edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Foss Craig: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Foss Craig: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9494] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I will take just a quick call to reply to the previous speaker the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I would like to point out the audacity and the arrogance of this Government at the moment. This bill makes fundamental multibillion-dollar decisions that set parameters for New Zealanders’ savings for the future—so Government members allege—and the bill is not even going to a select committee. That member alleged yesterday that the bill was going to a select committee. It is not. That shows arrogance on top of his audacity or perhaps he is just too afraid to face up to submissions from his own supporters who do not want this type of policy. 
Finally I make one quick point. This bill from this Budget will leave interest rates higher for longer and our currency higher for longer in what is Export Year apparently. We are voting against this bill because this bill and this Budget are a confidence issue. We have no confidence in the series of Budgets from Dr Cullen. This is the eighth failure from eight Budgets that have resulted in the highest interest rates in the Western World and the highest exchange rates which are absolutely killing our economy.
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9479] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9479] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9479] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland ; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 2(4) be agreed to: 
to omit “27(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) and (7)” and substitute “27”.
Hughes Darren: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9478] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 To assist my constituent Mr Guy I seek leave to table a document indicating that the National Party supports the KiwiSaver scheme. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Simich Clem: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9472] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There will be one debate on the title and commencement in which contributors may if they wish summarise all other aspects they have covered. So there will be one debate and two questions.
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9472] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9472] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9472] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members. They have clearly indicated that they want to have a wide-ranging debate and that will be afforded during debate on clauses 1 and 2. So I will put the question.
Guy Nathan: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9470] 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Standing Order 137(3) states: “The Speaker may accept a closure motion if in the Speaker’s opinion it is reasonable to do so.” The reason I raise this point of order is that we are in urgency and Part 2 is mainly around KiwiSaver about which the Opposition has some big concerns. According to my records we have had 10 or 11 speakers and we have many more to come. So I would ask that you rule accordingly Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is making a plea for further debate. He is quite right; the debate was meant to be around Part 2 and very little of it has been. Therefore I will take one more call.
Barnett Tim: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Barnett Tim: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9470] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9457] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 3 
Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Barnett Tim: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9457] 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax RateAmendments) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9446] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (KiwiSaver and Company Tax Rate Amendments) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 4 
Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9428] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Annual Rates Business Taxation KiwiSaver and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9511] 
11. JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 on behalf of  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What funding has the Government allocated in Budget 2007 for the Rates Rebate Scheme? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 [ 
Interruption 
] Yes heaps—as the Minister of Finance said. In Budget 2007 in recognition of the growing support for the Rates Rebate Scheme up to $70 million has been allocated. Since last year’s significant improvements the scheme has been extremely successful. To date more than $45 million has been paid to over 102000 households which represents an estimated 276000 New Zealanders. 
Jill Pettis 
: How does the average rates rebate granted to date in the 2006-07 year compare with the average rebate for the 1998-99 year? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The average rebate in 1998-99 was $159.32—for the few who got it. We can compare that with the average rebate granted to date in the 2006-07 year which is $448. That is an increase of more than 280 percent in the average rebate and a 34-fold increase in the number of recipients since this Government updated the scheme. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the Minister aware that many eligible elderly people are not applying for the rates rebate because they do not like the idea of having to reveal their personal incomes to local council staff as reported to the rates inquiry panel; if he is aware of this problem what is he doing about it? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am aware that despite the extraordinary success of the roll-out of the scheme which is still in its first year there are some challenges such as the one the member outlined. I have officials doing a running review of the process and we are looking at ways to further streamline and further improve the scheme to ensure that those who are eligible and want to make use of that eligibility can do so.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9509] 
9.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to support New Zealand exporters to expand into new markets? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Lots and lots of steps including the extension of the very successful Beachheads programme into South-east Asia and India. Budget 2007 invests $4.4 million over 4 years to give our exporters access to strategic advice and executive networks in those new Asian markets. 
Maryan 
 Street 
: What reports has he seen on increasing New Zealand’s current export capacity? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have received one report stating that there will be an $87.8 million boost to the Market Development Assistance scheme to enable New Zealand firms to export into new markets including Asia. I saw an alternative report that stated that all New Zealand Trade and Enterprise business development grants would be axed. The first excellent report was from the Labour-led Government’s 2007 Budget which was delivered by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the second report was from John Key. 
