edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare Tau: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHenare Tau: Māori Trustee Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2842. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TAU HENARE (National):I will go back to where we were in the beginning in terms of what Part 1 of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill does. But before I get to that point I say that I suppose my colleague Mita Ririnui was saying that he wanted a bit of recognition. There was a cry for a bit of recognition that this bill was essentially the previous Labour Government’s bill. Well I will give my colleague the recognition. After 9 long years this bill is what Māoridom got—the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. I congratulate the previous Minister of Māori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia who did a sterling job trying to get this bill through.But let us not forget that the bill in its other clothes was actually a bigger bill and that the second part of the bill was the real humdinger. It was not particularly about independence or about a stand-alone agency and it did not have a lot to do with the appointment of the Māori Trustee and how to get rid of the trustee if we did not like him or her. Instead it was about the $35-odd million that was going away from the Māori Trustee and about the Government using it as some sort of model of Māori development.This bill is specifically about the independence of the Māori Trustee as per any other entity that we have in Government. The Māori Trustee is a stand-alone organisation. Prior to these provisions it was always on the coat-tails of Te Puni Kōkiri—or as it was called in its former life the Ministry of Māori Affairs. It was always part of that big picture of the Ministry of Māori Affairs. In fact the previous Māori Affairs Committee was quite happy to see the Māori Trustee come away from the apron strings of Te Puni Kōkiri. We are quite happy to see this bill go forward.One of the issues that my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta brought up in her kōrero last week was about the appointment of the Māori Trustee and how he or she could be dismissed. New section 6(1) in clause 7 states: “The Māori Trustee is appointed by the Minister.” I have some questions to ask about the appointment of the Māori Trustee by the Minister of Māori Affairs. The bill does not really set out the process of how we get to that position. Is it that somebody hands in his or her CV and the Minister has a look and handles the appointment process? I think it is a must that we say not only that the Maori Trustee is appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs but also how he or she is appointed and what sort of process we use when we appoint that person and when we wish to terminate that person’s appointment if for some reason the Minister feels that is necessary to do so. Overall it is a good start in the 21st century.
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2841. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue):I move That the Education and Science Committee consider the Student Loan (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 July 2009 and that the committee have the 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.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — NZAID—Reintegration into Ministry of Foreign Affairs and TradeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — NZAID—Reintegration into Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2837. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Phil Twyford seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcements of its decisions on NZAID. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However not every ministerial announcement even an important one such as this can give grounds for a debate. There must be an element of urgency or substantive policy change to justify the matter taking precedence over other business of the House. There will be other better parliamentary opportunities to consider the change of approach and technical structural changes; in particular the upcoming Budget debate and select committee examinations of estimates. Furthermore Mr Twyford provided no authenticating material with his letter. That in itself is a sufficient ground to decline the application. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 170/5.Although I have not ruled the application out on this ground I have decided that on balance this matter does not require the immediate attention of the House today by way of urgent debate. The application is accordingly declined.
Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2836. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: Is he aware of any complaints about time allocated to submitters on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill; if so what is his response?CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee):Yes I am aware of complaints. Again there are 840 submissions with 560 submitters asking to be heard. I am conscious of complaints received by the clerk during timetabling as well as five others. First a submitter complained that a letter to her association from the Green Party asking her to send a submission opposing the bill gave her only 5 days before the submission closed. She considered this an insufficient allocation of time to prepare. I agreed with her complaint. We had a complaint from one group of community association representatives who anticipated being heard separately for 15 minutes each. I apologised to them for the misunderstanding. However the committee developed real skill in engaging with groups of submitters to our mutual advantage. Most expressed appreciation for being heard and for our committee being in Auckland and Christchurch. Mr Norman would not have been aware of this as he absented himself from the hearing for long periods to attend—Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Thank you Mr Auchinvole. Does the member have a further supplementary question?Dr Russel Norman: Thank you Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Members will show a little courtesy to the member seeking to ask his supplementary question.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to explain why—Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot do that. I have invited him to ask a supplementary question. If he does not wish to do so he can sit down.Dr Russel Norman: Is the member concerned that former Principal Planning Judge Arnold Turner has been allocated just 5 minutes to speak to his submission tomorrow and that New Zealand’s foremost experts on environmental law who are members of the Environmental Defence Society were given just 10 minutes to speak to their 69-page submission last week in Auckland? Is it acceptable for a former senior judge to have just 5 minutes to speak?CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes I will be aware of those times as the member is. The member will perhaps not be aware that where we have people of particular significance it was a request of the committee that they be invited to maintain a level of contact with the officials. This would be one such case. This is a hard-working and diligent committee concentrating on obtaining the best outcome for a very serious piece of legislation.
Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2836. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: Have all submitters on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill who asked to appear before the committee and speak to their submission been offered an opportunity to do so?CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee):I am pleased to answer the question. Yes. The committee received 840 submissions and 560 of these have asked to be heard. When we were in Auckland last week I was advised that some Auckland submitters were still being contacted. This was because their submissions were being scheduled to be heard this week in Wellington by way of video and teleconferencing. All the committee members knew that this would be necessary if we could not fit submitters into the prepared Auckland hearings. This was a decision made by the committee and there were no dissenting voices.Dr Russel Norman: Were all submitters from places near Auckland and Christchurch given the option to be heard at hearings in those places rather then by teleconference to Wellington?CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The best way to answer this question is to give to members the committee’s agreement on the hearing of all oral submissions: allocating individuals 5 to 20 minutes depending on how substantive their submission was; allocating organisations 10 to 25 minutes depending on how substantive their submission was; allocating form submitters a single time slot and asking them to appear as part of a group; grouping submitters with like-minded views; and holding hearings in Auckland on 2 days Christchurch on 1 day and Wellington on 4 days. A total of 66.5 hours will be spent on hearing oral submissions. Staff advised that oral submitters who could not be fitted into the Auckland hearings would be scheduled for the Wellington meetings and offered video and teleconferencing if they were unable to travel there in person.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table an email from Joshua Arbury of Auckland a submitter who was not notified of the Auckland hearings and only by virtue of contacting the committee and complaining was granted a hearing by teleconference.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.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2835. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It goes back to your original first ruling on this matter. I think you were under the impression that the Minister was quoting from an official document. I think in fact you asked him whether he was and he indicated that he was not quoting from an official document otherwise we could have required it to be tabled. I think it is important that we rely more on the description that the Minister gave of the document rather than the suggestion that it was a document that he was quoting from.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2835. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hope that you will not put yourself in the position of interpreting what Mr English or any member seeking to table a document actually meant. Leave was sought the title of the document would be clear and the document has been tabled. If Mr Hipkins is unhappy it is too bad.Mr SPEAKER: Members—[Interruption] I do not need any more help on this matter. Obviously if a document was grossly misdescribed to the House I would be concerned about that. But I will not get into the detail of trying to ascertain whether the document tabled is exactly what members might have expected. The member will note that I take some trouble to try to make sure documents are described more clearly so that the House can make a judgment on that. I think the matter should be left there.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2835. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Because there is some confusion about the documentation concerned can the Opposition seek an assurance from you that you will review both the Hansard of what the Minister said during his answer regarding the document he said he was happy to table and subsequently received leave to table and whatever is tabled by him by the time the House rises tonight at 10 p. m.? Will you give us that assurance?Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly happy to look at what the Minister sought leave to table. As I tell the member I understood it to be the document the member himself sought to have the Minister table. I do not know what official document the Minister had in his hand or in his possession at the time. He tabled whatever he had.
