edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Scrutiny of Legislation Committee Queensland Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:663;Page:11287] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland led by Mrs Jo-Ann Miller MP is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the committee be welcomed.
Calder Cam: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Calder Cam: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11370] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
There was movement at the station for the word had passed around 
That the colt from old Regret had got away 
And had joined the wild bush horses—he was worth a thousand pound 
So all the cracks had gathered to the fray. 
All the tried and noted riders from the stations near and far 
Had mustered at the homestead overnight 
For the bushmen love hard riding where the wild bush horses are 
And the stock-horse snuffs the battle with delight. 
We all recognise that poem by “Banjo” Paterson set in the Australian outback: “The Man from Snowy River”. It illustrates with beauty and elegant simplicity how the early development of Australia was driven by the ineluctable working linkage between man and animals. In the early days the Australian economy was based largely on selling wool from the backs of sheep. Those sheep were managed by men on horses with working dogs. 
Hone Harawira 
: This is New Zealand Cam. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: In New Zealand a similar relationship held true. The working partnership is continued in both countries to this day. Meat and dairy exports underpin our tradable sector. 
Away from the farm the majority of New Zealand homes nurture one or more domestic pets. These pets provide company and affection to people of all ages; they are part of our everyday life. 
Most Kiwis look after their animals extremely well; sadly a small number do not. Very simply we believe that New Zealanders abhor animal cruelty and National in this bill is doing something about it. Thank you.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — First Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11267] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 When I last spoke on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill I stated how many of our businesses in New Zealand look to expand into overseas markets. Often Australia is the first point of call. But those companies need to come to grips with the different federal and State regulations in Australia and sometimes this can be a challenge. 
The single economic market is about aligning the regulatory environment in New Zealand and Australia so that a New Zealand company doing business in Penrose or Onehunga or Panmure or Mount Wellington or like many of the firms in Maungakiekie can do business as easily as the companies that are in Australia. Those who will indirectly benefit from cooperation by regulators are consumers in businesses in New Zealand that are harmed by anti-competitive behaviour or unfair trading by overseas-based parties. Enhanced cooperation will increase the likelihood of detecting and successfully penalising overseas-based parties that contravene the Act. This should promote competition and fair trading in domestic markets resulting in lower prices a greater choice of products and better consumer protection. 
This bill reaffirms Budget 2010 which was delivered by the Hon Bill English last Thursday. It is about lifting New Zealand’s economic performance. The bill is part of a focus from the John Key - led Government on improving access to world markets for our exporters. It is about boosting innovation and improving export access to world markets and it is one of six policy drivers for a step change in New Zealand’s economic performance. The bill is about increasing economic performance unlike the last Labour Government. We will lift our economic performance we will create jobs we will boost incomes and we will improve living standards. I commend this bill to the House.
Tolley Anne: Amended Answers To Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
Tolley Anne: Amended Answers To Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
[Volume:663;Page:11270] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 349 to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question during question No. 11 at question time today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I wish to correct an answer given to a supplementary question asked by Ms Sue Moroney during question No. 11 at question time today. During this supplementary question Ms Moroney asked me to confirm that the top 20 hours’ early childhood subsidy rate was to drop from $12.45 per child per hour down to $10.88 per child per hour. In my response I began by stating “I challenge the member’s figures.” I did not have the funding rates with me at the time but to the best of my recollection thought that those figures were incorrect. I have this evening reviewed the funding rate figures and I can now confirm that the figures stated by Ms Moroney are correct. I wish to withdraw the beginning of my answer to the supplementary question being the words “I challenge the member’s figures.” The rest of my answer to this question stands. I apologise to the House and to Ms Moroney.
Kaye Nikki: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11255] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to support the Statutes Amendment Bill. Firstly I acknowledge members opposite and my members on the Government Administration Committee. I noticed that the chairperson of the committee was not here earlier; I know how much he has been dying to speak on this bill. Unfortunately I have the wonderful opportunity to do that. I also note that we have had 196 very interesting amendments. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Go through them all! 
