edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Jones Shane: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Shane: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11286] 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 The contributions to this debate from the other side of the Chamber are deteriorating with each contributor. We have heard from the first of the twins from the Hawke’s Bay Mr Tremain. In other parts of Aotearoa when we see characters who are somewhat similar being difficult to distinguish in terms of rhetoric if not physical appearance they are called peas in a pod. But up there in the Hawke’s Bay the Heretaunga region their contributions—and they do surface from time to time in the select committee—are seeds in a core. But the core of their debate is rotten. The core of their debate has nothing to offer and nothing about it resonates with what New Zealanders expect us to provide through the framework of this bill. 
New Zealanders expect the provision of ongoing affordable safe and secure services which will not come to pass if contributors from the other side of the Chamber have their way. They do not necessarily want to rewrite the text of the legislation that we have before us because it is a lot more lucid than it was previously. Indeed it is a lot warmer now given the content that we have invested into the bill as a result of the regime we have had in place over the last 8 or 9 years. But at a deeper level the Opposition members do not want a system and they do not want a quality of Government that continues to allocate public resources to key essential areas. 
For every problem that the Opposition members identify and try to get New Zealanders to buy into they have no remedy and no solution. Our solutions are very clear. We support work. We support families and families that are in work are entitled to assistance. We are going to give that assistance in a targeted fashion and we are giving it at the moment. They seek to strip that away hidden between the pillars of two false arguments. The first is that people are afraid to go out and work. People definitely want to work which is why the unemployment rate in the area that Dr Lockwood Smith and I come from has just enjoyed a massive drop. 
Members on the other side of the Chamber need to have more confidence in the citizens of our country and should stop leading them astray with promises that they can give richer New Zealanders inordinate tax cuts without the poorer New Zealanders suffering. It just will not work like that. It never has and it never ever will. What will come to pass is that the failings of the Opposition members will become evident as their rhetoric is tested. As we move towards the election next year unfortunately for them taxation policies of an improved nature will come to pass. Kia ora tatou katoa.
Chauvel Charles: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11279] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I shall take just a brief call to comment on the speech made by Tim Groser. It was actually very sad in my view to hear yet another advocate for the strategic deficit that members opposite like to create by starving the Government of spending assets and then taking the view that it is best to deprive the Government of revenue; to criticise the tax take; to subscribe to the Garfield Barwick doctrine that every taxpayer has a duty to minimise his or her exposure to tax; and to pretend that revenue gathering for good purposes is somehow a bad thing. 
I would remind the Committee of some of the things that can be done with the revenue that is being collected from the tax system which will be able to be collected on a more efficient basis from now on once this legislation is passed. We have the research and development tax credit for businesses at 15 percent which was introduced by the Budget. That was not something that members opposite were prepared to do when they were on the Treasury benches. 
Let us look at some other things that are able to be done with this revenue. Creative New Zealand has received funding of $15.5 million this year. In 1999 when this Government took office Creative New Zealand had received $2.4 million. So this year’s funding for the creative sector is seven times that amount. That is quality spending thanks to the revenue able to be collected through the tax system. 
Let us look at another example. The annual average investment on the electricity transmission grid in 1999 was $80 million. Now it is $500 million. So we have more quality spending through the revenue gathered from the tax system. Let us not pretend that that is not a good thing to do for a country in need of infrastructural investment like ours. 
The spending in 1999 on low and middle income families—the same families that now benefit from Working for Families—was zero. Today 350000 low and middle income families benefit from spending on Working for Families. 
There are further examples. Annual funding for land transport in 1999 was $1 billion. It is now $2.2 billion. Funding for land transport including ONTRACK in 1999 was $880 million. Now it is $1783 million. There has been a 750 percent increase in spending on public transport over the period that this Government has been in office. Those are marvellous achievements. 
I could go on—industry trainees numbered 63000 in June 2000 and there were 123202 as of June 2006. There were no apprentices in training when this Government came into office but we had 9466 Modern Apprenticeships in December 2006. So let us not pretend that revenue gathering is a bad thing when it is used efficiently in the manner that this Government patently does.