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2835. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance with a matter relating to the tabling of documents by the Minister of Finance after answering question No. 8. The Minister sought leave to table documents advising that the Government had not breached section 33 of the State Sector Act. The Minister has yet to table that advice. I have reviewed the documentation that he tabled and no such advice is contained therein. Given that if leave is obtained—Mr SPEAKER: I did not understand the Minister to have specifically undertaken to table a document with any particular advice. He was supposedly quoting from a document. We have no idea what was in that document. The Hon Darren Hughes indicated that he would like to have it tabled; the Minister obliged by saying he would seek leave to table it. That document was tabled—that was what the House understood the document to be. I do not believe that there is any further matter. What is more the member cannot raise the matter as a point of order because where leave is sought to table documents they can be tabled any time between now and the close of today’s sitting.
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2833. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.SUE BRADFORD (Green)to the Minister of Finance: What conditions if any has the Government placed on financial institutions participating in the wholesale funding and retail deposit guarantee schemes?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):A range of eligibility requirements must be met by institutions that receive the guarantees. The requirements are primarily designed to ensure that participation is restricted to genuine institutions that are financing New Zealand’s economic activity and also to limit risks to the taxpayer. Full details of the eligibility criteria are available on the Treasury website.Sue Bradford: Does the Government agree with the 79 percent of respondents to a UMR Research poll released today who supported job protection conditions being placed on banks that are participating in the schemes and does the Minister agree with the 10500 New Zealanders who signed the FinSec petition that called for job protection conditions to be introduced?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I do share their concern about the retention of jobs in New Zealand. However I think that the sanction of removing a guarantee from a bank that breached those conditions is very heavy-handed. The removal of a guarantee from one of our major banks would have a very significant economic impact and I am sure FinSec and the people who answered the poll would also share a concern about that.Sue Bradford: If the Minister does agree in part that keeping jobs in New Zealand is a fair thing to ask of the banks which after all are relying on our taxes to back them then why has the Minister refused to meet with representatives of FinSec to discuss the proposals and find a way forward on this?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I met with representatives of FinSec a few weeks ago and did an interview for its newsletter—which I see has been published—covering this matter. I am quite happy to discuss it but I have made it clear today that there is no prospect that the Government will enter into an agreement that raises the possibility that a guarantee may be removed from one of our major banks because the effects on the economy would be significant.
Gilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGilmore Aaron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2830. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.AARON GILMORE (National)to the Minister for Economic Development: What steps has the Government taken to stimulate export growth and mitigate trade finance risks?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development):In February the Government approved for the New Zealand Export Credit Office a new product called short-term credit insurance. The new product will guarantee exporters payment for their consignments. The New Zealand Export Credit Office now offers a complete range of guarantee-only export credit agency products.Aaron Gilmore: Has he received any reports on the success of the new short-term guarantee product?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. I am advised that since the new short-term guarantee product was announced the New Zealand Export Credit Office has received 50 applications seeking Crown guarantees totalling some $47.7 million and seven bank inquiries for guarantees totalling $5.9 million. The net effect of those guarantees would support export sales of $125 million that might otherwise be lost to the New Zealand economy.Aaron Gilmore: Will the Government be actively promoting the short-term guarantee product; if so how?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. The New Zealand Export Credit Office has been talking to banks to promote the scheme working with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to ensure information about it is out in the market place and presenting to industry organisations such as Business New Zealand Export New Zealand and the Chamber of Commerce. This Government is backing our exporters in a difficult time.Hon Shane Jones: Is the real reason such initiatives as the research and development tax credit scheme and other economic development initiatives were scrapped that as quoted by Rod Oram the Minister “had done no thinking about economic development. And … had not expected …” to be indulged with this job?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. I would advise that member that if he really wants to know about what is going on in the economy he should not rely on Rod Oram for factual information.Hon Shane Jones: Will the Minister concede that it is actually initiatives like the Fast Forward Fund—in the event that he is aware of it—which was ditched by his Government that stimulate economic growth; or was he so idle while in Opposition that he does not have any understanding? Is he likely to seek advice from the last character in his party who held the role Max Bradford?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There was no Fast Forward Fund; there was simply a name. Like everything the previous Labour Government did there was a title but no funding. So my answer is simply no.
