edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
Parliamentary Service Commission — Membership 
[Volume:651;Page:1039] 
Parliamentary Service Commission 
Membership 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Further to discussions at the Business Committee last week I seek leave to move a notice without motion or debate relating to the membership of the Parliamentary Service Commission. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 the following members be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Service Commission: Nathan Guy Hon Darren Hughes Metiria Turei John Boscawen Te Ururoa Flavell and Hon Jim Anderton. 
Motion agreed to.
Members Sworn 
Members Sworn 
[Volume:651;Page:1015] 
Members Sworn 
Mr Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Timothy John Groser who then took his seat in the House.
Tabling of Documents — Sitting Programme—2009 
Tabling of Documents — Sitting Programme—2009 
[Volume:651;Page:1006] 
Tabling of Documents 
Sitting Programme—2009 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the debate but in order to facilitate the debate that will take place this afternoon I seek leave of the House to table the sitting programme for 2009. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Points of Order — Sale of Liquor (Community Involvement) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Sale of Liquor (Community Involvement) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:651;Page:963] 
Tuesday 16 December 2008 
( 
continued on Thursday 18 December 2008 
) 
Points of Order 
Sale of Liquor (Community Involvement) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table the Sale of Liquor (Community Involvement) Bill a member’s bill in my name and have it set down as a members’ order of the day. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Leave is denied.
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1511] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government and Environment Committee consider the bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 19 June 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during questions for oral answer) during any evening of a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189 and 190(1)(b) and (c).
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1511] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1;United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 110 Noes 10.
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Garrett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:652;Page:1473] 
2.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he accept that had ACT’s “three strikes” legislation been in force before their deaths 78 lives would have been saved because their killers would have been behind bars and unable to kill; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I accept that the legislation would have prevented lives from being lost outside prison because potential killers would have been incapacitated. As to the exact number of lives that would have been lost I think it is difficult to predict with any certainty how past behaviour would have been influenced by a law that is yet to be implemented. 
David Garrett 
: Does he agree that saving lives and keeping New Zealanders safe is the first duty of Government; if so given that there is strong evidence around the world to show that the “three strikes” legislation reduces homicides by up to a third will his Government be supporting the passage of “three strikes” into law? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In answer to the first part of that question yes. In answer to the second part of the question the member will know that throughout the development of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill I have taken seriously the agreement between the National Party and the ACT Party. That involves of course National giving the bill a fair hearing at the select committee based on the evidence and submissions received. In keeping with that agreement I am not prejudging the outcome.
Curran Clare: Points of Order — Copyright (Internet Service Provider Account Termination Policy) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Curran Clare: Points of Order — Copyright (Internet Service Provider Account Termination Policy) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:652;Page:1472] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Copyright (Internet Service Provider Account Termination Policy) Amendment Bill in my name despite Standing Orders 271 and 272 and for the bill to be set down for its first reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection.
Garrett David: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Garrett David: Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1518] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the final reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). My view on it has not changed since I spoke during the second reading. The bill is a reasonably good start I suppose. It will give staff of the Department of Corrections when they are not engaged in other things the right to search prisoners for contraband. It will allow for random searches of staff lockers which sadly is sorely needed. This week an absolutely damning report has been released which not only implicates Mr Barry Matthews but goes further down. 
In talking about contraband I say that it is illusory to think that this bill will stop cellphones and drugs getting into prisons. It might help to curb access to contraband a bit better but as I said in my second reading speech the only real way to stop it is to have only non-contact visits where even lawyers must sit in a separate room and communicate with the prisoner by telephone. I have seen with my own eyes that that completely stops contraband and cellphones getting into prisons. This bill is nothing more than a reasonably good start. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it doesn’t. What about crooked guards? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Well exactly! That is why there is a provision in the bill to search guards’ lockers. Sadly it is necessary. It should not be but it is. As the previous National speaker said we found a drug ring being run by cellphone from Auckland prison. Apparently several members of the drug ring allegedly made millions of dollars. What a disgraceful indictment on the previous system. 
We have also seen much hand-wringing from members on the other side. Perhaps I should not put it like that because it is correct that many prisoners have drug and alcohol issues. It is also correct that prisoners should be offered treatment but how can they possibly be offered treatment if prisons are awash with drugs? Some criminal lawyer friends and colleagues say that drugs are easier to get inside prison that outside. At least the dealers are close by. As I have already said the provisions relating to cellphone communications are a good start but the only real way to stop cellphone usage is to prevent contact visits. 