Dalziel Lianne: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11279] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I would like to say that I was standing to respond to my colleague the Hon Paul Swain but I am not; I am actually standing to respond to the questions that were posed by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. The reason I prefer the question he asked is that I actually wanted to congratulate him on highlighting the only provisions on Supplementary Order Paper 136 that were the subject of a substantive rewrite and they are exactly as the honourable member has stated. They relate to the fair dividend rate in clauses CQ5 and DN6 and subpart EX. So I think that congratulations are in order on his identifying that these were a substantive rewrite. 
I am advised by officials that the New Zealand Law Society the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand and the Rewrite Advisory Panel were all invited to comment on these rewritten provisions. So that will provide the level of assurance the member is looking for. They had no significant concerns over any aspect of those substantive rewrite provisions. The rest of the provisions in the Supplementary Order Paper involve necessary consequential drafting changes renumbering insertions—for example for KiwiSaver—or drafting corrections. 
It is a substantial Supplementary Order Paper but in essence most of its provisions are not substantive. The ones that are substantive relate to the rewrite of the fair dividend rate. They have been through a very good process in terms of ensuring that those key experts who assisted the select committee in its very detailed analysis of the bill were able to contribute to the process. I trust that will satisfy the Committee.
Woolerton R Doug: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11274] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be supporting the Income Tax Bill right the way through the Committee stage and the Supplementary Order Paper where it is warranted. New Zealand is very fortunate in so far as most people understand our tax laws to be fair. They understand that tax is something that must be paid for the betterment of society—we must have roads schools hospitals and all those forms of infrastructure— 
David Bennett 
: Baubles! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: No not baubles in actual fact but all the necessities of life. To hear the National Party members speak one would think that none of those things should be purchased and that none of those things are needed by society and that they in fact would not have income tax legislation. In fact most people see tax as fair as I said so we have a very high rate of compliance in New Zealand. When people try shall we say to mitigate their taxation they usually do it in a legal manner and in many cases the Inland Revenue Department invites them to have dialogue which I think is a marvellous thing so they can avoid tax in a lawful manner. 
From time to time holes that appear in the taxation system have to be plugged because technology moves on and case law moves on. Thus unintended consequences are taken of and they have been taken care of in this bill which seems like five bills but in fact is only one. So we in the select committee had a lot of discussion on where that was necessary and we understood that those things needed to be taken care of where they appeared. New Zealand First does not intend to get up at every chance and talk about this but we will be supporting this legislation right through the 4 hours to the end.
Hartley Ann: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Income Tax Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11271] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The House is in Committee for consideration of the Income Tax Bill. As determined by the Business Committee on 24 July 2007 there will be a single debate of 4 hours for the Committee stage of the bill.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:641;Page:11271] 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Commerce Committee 
: How many submissions have been received to date on the Regulatory Responsibility Bill and what is the timetable for the hearing of submissions? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): 
 I am informed that the Commerce Committee has received some 180 submissions and that the overwhelming majority of those submissions are in favour of the bill as was the case at the House vote when the bill was read for the first time. The select committee will set down a hearing programme that allows all those who want to be heard to be heard and expects to report the bill sometime in mid-November. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it too late for members of the public to make a submission to the Commerce Committee—would it be possible for the committee to receive those submissions? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The select committee’s deadline for submissions was 10 August so the official period has closed. However I am certain that should people wish to make a submission on this particular bill the committee would be prepared to at least receive those in the interim. One of the things that is striking about this bill is the overwhelming number of submissions in favour of it.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:641;Page:11270] 
12.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What action does the Government intend to take to improve regulation of the non-banking financial sector? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 In June this year I announced decisions arising from the extensive review of financial products and providers and financial intermediaries. Those decisions were to register all non-bank financial institutions strengthen the current model of trustee supervision strengthen the prudential regulation of non-bank deposit takers provide for more comprehensive regulatory oversight of financial intermediaries and provide for effective consumer dispute resolution and redress. 
Dave Hereora 
: Can the Minister confirm that this review is the last stage of an extensive programme of financial sector reforms? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes which is why it is important to continue the process that has been carefully developed with key stakeholders and that follows sound regulatory analysis and principles. However given the recent finance company failures I have asked my officials to examine whether there are any common threads in these failures and to see whether any intermediate steps can be taken to improve the regulatory environment in the interim. I am also discussing this issue this week with the head of the Securities Commission to ascertain whether she feels that the Securities Commission has sufficient powers along with the trustee companies that provide front-line supervision in light of these failures. 
