edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:644;Page:13633] 
1. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received regarding the number of New Zealanders receiving an unemployment benefit? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am delighted to report to the House that the number of New Zealanders receiving an unemployment benefit is at its lowest since 1979. Our Government has invested in New Zealanders. We have rebuilt the tax credit system to make work pay and we are providing active support to help people find jobs. More than 141000 people have come off an unemployment benefit since 1999 which is a decrease of 88 percent. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What progress has been made in reducing the number of young people receiving the unemployment benefit for long periods of time? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Great progress. Five years ago our Government made a commitment with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs to ensure that all young New Zealanders are on a clear pathway to economic independence and well-being. That collaborative effort has resulted in a tremendous achievement. This week fewer than 250 18 and 19-year-olds have been on an unemployment benefit for longer than 13 weeks. That is a drop of 97 percent since December 1999. This afternoon my colleagues and I will meet with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs to look at our next challenge. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Are people leaving the unemployment benefit only by simply transferring to sickness or invalids benefits? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The answer is no. The reason that most people leave the unemployment benefit is to enter paid employment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is impossible to hear the Minister’s reply. I ask the Hon Ruth Dyson to please start again. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The answer is no. Most people leave the unemployment benefit to enter paid work. Only 8.5 percent of all unemployment benefit cancellations between September 1999 and September of this year have been as a result of transfers to the sickness benefit. Over the same period 60000 people went the other way. That makes a net transfer of 31000. One-third of 1 percent of unemployment benefit cancellations over the same period were as a result of a transfer to an invalids benefit; and over the same period 450 went the other way. That makes a net transfer of just 2850. The combination of those two factors is nothing like the 141000 people who are no longer dependent on the unemployment benefit.
Finlayson Christopher: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13878] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will be brief because I think the position of the National Party is reasonably clear. We will not be supporting this legislation. 
I begin my speech by referring to what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said on 19 December 1990 when he was the Minister of Maori Affairs and was introducing the Runanga Iwi Act Repeal Bill. He said: “Maoridom today needs policies based on the future and not on some dream-time imagery in the minds of cultural fellow travellers and social engineers.” All I would say is “Amen to that.” [ 
Interruption 
] It is a shame that Mr Donnelly does not understand that as he lapses in the closing stages of this career into political correctness. 
National opposes this legislation for a number of reasons. First we ask: why the urgency? We received a briefing on this bill some months ago so why the rush at the end of the year? A very important question—and one should always ask it in relation to any legislation—is whether the legislation is necessary. Labour Ministers never stop to ask this basic question nor do they ever ask themselves whether a particular issue is already covered by a statute. 
Debate interrupted.
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13873] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I offer my sincere apologies. I must have been away that day.
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13873] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Brownlee I have ruled on the matter. The call is going to Judy Turner. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is OK but I have a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a different point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is a point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. You cannot ask me to indicate what my point of order is then decide whether it is a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I am not going to take another point of order from you on the point of order that I have already ruled on which concerned the speaking order. That is how it is. I have given the call correctly in terms of the Standing Orders.
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13873] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I fully accept that you have made a determination and that that is what will happen but I would be most interested to know on what day the Business Committee decided there would be an order to speaking in the House. I have sat on that committee for some 8 years and do not recall that decision being made by the Business Committee. If I am wrong please tell me the day on which that decision was made. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to go back to the minutes of the Business Committee meetings in order to find out when it made that decision. These decisions are made at the beginning of each term. The committee has looked at the proportionality of Parliament. As I said it is an indicative order that the Speaker uses to go by. That is exactly what I have done as per the Standing Orders. The Clerk has just told me that the decision was made on 8 November 2005.
Donnelly Brian: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13873] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 The previous member made the statement when he raised his first point of order that there was a Standing Order that said that the person who took the call first should get the call. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: 101. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Actually it does not say that. In fact the member has just got up and disproved his case. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind the member that Brian Donnelly was on a point of order. Nobody interrupted Mr Brownlee. As I said before it is not a race; it is up to the Speaker’s discretion within the Standing Orders. I remind the member that it is the Business Committee that has agreed to an indicative order of calls which we have certainly been following for the 5 years that I have been here.