The ACT Party supports this bill. It will give Department of Corrections staff some more tools in their arsenal. But it goes nowhere near far enough. Thank you.
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1512] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the report of my technical advisory group that I gave a commitment to the House I would table today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The document can be tabled. It has to be tabled by the way by 6 o’clock. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1512] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1;United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 110 Noes 10.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1485] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Urgency 
Smith Lockwood: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1485] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will accept the good humour with which the member made a non - point of order.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1485] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it might be helpful to point out to the Leader of the House that it is not a requirement of the Standing Orders that urgency be moved every day after question time.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1485] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and first reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 
. This bill has been very much awaited by many New Zealanders who have identified over the years the difficulties in dealing with the Resource Management Act. 
Yesterday evening a seminar was provided to all members of Parliament on the content of the bill and copies of the bill were available for all members of Parliament. My colleague the Hon Nick Smith who will be moving the first reading today has also undertaken to release many of the papers that went into the advice that formulated the construction of this bill.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:652;Page:1485] 
1. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee 
: Is consideration of a carbon tax still part of the terms of reference of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairperson of the Emissions Trading Scheme Committee) 
: 
 Yes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How much time will the committee spend on considering a carbon tax given that the Prime Minister has all but ruled out that his Government will enact one so that consideration of that option will not be a waste of both the committee’s time and submitters’ time? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The amount of time the committee chooses to spend on any particular aspect of its terms of reference is in the hands of members of the committee.
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Katene Rahui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:652;Page:1484] 
12.  
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What steps is he taking to address the reported decline of homeownership rates amongst Maori with the proportion of Maori who own their home having fallen from 61.4 percent in 1991 to 45.2 percent in 2006? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 We are taking a number of steps that will help the general population and will also help Maori first-home buyers such as streamlining the Resource Management Act and the Building Act to make building cheaper reducing taxes so there is more take-home pay to service a mortgage and keeping interest rates under control through better Government spending when interest rates might otherwise rise as the economy recovers. We are also speaking to a number of iwi and hapu groups and the Maori Party about how the Housing Innovation Fund can help and how papakainga housing can be advanced. 
Rahui Katene 
: What advice has the Minister received from his officials to account for the significant increase in the proportion of Maori in rental tenure from 38.6 percent to 54.8 percent? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have seen the report called  
Maori Housing Trends 2008 
. Maori have been hit by the same challenges as other New Zealanders who have found that property prices and rents have got out of reach in recent years. However I am aware that this has been exacerbated for Maori in particular because they often need larger—and therefore more expensive—houses which are more costly to rent. 
Rahui Katene 
: How will the Minister respond to the recent qualitative research on Maori housing experiences that found that rural renters are more often exposed to poor property conditions lower levels of maintenance and less choice? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: What the member says is true. In fact many of the rural renters were renting State houses that were in a seriously dilapidated condition because the Labour Government decided to spend depreciation funds on acquisitions. The renters have been living in smelly damp disgusting conditions and that is why the National Government will do up those houses. Furthermore we are working with Maori housing providers on upgrades providing papakainga housing and advising Maori on how they can access the Housing Innovation Fund.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:652;Page:1482] 
9.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports has he received regarding the shared equity home purchase pilot? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I have seen reports on the shared equity pilot which was a flagship Labour policy to address housing affordability. I have seen reports advising that despite the promises that the pilot would see between 500 and 700 families helped under the scheme over 2 years actually only 21 loans have helped 21 families in the first 7 months. 
Chester Borrows 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on how the shared equity home purchase scheme was developed? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes. I have reviewed 12 announcements between 2004 and 2008 heralding the shared equity scheme. When the scheme was finally delivered many years later in the pre-election environment the market had changed and as the paltry 21 loans clearly illustrate the scheme was a case of too little too late. National promised to keep the pilot. We will keep the pilot but we do not hold much hope for it. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Why is the Government making it so hard for young Kiwis to get into new homes when on the other hand its leader seems to be offering Fisher and Paykel Appliances shareholders the promise of extensive help? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The new Government is not making it harder for young Kiwis to get into new homes. In fact that appears to be getting easier for them. But we are equally concerned about those who bought homes recently and are seeing their asset value being eroded.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:652;Page:1481] 
8.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What was the advice he received over the kinds of businesses and circumstances in which the Government would consider a bail-out? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I refer the honourable member to my answer to yesterday’s question No. 4 on substantially the same issue because this is substantially the same answer. It is not appropriate to speculate on the circumstances of any particular business particularly listed businesses in this House. The honourable member is well aware of the requirements of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 in that regard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When did the Minister ask for advice and when did he receive it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I asked for advice on this matter I think before Christmas simply because it was evident to me that many other Governments were also getting advice—if not setting up schemes—and because we are in a time when the unthinkable seems to happen every week. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the Government considering ensuring that there is a proper return from any funding to firms through for example an equity stake on a model similar to Air New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not intend to speculate on models as I think I said to the media yesterday. Any Government participation would have to be a last resort. The hurdle would be very high and any company seeking Government assistance would have to pay a high price for it in the same way as the guarantee provided to banks for their wholesale fund-raising has a high price attached to it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the Minister release Treasury advice on this matter before next week’s Job Summit? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is unlikely. The advice is under discussion and may well end up being Budget sensitive. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has anyone in Treasury prepared a list of firms that the Government might consider supporting? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: To the best of my knowledge no. I have not seen such a list nor asked for one. 