Dave Hereora 
: Has the Minister seen the report in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning warning investors they need to do more homework before putting their money into finance companies; if so what is her response? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I have; I believe that the report contains very sensible advice including the kinds of questions that investors should ask their financial advisers such as whether they have read the prospectus why they are recommending this particular investment and what they know about the directors and financial management of the company. When we announced the decisions of the review of financial products and providers I made the point that some of the products on the market are mis-priced which means some investors do not realise the real level of risk they are taking with their hard-earned money. That is why asking these questions is so important.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:641;Page:11263] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek the House’s indulgence to leave this question to a time when the Minister of State Services may be available to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:641;Page:11262] 
6.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on new health initiatives which will benefit New Zealand children? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. Yesterday a comprehensive free health check for 4-year-olds began in Wanganui and today a second pilot begins in Counties Manukau. From February next year the roll-out will begin nationally. The Government’s aim is to have every 4-year-old child in this country ready and able to learn. 
Maryan Street 
: Is there any precedent for similar checks of New Zealand children? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Indeed there is. The first Labour Government introduced free comprehensive health checks for our children 60 years ago. Back then Labour was particularly looking for malnutrition amongst our children and children’s health camps were established in response to what was found. Today’s checks however are probably even more comprehensive. They involve hearing eyesight height weight oral health and so on as well as any behavioural issues or developmental concerns that parents might identify. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Will additional assistance be available for the parents of those children who are revealed during the course of the B4 School checks to have serious problems requiring specialist help? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes it will be available. Where necessary a child will be referred to a health service or to an education or social service. Indeed one of the reasons we are piloting this programme in Wanganui and Counties Manukau starting this week is to ensure we have sufficient capacity for such referrals. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has he received any reports about the likely health implications for New Zealand children of Chinese-made clothing some of which have been found to contain formaldehyde at levels far exceeding those that the World Health Organization says can cause eye skin and nasal irritations respiratory problems asthma and in the long-term cancer; if so what is his ministry doing to ensure that New Zealand children are not exposed to unsafe clothing? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have not received any formal reports on that issue in the last day. I have however read a report from Wayne Temple who heads up the Poisons Centre in Dunedin to the effect that formaldehyde in clothing is capable of causing a range of skin problems—dermatitis and the like—but is unlikely to be a source of respiratory or oncological problems.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:641;Page:11260] 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What action if any has she taken to combat red tape facing business and how is progress being measured? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 We commenced the Quality Regulation Review in May of 2006 as a result of a commitment to address regulatory barriers to business growth. There have been two milestone reports to Cabinet since then. This has been an extensive review which has included consultation with key stakeholders and interviews and forums around the country where we have listened to the concerns of business directly. The Government has already announced or implemented some of the red tape reduction measures that have arisen out of the review. However I am due to present the final report to Cabinet soon and I will be making announcements after that. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister believe that business does face a problem with high compliance costs and when does she think there will be some relief in sight—not reports or consultation but actual real relief in terms of costs facing business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: New Zealand actually ranks very well by comparison with other jurisdictions in terms of red tape. However I believe we can always do better. That is why we thought it was a good idea to go out and ask businesses what their concerns were and at the same time as asking them what the problems were ask them to identify solutions. That is why I think this has been the most effective review of red tape that this country has ever seen. 
