edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6466] 
11.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: How many houses were retrofitted in August though the Government’s Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation programme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 What a very well-asked question! I am very pleased to advise the House that a total of 4889 houses were retrofitted in August as part of the programme. This is a considerable step up on the 3282 retrofits that were completed in July. In just over 8 weeks 8000 Kiwi homes have received assistance meaning that they are warmer healthier dryer and better as a result of this Government’s scheme. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How many houses lived in by residents with community services cards have been retrofitted under the Warm Up New Zealand scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am very pleased to report to the House that of the 4489 houses retrofitted in August 2775 were occupied by people on low incomes. That is close to 60 percent of all the houses retrofitted in that month which means that those residents are likely to have paid little or nothing for the insulation. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not surprised that the Labour Party wants to drown out such wonderful results.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6465] 
10.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Will he guarantee that no region will see a reduction in its State housing stock as a result of his decision to put 40000 State houses up for sale? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Housing 
: The Minister can guarantee that every house sold to a tenant under this scheme will be replaced with a new house. We will probably build the replacement houses in areas of high need. Uptake is likely to be in the hundreds rather than the thousands. This is a good example of National fulfilling one of its election promises that proved to be pretty popular with the public at the last election. 
Moana Mackey 
: So that the rest of country can know they are not eligible for the replacement of any State houses sold in their areas where are these high-need areas? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am sure that as the policy takes effect and we are able to balance the sale of some of these houses to the tenants who live in them those questions will become fully and abundantly clear. 
Moana Mackey 
: If as the Minister has admitted some regions will see a reduction in their State housing stock because the rebuilds will be in high-need areas like South Auckland as the Minister has already indicated why are 8218 State houses—75 percent of the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s South Auckland stock—up for sale in South Auckland? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Firstly I am not sure what the member has against people being able to purchase State houses or for that matter people in South Auckland being able to purchase State houses. Secondly I have admitted simply that State houses will be replaced in areas of high need. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora ano tatou. Has the Minister received any responses from iwi Maori to the possibilities that have opened up from the homeownership of State houses? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The Minister has been advised that this policy has been welcomed by Maori as 35 percent of State house tenants identify as Maori. This policy will provide them with a further opportunity to move into homeownership and we look forward to continuing to work with our support partners on this very important initiative.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6465] 
9.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Has she made any announcements about contracting with the social sector? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. Yesterday I announced that we are putting in place a new and simpler way of funding and contracting. We are beginning with a trial of the new high-trust model that will combine the multiple contracts we have with individual social providers into a single simple contract. The model will also simplify social providers’ reporting requirements so it is more effective and results-based. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Why is the Government trialling the high-trust contract model? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This is all about using our existing resources more efficiently. We believe this will deliver more services for the same money because these organisations have to comply with an absurd amount of red tape to deliver services. Some providers might have 10 or more contracts and each has its own administrative and audit requirements. This is unique. We are talking about a 3-page contract that is not about filling out forms for these services; this is a small but significant step towards greater flexibility at the same time as delivering value for money for the taxpayer. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Will the Minister’s simple and open contracting arrangements announced yesterday save trusted and vital services like Youthline’s volunteer training programme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Value for money is going on all the time. We are constantly looking at contracts that are coming up and this model will mean more flexibility and taking a positive step for those non-governmental organisations that contract with the Government.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6464] 
8.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What advice if any has she received about whose responsibility it is to pay redundancy to night class staff in the event of night class programmes being wound down? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I am advised that the responsibility to pay redundancy to night class staff with employment agreements lies with the employers. The decision on whether to employ staff or contract for services is one for schools to make. I am further advised that schools are encouraged to meet their investment plan obligations to deliver adult and community education but that some schools may meet the cost of redundancy from the funding they have received for adult and community education delivery. If schools intend to do that then they are encouraged to discuss the matter with the Tertiary Education Commission. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What advice has the Minister received for schools that might be found to be in breach of contractual terms through using money appropriated for one purpose namely the provision of adult and community education courses for another purpose entirely namely payment of redundancy? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I encourage those schools to liaise with the Tertiary Education Commission and to seek legal support and advice from the New Zealand School Trustees Association. Schools have been advised that they should seek support from the New Zealand School Trustees Association about these employment matters. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What authority does the Tertiary Education Commission have to tell schools they can use adult and community education funding specifically allocated for the delivery of adult and community education programmes for winding down those programmes before the end of 2009 given that the Tertiary Education Commission is not a contractual partner in the terms and conditions of the people made redundant? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Schools are encouraged to meet their investment plan commitment to deliver adult and community education. If they are considering decreasing provision in order to meet redundancies they should be in contact with the Tertiary Education Commission. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I seek leave to table the fund schedule between the Tertiary Education Commission and recipient high schools for adult and community education which stipulates the purpose and objectives of that fund. 