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any advice on whether the Government complied with the State Sector Act 1988 when engaging ministerial purchase advisers; if so what was that advice?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Yes. It is also worth noting that the Government is following Cabinet Office guidance on the use of purchase advisers. It was set out in 1993.Chris Hipkins: How can the Minister claim that the Government has complied with section 33 of the State Sector Act—which states that chief executives of a department must act independently when appointing individual employees—when the official briefing paper I have here from the Ministry of Research Science and Technology reveals that he not only specified who was to be appointed but specified the rate at which they were to be paid?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because we have complied and I am happy to table the advice.Chris Hipkins: Why is the Government refusing to release information on how much his little army of spies are being paid or is he simply embarrassed that he has been caught out telling everybody else that they have to trim back their budgets while he himself splashes taxpayer money around to employ his own expensive political hacks?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well actually I have released that information. I am happy to table it here. But I can tell that member that we have 30 fewer Beehive staff than Labour had which equates to about $3 million less in salaries. I can also tell him that so far the purchase advisers have cost $137000—less than a tenth of the cost of Labour’s hand-picked political hacks.Mr SPEAKER: I call question No. 9 Aaron Gilmore.Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I was not sure whether the member was seeking to ask a supplementary question or we were moving to the next question. The Minister made an offer to table information then sat down—he has not tabled it.Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot raise that in a point of order. He cannot ask another member—Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Was the Minister quoting from official documents?Mr SPEAKER: I am perfectly happy to ask the Minister whether he was quoting from an official document. I did not see him with an official document in his hand.Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.Mr SPEAKER: No. Well the member cannot seek to have it tabled.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I seek leave to table the information I referred to.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? There is none. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHarawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau)to the Minister for Land Information: He aha he tohutohu i whāia i a Ngāi Māori e pā ana ki ētahi atu ingoa Māori mō Te Ika-a-Māui me Te Wai Pounamu ā e pēhea ana te haere o taua mahi kimi tohutohu?[Why are Māori being consulted about alternative Māori names for the North and South Island and what progress has been made on that consultation exercise?]Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister for Land Information):I understand from the New Zealand Geographic Board that this consultation is being conducted because there are several different known Māori names for each island. The board will be writing to iwi throughout the country by early June to seek their known traditional Māori names for both islands. In answer to the second question I say that the board will then determine which are the most appropriate alternative Māori names for each island before seeking views from the wider New Zealand public.Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe ā tēnā anō hoki tātou e te Whare. Ā ki te Minita anō hoi anō ki tana whakaaro ka pēhea te whakanui o ētahi atu ingoa Māori mō ngā wāhi i te ahurea tukunga iho o Aotearoa?[An interpretation in English was given to the House.][Greetings to you again Mr Speaker and to us the House. To the Minister once again in your view how does having alternative Māori names for places celebrate the cultural heritage of Aotearoa?]Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: It recognises the historical and cultural importance of the traditional Māori name for each island. It also respects the fact that Māori is an official language of New Zealand.Kelvin Davis: Will there be consultation on alternative Māori names for the Māori seats on the council of the proposed super-city in Auckland?Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: That is not an issue within my portfolio responsibility.Rahui Katene: What advice has the Minister been provided with by the New Zealand Geographic Board to explain why the use of Māori names for the North Island and South Island on official maps changed in the 1950s?Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: It is a good question. The board has advised me that it is not known how that occurred and I do not know the answer.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour):I seek leave to transfer this question to a time when the Minister for Social Development and Employment is in the House. This is the second time in a week where she has failed to turn up—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to transfer the question. Is there any objection? There is objection. The honourable member will ask her question.