Shane Jones 
: Where does New Zealand currently rank in terms of the World Bank’s survey of the ease of doing business and are there any improvements in the individual indices that may improve New Zealand’s ranking in the future? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: New Zealand ranks second only to Singapore in the survey and that may improve as a result of the combined online company registration and allocation of an IRD number which started last month. Sadly it was a month too late for this year’s survey but I raised it with the World Bank when I visited it recently and there may be reference in its next report to what it regards as good practice. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister really take comfort from that international survey and has she in her consultation trips around New Zealand come across any person in business who believes that it is easier to do business in New Zealand than anywhere else in the world other than Singapore? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Any small-business operator who has operated in any other jurisdiction certainly knows that. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the most recent and best example of excessive red tape and compliance costs—namely the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — People’s Republic of China—Education Science Culture and Public Health Committee National People’s Congress 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — People’s Republic of China—Education Science Culture and Public Health Committee National People’s Congress 
[Volume:641;Page:11253] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Education Science Culture and Public Health Committee from the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China led by Ms Zhu Lilan director of the committee are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Visitors — People’s Republic of China—Education Science Culture and Public Health Committee National People’s Congress 
Visitors — People’s Republic of China—Education Science Culture and Public Health Committee National People’s Congress 
[Volume:641;Page:11253] 
Tuesday 21 August 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
People’s Republic of China—Education Science Culture and Public Health Committee National People’s Congress 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Education Science Culture and Public Health Committee from the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China led by Ms Zhu Lilan director of the committee are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11901] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 44; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11891] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland 
Bill read a second time.
Turner Judy: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11882] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. A safe drinking-water supply is about as basic a human need as you can get and although currently 71 percent of the New Zealand population is served by a water supply that complies with some standards the rest are served by a water supply that is either non-compliant or not known to be compliant. The other 29 percent of the population in areas where suppliers are unable to substantiate the quality of the water they supply are largely living in small rural communities. 
To date we have been served by a voluntary regulatory scheme but that leaves nearly one-third of New Zealanders not covered by that scheme. How many New Zealanders who are reliant on uncertain water supplies I wonder does it take before we will support the type of change that we are looking at in the House this afternoon? The phase-in approach to a multifaceted strategy for improving risk management in regard to our drinking water is I believe the way that we can spread the cost but it concerns me that we should be weighing up water quality in mere monetary terms. Hearing some people suggest that we cannot afford it worries United Future. It is of concern that the burgeoning role of local government means that it baulks at the costs associated with drinking water and maybe that is a discussion for another day. United Future believes that we cannot afford not to plan for a future that includes clear drinking-water standards. 
Several years ago I was fortunate enough to attend an international conference in Viet Nam on water. I left with two clear impressions. My first impression was that we should be very grateful for what we have. Most of the countries at that particular conference talked about sharing water supplies with other countries literally upstream with different priorities and different standards. Often there were great tensions around the sharing of very very scarce water supplies. The second impression I came out of the conference with was that we should not take for granted this very basic resource which was described by many at the conference as the new gold and new oil. In fact international experts at that conference talked of future wars being waged over water not oil and they said that a sustainable healthy water supply needs to be deliberately planned for. 
I congratulate the Health Committee which United Future does not enjoy representation on on the sensible changes that I see it has made and on the collaborative way it has worked. We are very happy to support the second reading of this bill.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11867] 
12.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: What steps is the Government taking to grow the economic potential of New Zealand’s Pacific people? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Associate Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: Recently the Labour-led Government launched two new plans aimed at boosting the economic potential and prosperity of Pacific peoples in New Zealand. These plans involve a partnership with 25 Government agencies tertiary education providers and the private sector. The Pacific Economic Action Plan and the Pacific Women’s Economic Development Plan focus on key areas for real action including education; workforce development; business development; creative emerging and growth industries; entrepreneurial culture; and leadership. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What specifically is being done to lift the economic potential and prosperity of Pacific women? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: The Pacific Women’s Economic Development Plan focuses on key actions and milestones in the four areas of education workforce development business development and leadership. The aim is to boost the economic potential of our Pacific women through a series of actions. Examples include a mentor programme for top Pacific tertiary achievers; practical community training to upskill Pacific women workers to move out of traditional jobs such as cleaning; and proactive support and seminars for Pacific women to start and to develop new businesses. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Why are these plans to grow the economic potential of New Zealand’s Pacific people so necessary? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: Our Pacific people have made real gains under this Labour-led Government—there are more jobs less unemployment cheaper doctors’ visits more opportunities higher educational achievement better housing and more financial support today than under the National Government of the 1990s when our Pacific people suffered badly. We have made huge progress and we can do more. Our Pacific people especially our women are under-represented in leadership roles business ownership income levels and tertiary education. These plans aim to build on our achievements to date and use smart practical actions to drive our Pacific people and Pacific women towards full economic participation and success. 