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.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6464] 
7.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent announcements has the Government made to prepare schools for ultra-fast broadband? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yesterday the Minister for Communications and Information Technology and I announced the names of 14 schools that will receive funding to enable internal network upgrades. The upgrades will allow teachers and students at those schools to make greater use of digital learning technologies and will improve their access to online learning tools. The principal of Maniototo Area School in the member’s electorate has applauded the move by the Government stating that it is exciting to be one of the 14 schools in this new upgrade round and he hopes it will allow broadband to be expanded to the Ranfurly area. 
Chris Tremain 
: How were the 14 schools in this round of school network upgrades chosen? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: A number of criteria were used to ensure that we had a mix of rural and urban and primary and secondary schools in this round. We have committed to upgrades in urban areas such as Taradale High School in the member’s electorate but we have also recognised the importance of upgrading rural schools. That has been appreciated by a rural principal who said: “We congratulate the Government on their willingness to ensure that students at remote schools and communities such as ours are not disadvantaged from participating fully in elearning opportunities …”.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6462] 
5.  
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What progress has the Government made on its urban broadband initiative? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that this morning I released the final investment model for the Government’s $1.5 billion ultra-fast broadband initiative. This will deliver ultra-fast broadband to 75 percent of New Zealanders within 10 years. Delivering fibre to the home is an essential part of the infrastructure for a strongly growing 21st century economy. It will play a key role in improving the productivity of our country as we move out of recession and into a period of growth. 
Melissa Lee 
: How has the investment model changed from the one that was consulted on? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has confirmed that its investment will be directed to open access passive fibre network infrastructure. This will be done in partnership with co-investors through local fibre companies which will be responsible for the roll out of fibre in their area and will be permitted to participate in the wholesale market. Although consistent with the draft changes have been made to provide greater flexibility for different-sized proposals more regional coverage and significantly more detail on commercial arrangements and technical issues. The next steps will be the establishment of Crown Fibre Holdings and the Ministry of Economic Development issuing invitations to participate to potential partners. 
Clare Curran 
: Is the Minister satisfied in light of the Telecom contractor dispute that Telecom can fulfil all of its current obligations and also provide for a significant proportion of the additional broadband that New Zealand so urgently requires? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As the member knows it is inappropriate for me to comment on specific private arrangements between employees and their companies. I can assure the member that the demand for skilled telecommunications workers is only going to grow over the next 5 to 10 years as a result of the Government’s investments in both rural and urban broadband infrastructure so I encourage all skilled technicians and say that there will be plenty of work for them in this environment.
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6460] 
3.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What measures is the Government taking to support jobs as New Zealand comes out of recession? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government is considering how all policy decisions affect jobs. That is why we are making pragmatic and realistic choices on issues like the emissions trading system. The Government’s changes to the emissions trading system will protect thousands of jobs by ensuring that our businesses are encouraged to stay in New Zealand rather than move to other countries. 
Craig Foss 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative policy approaches? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have heard reports that the Labour Party says that it cares about jobs but in fact its policy includes a much tougher emissions trading scheme with unaffordable borrow-and-hope spending promises. That would say goodbye to large companies to growing exports and to jobs. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If the Minister is measuring all of his Government’s policies by their impact on jobs why has there been an increase in unemployment of 24000 while at the same time Australia has managed to hold unemployment flat for the last 3 months— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the honourable Prime Minister. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —and does he not now regret not being more active in protecting Kiwi jobs? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I had called the honourable Prime Minister—I am sorry I mean the Hon Bill English—because I thought the Minister had finished his question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He’s not Prime Minister yet Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might have listened to what I just said about questions that contain statements and about going on indefinitely. The member had asked a perfectly good question and I was calling the Hon Bill English to answer it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member may not have realised it but there has been a global recession and in fact our policies cannot influence that directly. 