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13872] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Mr Duynhoven points right to the dilemma that the House now faces. Standing Order 101 under the heading “Rules of Debate” states: “when two or more members rise together the member called upon by the Speaker is entitled to speak.” In this case two members did not rise together. One—me—rose well ahead of anybody else and received the call. Standing Order 102 talks about “Factors to be taken into account by Speaker in calling members”. The rules—and members need to read them because the House should understand what is going on here—state: “In deciding whom to call the Speaker takes account of the following factors: (a) if possible a member of each party should be able to speak in each debate:”. That would be a good idea if we were a Parliament in which parties were equally represented. We are not; we are a Parliament in which the major Opposition party is overwhelmingly represented in the House. 
Secondly Standing Order 102(b) states: “overall participation in a debate should be approximately proportional to party membership in the House:”. That is fair. But the proviso is if it is possible. Thirdly Standing Order 102(c) states: “priority should be given to party spokespersons in order of size of party membership in the House:”. That is a disputed Standing Order as the Speaker will know. Most minor parties have one person representing a range of spokesmanships which means that that Standing Order completely contradicts the idea of any speaking arrangements being proportional. Last of all Standing Order 102(d) states that in deciding whom to call the Speaker takes account of “the seniority of members and the interests and expertise of individual members who wish to speak.” I think that the weight of these Standing Orders quite rightly brought to the attention of the House by the Hon Harry Duynhoven falls overwhelmingly in favour of the National Party.
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13872] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have two points. The first is that I called well ahead of Ms Turner. Secondly the Chair appears to have recognised that New Zealand First and the Green Party are both parties that support the Government ahead of the official Opposition. That seems to me to be somewhat unfair particularly in regard to the fact that the Standing Orders make it clear that whoever gets to his or her feet first should get the call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is perfectly wrong on that point. It has nothing to do with being a competition as to who stands first at all. [ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated Mr Brownlee. I am on my feet ruling on a point of order. I warn the member not to try the Chair. The point I would make to the member and I would have thought the member knew this is that there is an order of speaking and we are following that order in this first reading debate.
Duynhoven Harry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13872] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 Perhaps I can assist the member in his request. If he looks on page 41 of the Standing Orders he will see how the Speaker determines who speaks. There has been a longstanding provision in this House—as long as I have been here anyway and that is a fair while—that the Speaker generally picks speakers alternately from the Government and the Opposition. But when the Opposition has had a fair number of speakers and there are a number of speakers from minor parties it has been the tradition that the Speaker picks those who have not yet spoken.
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Waka Umanga (Maori Corporations) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13872] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Would you be good enough to tell the House where I would look in my copy of the Standing Orders to find a contradiction to the Standing Order that states that whoever makes the call first gets the call because this is a new ruling. Could you could simply tell us Madam Assistant Speaker when it became a Standing Order of this House that there is a predetermined order for speaking. We know that that is the case in question time but it does not exist in any other debate other than the general debate.
Gallagher Martin: Public Health Bill — First Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Public Health Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13857] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 We have listened to an exercise in absolute cynicism from members opposite. We have heard the dog-whistle speeches from over there. For the benefit of people who are watching this debate tonight I tell them that National is actually supporting the Public Health Bill. National members go into some sort of diatribe and because Government members are concerned with the outbreak of diabetes or concerned with the issues that Sue Kedgley and my good colleague Lesley Soper raised about critical public health issues we are somehow accused of being politically correct and of running a nanny State. Well talk about what we call dog-whistle politics! The classic was the member for Northcote who admitted: “Well I am saying all of this stuff for public consumption but—cough cough—by the way we support the bill.” 
Lesley Soper 
: They are hollow that’s all. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: They are hollow all right. They are hollow vessels—hollow men and hollow women. I stress that this bill will become the primary public health statute for New Zealand and that it replaces outdated legislation for public health—the Health Act 1956 and the Tuberculosis Act 1948. 