John Boscawen 
: Why would this Government even remotely consider propping up a private company like Fisher and Paykel Appliances when it clearly has the very simple option of making a pro rata cash issue to its existing shareholders to raise any additional capital it might need? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I reiterate a point I made yesterday. Any company would be expected to pursue all its commercial options and any company out there that is considering seeking Government assistance should take that advice.
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:652;Page:1474] 
3.  
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he seen any reports about public confidence in the Government’s economic programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I have. Public confidence in the Government’s economic programme is partly reflected by confidence in the Government itself. A TV3 poll released last night showed that support for the Government has somewhat surprisingly increased to 60 percent compared with 27 percent support for the Labour Party. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Better than the 22 percent that you got! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I remind the member that I know what that is like and he will not like it. 
Chris Tremain 
: What factors does the Minister consider have contributed to this public support for the Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The polls of course are only a partial and passing measure of support. The more important support has been from those many businesses organisations and individuals whom we speak to every day who are very pleased to see the Government moving decisively and taking meaningful action to assist people to deal with the economic downturn.
Dunne Peter: Tabling of Documents — Petition of Bronwyn Holloway-Smith and 148 Others—Repeal of Section 92A of the Copyright Act 
Dunne Peter: Tabling of Documents — Petition of Bronwyn Holloway-Smith and 148 Others—Repeal of Section 92A of the Copyright Act 
[Volume:652;Page:1471] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 As the sponsor of the petition just referred to I seek leave to table a letter from Bronwyn Holloway-Smith advising that in addition to the 148 signatures on the petition there were several thousand email signatures appended to it which cannot be presented to the House. 
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.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1471] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It seems that the Opposition members cannot be satisfied one way or the other. If we tell them what is going on they moan about it; if we do not tell them what is going on they moan about it. So the answer is—roughly—yes.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1471] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Now that the Government will have a week’s adjournment to recover from its 2 weeks of non-stop action could I ask whether the order of business laid out on the Order Paper today will roughly reflect the likely order of business when the House resumes and also whether it will now be the Government’s practice following its initial dip into normality yesterday to table bills before they are considered for first reading.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1471] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will be in adjournment next week. When the House resumes on 3 March the Government will make progress with the bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday will be a members’ day. In accordance with Standing Order 323(1) I take this opportunity to formally notify the House that Budget Day 2009 will be Thursday 28 May 2009.
Brownlee Gerry: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
Brownlee Gerry: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:652;Page:1471] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That His Excellency’s reply be entered in the 
 Journals of the House. 
Motion agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
Smith Lockwood: Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:652;Page:1471] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to announce that accompanied by members I attended upon His Excellency the Governor-General with the Address agreed to by the House in reply to the speech at the opening of this Parliament. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: 
MR SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 
I receive with much pleasure the Address which has been adopted by the House of Representatives in reply to my speech at the Opening of the First Session of the Forty-Ninth Parliament of New Zealand. I thank you for your assurance that the matters referred to in my speech will receive your careful consideration. 
Anand Satyanand Governor-General
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:652;Page:1485] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and first reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 
. This bill has been very much awaited by many New Zealanders who have identified over the years the difficulties in dealing with the Resource Management Act. 