Chris Tremain 
: Can the Minister please explain how the steps he is now taking will address the current and real problems faced by export businesses such as Design Spun Ltd in Onekawa Napier which has been forced to lay off 25 export workers because the Government sends important decisions on monetary policy to select committees and continues to overwhelm businesses with compliance costs? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How does the appropriation of an extra $87.8 million for the export Market Development Assistance scheme over 4 years complement Export Year 2007 which was secured by New Zealand First as part of its confidence and supply agreement? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It extends the very good work that was agreed as part of Export Year 2007—the Market Development assistance scheme extension which was developed by this Government but fitted very well with Export Year 2007. It extends it out into the baselines so that under a Labour-led Government—clearly supported on an ongoing basis by New Zealand First—it will be there for ever.
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Roy Heather: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:9503] 
5.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How many Kiwis are expected to join the KiwiSaver scheme by 2011 and what proportion of the working-age population will this be? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Budget numbers are based on the assumption that some 830000 workers—about 41 percent of the workforce—will have joined KiwiSaver by 2011-12. 
Heather Roy 
: Why not roll the State-run Cullen fund into KiwiSaver which by 2011 would give every working-age Kiwi including those not employed and those at home raising children at least $8000 as an endowment fund which would guarantee an uptake of every New Zealander and which would provide all Kiwis with a real stake in the country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: For a very simple reason: the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is there to guarantee the long-term viability of New Zealand superannuation. For many people that is the ultimate guarantee of a reasonable standard of living in retirement. I do not think this country wants to return to the days of right-wing Governments threatening yet again the future of New Zealand superannuation. 
Darren Hughes 
: What reports has he seen on support for KiwiSaver particularly on how it will benefit low-income earners? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen very considerable support from the business sector but particularly there is considerable realisation as time moves on that in fact those on modest incomes get substantially greater proportional benefits than those on high incomes. For people on $26000 a year for every dollar they save $3 goes into their KiwiSaver account. 
Rodney Hide 
: Would he consider it a breach of the commitment made in schedule 4 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 if National or another party decided to roll the State-run Cullen fund into the KiwiSaver scheme in order to benefit all Kiwis including those not in work and on low incomes and what would be the implication of such a breach? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Schedule 4 is not enforceable. If a future right-wing Government decides to get back yet again on the track of cutting future New Zealand superannuation by removing its funding then in fact the verdict will lie with the people at the subsequent general election and they will have to start all over yet again in building a secure future for future retirees. What people have to remember about KiwiSaver is that it will also significantly reduce the call on the State for income-tested supplementary assistance over and above New Zealand superannuation because people will be self-reliant. In the future there may be significant calls on that particularly if we are not able to lift home ownership.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Vanuatu—Deputy Prime Minister 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Vanuatu—Deputy Prime Minister 
[Volume:639;Page:9497] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members I have pleasure in informing you that His Excellency Sato Kilman Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Parliament of the Republic of Vanuatu is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed.
Visitors — Vanuatu—Deputy Prime Minister 
Visitors — Vanuatu—Deputy Prime Minister 
[Volume:639;Page:9497] 
Tuesday 22 May 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Vanuatu—Deputy Prime Minister 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members I have pleasure in informing you that His Excellency Sato Kilman Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Parliament of the Republic of Vanuatu is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed.
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9027] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted.
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9027] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The time for the debate has expired. The debate on the performance in 2005-06 of the current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises is therefore concluded. I will report the debate to the House. 
House resumed.
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9027] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Labour members for making their contributions short although those contributions were somewhat numerous on a number of issues that probably did not need any comment at all. 
Most certainly the Electricity Commission does need comment. Surely no more useless quango has ever been set up by any Government than this one. It was set up in 2002 because we had a crisis in that year with low lake levels and the potential for blackouts in some of our larger cities. Since the Electricity Commission took over New Zealanders have paid for that every time they switch on the light. Every time New Zealanders turn on the electricity anywhere in their houses or businesses they pay for this particular quango. What has it achieved in its time in existence? It has achieved nothing less than a 48 percent price rise for electricity. That is what it has presided over. 
The other thing that is really disturbing about this organisation is that it has completely failed to deal with some of the transmission deficit in this country. We cannot get all of the power capable of being produced in the South Island out of the South Island because our transmission is not strong enough. Our largest city Auckland is under constant threat in relation to the security of its supply because we do not have strong enough transmission going into that area. Although it might be easy to say that Transpower has mucked us up the reality is that Transpower cannot do anything without the approval of the Electricity Commission. 