NIKKI KAYE 
: I would love to go through them all but I do not have the time to do that. I also note that one of the wonderful things about Statutes Amendment bills is that they bring people together. The reason that they do is that we actually cannot disagree because if we do the clause in question drops out. It is a lovely moment being on the Government Administration Committee. 
I will deal with a couple of things that the previous Labour speaker mentioned. The decision on clause 156(2)—to not have to reprint the bill—was a really good one by the committee. I also acknowledge that clause 196(1) regarding the validity of wills will be dealt with I think during the Committee stage in the House. There are a number of amendments that it is very important that the House scrutinise but they are not controversial. They include amendments to the Electoral Act the Juries Amendment Act and the Copyright Act. I commend this bill to the House.
Roy Heather: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Heather: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11259] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 As a Wellington-based MP I rise to speak on the second reading of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. There is something very intriguing about space the planets and the stars. They are parts of our universe that we rarely get to see close up and perhaps it is because of this that adults and children alike are always rather taken by them. We have been very fortunate in Wellington to have the Carter Observatory. It has been an important feature of the Wellington landscape for 70 years now and more recently has become a popular attraction for those visiting the Wellington Botanic Garden serving as an interactive learning facility for students for teachers and for parents. The observatory provides us with the opportunity to have a closer look at what is going on about us every day and night. 
The Carter Observatory opened in 1941 and it was not until 1977 that it became the national observatory of New Zealand. Following a Government-commissioned assessment in 2005 Professor Mike Bessell reported that it was not meeting the objectives of a national observatory including training outstanding scientists and promoting international research activities by collaborating with foreign astronomers. 
This bill draws to a close the changes that have been under way since 2007 when the Wellington City Council took over the management of the observatory and contributed $1.9 million towards its refurbishment and upgrade. This significant investment has made the observatory the popular attraction that we know today albeit with quite a changed focus that of education and tourism. 
The transfer of assets to the Wellington City Council and the disbanding of the board mean that the council can continue its efforts to make the observatory an appealing and engaging place for both visitors and locals to enjoy and that is exactly what has happened since its recent reopening with a renewed vigour and increased numbers visiting. 
This bill marks a timely shift in purpose and focus that is supported widely—I think by every party in the House tonight. The function of the board has changed and its dissolution is appropriate. No doubt the Carter Observatory will continue to be an important asset to Wellington. Under the responsibility of the Wellington City Council and following the enormous commitment in investment already made I think we can be well assured that it will be well looked after. The ACT Party supports the bill and is pleased to do so. Thank you.
Upston Louise: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
Upston Louise: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11266] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in support of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. As many of the speakers before me have said the Carter Observatory has had a close association with and much support from the Wellington City Council so the repeal of this Act and the transfer of the assets to the Wellington City Council makes a lot of sense. Although the Carter Observatory has in the years preceding the current day carried out very valuable scientific work it has moved on now. Although initially its secondary objective was public education and visits that has moved into the forefront in terms of what is available at the Carter Observatory. It has led to an increase in people who are interested in visiting the planetarium and is less about the science focus as we have heard from other speakers. 
It is important to spend a moment acknowledging the value that the Carter Observatory provides in education. I think of the fortunate students these days who are able to have a hands-on learning experience. If we look at the Carter Observatory website we see the sorts of things that those students can look at. It is obviously a very interactive exhibition. They look at the story of space time and matter and the sheer scale of the universe the big bang and the interpretation of how the world began. That topic has of course fascinated people up and down the country young and old. 
Visitors to the Carter Observatory can travel through a black hole and into the solar system and learn about all the planets that are surrounding us. I think it is a really important part of the learning experience that is available here in Wellington and it will obviously be here for many years to come. It is important to note that this attraction is available day and night so as one of my colleagues said before we could take a diversion from a shopping expedition and take a trip to the observatory. Equally people can get married there which is fascinating. So it is a valuable asset to Wellington and to this district and town. I am delighted to support the bill. 
Bill read a second time.
