edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
McClay Todd: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
McClay Todd: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13386] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill. I believe this is a very important bill before the House. A number of previous speakers have raised the issue of the work the previous Labour Government did in trade. I think it is very important to clarify for a moment that with the exception of one all parties in this Parliament have generally been in favour of trade free-trade agreements and the promotion of New Zealand businesses and their interests overseas. It is important we recognise at the forefront that the previous Government held trade as a priority. Where that priority fell down for our exporters in New Zealand was the speed with which the previous Government was able to get results from the rhetoric of Cabinet where somebody would say in a very deep voice that it would be a very good idea to have more trade with countries overseas and a trade Minister would say in a squeaky voice that he or she would go overseas to have a look and see whether he or she could do some trade-agreement deals. Of course 9 years later very few agreements were in place but the system was started by at least one or two of the members opposite. 
Who has delivered on this legislation? We have heard some analogies of rugby and I would suggest that in some years to come when we think of that wonderful game of rugby that happened in South Africa the other day it will be the last 3 minutes that will be remembered. Of course there was a lot of very hard work in the lead-up to the half-hour before that but the last 3 minutes were when the tries were scored and it was our hard-working Minister of Trade Tim Groser who earlier this year on 29 March was able to make sure this agreement was signed. Five short months later this agreement is about to enter into law in New Zealand. 
It will be good for our exporters for the people in forestry and certainly for farmers. In my electorate the kiwifruit producers and orchardists think it is a wonderful thing. People in my electorate and in other members’ electorates who like to buy goods that are imported from overseas will enjoy the benefits that this agreement will deliver to them. 
I support this bill fully and look forward to diving into it in greater depth in the Committee of the whole House. Thank you.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13354] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 156/3 which states: “When a question is based on a quotation or excerpt from a newspaper article the excerpt must be correct or if the report is paraphrased in the question the paraphrase must be a fair one.” The statement that I made which was paraphrased by the Leader of the Opposition— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What was the Standing Order? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Speaker’s ruling 156/3. The quotation that was paraphrased by the Leader of the Opposition I made in relation to GST at the time and it was that we have one of the lowest GST rates. I have proven absolutely that that is correct. The member is now trying to change that and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the right honourable Prime Minister to resume his seat because what he is now doing is debating this issue. The Standing Orders cannot be used to debate the issue. I think the members have made their points perfectly clear through the documents that have been tabled. The right honourable Prime Minister sought leave to table a document that showed relative GST rates approval was given and I think the document confirms the point that he was making. The honourable Leader of the Opposition sought leave to table a document that compiled GST data in terms of percentage of GDP and leave was granted for that document to be tabled. The public has heard the exchange and I think they realise the difference in points between percentage of GDP and actual GST rates. I do not think there is any great difficulty here. All I would ask is that for question time to be most effective questions need to be more direct. Political statements are strictly out of order but I do not intervene all the time because I do not want to be disrupting question time in the way I have done today which I regret very much. I do not want to be doing that. But it is in the hands of Ministers. Ministers can hear when a question is a political statement and they know I am not going to do much about the answer. But when a straight clear question is asked that is a different matter. I do not think we need to take the matter any further today.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13354] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a document showing consumption taxes as a percentage of GDP in OECD nations 2007. It was compiled in my office from 2009 OECD revenue statistics. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This document was compiled in the office of the honourable Leader of the Opposition using OECD statistics. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
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:666;Page:13354] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I realise that but it is relatively important. Would it be then an acceptable answer for a Minister to say “I cannot verify the quote.”? That is the situation that Ministers are left in. No Minister let alone the Prime Minister who is constantly making public statements about a range of things—as you would except the Prime Minister to do—knows at all times exactly what the context was of the quote that is being put to him. I think the proposal that the Hon Darren Hughes put forward gets to the level of being ridiculous—that we have to start dissecting this issue through letters to the Speaker for goodness’ sake! I think the problem becomes that where Ministers have been confronted with quotes that are out of context and perhaps even off the topic there is still insistence from the Chair that the question be answered. That I think gets to the difficulty of it. If it is acceptable for Ministers to say that they cannot— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have heard sufficient on this. I would be interested in checking the record today. I do not believe that I have insisted that any Minister answer a question today that contained a quote. I have made it very clear that I do not insist on any particular answer from Ministers where opinions are being sought. I accept that this is always going to be a slightly tricky issue but it is not too difficult. 