In my brief call I take the opportunity to commend all the people who are working in the field of public health—the public health officers working for the Ministry of Health up and down the country—for the excellent job they do. Instead of slagging off those people and implying that people who work for local government are somehow politically correct grey inspectors poking about I commend them for the excellent job they do in public health in this country. 
If members want an example of leadership I tell them that this is a Government that is showing yet again excellent leadership with this very very important legislation. Indeed this bill is a very good way forward. I strongly support the bill and am deeply disappointed in the Opposition members who in spite of all the rhetoric cough and splutter and say they support the bill. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Hide Rodney: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13841] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises to support the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) going to the select committee. We listened most carefully to Mr Groser’s remarks and concur with him that there is a difficulty when people invest money. Particularly where they are getting high returns they have to be accepting of the risk. I think the Government fully understands that. The regulation around securities is no easy matter because it is very easy to find risk being shifted from the entrepreneurs on to the taxpayer. The select committee will need to study this legislation most carefully. But ACT certainly supports the bill being referred for consideration. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Woolerton R Doug: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13837] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First members support the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) and do so because we think the bill is long overdue. We understand absolutely that the risk in investing can never be removed totally but we have been far too lax in this regard. It is timely that at least some attempt is made to bring some surety to investing and that there are shall we say some messages from the Government of what is and is not reasonable risk. 
It is all very well for financially literate people—as many in this House are—to say that one should not be investing in those sorts of investments but people who are out there working hard in other occupations are not always aware of the risks. If they were going to be moneylenders they would involve themselves. If they were going to be bankers they would involve themselves. But they are not and unfortunately it is often the innocents who are busy doing their daily work and who expect their advisers and the people who help them with their investments to be halfway honest who too often take advice without checking it or even going further than one adviser when it comes to taking advice on investments. 
This bill attempts in some way to redress that situation. New Zealand First absolutely applauds the bill and says it is long overdue. Now it is long overdue for us to go home Mr Deputy Speaker so I will stop right there.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13830] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Real Estate Agents Bill be now read a first 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 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a first time.
Cosgrove Clayton: Real Estate Agents Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Real Estate Agents Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13821] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not labour this but I just ask your indulgence and advice. I have been accused time and time again in this debate of characterising all real estate agents— 
Simon Power 
: It’s a matter for debate. 
Katherine Rich 
: That’s not even a point of order. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I ask the members to excuse me but this is a point of order and I ask whether I could be heard in silence. I thank the members. I have been accused of characterising all real estate agents as rogues land sharks or evil people. For the record—and I am quite happy to provide it to all members—in the last 12 months in every interview and every press statement on this issue I have said repeatedly that the vast majority of the industry are honourable hard-working honest folks. That is a fact. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. That is a debatable issue.
Cosgrove Clayton: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13813] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: I move  
That the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13813] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I accept that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member move it again please. He needs to state the words.
Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13813] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister in introducing the bill indicated it would go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Perhaps the junior Minister would like me to move it for him.
Cosgrove Clayton: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13813] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: I move  
That the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13813] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2007-08) Bill Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Bill Taxation (KiwiSaver) Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2007-08) Bill Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Bill Taxation (KiwiSaver) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:13789] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2007-08) Bill the Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Taxation (KiwiSaver) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6.
Tanczos Nandor: Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2007-08) Bill Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Bill Taxation (KiwiSaver) Bill — Third Readings 
Tanczos Nandor: Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2007-08) Bill Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Bill Taxation (KiwiSaver) Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:644;Page:13779] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to give a brief contribution on two points in the legislation before us. 
The first one is in relation to the tax cut debate that has been going on here. The National Party and Mr Hide have talked a lot about the need for greater tax cuts and that has been debated both here and in the public domain. The Green Party considers it unfortunate that the debate in this House in particular is always between whether we should have higher or lower rates of income tax or for that matter company tax. We believe that it is time to redefine the question of what is being taxed. Outside this House there is increasing recognition of and support for the use of Pigovian taxes and other forms of eco-taxation as a way of both simultaneously addressing environmental problems and raising revenue ideally to provide a means to reduce income tax as a result. The Green Party will continue to push for the use of those forms of taxation. 