Yesterday evening a seminar was provided to all members of Parliament on the content of the bill and copies of the bill were available for all members of Parliament. My colleague the Hon Nick Smith who will be moving the first reading today has also undertaken to release many of the papers that went into the advice that formulated the construction of this bill. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it might be helpful to point out to the Leader of the House that it is not a requirement of the Standing Orders that urgency be moved every day after question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will accept the good humour with which the member made a non - point of order. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Copyright (Internet Service Provider Account Termination Policy) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Copyright (Internet Service Provider Account Termination Policy) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:652;Page:1472] 
Points of Order 
Copyright (Internet Service Provider Account Termination Policy) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Copyright (Internet Service Provider Account Termination Policy) Amendment Bill in my name despite Standing Orders 271 and 272 and for the bill to be set down for its first reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection.
Tabling of Documents — Petition of Bronwyn Holloway-Smith and 148 Others—Repeal of Section 92A of the Copyright Act 
Tabling of Documents — Petition of Bronwyn Holloway-Smith and 148 Others—Repeal of Section 92A of the Copyright Act 
[Volume:652;Page:1471] 
Tabling of Documents 
Petition of Bronwyn Holloway-Smith and 148 Others—Repeal of Section 92A of the Copyright Act 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 As the sponsor of the petition just referred to I seek leave to table a letter from Bronwyn Holloway-Smith advising that in addition to the 148 signatures on the petition there were several thousand email signatures appended to it which cannot be presented to the House. 
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.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:652;Page:1471] 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will be in adjournment next week. When the House resumes on 3 March the Government will make progress with the bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday will be a members’ day. In accordance with Standing Order 323(1) I take this opportunity to formally notify the House that Budget Day 2009 will be Thursday 28 May 2009. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Now that the Government will have a week’s adjournment to recover from its 2 weeks of non-stop action could I ask whether the order of business laid out on the Order Paper today will roughly reflect the likely order of business when the House resumes and also whether it will now be the Government’s practice following its initial dip into normality yesterday to table bills before they are considered for first reading. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It seems that the Opposition members cannot be satisfied one way or the other. If we tell them what is going on they moan about it; if we do not tell them what is going on they moan about it. So the answer is—roughly—yes.
Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
Address in Reply — Presentation to Governor-General 
[Volume:652;Page:1471] 
Thursday 19 February 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Address in Reply 
Presentation to Governor-General 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to announce that accompanied by members I attended upon His Excellency the Governor-General with the Address agreed to by the House in reply to the speech at the opening of this Parliament. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: 
MR SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 
I receive with much pleasure the Address which has been adopted by the House of Representatives in reply to my speech at the Opening of the First Session of the Forty-Ninth Parliament of New Zealand. I thank you for your assurance that the matters referred to in my speech will receive your careful consideration. 
Anand Satyanand Governor-General 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That His Excellency’s reply be entered in the 
 Journals of the House. 
Motion agreed to.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:652;Page:1483] 
11.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is it Government policy not to cut job numbers in the core public service? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of State Services 
: The Minister of State Services has no responsibility for what is not Government policy but I can tell the member that it is the Government’s policy to cap the size of the core bureaucracy. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I question the first part of that answer. It may be Government policy not to do something or to do something—so it is Government policy not to do something else so the Government has policy for not something as the member was trying to imply— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think that is a point of order though it is a clever play on words. 
Grant Robertson 
: What given that answer is the Minister’s definition of the core Public Service? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The bit that is not going to be cut. 
Louise Upston 
: What is the rationale for the Government’s policy to cap the number of people working in core Government administration? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: As the Minister of State Services said in the House earlier this week after 9 years of a free-spending Labour Government the number of back-office public servants is out of proportion to that of frontline staff. The Government is determining that the focus will go on to improving frontline services for New Zealanders. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with the statement from the State Services Commissioner at the Government Administration Committee yesterday that Ministers are still working out what constitutes core Government administration; and how is it responsible to call for a cap on something that he has not even defined? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can tell the House that it is not the intention of this Government to go on some slash-and-burn exercise through the Public Service as the Labour Opposition appears to want us to do. Careful consideration is being given to how we give effect to this policy. It is our policy to cap the size of the core bureaucracy in New Zealand. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the reason the Minister will not define what the core Public Service is that he wants to ensure he can move the goalposts so that his plans to cut jobs fit within his yet-to-be-defined cap; if not what is the reason? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government has a policy to cap the size of the core bureaucracy in New Zealand. As the member has already been informed at the select committee by the State Services Commissioner that is a work in progress.