Some in this Chamber will remember that last year the substation at Otahuhu failed. A simple guy rope broke because a shackle failed. Ministers in the Government said: “Well look Electricity Commission we want this fixed up please.” Transpower came to the party and within a month it had a proposal to ensure that that would never happen again. Well here we are 11 months later and the Electricity Commission still has not made up its mind as to whether that proposal should progress. 
Report noted.
Chadwick Steve: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9026] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on the Fire Service Commission really to congratulate a commission that is in a very safe pair of hands with Dame Margaret Bazley because it was an incredibly impressive financial review this year. 
One of the things I wanted to mention is that the Fire Service has the lowest rate of residential fires in the world and that is to be applauded. The Fire Service is in good hands. 
The only other comment I want to make is about the number of female firefighters in the service in New Zealand. We really are a bit concerned about this. Only 49 of 1670 career firefighters are women. That is quite a concern and we raised it with Dame Margaret Bazley. She pointed out that the Fire Service has a positive approach to this trying to make firefighting a career for women that is attractive to them and to make them feel well supported. It was nice to hear that women are generally very well accepted by their male counterparts. 
One of the other issues I will talk about quickly is the problem that the Fire Service is having now with increasingly more complex call-outs—in particular for P laboratories which creates extreme risk for the Fire Service. We want to congratulate the Fire Service on the way it manages this problem. 
All in all the Fire Service is in great hands. It has also stopped bringing in second-hand fire appliances from the UK which was a practice noticed in the previous financial review that concerned us. It now has its full fleet replacement which is properly managed. The Fire Service is a service in good heart. 
Report noted.
Burton Mark: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9026] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Again briefly I will put on the record my support for comment on and acknowledgment of the performance of the Privacy Commissioner. I think Marie Shroff has done an outstanding job. I acknowledge the ACT member Heather Roy’s comments in that regard and thank her for them. Marie has taken a number of steps to further advance the work of the organisation in all areas in terms of its turn round of inquiry and complaint and its provision of information. Its reputation both domestically and internationally has enhanced the performance of the office. 
I thank the members for their comments although I note that Heather Roy spent a great deal of her time talking about something completely unrelated directly to the financial review. Be that as it may I thank her for her positive comments. 
Report noted.
Burton Mark: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9023] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take just a short call to put on record the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard as the new Police Complaints Authority at a time when as members know the authority is facing considerable change. We have the bill before Parliament which is now being progressed. It was delayed of course because we needed to see the result of Dame Margaret Bazley’s report on police conduct. That report has been issued. As expected it raised a number of issues and recommendations directly for the Police Complaints Authority—12 in total. Some of those fall to the new authority to implement in terms of administrative organisational procedures. Others will require statute and therefore will be incorporated in a Supplementary Order Paper to the bill that is currently in front of the House. 
I simply want to put on record my high level of confidence in the new authority. I think we are fortunate to have someone of her reputation competence and focus at a time when the authority is going through a period of new development and change. I certainly look forward to the work that will be undertaken in the year ahead to get the Police Complaints Authority in place in terms of the new requirements and provisions of the legislation we are working through now and getting the authority fully functional in that new regime. 
Report noted.
Samuels Dover: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Samuels Dover: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9019] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 Te meatuatahimaku kei te mihi atu ki a koe e Tau. Nauneiitu ki te whakanuiitotatou reo rangatira iteneipo kei te mihi atu. Kei te maumaharaahaui te wai a au e tamariki ana haere ahau ki te kura harakau e mohioana ki te reo Pakeha. Engari pena e koreroanaahaui roto itotaua reo rangatira aemarika kuawepuwepungiaahau e nga kura mahita. 
[ 
First and foremost I want to thank Tau who stood up tonight to praise our chiefly language and I acknowledge that. I recall the time when I was a youngster and went to school I did not know any English. But when I spoke in our chiefly language I was strapped repeatedly by the teachers. Yes indeed. 