The other issue relates to KiwiSaver where the Green Party would have liked to see substantial ethical investment criteria set out in the legislation. There are obviously strong incentives for New Zealanders to participate in the KiwiSaver scheme and we support it but it seems obvious to us that making substantial ethical investment criteria part of the package would have been a sensible thing to do. We think it is unfortunate that that has not happened. 
On both of those fronts we consider the failure to incorporate those ideas to be a lost opportunity.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Donation of Money 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Donation of Money 
[Volume:644;Page:13774] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In response to an allegation that has now been made across the country by Mr Hide I say that if he knew anything about the law then he would know full well there is no cubby hole into which to poke any such payments as the law has now changed. But we have done something worthy in the interests of the ordinary poor people of this country— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. We are now debating the motion that was moved by Mr Dunne.
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Donation of Money 
Hide Rodney: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Donation of Money 
[Volume:644;Page:13774] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 In a similar vein to Mr Peters’ seeking of leave for National to make an explanation I seek leave for Mr Peters to make an attempt at an explanation about why he has not paid back the money yet. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the member may not seek leave for any other person or party.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Donation of Money 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Donation of Money 
[Volume:644;Page:13773] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This morning at 9 o’clock in Auckland on behalf of New Zealand First I handed a cheque for $158000 to Kay Hyman from Starship Children’s Health. The money will be used for paediatric research. 
We have always contested and continue to contest the findings of the Auditor-General’s report against both New Zealand First and United Future because both had their expenditure pre-approved by the Parliamentary Service and the Chief Electoral Office. I have written— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member sought the indulgence of the House to make a personal statement and the requirements around a personal statement are very well-known. This statement is going well outside those requirements. If we were aware that this would be the subject matter of the personal statement we certainly would not have given leave because it would not have met the requirements of the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The claim cannot be made that if one was aware something might have happened somewhere during someone’s personal statement consent would not have been given. That would require someone to be clairvoyant. Mr English knows that. But the most important thing is that I have only two more sentences to go one of which concerns the Auditor-General. It is a personal statement because it concerns exactly what we have done. That is all it is—two more sentences. All right? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes of course you will finish. But I just say that the member should not stray outside the facts of the matter he is raising. He is entitled in my view to have gone as far as he has because he and his party have been under considerable attack in this House in respect of the subject matter of his personal explanation. I think he is explaining what they have done and why. But I advise the member not to go too wide. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I have written to Kevin Brady the Auditor-General advising him of the donation and explaining that at least now some good will have come from this issue. I seek the leave of the House to table a photo of the donation taking place and my letter to the Auditor-General. 
Chris Tremain 
: What about the press release—table that too? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am pleased you waited till the point of order was finished Mr Tremain. Thank you. Leave has been sought to table those items. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Donation of Money 
Peters Winston: Personal Explanations — New Zealand First—Donation of Money 
[Volume:644;Page:13774] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I also seek leave for the National Party to explain now why it has not paid its GST— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. Thank you Mr Peters.
Hide Rodney: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13766] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2). The ACT Party is in favour of competition and choice and it is in favour of opening up opportunities to our dairy farmers. We support this bill in its third reading. 
Bill read a third time.
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13758] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call. First I thank David Carter for his good chairmanship of the Primary Production Committee. We work very closely and in a bipartisan way on that committee. 
Earlier on Nathan Guy suggested that the Minister should probably define the term “milk solids”. I will define that term for the House. As a scientist I guess it is probably my job to explain these things. We have two definitions. “Milksolid” as one word is milk solid that contains milk fat plus protein. The definition of the second term which consists of two words “milk solids” is milk protein and fat plus other elements in the milk. So two clearly defined words have been used I say for the sake of clarification. The farmers get paid on the basis of milksolid—one word—which is milk fat and milk protein and of course the levies to the dairy farmers are also based on that definition. With that explanation I commend the bill to the House.