Craig Foss 
: What would be some of the other effects of large companies moving offshore? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Clearly if large companies moved offshore it would cost thousands of jobs. I am surprised that the party that says it stands up for workers advocates an emissions trading system that would cost thousands of jobs. 
Craig Foss 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about Governments saddling taxpayers with extra debt by reckless borrowing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I have added up the promises of Labour so far this year which amount to $6 billion of extra borrowing. Alongside its policy— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it has been traversed before in this House that firstly the Minister has no responsibility for Labour Party policy and secondly frankly he is making up policies that Labour has not announced. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the member’s point of order was well made. The Minister has no responsibility for Labour policy and I think he had gone on long enough there.
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6460] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the member that I have ruled on the matter and I do not intend to take more time on it. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: All I would say then is if a question is asked and it is not ruled out of order—because you did not rule it out of order; if you had ruled it out of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to waste any more time of the House on this matter. Yesterday I ruled out a question that breached the Standing Orders. I think I was unfair in doing that and I apologise to the member to whom I did it because it has been my practice in the House that I do not rule out questions that do not comply with the Standing Orders; I let Ministers handle them. I could have ruled out the member’s question because it contained all sorts of political statements that in fact the Standing Orders do not allow to be included in questions. All I ask is if members want to have a better question time they should ask better questions instead of making a range of political statements. Question time is not about political statements; it is about questioning Ministers and holding them to account. I promise the member I will give him all the support I can when I hear straight questions that are seeking straight answers. I do not want to waste further time of the House on it.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6460] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s concern about the matter but the member should please before he takes any more of my time read the question his colleague asked and think a little further about it. If members want to get answers to questions in this House they should ask questions not make political statements. Half of the questions contain more political statement than question. I will be much more supportive of trying to ensure that an answer is given where a question is asked. I invite the member to read his colleague’s supposed question.
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6459] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order relates to an earlier episode when the Minister of Energy and Resources refused to address a question. I draw to your attention that the Standing Orders are very clear that the Minister must address the question unless it is in the public interest not to address it. Standing Order 377 is quite clear. You referred to quite an old Speaker’s ruling Speaker’s ruling 162/5 from 1968 which states there is no obligation to answer a question and then you referred to a later one from 1980 and 1991 Speakers’ ruling 163/1 which states that a Minister is not obliged to seek the call to answer a question. I would draw your attention to a much more recent ruling Speaker’s ruling 162/4 from Speaker Wilson in 2008 where she refers to Standing Order 377. The ruling begins: “A Minister must give an answer ‘if it can be given consistently with the public interest’ …”. It seems to me that our Speakers’ Rulings are a kind of case law if you like and the more recent case law is the more relevant case law. The most relevant case law says that a Minister must give an answer if it can be given in the public interest. The Standing Orders totally back that up; they are if you like our statute law and the statute is very clear that a Minister must address the question unless there is a public interest reason not to. It is totally up to Ministers’ judgment; they judge whether answering is in the public interest. It is not your call Mr Speaker. But that is the only basis on which a Minister can decide not to address a question. I ask you to reconsider your earlier view that a Minister can simply sit there and say nothing without even saying that it is not in the public interest to address the question.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6434] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I am pleased to see that at least the Green Party raises serious issues; I will answer them. Sue Kedgley said that the local boards will not have autonomous decision-making powers and she cited clause 13D and the exceptions to this. Clause 13D states that decisions on non-regulatory activities should be exercised by local boards unless Auckland-wide decisions will better promote the well-being of Auckland communities. The key thing here is that the default is that local boards will make such decisions. This too should also be read in the context of the rest of the bill’s provisions which include clause 13C which provides that local boards are responsible and democratically accountable for non-regulatory decision-making; that they have the ability to propose by-laws—that provision is from clause 13K—and that they have the funding that provides for equitable capacity for local boards to enhance the well-being of their communities. In fact it is those provisions that saw the President of New Zealand Community Boards Mr Mike Cohen come out in such good support for the work that the Government has done—first in providing for the second tier of local boards and indeed in powering them up.