Norman Russel: Points of Order — Access Cards—DistributionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Points of Order — Access Cards—Distribution[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wrote to you yesterday regarding what I think is a very important issue which is the issue of the security access passes that have been issued to lobbyists. In that letter I asked whether you could consider the issue further because there have been media reports around it and I believe that the public has a right to know who these people are. I seek some direction from you as to when you will be able to respond to that letter.Mr SPEAKER: This is not a matter of the order of this House; it is a matter that I will deal with as the member has written to me. I will come back to him on the matter once I have given it appropriate consideration.
Key John: Visitors — New Zealand—Members of Deaf CommunityText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKey John: Visitors — New Zealand—Members of Deaf Community[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I am aware that it is New Zealand Sign Language Week this week—highlighting one of New Zealand’s official languages. I know that there are members of the Deaf community in the gallery here today observing the proceedings and that translations are taking place around the building. I want to welcome the members of the Deaf community to Parliament; I am sure other members would like to welcome them as well.
Urgent Debates Declined — NZAID—Reintegration into Ministry of Foreign Affairs and TradeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — NZAID—Reintegration into Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2837. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedNZAID—Reintegration into Ministry of Foreign Affairs and TradeMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Phil Twyford seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcements of its decisions on NZAID. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However not every ministerial announcement even an important one such as this can give grounds for a debate. There must be an element of urgency or substantive policy change to justify the matter taking precedence over other business of the House. There will be other better parliamentary opportunities to consider the change of approach and technical structural changes; in particular the upcoming Budget debate and select committee examinations of estimates. Furthermore Mr Twyford provided no authenticating material with his letter. That in itself is a sufficient ground to decline the application. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 170/5.Although I have not ruled the application out on this ground I have decided that on balance this matter does not require the immediate attention of the House today by way of urgent debate. The application is accordingly declined.
Smith Lockwood: List Member VacancyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Lockwood: List Member Vacancy[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Damien Peter O’Connor has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Michael John Cullen.
Smith Lockwood: Resignations — Hon Dr Michael Cullen LabourText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Lockwood: Resignations — Hon Dr Michael Cullen Labour[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Michael Cullenresigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight on Thursday 30 April 2009.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to MinisterText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAmended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2869. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Amended Answers to Oral QuestionsQuestion No. 8 to MinisterHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):I wish to clarify an answer I gave in the House today to question No. 8. In answering question No. 8 today I used the number $3 million when I said “$3 million less in salaries”. The cost I quoted was a gross cost for 30 staff. However the Ministerial Services budget will reflect redundancies transition costs associated with the election and changes in remuneration. So the figure I used does not relate directly to a change in the Ministerial Services budget and that may have been the impression I gave the House.
Visitors — New Zealand—Members of Deaf CommunityText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVisitors — New Zealand—Members of Deaf Community[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]VisitorsNew Zealand—Members of Deaf CommunityHon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I am aware that it is New Zealand Sign Language Week this week—highlighting one of New Zealand’s official languages. I know that there are members of the Deaf community in the gallery here today observing the proceedings and that translations are taking place around the building. I want to welcome the members of the Deaf community to Parliament; I am sure other members would like to welcome them as well.
List Member VacancyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeList Member Vacancy[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]List Member VacancyMr SPEAKER: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Damien Peter O’Connor has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Michael John Cullen.
Resignations — Hon Dr Michael Cullen LabourText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeResignations — Hon Dr Michael Cullen Labour[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2829. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 5 May 2009Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ResignationsHon Dr Michael Cullen LabourMr SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Michael Cullenresigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight on Thursday 30 April 2009.
English Bill: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — First Reading Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEnglish Bill: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — First Reading Second Reading[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I moveThat the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill be now read a second time. If we learnt anything from the first reading of this bill it is that Labour does not realise it lost the election. I think that is the real problem in this debate; that somehow it does not—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
Vote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — First Reading Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill — First Reading Second Reading[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes68New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; United Future 1.Noes50New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Progressive 1.Bill read a first time.