Peachey Allan: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
Peachey Allan: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11256] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 When I look through the  
Hansard 
 of the debate—well it was not really a debate; it was more of a discussion—on the first reading of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill I note that I made the comment that I was very much looking forward to chairing the Education and Science Committee hearings that would be looking into the bill. I reiterate that it was a pleasure. The committee was at one in terms of its objectives. It had a very very good discussion with a couple of submitters and it was able to come back to the House with a report with no amendments. I take a moment to acknowledge the work of all committee members. I acknowledge Opposition members. I noted Mr Shearer’s very positive contribution to the debate before it was interrupted and I appreciated the remarks that he made. I also acknowledge the role that members on this side of the House played. 
I acknowledge also the role that the Carter Observatory has played in Wellington and in wider New Zealand in terms of the development of the science of astronomy. Many many thousands of youngsters will have had their first introduction to science visiting that observatory where they got that spark of excitement in their eyes. I am confident that the place the Carter Observatory has in New Zealand history and particularly in the history of astronomy is secure and will go from strength to strength under the new arrangements. 
The arrangement is very very simple. This bill repeals the Carter Observatory Act 1938 and dissolves the Carter Observatory board. It transfers the assets of the Carter Observatory board to the Wellington City Council and vests the liabilities incurred by the Carter Observatory board in the Crown and in the Wellington City Council. It really marks the next stage in the history of that observatory. 
I conclude by expressing the hope that given that there was unanimous agreement of all sides at the select committee and in the second reading debate we can proceed very very quickly through the Committee stage and on to the third reading and achieve what everybody wants which is the final passage of this bill through the House.
Goodhew Jo: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11261] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 There is a bright future for the Carter Observatory and the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill has been in the making for some time. The decisions that will change the future for the Carter Observatory were made by the previous Government. Those decisions were to repeal the Carter Observatory Act 1938 to dissolve the Carter Observatory board and to transfer the assets of the Carter Observatory board to the Wellington City Council and then to vest the liabilities incurred by the Carter Observatory board in the Crown and the Wellington City Council. The money is sorted the future is sorted and I believe that the three submissions to the Education and Science Committee which were all in favour told us that the time has passed for talking about this issue; it is now time to get on with it. I commend this bill to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11253] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my privilege to speak on the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill. This is an omnibus bill to amend Acts. This bill is introduced under Standing Order 259 which allows an omnibus bill to amend more than one Act. The Statutes Amendment Bill amends and deals with an interrelated topic which can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy. 
The amendments affecting each Act are of a similar nature to each other. This bill amends 47 statutes that are administered by 15 different Government agencies. It contains 196 clauses in total. They range from amending the Juries Amendment Act 2008 and the National Parks Act 1980 to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and so on. This bill utilises minor technical amendments which are non-controversial to many Acts. I commend this bill to the House.
Kedgley Sue: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11258] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support as I think every other party in this House will the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill which vests ownership of the Carter Observatory in the Wellington City Council. The Carter Observatory has recently been refurbished and it is a fantastic asset for Wellington. It is a great tourism asset which is part of a network of tourism facilities in Wellington. It is also a great educational asset as the previous speaker Kelvin Davis has said. It really does have fantastic exhibitions. The multimedia exhibition about the southern skies is fantastic and the heritage Cooke telescope is fantastic. The aim is for the observatory to become a world-class tourism centre and I hope that it really will. Certainly it will be one of Wellington’s many tourist attractions. 
There is a slight sense of sadness or misgiving about the passage of this legislation however because we are losing our national observatory and we hope that in the process we will not lose a generation of young scientists. What was once a national observatory and a centre of scientific excellence and astronomical study is now becoming a tourism centre and educational institution. So that is a little bit sad. There is the prospect that the University of Canterbury and the Mount John Observatory might take over the role of our national observatory. But there is a sense of sadness because the Carter Observatory was set up as an astronomical observatory. But I guess one has to say that as well as sadness there is a change in its role and I am sure it will excite generations of young New Zealanders in particular and get them interested in Matariki the southern stars and astronomy and that is a very good thing. 