] 
I thank the member Tau Henare for his contribution. I am reminded of when I used to go to school not so long ago. The only language I could speak was my own—taku reo rangatira. God help me if I was caught speaking my own language within the school ground parameters because we did not have the anti-smacking legislation in that time. The teacher Mr Simpson—I remember him very clearly—was a tall very strong Pakeha and he was the only Pakeha in the Whakarara Native School. When he said “Thou shalt not speak Maori.” we had to listen to him or otherwise it was the old tradition of six of the best. Every time he dealt to me I got seven—he could not count. That was my initiation into the difference between the Maori language and the English language. 
I concur that the Maori Language Commission has a tough job. It is not easy especially when one is dominated by another language. I also say as we commemorate Maori Language Week that the theme this year is tourism and the Maori language. It is significant that when our manuhiri come across to enjoy our landscape and their wish is also to have an experience with Maori they too get an experience of what the Maori language is all about. Perhaps that will convey to some of our colleagues in this Chamber how important Maori language is to this nation. Kia ora tatou. 
Report noted.
Burton Mark: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9018] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I want to take a very short call to echo the sentiments of both my ministerial colleague the Hon Dover Samuels and the member opposite the Hon Tau Henare in terms of the positive comments they made about Maori Television’s coverage of Anzac Day. As a former Minister of Defence I think it is pleasing to see that sort of quality coverage. It was consistent with the sort of coverage we saw after the tragic death of the Maori Queen which again I think brought a new standard of coverage that was accessible to all New Zealanders. The feedback I still get— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Public broadcasting. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It really was and I think Maori Television managed to strike the balance in its extended coverage of both of those events of being accessible to all New Zealanders while showing genuine respect for the tikanga that underpinned the events. I simply wanted to add my voice to the acknowledgments of the good work that has been done there. 
Report noted.
Samuels Dover: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Samuels Dover: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9017] 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 First of all I want to thank the member the Hon Tau Henare. Let us not play politics about Maori Television. He was one of the ones who inspired the concept when he was Minister of Maori Affairs. I carried it on and it came to fruition. 
He is quite right in regard to the premium presentation made by Maori Television in regard to Anzac Day. I think every New Zealander should be proud of the professionalism and the presentation that was made giving respect to the many of our tupuna—many of our forebears—who went overseas and sacrificed their lives so that our country could be free in terms of expression and so we could regain and maintain our way of life. 
I differ somewhat in respect of his comments regarding the contribution made by Television New Zealand in that I think  
Marae 
  
Te Karere 
 and  
Waka Huia 
 are also very very premium and very professional presentations. I think it gives a balance. Although we all have the same whakapapa and the same orators I think it is appropriate and very useful that we get a balance from professional people who are involved not only in television but in broadcasting. 
I also want to say that I am certainly very encouraged about the value the attitudes and the way that Maori radio has covered many many of the issues that are relevant to Maori right across the nation. My whanaunga are at Te Hiku o te Ika. Although we are right up at the top of the island of course we get firsthand news in terms of Maori activities and Maori events. 
I thank the member for his very valid contribution to the debate and also the performance of Te MangaiPaho. Kia ora tatou.
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9011] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before we continue I remind members that the debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2005-06 financial year and their current operations. A further 1 hour and 18 minutes remain of the 3 hours allowed for the debate. At the conclusion of this time the Chairperson will report to the House. 
The list of the financial reviews that are available for debate is appended to the Order Paper. The question currently before the committee is that the report of the Health Committee on the 2005-06 financial review of the Canterbury District Health Board be noted.
Auchinvole Chris: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Second Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8996] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I am happy to rise and speak to this Succession (Homicide) Bill. I think that it was the Justice and Electoral Committee chair Lynne Pillay who used the word “repugnant” when we were discussing this bill at the select committee. The whole subject does have a degree of repugnance associated with it. It was pretty grim stuff. But Parliament has to face these issues; indeed I would like to add my voice to those who have commended the Law Commission for bringing this one forward. The question of course is why it has taken so long to reach this point. 
When we spoke with Law Commission members at the select committee it was interesting that one of their concerns was that over the past 7 years a large number of their recommendations have been frankly ignored. So it is very heartening to know that at least people are starting to listen to the commission. I would share with the speaker before last in congratulating the Government on finding time in its extraordinarily busy schedule to fit this bill in. The bill codifies the law to stop a person who kills another from benefiting through that action. I think that the details of the bill have been widely canvassed and spoken about by other speakers. 