Members are perfectly at liberty to include what they believe is a quote in a supplementary question as long as it is crucial to the question being asked not just an additional injection of a statement into the question. As long as it is fundamental to the question being asked they are perfectly at liberty to do that and the Minister being questioned is perfectly at liberty to dispute the quote. That is the risk that members take when they include a quote in a supplementary question that has not been validated; they risk a Minister in responding simply disputing the quote which is a perfectly fair answer to the question. I do not see any great difficulty here. 
I do not think I have put Ministers under undue pressure at all to answer any questions today; if anything I would not be surprised if the members of the Opposition feel that the Speaker was a bit hard on them today. But I do not resile from what I have said. I have heard too many questions today that were simply a quite convoluted political statement rather than a real question. Members need to reflect on that. If they want the Speaker’s assistance in getting answers to questions I will help them when they ask a simple clear hard question but I cannot assist when the questions contain quotes or are convoluted questions seeking opinions and making political statements. I think we are ready to move on.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13353] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Sure. There are two points. Firstly the Prime Minister makes a personal reflection on another member of the House—[ 
Interruption 
]—by saying as he has done by way point of order that a member— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not going to help and members will not interject. That is not going to help the order of the House. The Prime Minister has raised something that he feels quite concerned about. I do accept that it is an issue of order because if quotes are used in supplementary questions and Ministers feel they are being used improperly that I guess can lead to disorder. But having said that I must say that when a question contains a quote the Minister gets the final word in answering the question and has the chance to point out that the quote is inaccurate. That is a perfectly good answer to a question that contains a quote—to point out that the quote is selective or is not reflecting the point being made when the statement was made by the Minister. It is a perfectly fair answer to such a question. 
I do not think I have been unduly hard on Government Ministers answering questions today; if anything I have been quite hard on Opposition members over the quality of questions asked where they have sought my assistance and I have not insisted on any particular answers. I feel that today no one could argue that I have been unduly harsh on Ministers by expecting any particular answer; if anything I have been the other way. If the Hon Darren Hughes has a further point I will hear it. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The second point is on the point the Prime Minister raised about supplementary questions. As you know the point the Prime Minister made is often a point the Opposition feels. We do not see information given by way of answer to a supplementary question as full or consistent with previous answers or accurate in respect of the primary question. We have written letters to you alleging a breach of privilege on those matters that have taken place in answers to supplementary questions. So it is completely open to the Prime Minister: if he believes that the words that have been quoted are not his then he can write to you—go down the privilege line—that a member is alleging that he said words that he did not say. Then it will be up to the questioner to supply the actual quote that has John Key’s words in it and it will be up to John Key as the person alleging a breach of privilege to show that he is not the person responsible for that quote. That seems to be quite a simple way forward. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I do not want to take too much time on this.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13353] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was not a primary question. If it had been a primary question that would be absolutely fine. What the member is doing is in supplementary questions providing quotes that are inaccurate and you Mr Speaker then make me answer those questions and rightfully so. But if the member is not providing proper quotes I cannot be expected to answer things that are actually inaccurate. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes briefly but I do not want to hear too much argument.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13361] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I was challenged before as to whether my quote was correct in that the Prime Minister said tax on consumption was at a relatively low rate. I seek leave to table the document where he said that. By the way this is his statement to Parliament.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:666;Page:13375] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 25 August and on Thursday 26 August and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372 notwithstanding that the House is sitting under urgency. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection.
Burns Brendon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Burns Brendon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13362] 
12. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why is he seeking the views of Christchurch households on the abolition of Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors when this was done 5 months ago? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Because I am interested in their views on what they see as the most topical issues from Environment Canterbury’s directors. 