Henare Tau: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6410] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I was going to start with some comments on the Hon Steve Chadwick’s speech but I think I will go back to front and comment on my friend and colleague Sue Bradford about the single transferable vote (STV). She has laudable principles around proportional representation—and I think everybody in the House enjoys proportional representation—but for her to say that STV will be some sort of panacea to the issue of Maori representation is bit wide of the mark. I say that because the introduction of STV in our district health board elections was supposed to give us a lot of Maori Pacific Island and other representation but it has not delivered in terms of Maori representation. That is the issue that I have in the back of my mind which is that in terms of Maori representation we have not yet found what I think is a system that maximises proportional representation. I do not think we will have it with STV. 
To go backwards I think that there is some history that people ought to know about Maori seats in general in terms of where they came from. They were ostensibly to shut down Maori participation in our new democracy in the 1870s. They were not there because somebody felt sorry for Maori. They were there because Maori were the largest landowners and it was only landowners who could vote in our new country way back in the 1870s. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I think you’ve got that slightly wrong Tau. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Pardon me? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I think you’ve got that slightly wrong because they were collective landowners. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: OK. I have it wrong. Gee how terrible of me! I have actually got it wrong I am being told by that member who has had a Maori seat and who understands the whole issue of Maori representation! But that is OK. Silly me! I thought I had something to say but maybe not. 
I suppose therein lies the problem with the Labour Party. Its members love continually to lecture other people about the issue of representation. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What is your problem? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Let me tell that unfortunate member. The issue of Maori representation was that Maori had the right to vote because they were all landowners. It does not matter whether they were collective landowners; that is splitting hairs. The fact of the matter is that for a long long time—right up until 1938—when Maori elected their representatives to the House of Representatives they did it by a voice vote. They were not even allowed to have a secret ballot. Up until 1938 people would go along to the polling booth and verbally tell the registrar whom they wanted to vote for. The first time that Maori had the choice to partake in a secret ballot was in 1938. 
There is a lot of crowing about the 2001 local government legislation and I want to put on record that the genesis for that actually came from the Hon Tuariki Delamere. He was a former Minister of Immigration. It was he who introduced to the House the genesis for the 2001 legislation.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6336] 
11.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How will the Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act address the problem of drawn-out consent processes for major infrastructure projects where they commonly have local commissioner hearings and then a de novo Environment Court appeal? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The major change is to have a single consent hearing via the new Environmental Protection Authority with a board of inquiry incorporating commissioners from both a local and a national perspective. There is a tight time line and limited appeal rights. This change will overcome the all-too-common occurrence of it taking years and more for decisions to be made on major consents. Many of those projects would have benefited the environment. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What examples can the Minister give of unsatisfactory processing of major consenting in the recent past that would have been helped by this more straightforward process? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There are so many examples that they would take up the rest of the House’s time today but I will give a few. Project West Wind took over 3 years to get consented. I note that the Northern Gateway Toll Road north of Auckland took 10 years. The Whangamata marina took over 10 years albeit we scrapped the power for the Minister to be able to interfere in the process. Another example is the Wellington Inner City Bypass which took 15 years.
Chadwick Steve: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6402] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this bill because the time is not yet up. 
Debate interrupted.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6360] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for an additional matter regarding the ability for members to take multiple calls and not be limited— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That was in the leave sought. That is the case.
Carter John: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
Carter John: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6360] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill to be a 16-hour debate with members having unlimited numbers of speeches of 5 minutes each and for the provisions of the bill to be put at the conclusion of the 16-hour debate as one question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none; it is agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6360] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Bridges Simon: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — Second Reading Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6350] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I want to take just a very brief call to say what a privilege it has been to be on this historic select committee which will do something truly wonderful for the most important city in our country outside of Tauranga. I will have a lot more to say on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill at the Committee stage.
Roy Eric: Voting — Correction—Urgency Motion 
Roy Eric: Voting — Correction—Urgency Motion 
[Volume:657;Page:6343] 
ERIC ROY (Assistant Speaker—National) 
: 
 I need to correct the record of the vote on the urgency motion. The result was announced as Ayes 68 Noes 54. The correct result is Ayes 69 Noes 53 and the record will show that.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:657;Page:6339] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions among parties I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday and 2 p.m. on Thursday despite urgency having been accorded to Government business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:657;Page:6339] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 69 Noes 54.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:657;Page:6338] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the second reading and remaining stages of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill the interrupted second reading and remaining stages of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill the interrupted Committee stage and third reading of the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill and the second reading of the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill. 