We are very pleased to support this bill and we hope the Wellington City Council will look after the Carter Observatory well. We notice that it has funding for the next 10 years with no guarantees after that so we hope that the Wellington City Council or others will continue to fund it and that it will continue to be a centre of excellence as well as a tourism and educational institution. Thank you.
Robertson Grant: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson Grant: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11255] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is indeed a pleasure to stand and give a lengthy address on the topic of the Statutes Amendment Bill. I too pay tribute to the Government Administration Committee a very busy committee that has to turn its mind to many different items. It is very well chaired by the Hon David Parker. I also pay tribute to National members particularly John Hayes who nimbly moves between applications on his eCommittee files looking for details—he does not need to use paper any more; he is right on top of it—and Nikki Kaye who throughout the deliberations on this bill tempted the committee with talk of a clause that she would perhaps oppose during the Committee stage. We waited and we waited but we never heard what it was. Perhaps we will during the Committee stage but Nikki Kaye was not able to tell us then. 
Lianne Dalziel has already said that Statutes Amendment bills play a very important role in the House in being able to make minor and technical changes without the need to produce a large number of individual bills. Omnibus bills like this are obviously useful for the House and this one brings together 2 years’ worth of changes so in that sense it is really an omnibus omnibus bill. 
However I note that in the cross-party consultation Labour felt that one or two of the amendments were moving beyond technical change more toward the policy realm. I say that as a note of caution. Most of those clauses could be dealt with fairly easily but any expansion of the scope of how a Statutes Amendment Bill might work would concern us. An example of that was an amendment to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act which concerned whether a parent’s signature was required if that parent was overseas. Although that might seem like a relatively minor change it is actually quite significant in terms of the responsibilities of parents. 
Perhaps more significant were the changes to the Conservation Act. We had a submission on that matter—that is worthy of note in itself—from an external party Mr Graeme Edgeler about the scope of that change. It was not so much about whether it was the right or wrong thing to do but whether it extended the scope of an offence. In that case it was an offence relating to dogs causing serious injury to protected wildlife. I think it is important just to note that that is perhaps an example of where the bill begins to move beyond just a technical amendment to something that is actually widening the scope of an offence. The committee was able to deal with that concern given the high quality of its membership but it is an issue when we look towards future Statutes Amendment bills. With that contribution I am happy to support this bill.
King Colin: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
King Colin: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11264] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak during the second reading of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. I will deal with the aspects of the mechanics of this legislation. There was total agreement during the select committee process but it is interesting to see in Part 2 how the bill deals with the transition of ownership. Clause 8 talks about the liabilities vesting with the Crown leading up to 20 December 2007 and then after 20 December 2007 the responsibility is vested with the council. To make sure that everything abides by the law clause 9 was put in to ensure that no duty would be paid on the gifting of ownership from the Crown to the Wellington City Council. 
The other aspect I will deal with is that financial matters needed to be tidied up. Clause 10 states that on the date of commencement or as soon as is reasonably possible after that date the previous board is to deliver to the Minister a completed set of accounts. They will then be put on the Table of the House within 28 days of that date. This bill certainly tidies up the transfer of the Carter Observatory from the Crown to the council. 
One thing that fascinated me when I was reading the Wellington City Council submission was that the council thought that having an observatory was an interesting diversion from shopping. The beautiful Carter Observatory was somewhere that people could go to as tourists and observe. It is very interesting. It is very reassuring I am sure that when our wives or our spouses are in town they could possibly go up and look at the Carter Observatory. They can learn and their knowledge of the universe can be built up and they will not have to go down town and go shopping. I think that the bill is very complete and on that basis I commend it to the House.
Horomia Parekura: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Horomia Parekura: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11251] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am maligned by the member’s suggestion that I cannot read. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: These are debating points. I did not take from the member’s comments that he was saying that the member could not read.