Brendon Burns 
: What is the cost of the pamphlet and given that taxpayers are funding it are they better to return their answers to MPs who have always opposed the Environment Canterbury legislation? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Seeing it is paid out of the leader’s budget I have no ministerial responsibility for that. 
Brendon Burns 
: When the Prime Minister tells Cantabrians in the pamphlet that they should be able to drink from their aquifers and swim and fish in their rivers lakes and streams is that before or after the new irrigation schemes he wants in place in Canterbury next year—before any new environmental controls can be put in place? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We would like to see that as soon as possible. That is why we are doing something about the failure over the 19 years that Environment Canterbury had to get an operative water plan. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that the people of Canterbury would have felt more consulted if he had asked them how they felt about it before he fired the elected councillors of Environment Canterbury under parliamentary urgency rather than asking them 5 months later? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think that Cantabrians support the moves by the Government and that is why over 55 percent of people in a recent poll gave that view. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek leave to table the pamphlet from the Prime Minister sent to more than 100000 Christchurch homes which includes a question on new elections for Environment Canterbury. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill in my name to be introduced and set down as a members’ order of the day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13352] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier in my replies to questions today I raised an issue with the Leader of the Opposition who has come into the House with unsubstantiated quotes. The quote that I gave which I have now checked is in— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Even the Prime Minister cannot litigate an issue by way of point of order. I sense that the right honourable Prime Minister is seeking by way of point of order to debate an issue with the Leader of the Opposition. He cannot do that. No one in this House can do that. That is not a matter of order; that is a matter of what took place during an exchange during question time and a point of order is not the way to deal with it. The right honourable Prime Minister has two options: he can make a ministerial statement which is debatable or if the matter reflects on him personally he can seek leave to make a personal explanation. But no member can litigate an issue by way of point of order. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling Mr Speaker. What I am saying—and I think it is a point you might reflect on—is that the Leader of the Opposition has got into the habit of coming to the House with theoretical quotes. He does not have them in writing and cannot produce them and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The right honourable Prime Minister must resume his seat. [ 
Interruption 
] Was that a Ngapuhi war cry? The right honourable Prime Minister must accept the Standing Orders of the House. Any quote contained in a question of a member has been validated by the Clerk’s Office. Although I accept that sometimes the quotes may be a short part of a longer passage where the quote is contained in a question the Minister—as I have heard the right honourable Prime Minister do—in answering the question can point out the rest of the quote and where he or she disagrees with the way in which the quote has been interpreted. But we cannot litigate it in this House. What I would accept is that if the right honourable Prime Minister is saying that the Speaker—and the Speaker is ultimately responsible for this—has failed to properly validate a question then I am prepared to look at the particular question and I apologise in advance if I have failed to have a question properly validated. As for points of order beyond that I am very happy to look at a question if the Prime Minister wishes me to look at a particular question but members should not be debating across the House whether a member has used a quote correctly. It is the responsibility of my office to make sure that any quote contained in a question is correct.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13352] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 My apologies for coming back to this issue so late but it took a few moments to get the data. I seek leave to table the OECD chart listing where New Zealand now ranks in terms of GST. Of the 29 countries in the OECD that are reported on for GST New Zealand is 21st—in other words there are 28 countries above us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House has got enough information. I say to the right honourable Prime Minister that when seeking leave to table a document the entire document is not read out. Leave is being sought— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification as to the nature of the document. Does it show GST as a percentage of GDP? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the right honourable Prime Minister to reply. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. It is the rate—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the right honourable Prime Minister. I extended to the Leader of the Opposition the courtesy of allowing him under a point of order to seek clarification as to the document. That outburst from the Labour front benches was unacceptable. The Speaker has measures available to sort this place out if he needs to and I will not be backward in using them if I have to. The House has been unacceptably disorderly today. The Prime Minister has sought leave to table that document? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I seek leave for that to happen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13351] 
7. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How will changes made last year to the Resource Management Act 1991 help the efficient processing of consents for major transport and electricity infrastructure? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The national consenting option provided in the first phase of the Government’s resource management reforms is attracting high levels of interest. The process has the advantage of being a single robust process overseen by the new Environmental Protection Authority. It has a board chaired by an Environment Court judge and up to four specialist members with skills relevant to the application. The one-step process requires a decision within 9 months with limited appeal rights. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What significant applications have been lodged with the new Environment Protection Authority; and is the Minister aware of other projects being considered for the streamlined process? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Environment Protection Authority has received two major applications: Contact Energy’s $1 billion Tauhara 2 geothermal station near Taupo in February; and Auckland’s $2 billion Waterview Connection on State Highway 20 last Friday. The Environment Protection Authority has also been in dialogue on six other major infrastructure projects that are likely to be lodged over the next year including Transmission Gully in Wellington and the Christchurch Southern Motorway. The expected total investment being considered under the streamlined process during this term of Parliament will involve infrastructure worth over $6 billion. It is an important part of the Government’s economic and job strategy that these are processed efficiently. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Has the Minister seen reports of the drawn-out resource consent processing that took 15 years in the case of the Wellington Inner City Bypass 12 years in the case of the Whangamata marina 10 years in the case of the Northern Gateway motorway and 6 years in the case of the Wairakei geothermal expansion; and what reports has he seen on actions taken during the last decade to address these obvious problems? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have and both the environment and the economy were the losers from those delays. For instance the 6-year delay from 2001 to 2007 in consenting the Wairakei Power Station contributed to the record high burning of coal at Huntly to generate the necessary electricity. Equally so the delays with the Wellington Inner City Bypass and the Northern Gateway project resulted in years of additional congestion with extra unnecessary emissions and the loss of economic efficiency. No attempt was made to fix these delays during the previous 9 years.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13348] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to have my question held over until the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett is in the House to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13363] 
2. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: How many submissions did the committee both receive and hear on the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill that related to the provisions for local alcohol plans and parental consent being required for supplying alcohol to under-18-year-olds? 
CHESTER BORROWS (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): 
 Of the submissions received and heard by the committee approximately 59 related to local alcohol plans and approximately 35 related to parental consent for supplying alcohol to under-18-year-olds. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Have the submitters been informed of the Government’s intention to replace the bill altogether with its own bill; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That would be a matter for the committee; it is not a matter for the chair. The Standing Orders on questions to members who are chairs of committees are very narrow. Questions can relate to matters such as when the bill will be reported back but decisions of the committee are not matters for the chair.
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Corrections 
Smith Lockwood: Voting — Corrections 
[Volume:666;Page:13339] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members the result of the vote on the question for the first reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) was incorrectly announced as Ayes 64 Noes 57. The correct result is Ayes 64 and Noes 56. Further the result of the vote on the motion to refer the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee was also incorrectly announced as Ayes 69 and Noes 52. The correct result is Ayes 68 and Noes 52. The record will be corrected in both cases.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:666;Page:13374] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill and the Taxation (Annual Rates Trans-Tasman Savings Portability KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill; the first readings of the Legal Services Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill and the Insolvency Practitioners Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Limitation Bill the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill and the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill and any bills into which any of those bills may be divided; the first reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill; and the second reading and remaining stages of the Inquiries Bill.  
Urgency is being moved in order to gain extra sitting hours so that the House might be able to deal with a range of Government business where there is essentially quite a large amount of support from other parties in the House beyond those that are just part of the Government confidence and supply arrangements. 