Where the bill took us in debate at the select committee was interesting. The submissions we received were moving and of a very high quality. The one that particularly interested me concerned Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. It is a very interesting aspect and I agree with previous speakers that that yet requires resolution. 
In terms of what was said by the previous speaker I tell the House that assisted suicide has in fact been excluded so that has been determined— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I think we can look at that. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I am not sure but it does need to be looked at. But that is what it is called—assisted suicide. It has been provided for; we can put it that way. A sad aspect of this entire bill is that a significant proportion of homicides occurs in a domestic setting. 
Just to conclude—because so much has already been said about it and there is not a great deal left to say—I guess one aspect of the purpose of the bill that does need touching on is the emphasis that is given to the fact that people should not benefit from their crimes and that this consideration should be applied consistently by the Government. It makes one wonder therefore when one gives consideration to the fracas over the pledge card whether the present Government would care not to benefit from that particular crime and whether it would like to resign 18 months early. Thank you.
Woolerton R Doug: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Second Reading 
Woolerton R Doug: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8995] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill and to say it is good that it is written down and cast in stone that people should not profit from murder. That is the way it should be and it amazes me that it has not been done before but all credit to the Government for doing that. 
Having said that when we look to the future there are a few areas in this respect that one could be concerned about. One area is euthanasia and matters like that which are quite socially changing steps but there are people who propose them. In this area one would have to be a little bit worried and I think this legislation at some time in the future could be extended to cover those situations. 
It is not so much the fear that one would go and kill a person because that is covered in this legislation but I would put forward the thought for people to ponder how they would feel if one day we should have a law that allows euthanasia. How would those people who already feel under some obligation to family members now because they are infirm or they have to be looked after by their sons daughters relatives or even by their partner feel if we were to have such a law? 
 I put it to this House that if such a law came to pass those people would need some protection from themselves as well as from the people around them. This legislation covers the people around them but they need some protection from themselves when they feel so guilty about being a burden on their family that they would look to would be talked into or would be persuaded into taking their own lives by way of euthanasia. I think that that would be a very very sad thing and an added burden on elderly people who are already in a situation of guilt shall we say. 
So although I applaud the architects of this bill and I applaud the Law Commission that brought it about I agree with Nandor Tanczos when he said that in the past not enough consideration has been given to the thought processes of and reports brought down by the Law Commission. But this legislation is a result of that and I think it is wonderful that it should be so. 
I just put it out there so the House can think about what could happen in the future and the pressure that people could be under in the future. Although I am not a lawyer myself—and nobody would ever accuse me of having too many deep thoughts in this area—the area of euthanasia is one area that I think should be considered in the future. It is being talked about and I think that in a bill such as this it should be covered. So I leave that with people to ponder.
Finlayson Christopher: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Arbitration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8977] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As the Minister Judith Tizard speaking on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice said three reports that were commissioned by the Law Commission have resulted in technical legislation. The first of these is the Arbitration Amendment Bill the second reading of which we are dealing with right now. 
It is interesting to observe that this bill is a result of a discussion paper published by the Law Commission in September 2001 and it raises—as the Minister quite correctly and accurately observed—a number of technical matters. Why it has taken so long to get back to the House in the form of legislation I do not know. Certainly the Justice and Electoral Committee dealt with the issues as quickly as possible. The same applies really to report No. 38 of the Law Commission dealing with homicidal heirs and succession which was published in July 1997 and the Wills Act proposals of the Law Commission in report No. 41 which was published in October 1997. So it took 10 years for that legislation to get back to the House. I suggest that is very poor indeed. 
There are only two things I want to say in this second reading speech about the Arbitration Amendment Bill. The first is to endorse what the Minister said about the control of the arbitral tribunal in relation to witness subpoenas because the select committee recommended that clause 8(1) be deleted from the bill. The Minister has explained the rationale for that. We were trying to ensure that the tribunal’s control over the arbitration process would be maintained and that parties to an arbitration could not shoot off to the court to seek that subpoenas be issued without at least involving the arbitral tribunal. 
 The second matter which was of some interest—and perhaps Mr Chauvel if he takes a call will address it—concerns interim measures. A number of proposals to amend the model law were adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) some months ago and it was very timely that this bill was before the select committee because we could address those. As the Minister said we have included those matters by amending clause 8 to pick them up. One of the issues that the select committee looked at—and it is a very interesting issue—is whether when UNCITRAL proposes changes to the model law there is some mechanism to update the New Zealand law in some way without the need to have recourse to Parliament. After consulting the clerk and after reflecting on the issue we decided there was not any way other than to introduce amending legislation. 