Carter David: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Carter David: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13757] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 National supports the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) and congratulates the Government on finally bringing this matter before the House today. I think that when people analyse the contributions made in the debate we have had in the second reading the Committee stage and now the final reading in quick succession the interesting  
Hansard 
 will of course be that of the New Zealand First member Doug Woolerton. I thought I would make just one or two points because a lot of the information he stated in his contribution—which was absolutely incoherent I might add—is incorrect. 
First of all Mr Woolerton congratulated the dairy industry and noted its huge progress over the last decade and I support that. But he then went on to criticise the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act of 2001 which led to the formation of Fonterra. So in one breath he was criticising Fonterra and its performance and in the next breath he was saying what wonderful progress this company has made for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I find that logic very very difficult to understand. 
Mr Woolerton then spoke against two of my former colleagues in this Parliament. I am referring to the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech and the Hon John Luxton. He said that both those people drove through the dairy industry restructuring legislation in 2001 and he implied quite definitely that they did that for personal gain. For the sake of the record I say that neither of those gentlemen was in Parliament in 2001 and they could not have been involved in the debate. They were not in Parliament. To be absolutely fair to them I note that by that stage they had retired from Parliament. They saw an opportunity under the dairy restructuring to set up a very successful dairy process called Open Country Cheese and I congratulate them on their ability to establish that company. It has been a significant contributor to the very regional economy that Mr Woolerton came from. 
The final point is that Mr Woolerton having railed against the Dairy Industry Restructuring Bill (No 2) concluded his remarks by saying that the bill was dreadful legislation but that he would vote for it. I think that just goes to show something about Mr Woolerton’s career. He has been involved in the National Party and in New Zealand First and he now completes his parliamentary career as a true and committed member of Helen Clark’s Labour team.
Guy Nathan: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13756] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution today that I think is very important in the Chamber. I want to talk just on the schedule. The Primary Production Committee worked hard on this to get it right and I think it is a fair point that I am about to make. The director-general or chief executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry technically allocates the export licences. We need to be mindful that the New Zealand dairy industry is primarily based on pasture-fed diet and primarily our animals are outdoors all year round. We all know that climatic changes occur. In parts of New Zealand we can have a drought and we are currently experiencing a mini-drought on the East Coast of the North Island. If we think back in recent times we have had floods we have had snowstorms and we have had weather bombs throughout the country. 
The significant point I want to make to the Committee is that the select committee worked hard and has come up with the provision in schedule 5B that allows those seeking an export licence to have their historical data analysed out to three seasons. The point I am making is that if we have a weather bomb and farmers are constrained as we know can be the case that flows through to the heifer replacements—that is the young cows that are going to come into the herd. It needs to be broad in its approach so that we looking at not just one season or two seasons but we are taking that data analysis out to three seasons which I think is very very important. I acknowledge the hard work under David Carter’s leadership of those members on the select committee who do own a set of gumboots and who have come through a grassroots upbringing like some of us in the National Party who were well aware of the point that this is very very important. 
I turn to those members on the other side of the Chamber who were on the select committee and who have not come through that process. I am not sure whether there is one farmer left in the Labour caucus who would even be aware of that point. So this is a significant point in this bill that will mean it is fair right across the board that when the director-general or the chief executive of the ministry is technically allocating quota he or she can look back across those three seasons of data. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Anderton Jim: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13757] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The bill was introduced into the House as I said during the Committee stage on 14 August this year. It was read for the first time on 21 August then referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. The committee tabled its report on 31 October. The bill has now had its second reading and has passed through the Committee of the whole House. 
The New Zealand dairy industry has become the country’s largest and most important export industry. For the year ended 31 March 2007 the dairy industry contributed a total export value of $8.4 billion representing 25 percent of total merchandise exports. New Zealand dairy products are exported to 152 countries. 