Periodically the Order Paper will be crammed up with legislative requirements that the wider number of people in the House can support. In the end the orderly function of the House is assisted as the year progresses by occasionally having an extension of hours. I point to Government notice of motion No. 2 on the Order Paper where there has been an expression of desire by the Government to get more hours. I accept that for Opposition parties granting the extension of hours is quite an extraordinary thing. So we have developed a practice in this Parliament of notifying well in advance of when we intend to take urgency for this type of motion—a motion that has a number of bills well supported. How far we get through that motion is a matter for discussion. With those brief explanations I put the motion. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry I apologise to the Leader of the House if I missed this: did he confirm that we would be having question time each day? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It comes after. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Urgent Debates Declined — Pacific Economic Development Agency—Calls for Bids for Funding 
Urgent Debates Declined — Pacific Economic Development Agency—Calls for Bids for Funding 
[Volume:666;Page:13364] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Pacific Economic Development Agency—Calls for Bids for Funding 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Su’a William Sio seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement from the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs that a range of organisations will now be asked to bid for the $4.8 million that was specifically earmarked in this year’s Budget for the Pacific Economic Development Agency. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. There must however be an element of urgency for a matter to take precedence over other business. The announcement today is part of a continuing process. Organisations have been asked to submit tenders but no final decision has yet been made by the Government. I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter is one that can be considered over a longer time frame. The application is therefore declined.
Voting — Corrections 
Voting — Corrections 
[Volume:666;Page:13339] 
Tuesday 24 August 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Voting 
Corrections 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members the result of the vote on the question for the first reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) was incorrectly announced as Ayes 64 Noes 57. The correct result is Ayes 64 and Noes 56. Further the result of the vote on the motion to refer the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee was also incorrectly announced as Ayes 69 and Noes 52. The correct result is Ayes 68 and Noes 52. The record will be corrected in both cases.
Carter John: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12650] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Commerce Committee consider the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 22 November 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).  
Motion agreed to.
Goudie Sandra: Food Bill — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Food Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12624] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Food Bill. For the edification of Miss Kedgley from the Greens I say that this bill will make it easier for food businesses to understand how safe food needs to be produced—and that is exactly as it should be—with the least amount of bureaucracy and red tape to do that. 
I note that a hangi takeaway has just popped up in one of the bypasses of my electorate. I applaud that entrepreneurial spirit and hope that that takeaway’s owners did not have to jump through too many hoops to set themselves up as one of the many food businesses throughout New Zealand. 
I remind people that this Food Act has not been updated for 30 years and our current regulatory system is not as effective and as efficient as it could be. That is something that has been said time and time again throughout New Zealand by all sorts of people who want to do things within their communities. One of the keys things as Ashraf Choudhary said is that we do not want to penalise or obstruct in any way the community-based fund-raising activities like cake stalls or sausage sizzles which are a big part of many communities’ fund-raising efforts. I know that many share the same sentiment which is that none of us would like to see those efforts impeded in any way as we all enjoy backing our schools and communities in those events. 
One of the other areas mentioned is our export and our import sector. Shane Ardern made a great contribution on that so I will not speak for any length about that aspect of the legislation. 
The Food Act 1981 and its subordinate legislation particularly the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 have led to inconsistencies in application across New Zealand. This is a wonderful opportunity to deal with those inconsistencies together and have much more comprehensive legislation dealing with all of those matters that have been raised in particular the issue of not penalising the efforts of our small communities in trying to ensure that we have safe food production in our large commercial enterprises.
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — First Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12649] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Bennett David: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — First Reading 
Bennett David: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12645] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 When we look at the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill we see that it reflects a lot of the sentiment that the ACT Party has been pushing and that is part of the coalition agreement. 
I want to counter a few of the comments made by the previous speaker David Parker who said an absolute load of rubbish in this House. If anybody in the country needs a lesson on economics it is those Labour Party members. They put us in the hole before the rest of the world and in a bigger hole than the rest of the world. Now it is up to us to try to get us out of that hole. 
The Productivity Commission would have been great when Labour was in Government because it would have told Labour how stupid its ideas were about what it was investing in and what it was doing. It would have achieved its purpose best under the previous Labour Government because under a National Government we will potentially not have the degree of economic decline that we had under Labour with its way of mismanaging the economy. 
The previous speaker said that we will not get to where Australia is on the basis of extractive industries. What is the Australian economy built on? It is built on mining which is an extractive industry. What is the New Zealand economy built on? It is built on agriculture which is an extractive industry. We will get there on the basis of extractive industries. 