They were the matters that I wanted to address. The bill is a technical piece of legislation. It is good that it will shortly be law. The real issue is why it has taken so long for a straightforward technical matter to come before this House. This Government’s law reform agenda is pretty pathetic and the way it carries it out is even worse.
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Social Security Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8975] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Wanganui—Gang-related Tensions 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Wanganui—Gang-related Tensions 
[Volume:639;Page:8966] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 gang-related tensions in Wanganui. The urgent debate procedure is intended to allow the House to debate a particular event that has occurred that involves ministerial responsibility; it is not a means of debating a general state of affairs—however concerning it may be—such as gang-related tensions. I therefore cannot accept this application.
Urgent Debates Declined — Wanganui—Gang-related Tensions 
Urgent Debates Declined — Wanganui—Gang-related Tensions 
[Volume:639;Page:8966] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Wanganui—Gang-related Tensions 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 gang-related tensions in Wanganui. The urgent debate procedure is intended to allow the House to debate a particular event that has occurred that involves ministerial responsibility; it is not a means of debating a general state of affairs—however concerning it may be—such as gang-related tensions. I therefore cannot accept this application.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:8964] 
11.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he received any reports on support for the Government’s Beachheads and Incubator programmes? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Acting Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Yes many. One described the Government’s Incubator programme as “very impressive” and “doing a good job”. It also commented that the Beachheads programme was “very promising”. However an alternative commentator said that the Beachheads programme has “made little impact had incomplete policy objectives and a lack of data to provide full analysis.” The first was John Key; the second was Katherine Rich. It is pretty clear that Bill English is not the only one in the National Party whom John Key fails to consult. 
Dave Hereora 
: Has he received any reports on the results delivered by the Beachheads programme? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes.  
Unlimited 
 magazine has commented that the Beachheads programme is “speeding the growth of some of our brightest stars.” The success of Beachheads shows that this Labour-led Government is enabling New Zealand firms to become world class and internationally competitive.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:8962] 
9.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Has she received any responses to the second milestone report of the Quality Regulation Review; if so what did they say? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Yes I received a copy of the statement put out by Business New Zealand’s Phil O’Reilly. He welcomed the report stating that it should be seen as a first step towards a significant and ongoing improvement in the quality of regulation. He went on to say that a key outcome was the strengthening of the regulatory impact analysis process for regulation which came into effect on 1 April this year. 
Maryan Street 
: Is the Minister confident that the review will produce improvements in the business environment; if so why? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I am because the actual proposals have come from the individual businesses that have either participated in the sector reviews or submitted to the Business Consultation Website. This is very much a bottom-up review from the perspective of business. Given that New Zealand ranks No. 2 in the World Bank ease of doing business survey it is not surprising that relatively small changes make a big difference to small to medium sized enterprises.
Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sharples Pita: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:8962] 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the  
New Zealand Herald  
article of 7 May 2007 headed “Diabetes cases soar beyond forecasts”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I seek leave to table the  
Waikato Times 
 article of 5 May 2007 headed “Waikato diabetes study ends in failure”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:639;Page:8956] 
5.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What recent announcements has she made regarding New Zealand Sign Language? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I am very pleased to inform the House that last night I launched the very first New Zealand Sign Language Week. By establishing this special week of recognition of our unique language New Zealand’s Deaf community now has a central focus point for celebrating and lifting the profile of what has recently become our country’s third and newest official language. I would encourage all members of the House to join in the celebrations and events that are happening around the country this week. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Can the Minister inform the House what progress has been driven by the New Zealand Sign Language Act? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can. The list of progress is long and growing. A few highlights are that the Office for Disability Issues is working with the police and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that Deaf people have fair access to the justice system using professional interpreters. Progress in the education sector includes the recently announced launch of the Sign Language curriculum offering Sign Language as a choice alongside other languages offered in schools. I am also pleased to see the Accident Compensation Corporation taking a leadership role in reducing the barriers to the scheme for the Deaf community by offering dedicated email and fax lines to their deaf clients and also targeted information specialised training and a DVD of deaf people talking about their injury and the help that is available through the scheme.