 These are a series of bills that need the House’s urgent attention. 
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill has had a long gestation. It was conceived from a long 18-month royal commission and has been through an exhaustive select committee process where there has been significant public discussion and I have to say a degree of agreement about how things should progress in the city of Auckland itself. That means the Government should get on with the business of making legal Auckland’s intention to go forward as one community. 
The interrupted second reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill will allow a degree of certainty for the Inland Revenue Department to prepare information necessary for those who enter the scheme next year and more important for those who are part of the current loan scheme with their various repayments. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Get your shoes off Gerry so you can count! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think there is a point of order here in that I am explaining to the Opposition what is in these bills. It generally acts with such huge outrage that the Government moves to simply put a few extra hours into what is otherwise a relatively short working week. 
The Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill is of a similar quality. It is needed to create a degree of certainty in that area. Immigration is an area where there have been a number of policy announcements and the Immigration Bill will give effect to those. It was introduced by the Opposition when it was in Government. The Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill is very very important. People need to know what will be happening in 2013 and the Government wants to give them that surety by way of this particular urgency motion.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Emissions Trading Scheme—Proposed Changes  
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Emissions Trading Scheme—Proposed Changes  
[Volume:657;Page:6338] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Charles Chauvel seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s proposed changes to New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving Ministerial responsibility. The Government has announced its intention to revise the emissions trading scheme and to announce features of a revised scheme that will require amendments to the existing legislation. This is an important announcement but in considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House it is relevant to consider whether the matter proposed to be discussed must come before the House reasonably soon in the form of legislation. The Government has announced that it intends to introduce a bill next week and for it to be passed before the end of the year. The consideration of this legislation will provide the opportunity to debate the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter is one that can be considered over a longer time frame. The application is therefore declined.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — United States—American Council of Young Political Leaders 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — United States—American Council of Young Political Leaders 
[Volume:657;Page:6319] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the American Council of Young Political Leaders is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Voting — Correction—Urgency Motion 
Voting — Correction—Urgency Motion 
[Volume:657;Page:6343] 
Voting 
Correction—Urgency Motion 
ERIC ROY (Assistant Speaker—National) 
: 
 I need to correct the record of the vote on the urgency motion. The result was announced as Ayes 68 Noes 54. The correct result is Ayes 69 Noes 53 and the record will show that.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:657;Page:6339] 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions among parties I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday and 2 p.m. on Thursday despite urgency having been accorded to Government business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:657;Page:6338] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the second reading and remaining stages of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill the interrupted second reading and remaining stages of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill the interrupted Committee stage and third reading of the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill and the second reading of the Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill. 
 These are a series of bills that need the House’s urgent attention. 
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill has had a long gestation. It was conceived from a long 18-month royal commission and has been through an exhaustive select committee process where there has been significant public discussion and I have to say a degree of agreement about how things should progress in the city of Auckland itself. That means the Government should get on with the business of making legal Auckland’s intention to go forward as one community. 
The interrupted second reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill will allow a degree of certainty for the Inland Revenue Department to prepare information necessary for those who enter the scheme next year and more important for those who are part of the current loan scheme with their various repayments. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Get your shoes off Gerry so you can count! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think there is a point of order here in that I am explaining to the Opposition what is in these bills. It generally acts with such huge outrage that the Government moves to simply put a few extra hours into what is otherwise a relatively short working week. 
The Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill is of a similar quality. It is needed to create a degree of certainty in that area. Immigration is an area where there have been a number of policy announcements and the Immigration Bill will give effect to those. It was introduced by the Opposition when it was in Government. The Electricity (Continuance of Supply) Amendment Bill is very very important. People need to know what will be happening in 2013 and the Government wants to give them that surety by way of this particular urgency motion. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 69 Noes 54.
Urgent Debates Declined — Emissions Trading Scheme—Proposed Changes  
Urgent Debates Declined — Emissions Trading Scheme—Proposed Changes  
[Volume:657;Page:6338] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Proposed Changes  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Charles Chauvel seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s proposed changes to New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving Ministerial responsibility. The Government has announced its intention to revise the emissions trading scheme and to announce features of a revised scheme that will require amendments to the existing legislation. This is an important announcement but in considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House it is relevant to consider whether the matter proposed to be discussed must come before the House reasonably soon in the form of legislation. The Government has announced that it intends to introduce a bill next week and for it to be passed before the end of the year. The consideration of this legislation will provide the opportunity to debate the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The matter is one that can be considered over a longer time frame. The application is therefore declined.