Mallard Trevor: Reinstatement of BusinessText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Reinstatement of Business[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:82. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): It is a very basic point of order. You had ruled on the point of order and therefore my question to you is whether you should have heard the Hon Bill English after you had ruled. That was disputing your ruling and not a good way for the Government to start.Mr SPEAKER: That is sufficient. I think the point that was originally raised by the Hon Rodney Hide was a perfectly valid point even though I criticised the manner in which Mr Hide originally raised it and it is an indisputable part of our Standing Orders that votes when they are being taken by the Clerk must be taken in silence. I ask all members to respect that Standing Order and I am sure the Hon Shane Jones will do so in the future as will all other members. I think we should leave the matter there.
English Bill: Reinstatement of BusinessText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEnglish Bill: Reinstatement of Business[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:82. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it was less to do with whether it was unparliamentary—the language was not offensive in that way—I think the member is drawing attention to the fact that votes are taken in silence and critical remarks shouted across the Chamber are not part of the voting procedure.
Hide Rodney: Reinstatement of BusinessText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHide Rodney: Reinstatement of Business[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:82. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Look I realise that the Hon Shane Jones is still grieving for not turning off all of our showers but I think you should send a very clear message—Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Points of order are meant to be terse and to do with order in this House. The member has not made it clear what the point of order is and I am not sure his opening words had much to do with order. I will invite the honourable member to make it clear what his point of order is.Hon RODNEY HIDE: I would like you to make it very clear to the Hon Shane Jones that we do not call out against another party when they are calling their vote as happened. The votes are to be taken in silence and certainly the sort of abuse that we heard from Shane Jones is totally unacceptable in this Parliament.Mr SPEAKER: What the honourable member has just said in his point of order is of course correct. I did not hear what transpired. If the Hon Shane Jones said anything for which he should withdraw and apologise I invite him to do so but not having heard it it is difficult for me to rule that he should do so.
Vote: Reinstatement of BusinessText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Reinstatement of Business[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:81. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes68New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; United Future 1.Noes52New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1.Motion agreed to.Motion to reinstate business agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Reinstatement of BusinessText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTremain Chris: Reinstatement of Business[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:81. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.
Guy Nathan: Reinstatement of BusinessText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGuy Nathan: Reinstatement of Business[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:71. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.
Hodgson Pete: Reinstatement of BusinessText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHodgson Pete: Reinstatement of Business[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:71. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): I would like to address a couple of questions to the Leader of the House in respect of the Government motion under debate. In particular I would like to ask why the Government has decided to carry forward the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill which as I recall is in the name of a former New Zealand First member of Parliament. I recall that it was voted against by all members of the Education and Science Committee except for the New Zealand First member of that committee. Noting that New Zealand First is no longer able to be with us it seems to me that there is not really a case for proceeding with that bill.I note also that the purpose of the legislation is to allow for the possibility of there being more than eight vice-chancellors in the country. I let the Minister of Education know—because the language is of course a little confusing—that “chancellor” actually means Minister of Finance the “pro-chancellor” is the private sector helper who is to come in to do a line by line analysis of all of the budget of the Government the “vice-chancellor” is the Associate Minister of Finance and the “pro vice-chancellor” is the little private sector helper whom the Associate Minister of Finance may want to bring in. I hope that makes it clearer.Over the page I notice that the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill has been carried forward. Only 2 hours ago the Prime Minister of the land told us that the Serious Fraud Office would continue yet the Serious Fraud Office abolition bill has been allowed to go forward. Why would the Government take that decision? I note the Leader of the House’s comments that Ministers may take a fresh look at legislation and decide not to proceed with it on a case by case basis. But here is a case that is very straightforward because the Prime Minister has told this House that there will be a Serious Fraud Office and therefore to abolish it will not be necessary. But we have a Serious Fraud Office abolition bill in front of us which tells me that either the Government did not look very carefully at this list or the Prime Minister of the land got it wrong. I would like some assistance on that if the Leader of the House can help.