Fenton Darien: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Fenton Darien: Building Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:5136] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call on the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). I have to say I was getting a little bit concerned about the level of agreement in the House. This consensus is getting to be a bit of a habit on Thursday afternoons. I was with Chris Auchinvole all the way until he started to talk about productivity then we absolutely parted company. I am really looking forward to the debate on productivity led by the wonderful Dr Don Brash. I am looking forward to seeing what silver bullets he can come up with. I am looking forward to being able to challenge his answers because I suspect they will be the same as they were in the past. They will be the same old things we have heard in the past. 
However I do not want to finish on a discordant note on a Thursday night. On behalf of Labour I add my support for the bill. As many people have already observed Labour introduced this bill while in Government. The purpose was to help reduce unnecessary delays in the building consent process that cause frustration among builders and make it more expensive for the owners. The bill will reduce both the direct and indirect cost to owners and developers associated with the construction process while ensuring that quality homes and houses are constructed. 
This bill was part of a coordinated approach from the last Labour Government to assist in increasing the supply of good-quality affordable homes as part of a package of programmes introduced by Labour. As my colleague Moana Mackey observed the package was largely picked up by this Government. Again it is really interesting to see we have consensus on these things. It will be more interesting when we get past all the bills that Labour introduced in the last Parliament—bills that we are now passing. Every day we are voting on good Labour bills that National agrees with. I suspect that once we get to the Government bills we will have a lot of disagreement. 
I congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee as others have on the work it did. It received 17 submissions on the bill including submissions from local government industry bodies private companies a Crown entity and a community advocate group. I am sure others have set out the main changes that the select committee recommends which I think are very sensible. I am really pleased that this important Labour bill has found favour with the National Government. I look forward to its measures making a difference to the affordable home market.
Vote: Securities (Disclosure) Amendment Bill Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Securities (Disclosure) Amendment Bill Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:655;Page:5131] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Securities (Disclosure) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Financial Advisers Amendment Bill read a third time.
Kedgley Sue: Securities (Disclosure) Amendment Bill Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Kedgley Sue: Securities (Disclosure) Amendment Bill Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:655;Page:5131] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I could not have put it better. I seek leave to have the votes taken separately and voted on once again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We are clear now as to why leave is sought. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? No one is opposed. Leave is granted.
Tremain Chris: Securities (Disclosure) Amendment Bill Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Tremain Chris: Securities (Disclosure) Amendment Bill Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:655;Page:5131] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that the Green Party member wants to vote separately on the two bills. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Yes that is what the member has just sought leave for. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: No the member sought leave to repeat the vote on the Securities (Disclosure) Bill but the actual vote was on the two bills together. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that is helpful. I ask the member to include in the seeking of leave that the vote be put again and that the two bills be voted on separately.
Kedgley Sue: Securities (Disclosure) Amendment Bill Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Kedgley Sue: Securities (Disclosure) Amendment Bill Financial Advisers Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:655;Page:5130] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. The bills are being voted on jointly but the Green Party would like to have a different vote on each bill. Is there some way of being able to do that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: It would have been helpful if the member had alerted us to that and called for a party vote. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I did not realise the bills were going to be taken together. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: In that case the member would be best to seek leave to have the vote put again. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to vote on the Securities (Disclosure) Bill separately.
Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Quinn Paul: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:5113] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to make some concluding remarks on behalf of myself and other members on this side of the House on the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. This outstanding bill is another milestone achievement of this National Government. I make one point: during question time this afternoon I thought we might have to take urgency to get this bill through because the brutish glare that I saw the Hon Trevor Mallard give his colleague the Hon David Cunliffe was unbelievable. I thought “Gosh we are going to have to go to the tribunal and bring in Parekura Horomia as the referee!”. 
Hon Member 
: And the language! 
PAUL QUINN 
: And the language. That would be the first opportunity for the Hon Parekura Horomia to be the referee amongst his colleagues. 
With those concluding remarks I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.
Guy Nathan: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:5107] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to take a call in the third reading of this very important bill the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. The bill went to the Justice and Electoral Committee which was very ably chaired by Chester Borrows the MP for Whanganui. He did a fantastic job getting it through the select committee process. 
I will make a few introductory remarks on this important third reading. Most important is that the Government is very busy. It is getting on with a very heavy justice workload and is progressing a lot of bills through Parliament in the name of the Hon Simon Power. This is an important bill. It is very important for a whole lot of New Zealanders because it allows for pretty speedy cost-effective access to justice. That is the most significant point about what this bill does. 
The Disputes Tribunals Act has not been changed since 1998 when the maximum claim levels were last adjusted. Nothing happened in regard to this legislation under the previous administration so it is great that we are cracking on and making justice simpler and easier for a whole lot of New Zealanders. 