The Labour Party looks to some God-like company that will be founded in New Zealand and provide some kind of technology or visionary thing that will change the world and it will all be based in New Zealand. I tell Labour to get in the real world. When one earns money one earns it through hard work and doing the basics right. New Zealand does the basics right in agriculture. We do it well we do it with technology and nobody else can compete with us at this stage. That is how we will make money. It is not made by dreaming that something will happen. Nobody in the Labour Party has ever made any money anyway so Labour would not know what it is like to go out there earn something and try to build a country or an economy. That is the basis of it. 
The Productivity Commission is an idea that has been formulated. It is similar to what is in Australia. Its main functions will include inquiries into productivity-related matters and reports back to Ministers; one-off reviews of existing regulations; reviews of the efficiency and effectiveness of regulatory agencies; regulatory impact analyses of a small number of proposed new regulations; research into productivity-related matters to build up institutional knowledge; and promoting public understanding of productivity-related issues. Those are some very strong functions and broad aspects that this Productivity Commission will be engaged in. 
We look forward to the bill’s progress through this House and its implementation in the New Zealand economy. Thank you.
Goodhew Jo: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12642] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take what I can assure my colleague on the other side of the House will be just a brief call on the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill. The commission will be an independent Crown entity with the purpose not surprisingly of improving productivity but in both the private and public sectors and improving the overall well-being of New Zealanders. 
What underpins this bill is an awful lot about what National is all about. National is working hard to secure a brighter future for all New Zealanders and by golly we got that mandate at the last election. We are focusing on lifting long-term economic growth to create jobs boost incomes raise living standards and provide world-class public services to Kiwi families who deserve nothing less. We want to ensure that growth is based on private sector investment and exports rather than unsustainable increases in Government spending and borrowing such as those we saw over the last decade. 
This bill is but one of a number of tools in the tool kit that the National-led Government has to achieve its goals to deliver a better future for New Zealanders and we are very happy to be working with coalition confidence and supply partners towards this end. “Productivity” is an oft-used word and sometimes I worry that when we say to New Zealanders that we intend to improve productivity they worry that we are simply telling them to work harder and work longer hours. That is of course not the case. We are saying to New Zealanders who already work well work long hours and work hard that we want to find ways for New Zealand to become more productive and for New Zealanders to take home a higher wage or salary. 
So without any further ado I commend this bill to the House. I know that other members have contributions to make as well and I am looking forward to this bill being as I have already said one more tool in our tool kit. Thank you.
Harawira Hone: Food Bill — First Reading 
Harawira Hone: Food Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:12624] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 From what I can tell this Food Bill talks about defining what is and what is not food—apparently cookware is not food. As if we needed to come to Parliament to find that out! It talks about establishing steps in the food safety chain it talks about providing greater consumer protection and it talks about promoting the positive endorsement of food safety—all of which should benefit New Zealanders both Maori and non-Maori on marae in homes and community facilities and in businesses right throughout the country. But I note from the comments from Sue Kedgley of the Green Party in particular that the bill still leaves a lot of questions about imports and standards unanswered. The Maori Party will support this bill at its first reading. We will watch for comments and submissions on the bill during the select committee process.