Brownlee Gerry: Reinstatement of BusinessText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Reinstatement of Business[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:59. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I moveThat the following business be reinstated:BillsAllocation of 2008/09 financial reviewsPetitionsOther matters referred to committeesOther businessIn doing so I simply say that it has become somewhat of a tradition in this House that most—Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The notice of motion is laid out on the Order Paper. I know that it is somewhat lengthy but it should actually be read in full because that is the motion that is being moved.Mr SPEAKER: I think the point of order is a little unnecessary at this stage Dr Cullen.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Hon Dr Michael Cullen does make an interesting point and that is that a significant amount of business is being carried over from the last Parliament to this one. Of course a significant amount of business was carried over between the end of the Parliament before that in 2005 and the start of the new Parliament in 2005. Interestingly a number of the bills from that pre-2005 Parliament are still here and even more interestingly some bills that were around in the 1999-2002 Parliament are also still here. It will not surprise people who know how this place works that at least one bill was here pre-1999.The convention has always been that most business does carry over so that the new Parliament can make its own determination. For the last two Parliaments there has actually been a Standing Order that requires that rather than this debate being held at the end of a Parliament’s life at the beginning of a Parliament’s life consideration is given to what should be carried over. There is also a provision that means that new Ministers who do not wish to progress a bill have an opportunity to ensure that the bill takes no further steps. None the less bills in progress do get dealt with by the House which is right and proper.We consider that three things on the previous Order Paper should not progress. Two of those were interim reports on bills that have already been passed so they were totally superfluous and the other was the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) which we have decided not to progress and therefore it has been omitted from the notice of motion. By and large the Government is happy for this body of work to carry over but I signal that Ministers will be terminating much of the business mentioned here when they start to deal with the Order Paper in a more formal manner.
Points of Order — Question Time—Leave to Hold in UrgencyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Question Time—Leave to Hold in Urgency[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:59. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderQuestion Time—Leave to Hold in UrgencyHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for question time to be held according to the standard rules at 2 p.m. tomorrow and at 2 p.m. on Thursday so that the Ministers of the new Government can be held to account as they should be.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Question Time—Leave to Hold in UrgencyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCullen Michael: Points of Order — Question Time—Leave to Hold in Urgency[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:59. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for question time to be held according to the standard rules at 2 p.m. tomorrow and at 2 p.m. on Thursday so that the Ministers of the new Government can be held to account as they should be.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
UrgencyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgency[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:58. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]UrgencyHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I moveThat urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of Government bills dealing with taxationemployment relations bail education and sentencing; Government notices of motion Nos 4 and 5; and any maiden statements to be made at times determined by the Business Committee.Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise just two issues. Firstly the Business Committee was informed yesterday that there would be separate bills for taxation and for KiwiSaver—both of them to be taken through all stages. I assume from that motion that since yesterday evening at 5.30 the Government has amalgamated those two bills into one. The second point I would raise is that there was a general reference to bills dealing with certain subjects. Do I take from that that some of those bills have yet to be drafted and therefore their titles are not yet known?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The indication from me yesterday was that there would be two bills; there now is just the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill. There also is the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Matters relating to changes to KiwiSaver are contained in both those bills; there is no separate bill. Further to that the Opposition has been supplied with a list of the names of the bills that the Government intends to advance. The motion does not need to specify them as the honourable member well knows.A party vote was called for on the questionThat urgency be accorded.Ayes63New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.Noes52New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1.Abstentions5Māori Party 5.Motion agreed to.
Vote: UrgencyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Urgency[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:59. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat urgency be accorded.Ayes63New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.Noes52New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1.Abstentions5Māori Party 5.Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: UrgencyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Urgency[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:59. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The indication from me yesterday was that there would be two bills; there now is just the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill. There also is the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Matters relating to changes to KiwiSaver are contained in both those bills; there is no separate bill. Further to that the Opposition has been supplied with a list of the names of the bills that the Government intends to advance. The motion does not need to specify them as the honourable member well knows.