John Hayes 
: I seek leave to table an email trail prepared by Pacific academics responding to the Government’s latest Pacific thought leaders conference. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11862] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that actually relates to the answers to question No. 2 which is the  
3 News 
 TNS poll of people’s views on climate change. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11860] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Question No. 7 was set down for the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. I note that the quote that is specifically used in the question “We have not grown our coal-fired power” is clearly recorded in  
Hansard 
 as being from the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. So I am surprised that the question has been redirected. The question specifically refers to the issue of the Government’s policy of carbon neutrality. I wish to be reassured that in my supplementary questions I will not be constrained as a consequence of the Government’s decision to divert the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point. As the member well knows it is within the discretion of the Government to decide to whom the question is assigned. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It must be simple; it is the same person. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That Minister well knows that Ministers will often duck questions simply because questions have not been set down for the right Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would we please just settle. Would the member ask the question without interruption.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:11859] 
6.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: What is the Government doing to promote physical activity among New Zealanders? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 This weekend kicks off a 7-week Push Play campaign targeting people who want to exercise more but who lead busy lives and do not know how to get going. The campaign provides Kiwis with an activity diary that will enable them to devise a plan that suits their lifestyle. They will receive support in emails from celebrities such TaweraNikau Maggie Barry and Robbie Magasiva. People who take part in Push Play Nation with be rewarded with health and will be entered to win prizes donated by the private sector. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister for Sport and Recreation tell the House whether he has seen any other proposals for promoting physical activity in this country? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen quite a few. I have seen some very active members including probably the best-looking 60-year-old in the House at the moment. My colleague Chris Finlayson was active this morning. But I have seen a report from the National Party which seems to think that junk food is an appropriate reward for enticement into sport. That is something I disagree with.
Wilson Margaret: Tabling of Documents — Parliamentary Rugby Trophy 
Wilson Margaret: Tabling of Documents — Parliamentary Rugby Trophy 
[Volume:642;Page:11853] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sure the Clerk will find a place for it up here on the Table. 
Question time resumed.
Tabling of Documents — Parliamentary Rugby Trophy 
Tabling of Documents — Parliamentary Rugby Trophy 
[Volume:642;Page:11853] 
Tabling of Documents 
Parliamentary Rugby Trophy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we have all seen the parliamentary rugby trophy handed to Damien O’Connor by Dover Samuels. Perhaps a notice of motion would have been a better way to do it. Would you please remove it. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I know this is unusual but I am sure the House would grant leave for that trophy to be tabled. 
Trophy by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sure the Clerk will find a place for it up here on the Table. 
Question time resumed.
Dunne Peter: Tabling of Documents — Parliamentary Rugby Trophy 
Dunne Peter: Tabling of Documents — Parliamentary Rugby Trophy 
[Volume:642;Page:11853] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I know this is unusual but I am sure the House would grant leave for that trophy to be tabled. 
Trophy by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Wilson Margaret: Tabling of Documents — Parliamentary Rugby Trophy 
Wilson Margaret: Tabling of Documents — Parliamentary Rugby Trophy 
[Volume:642;Page:11853] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we have all seen the parliamentary rugby trophy handed to Damien O’Connor by Dover Samuels. Perhaps a notice of motion would have been a better way to do it. Would you please remove it.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:642;Page:11851] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Property Law Bill and the Succession (Homicide) Bill and to the first readings of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Wednesday of course is a members’ day.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:642;Page:11851] 
Thursday 13 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Property Law Bill and the Succession (Homicide) Bill and to the first readings of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Wednesday of course is a members’ day.
Barker Rick: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11982] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Succession (Homicide) Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill flows from the Law Commission’s review of the well-established principle that a killer cannot inherit from his or her victim’s estate. The rule recognises that it would be repugnant to allow a killer to profit from his or her wrongdoing and addresses society’s condemnation of the prospect that a killer might benefit in that way. The Law Commission’s report was published as part of its broader examination of succession law which also gave rise to the recently passed Wills Bill. Following the Law Commission’s analysis of the general rule that a killer cannot benefit from his or her wrongdoing by inheriting from his or her victim the commission concluded that the rule was well accepted but that it was unclear how it should be applied in some cases. The commission recommended enacting legislation to clarify the general rule. The commission is an important law reform source and I thank it for its contribution. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee undertook a thorough and efficient analysis of the Succession (Homicide) Bill. The committee’s amendments to the bill take their lead from the commission’s original proposals and improve the bill’s operation while still being consistent with its underlying policies. I am grateful to the Justice and Electoral Committee and to submitters for their thoughtful consideration of and comment on the bill. The contributions which built on the work of the commission have been of real assistance in creating an effective statutory framework. 
