundaries ahead of the next election? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I know this is a question that concerns a number of members of this Parliament. Yes indeed census information is obviously critical to the setting of the boundaries ahead of the 2014 election. Statistics New Zealand has informed me that the work it needs to do on the census data will be ready in time. It has agreed to provide that data to Land Information New Zealand by 7 October next year. I know the Minister for Land Information is delighted to hear that information. This will mean the boundaries can be completed and will be ready on time for an election in 2014.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1380] 
8. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What is the Government doing to reduce compliance costs for motorists? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Today I have launched the Vehicle Licensing Reform project. This will examine annual vehicle licensing—more commonly known as registration—warrants of fitness and certificates of fitness and transport services licensing. The current vehicle licensing system has been in place for many years and affects every vehicle owner. The review will look at using technologies to modernise processes and produce cost savings. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I hope the member asking the question heard the answer because I could not hear it for the life of me. I say that it is the Labour benches that are actually making all the noise here and they will stop. I could not hear that answer. I could not tell whether the answer was within the Standing Orders or not and this ridiculous level of noise will stop now. I accept that a bit of fun has been had and that is fine but it has got to stop. It cannot go on indefinitely. What I am going to do is invite the Hon Gerry Brownlee to answer— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is on the record. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is on the record so he does not wish to repeat his answer. 
David Bennett 
: What types of savings could this review identify for households and businesses? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This reform has the potential to save millions of dollars in unnecessary costs and time for households and businesses. More than 14 million transactions are generated each year by these three systems which is a huge administrative compliance burden. It is important to note that safety will remain a key priority in considering any changes. Reform work is in the early stages and there will be opportunities for stakeholders to have their say.
O'Connor Simon: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
O'Connor Simon: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1446] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Guy Nathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Guy Nathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1381] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 I wish to seek leave to correct an answer that I gave to a supplementary question from Mr Peters on question No. 7 where I said— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Leave is being sought to correct an answer. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. The Minister may correct his answer. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I answered by saying it was a corrections issue. It was actually a customs issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister.
Sabin Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sabin Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1378] 
6. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What reports has she received about the amount of drug use in prisons? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am happy to advise the House that the number of prisoners testing positive for drugs has reached a record low. The latest figures show that only 4.3 percent of prisoners randomly tested for drugs returned a positive result. This compares with 13 percent in the 2008 year and 34 percent in the 1997-98 year when testing was introduced. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I ask members please to extend some courtesy to members at the back of the House. Mike Sabin has a big voice but he cannot get through some of that noise. 
Mike Sabin 
: What factors have led to the decline in drug use in prisons? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Since 2008 we have doubled the number of prisoners able to attend specialist drug treatment units and introduced new laws that increased the search powers of corrections officers and provided new offences relating to contraband. Just last week three more corrections drug dogs and their handlers graduated from the police dog training centre to help fight contraband in prisons bringing the department’s team of drug-dog handlers working in New Zealand prisons to 15. This increase in capacity means more dogs to cover each region and should result in fewer drugs getting into prisons.
Robertson H V Ross: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1416] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Kia ora tatou no reira e te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Good afternoon honourable members. The House is in Committee on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part. It is the debate on Part 1 clauses 3 through to 33. I recognise the honourable member Grant Robertson.
Roy Eric: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1435] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have a typescript amendment in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta but it is not signed so it is out of order.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1376] 
4. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she stand by her answers to all supplementary questions to Oral Questions No. 2 and No. 9 yesterday? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was the email she received from Michelle Boag received on the basis of a confidentiality undertaking from her to Boag and if so what are the details of that undertaking? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner contacted my office this morning and advised that it is now investigating this matter. I am quite happy to answer the question in the normal course of events but I am a bit concerned that it might interfere with the Privacy Commissioner’s work. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister needs to make her own judgment about how she answers the question in relation to that. I invite her to answer the question in so far as she feels it appropriate. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The answer is no and as I have always said if anyone thinks their privacy has been abused certainly by my office they should make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner. I understand that the Privacy Commissioner is now investigating. I welcome that investigation. I have been advised that it might well include some forensic investigation of computer records and again I welcome that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What explanation if any did the Prime Minister give her for having to directly ask her on two occasions whether she was involved in leaking Ms Pullar’s name? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: None. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did she or any of her staff discuss the contents of the Boag email with Simon Lusk? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did she or any of her staff discuss the systemic privacy issues that Boag and Pullar raised with her with Simon Lusk? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1375] 
3. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: How will the Government’s proposed welfare changes give greater flexibility to support beneficiaries back into work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 As part of the Government’s focus on strengthening work obligations and incentives we are introducing more flexibility in the part-time and full-time work tests. This means that there is going to be a change in the hours of work someone is required to undertake. There will be more of a range around the 15-hour part-time work test and the 30-hour full-time work test. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Why is the Government making this change to the part-time and full-time work tests? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The previous policy settings have led to an arbitrary restriction really on the range of jobs that beneficiaries could be referred to or are required to accept. We also saw unnecessary circumstances where someone working 12 or 13 hours was still subject to a work test when perhaps that was their capability for that week and made sense. So this is about backing people into work and ensuring the benefit system has a degree of flexibility around it. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What trends are we seeing for people coming off a benefit and into work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It would be fair to say that there has been some talk of late around where those jobs are and what has been happening out there so I thought we would look at the evidence. For example the household labour force survey says that 62000 jobs were created over the past 2 years. The ANZ bank job report for January says 30000 positions are available across the country. Work and Income has 1300 to 1500 vacancies coming in each week quite frankly from employers and 3500 jobs on its books at any one time. Last year 80000 people went off benefits and into work. That is actually one person for every minute of every working day.