Visitors — United States—American Council of Young Political Leaders 
Visitors — United States—American Council of Young Political Leaders 
[Volume:657;Page:6319] 
Tuesday 15 September 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
United States—American Council of Young Political Leaders 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the American Council of Young Political Leaders is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Burns Brendon: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:6017] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on Part 3 of this bill the Tax (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill. I want to acknowledge a small victory for a small section of the community in this bill. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: United Future. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: No it was not United Future; it was not as small as that. It was the scrap metal industry. Three men—and they were men—appeared in front of the select committee. They were blokes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They were real men! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: They had lambs on their shoulders; they were real men. Their suits did not quite fit right their ties looked a bit tight and they had calloused hands. But they were the sorts of blokes who go out there create jobs and create exports. They were being hammered by the fact that under the existing regime when they get a load of scrap—copper or whatever—and send it off in a container to China or somewhere else they have to pay GST on it. I thought it was great to see representatives of that industry. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5979] 
9.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Is she aware of any initiatives to increase capacity at existing prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. Earlier today I announced that a container cell block capable of housing up to 60 prisoners is to be built at Rimutaka. That new block will be used as a trial to determine whether that type of prison accommodation can be used across the wider prison estate. 
Shane Ardern 
: When will the new cells be available to house prisoners and why is the increase necessary? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The tender process for the construction will commence immediately and it is expected that the new cells will be ready to house prisoners by March next year. The increase is necessary because this Government has no choice. We have inherited a capacity crisis from the previous Government. Its failure to plan means that the number of prisoners will soon exceed the number of beds available in our prisons.
Parker David: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
Parker David: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
[Volume:656;Page:5979] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been no suggestion that the committee deliberated conditionally and indeed the minutes show that that is not the case. I ask you to look into the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member not to argue with the Speaker. 
Question time resumed.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
[Volume:656;Page:5968] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that that is a matter the Speaker can get involved in or rule on; it is a matter for the committee. 
Hon members 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is a matter for the committee. The Speaker cannot rule on that matter but I will hear him further.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
[Volume:656;Page:5968] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a completely different point of order. I am seeking an assurance from you that each of the reports that was given by all parties to the chair of the select committee formed part of the papers of the select committee and will be available to the public on the tabling of the report.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
[Volume:656;Page:5967] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. Either way I make it clear to the member that this matter is not a problem for the House because the report has not been presented back to the House; it is still in the hands of the committee. It is the responsibility of the committee to resolve this difference and it is not— 
Hon David Parker 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member having difficulty seeing? The Speaker is on his feet. Either way it is not a problem for the House to resolve; it is a matter for the committee to resolve. The chair of the committee I am sure as an experienced member is perfectly capable of resolving the problem. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon Members 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard as long as it is a different point of order.
Parker David: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
Parker David: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
[Volume:656;Page:5967] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect if the Speaker is running out of patience with me after he misinterpreted Mr Dunne’s advice to him that is not my problem.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
[Volume:656;Page:5967] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the person who raised the point of order first David Parker but I make it very clear that I am running out of patience on this matter because it is not a matter for the order of the House.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Report Back 
[Volume:656;Page:5967] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to resolve this issue and I apologise that I misunderstood what the chair of the committee was telling the House. The chair of the committee has made clear to the House now that the deadline for submitting the minority reports has passed and a party wished to withdraw or somehow change its report. If that is a problem it is a matter for the committee to resolve. There is nothing that I can see in the Standing Orders that prevents the committee from doing so because it made its decision subject to those reports being done. It seems that a problem has now emerged from that decision. There is nothing wrong with the committee should it choose to do so reconvening to reconsider that matter because the report has not been presented to the House. 
The report is still in the hands of the committee. The committee made a decision that had certain conditions attached to it for certain things to happen and there has been a problem in the committee with that decision. The House does not need to take further time on it. If there is a problem it is in the hands of the committee to resolve that problem. 
Hon Members 
: Point of order—
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:6014] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:6014] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 35 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:6013] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Minister has agreed to split his amendments so the amendments will be put as two questions. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 34 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 2 be agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:6013] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.