 The bill has a number of important interrelationships with other statutes that affect the distribution of estates such as the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 and the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The committee made some important technical changes to the bill that will improve those interrelationships. The key principle of the bill is that a killer should not be allowed to benefit from his or her wrongdoing but neither should he or she be deprived of independent and pre-existing interests. The committee’s changes are consistent with those principles. The committee also improved the wording of certain provisions and the processes for establishing whether an alleged killer comes within the scope of this legislation. The bill helpfully clarifies how the general rule that prohibits a killer from benefiting from his or her victim’s death applies and that is commendable. The last thing a family needs while mourning the loss of their loved one is a legal debate over the distribution of the victim’s estate. The bill will reduce not only the number of disputes but also the scope of any disputes that do still arise. 
I commend this bill to the House.
Turner Judy: Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11980] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. I am a trustee for my mother’s financial affairs. Although that is actually different from an enduring power of attorney it is an interesting first step. 
Currently we the trustees advise my mother on the day-to-day management of her financial affairs always ensuring that she understands her options and ensuring that her wishes are met. This is not because she is unable to make decisions but like most people she likes to bounce her ideas off other people. This journey that we take together means that should she become less able or less competent we will hopefully shoulder additional responsibility well-versed in a clear knowledge of her preferences. My role is counterbalanced by other family members who are also trustees and by a trusted family accountant. 
However this very workable family arrangement does not clarify how we should act should our mother’s health and competence take a turn for the worse. The enduring power of attorney is a very deliberate and specific decision made by donors to empower those who are literally to take up their final say on matters related to their care and the use of their property. This bill strengthens the legal provisions that protect donors at a time when they are probably at their most vulnerable. This is the legal mechanism that one hopes never to have to use. 
United Future supports this third reading and in particular the greater accountability requirements for attorneys. Public education I think is an important next step after this bill becomes law. I think that the National member Judith Collins made reference to this in her speech and I agree with her on this. An enduring power of attorney is a significant option and the public need to be made aware of what this amended Act will now mean for them. Therefore United Future would like to encourage the Government to make this a priority. 
We happily support the bill’s passage and I would like to finish by commenting on how pleasant it has been to work on a bill that has enjoyed such general support. I thank all those who made submissions at the Social Services Committee and I also thank those who advised the committee. We are very happy to support this third reading.
Duynhoven Harry: Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Duynhoven Harry: Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:642;Page:11955] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I will continue a little bit from where I broke off when the House rose during my previous speech. As indicated in my second reading speech I introduced Supplementary Order Paper 140 to clarify that body-scanning technology which presents an unclothed image of specific passengers cannot be used. It is important to note that technology in this area is improving and developing quickly. Earlier versions of the technology showed detailed unclothed images of the passengers being screened. However with developments such detailed images are now less likely to be produced. Manufacturers of the technology are aware of the privacy and dignity issues. Therefore solutions have been developed that achieve the necessary security outcomes while still maintaining the privacy of passengers. It is important that legislation preserves the privacy and dignity of passengers by not allowing technology that presents a detailed unclothed image of a specific passenger. That is why I introduced a Supplementary Order Paper which all parties in the House supported. 
There are currently no inflight security officer programmes in other countries in which the officers do not have a firearm capability. If New Zealand were to use unarmed inflight security officers I would expect that other countries would not see those measures as being adequate. Further if New Zealand were to require that foreign inflight security officers must be unarmed this could raise objections and problems with our air services agreements which enable us to fly to other countries and with our obligations to consider security requests from those countries. This would likely result in the cancellation of flights to those countries and would question the integrity of New Zealand’s aviation security. The parties in the House recognise that although the intentions behind Mr Locke’s proposed amendments were genuine it would be impracticable for us to adopt them. His proposed amendments were therefore defeated. 