At the farm level dairy accounts for an estimated 35 percent of the agricultural sector’s GDP and 2 percent of total GDP. When we include dairy manufacturing and the dairy industry’s contribution to other sectors such as wholesale trade we see that the wider dairy industry’s contribution to total GDP is around 7 percent. 
The bill is the obvious next step in the industry’s transition to a new structure without the monopoly powers of a statutory marketing board. In the 6 years since the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act was passed the industry has shown itself to be extremely capable of not only surviving but also thriving in this less regulated environment. This bill will provide the industry with certainty about designated export markets and will therefore allow industry players to plan for the future with confidence. I believe that this is why the industry has expressed general support for the approach taken in this bill. 
The industry has shown itself to be a highly successful organisation and industry sector in reaching world markets and helping New Zealand to be well positioned for the future. The framework contained in this bill will allow all industry players to participate fully in that success and continue to position the industry well on the world stage. I commend this bill to the House.
Anderton Jim: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13755] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Because of some of the comments made I should apologise profusely having been in Parliament for 24 years 9 of them under National Governments. Never before has there been urgency before Christmas to push things through so I have to acknowledge that this is an extraordinary precedent and it is probably due an apology! Those members who have not been here as long as I have will know that this is all correct! I am putting this through to the Tui ads so they can say “Yeah right!” at the end of it. 
In a slightly more serious vein I want to move an amendment on the advice of parliamentary counsel which I have discussed with the Chairman of the Committee. The amendment will see a minor change in wording but there will be a different meaning. I refer to page 18 paragraph (b) in clause 29 which has the wording: “(b) the right to access documentation relating to the application for a search warrant and the exercise of a search power under the Official Information Act 1982.” I am advised by parliamentary counsel that the correct wording should be “the right under the Official Information Act 1982 to access documentation relating to the application for a search warrant and the exercise of a search power …”. I am sure the select committee meant exactly that but I am advised that it would better to have that wording rather than the original wording. Thank you Mr Chairman.
Carter David: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Carter David: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13756] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The National Party will certainly accept that amendment as proposed now by Mr Anderton. I just want to tidy up a comment that Mr Anderton made. It is not clause 29; it is actually clause 14 which inserts new section 29K(6)(b). Just for the record it is clause 14 that is being amended. But I think it is a very sensible amendment. I am surprised the select committee did not pick it up in the first place. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 171 and the following amendment to clause 14 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) of new section 29K(6) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(b)the right under the Official Information Act 1982 to access the documentation relating to the application for a search warrant and the exercise of a search power.  
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13746] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a very brief call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 2). As the previous speaker said this is a bill on which the Primary Production Committee took a very bipartisan approach. We all worked together on it for the farmers of this country and for the industry. We are very pleased it is to be passed before the end of this year because it will be applicable from early next year. 
The bill removes the restrictions of exporters through to markets and as was highlighted before it gives us a reference period for determining the allocation. That means the data will span three seasons rather than two which was originally in the bill. Also it highlights the power of entry search and seizure of documents in the workplace and talks about the control of a core database. 
Overall it is a very good bill. As the Minister said before it is really an evolution of the dairy industry from 2001 onwards. It will certainly allow exporters a much better and more streamlined opportunity to export our dairy products around the world. 
With those few words I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the deliberations on it. Thank you.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13742] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13742] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2007-08) Bill the Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Taxation (KiwiSaver) Bill  
divided into Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2007-08) Bill Taxation (Business Taxation and Remedial Matters) Bill Taxation (KiwiSaver) Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 169 
.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13742] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13742] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13742] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 167 and 168 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13736] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new schedule 5 inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 168 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland; Independent: Field; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
New schedule 5 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13735] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new schedule 3 inserted by Supplementary Order Paper168 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
New schedule 3 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13736] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new schedule 4 inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 168 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
New schedule 4 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13734] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13735] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13735] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13734] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Papers 167 and 168 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 3 be agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:644;Page:13734] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Amendments agreed to.