Currently about 20000 disputes are resolved each year. Because of the new bill and the way we are progressing it through the House and with the select committee work that has gone on around 3600 people will be able to have access to justice quicker on top of those 20000 disputes that are resolved each year. That is a significant point. 
This is a very small but very important bill. I spoke in the second reading debate of the bill. It has a great deal of support around the House which is fantastic. I think some of the challenges that were raised by submitters and the discussion through the select committee process were about the claim limits and whether they should be higher between the agreed and non-agreed parties. That is a challenge for this Government. We must allow this legislation to bed in and to give it time so that we can understand how it is working and how the jurisdiction limits are working. The Hon Simon Power raised the issue of whether in future the limits could be looked at through the Order in Council. That is something to watch. 
In essence this bill will make it easier for New Zealanders to access justice. That is important for New Zealanders. I am delighted to support the third reading of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill.
Power Simon: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Power Simon: Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:5105] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I intend to take only a short call on this largely non-controversial legislation. This measure was part of a small business relief package announced by the Prime Minister on 4 February this year to promptly respond to the global financial crisis. Expanding the jurisdiction of the tribunal also fulfils National’s election promise to “increase the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal to reduce pressure on District Courts”. The bill increases the maximum claim levels of the disputes tribunal from $7500 to $15000 or by consent of both parties from $12000 to $20000. I acknowledge the cooperation of all parties and officials in ensuring that this legislation could be introduced examined by the Justice and Electoral Committee and debated by the House expeditiously to enable it to come into force just 6 months after the Prime Minister’s announcement. It also reflects the respect accorded to the valuable dispute resolution services provided by the disputes tribunal. 
The disputes tribunal already resolves more than 20000 disputes each year. The increased maximum claim levels will assist up to a further 3600 claims to be resolved each year. This increase will enable individuals households and in particular small businesses to resolve their claims more quickly. This will be of assistance particularly in the current economic climate. Submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee raised a number of other possible changes including an even greater increase in the monetary limits. Although there may be merit in some of those ideas the Government considers that it is best to wait and monitor the impact of the present amendments before deciding whether further change to the tribunal is warranted. 
During the course of the debate I noted that Charles Chauvel made the comment that maybe dealing with limits in both the agreed and non-agreed context between parties may be something more appropriately dealt with by way of Order in Council as opposed to statutory and legislative change. I have thought a lot about the contributions that member made during the course of the Committee and second reading stages. I still think that when we are dealing with the jurisdiction of a legal tribunal it is for Parliament to set those particular limits through this Chamber in a way that can ensure a consistency of debate but also make sure that when it comes to issues such as this we are mindful of the impacts the legislation will have on the costs and the requirements for legal advice should these issues become more complex. 
This is a significant increase in the maximum limits for claims before the disputes tribunal. This bill will have an important impact on access to justice for New Zealand. Again I thank all of those who have been involved in this small but important bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:5103] 
11.  
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What are the spending priorities for Housing New Zealand under the new Government? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The three main priorities are insulating State houses upgrading State houses that are in serious disrepair and adding new houses in high-need areas. The funding of $25000 sculptures in corporation developments as encouraged by the previous Government is not a priority for us. 
Tim Macindoe 
: How have the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s priorities changed? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I will give members an example. An albatross sculpture was commissioned for Northcote under the previous Government. A contract was entered into and a significant down payment was made. I found out about this sculpture when it was half finished. Modest sponsorship of local communities is fine but officials are crystal-clear that house upgrades for needy families not expensive sculptures are the Government’s priorities from now on. 
Moana Mackey 
: What priority does the Minister give to the persistent problem of housing affordability given that he has just admitted that it is not a priority for the Housing New Zealand Corporation? What new initiatives were funded in Budget 20009 or does he still believe that tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders are the answer to helping low-income families into homes? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I remind the House that we have increased the Housing Innovation Fund which is predominantly used for first-home buyer and home renter projects from $12 million to $20 million. That is just one example. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Why does the Housing New Zealand Corporation have to change its focus? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I agree with the Northcote tenants who in this week’s  
Campbell Live 
 story said: “$25000 would go a long way if it was spent on improving security and the homes.” I tell colleagues that $25000 would in fact insulate seven State homes. Our stimulus package of $125 million into housing upgrades and new builds—lifting needy families out of squalor keeping 1341 people employed in the month of May and helping New Zealand through a tough recession—is a priority for us. A $25000 albatross sculpture was a priority for the Labour Government.