I would like to offer my thanks to the Ministry of Transport the Civil Aviation Authority the Aviation Security Service the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Justice which have all contributed a great deal of hard work and expertise towards the legislation. Finally I would like to thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its work on the legislation especially the input of the Hon Mark Gosche who chaired the committee. I am also thankful for the support of most parties in the House for what I believe is important and necessary legislation. I commend the Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.
Roy Eric: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11952] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I just want to pick up on a matter that none of the speakers so far has talked about. In doing so I also want to demonstrate a level of statesmanship to the Minister in this whole situation.  
I refer to this whole cost compliance thing. One of the submissions that the Primary Production Committee received quite a bit of pressure on arose over the matter of why there are two standards for what are called finished-dose medicines. A lot of the remedies we use for animals are exactly the same as those used for humans particularly in the area of antibiotics. Antibiotics used for stabbing into people require a very high level of regulatory approval. The safety assurance around that is high. Then the question arises—and it was asked by the submitters—as to why we have to go through a whole new range of regulatory processes such as those under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act for something that has already been approved for use on humans when we just want to use it on animals. Most people would think that a higher level was being required for something that was of a lesser status.  
The answer is quite simple. Again just to show a little bit of the complexity around the whole thing we consume animals and the impact when these remedies are ingested might be quite different from when they are applied as a medicine in whatever form—be it a pill or an injection subcutaneously intravenously intramuscularly or whatever. What we actually want some assurances around is knowing exactly what the impact is when these are applied to an animal what the withholding periods are and all of those things. That is why there is in some ways a higher test for animals than there is for humans. So in not short-circuiting that we are recognising the assurance aspect that we want to give to animal compounds particularly in the medicinal area when finished-dose medicines are used. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Choudhary Ashraf: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Choudhary Ashraf: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11949] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill in a very brief call. This is a bill that is supported by almost all parties I think and it is a very good bill. The Primary Production Committee did a lot of work on it. Frankly I was delighted with the amount of work the committee did in improving the original bill. It has made it much more user-friendly if you like.  
This is a bill about risk management in the use of pesticides and chemicals in the farming and forestry industries. It is very important that it is approved particularly—as the member on the other side said—in times of an expanding dairy industry when I assume there will be the additional use of chemicals and pesticides. So we have to be very careful that these chemicals that are used on our farms are used in a proper and appropriate way without causing any risks. 
This industry which is worth almost $400 million covers about 1000 pesticides and a couple of thousand other chemicals and compounds. It is important that all these chemicals compounds and veterinary medicines are covered in a proper way and that their use is safe so that they do not cause any risks to human and animal health. I am particularly pleased that this bill is ensuring that compliance costs hopefully are going to decrease. I am quite confident it will actually decrease the compliance costs and also that the regulatory control is in line with the risk management.  
With those brief words I commend this bill to the Committee.
Duynhoven Harry: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11944] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 It is a privilege to follow Ms Dean because she is the lady who has just given us a speech about— 
Jacqui Dean 
: An excellent speech. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: She says it was an excellent speech. She said she wanted to ensure that water is provided for everybody yet just a little while ago she was writing to the Minister asking for the banning of dihydrogen monoxide—that terrible substance! I tell the member that our view of water—H2O—is about ensuring that the water provided to the people of New Zealand is safe for them to drink. That is what this bill is about.  
Ms Dean went on to mention grace and favour—which was also mentioned by the speaker preceding her Mr Ryall—and she actually said she did not know what “grace and favour” meant. What I was responding to was the sort of goodwill supply that her colleague Tony Ryall was talking about. He said it might be a neighbour providing water to another neighbour from a bore for perhaps a couple of bottles of wine a year or something like that. 
I said to Mr Ryall that if it was contracted then obviously there is a requirement in the contract for the quality of the water. If it is a grace and favour supply where there is no contract but someone gives the supplier something such as a bottle of wine or a dozen beer for the privilege of sharing the water then that is a very different arrangement. That is a goodwill type supply it is for fewer than 16 permanent residents and most of the provisions of the bill do not apply. They are covered by the Building Act of course but that is about all. 
This bill is about providing quality water for the people of New Zealand. Although National has spoken a lot about the costs of providing a quality water-supply we have not heard about the costs when the supply is not of sufficient quality for human consumption. I think that is the nub of the issue.