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12613] 
11. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: How much funding has been granted to date under the Biodiesel Grants Scheme and is he satisfied with the scheme’s progress? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 So far the figure granted is $230332. I do not want to express either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that. Rather I wish to express my profound disappointment that an industry that promised so much has delivered so little despite such an extraordinary available subsidy. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How many of the 240 jobs he claimed in May last year would be created by the Biodiesel Grants Scheme have actually eventuated particularly given that only five companies have signed up for the scheme no new companies have signed up since July last year and less than $230000 of the $36 million has actually been taken up? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: As I said I am extremely disappointed by the failure of this industry to respond to the Government’s stimulus. I think the fact that it has failed serves as testimony to the mistruths put in front of this House by the member and his colleagues. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House that there is no doubt that biofuels will play a big part in our energy mix in the future; if so what is his response to Ecodiesel chairperson— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. Whoever interjected just then is lucky; I could not see who it was. All of us at times get a frog in our throats and lose our voices. I invite the member to have a drink of water and I invite members to give him a reasonable chance to ask his question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House that there is no doubt that biofuels will play a big part in our energy mix in the future; if so what is his response to Ecodiesel chairperson Lindsay Fergusson’s comment that the scheme will work only for small-scale producers and those who “are not the future of the bio-diesel industry in New Zealand.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I stand by my statement that bio-diesel will play a bigger role in the future simply because I think that that is what will happen. I do not put a time frame on that. The reality is that if people do not buy the product we cannot sell it. That is the problem the industry has. It has failed to sell the product. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why should the public of New Zealand have any confidence in anything that this Minister says when his Biodiesel Grants Scheme has been a total flop the revised Energy Strategy he has been promising for 18 months has not eventuated his Electricity Industry Bill has been panned by critics and his plan to mine national parks has been left in tatters; or is this just the usual standard of ministerial performance people can expect under a National Government? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the crackly voice performance we heard from the member before indicates that he is a very young man and none of what he said is true.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12610] 
8. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: How many on-the-spot police safety orders for victims of domestic violence have been issued since the Government’s amendments to the Domestic Violence Act came into force on 1 July 2010? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am advised that between 1 and 21 July the police issued 198 safety orders. These orders give the police the power to remove a potentially violent person from the home for up to 5 days in situations where there are no immediate grounds for arrest but where in their judgment there is a likelihood of further violence occurring. I see these orders as being a vital tool because they are designed to stop domestic violence from escalating and they tackle the problem before it could be too late. 
Chester Borrows 
: How many police safety orders have been breached so far? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Sixteen of the 198 police safety orders issued since 1 July have been breached. That means that to date in 92 percent of cases the orders are working as intended. I would like to make it clear that any breach is serious and unacceptable. However I am confident that these orders will continue to be vigilantly policed. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. Is the Minister concerned that the Ministry of Justice is not able to provide statistics on domestic violence perpetrators who have been issued with protection orders more than once and that victims of domestic violence have to pay for their protection orders? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The original question was about police safety orders not protection orders. The two are different. But I am happy to take the member’s question and look more closely at it.
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12608] 
6. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: How will the Government’s procurement reforms provide value for money? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced the awarding of the first of a series of State sector - wide contracts with more to come into effect progressively during July. This will create great value for money and will save the taxpayer millions of dollars. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What is the targeted saving to the Government once the first four contracts are in place? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Once all of the contracts are in place they are expected to save more than $115 million over the next 5 years. This harnesses the collective buying power of the whole of the State sector. The benefit to the Government and to taxpayers will be significant gaining the best value for money. 
Clare Curran 
: What process did he use to ensure that New Zealand - owned companies were given full consideration as part of the tendering process? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am confident that the department has used appropriate tendering procedures to ensure that New Zealand manufacturers had a fair go. But I would say that if the member can show me that she uses New Zealand - manufactured computers laptops single multifunctional printing devices photocopiers printers passenger vehicles—which I understand have not been produced in New Zealand for some years now—and office consumerables then I would be interested to know.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12607] 
4. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: What recent announcements has he made about aquaculture? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 The Government has today announced further steps of aquaculture reform which is a key priority for our economic growth agenda. These decisions will boost aquaculture’s potential to reach the industry’s goal of $1 billion in annual sales by 2025. They are about enabling the sustainable use of our natural resources to build the economy to create new jobs and to get more people into work especially in the regions. I thank the Ministry of Economic Development for working with the Ministry of Fisheries on this matter. 
Shane Ardern 
: What does this mean for the current backlog of existing aquaculture applications? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Currently more than 60 applications relating to an area exceeding 8000 hectares are awaiting a decision. Under the previous Government they were waiting waiting and waiting. But now we will see those applications progress. This reform will effectively free-up the bottleneck that kept the industry’s growth in limbo for many many years while the previous Government talked talked and talked.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:665;Page:12603] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 On the question of the latter I would expect some amendments to that Act to be introduced later in the year. On the question of the former work is proceeding.