Hayes John: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hayes John: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11251] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 That contribution was very typical of the New Zealander who once said that thinking bore a low ratio to talking. I think that that contribution demonstrated quite clearly that public life can attract too little of New Zealand’s best thinking ability to this place and that very often our laws are framed in a less than perfect way. And that is the purpose of this bill. This bill contrary to the comments made by the list member for Rotorua is a Statutes Amendment Bill. By definition it is required that there be cross-party agreement. So to begin one’s speech by talking about the possibilities of change is just arrant nonsense. I say to the Maori member who covers part of my electorate and who throws off at the Wairarapa that this bill is fundamentally important yet he has not read it. How do I know he has not read it? It is because he did not know that there is an amendment to the Taratahi legislation. It is a hugely important amendment and it is clear demonstration that the last speaker had not read this legislation. I absolutely support this legislation and will accordingly sit down.
Dean Jacqui: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11249] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Noting that the first reading of the Statues Amendment Bill enjoyed unanimous support and noting the good work of the Government Administration Committee during its consideration of this bill I expect that this bill will continue to have a good and useful passage through the House. The bill consists entirely of amendments to Acts so it is arguably an omnibus bill. It is introduced to the House by virtue of Standing Order 258 so it is one of those omnibus bills that seeks to make changes to statutes. 
I will highlight in my brief contribution just a few amendments that are of interest. We are proposing an amendment to the Electoral Act 1993 that “removes the obligation for a party to an intended marriage or civil union to provide information to the Registrar-General” but “requires the Registrar-General to provide details of registered marriages and civil unions” to the Chief Registrar of Electors. That change brings the legislation in line with modern times. 
There is also an amendment to the National Parks Act that provides for the Minister to “do or authorise a person to do any thing that the Minister considers appropriate for the proper and beneficial management administration and control” of a national park. Also “the Minister may impose any terms and conditions the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances including a condition requiring the payment of fees.” I imagine that that amendment is reasonably topical. 
I finish with one more: the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 amendment. Part 27 of this bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act. Clause 101 amends section 31 by omitting from subsections (2) and (2A) references to registered post as a means of delivery of something to be analysed and substituting a requirement that the delivery use a traceable system. This change is made because registered post is no longer available. That amendment is relatively straightforward and I hope it will be non-controversial. In addition to the requirement that the delivery is made by way of a traceable system the thing to be analysed must be delivered in a sealed package. 
That ends my contribution to this bill. The select committee has given it good consideration and I anticipate some further good debate as it passes through the House. Thank you.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11247] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Quinn Paul: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Quinn Paul: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11242] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. I have not been impressed at all by the contribution of the Labour Opposition for a couple of reasons. Firstly Labour members seem to have focused most if not all of their contributions to the debate on process. That is probably because 94 percent of the submissions supported the bill. So instead of bringing some rigour to the bill itself they are left to wallow in the misery of process for which they are the past masters. 
Every speaker that I have heard on that side of the House has stood up and lectured this House about democracy. Can members believe that? Labour members are giving this House and the people of New Zealand a lesson on democracy simply because the Law and Order Committee felt that the Department of Corrections was the appropriately nominated adviser to the bill. This is the very party that rammed the Electoral Finance Act through this House against the desires of the overwhelming populace of New Zealanders. How dare they lecture us on democracy? How dare they lecture the people of New Zealand on democracy? Labour members have no grounds to tell us anything. That is the first point I wanted to make. 
The second point I make is that I understand the heartfelt contribution of my erstwhile friend Hone Harawira. I understand his side of it but the truth of the matter is that when we look at the statistics we see that 70 percent of inmates have had 10 or more convictions before they go to prison for the first time 70 percent of people who have been to prison reoffend within 2 years of their release and 86 percent reoffend within 5 years of their release. So although I hear the argument for the carrot to encourage and to develop we have to be mindful of the facts. The reality is that people are given chances but they do not take them. 
So we turn to this legislation and the ultimate sanction is that 41 crimes now constitute the serious criminal offending that will mean the “three strikes”—that colloquialism. Those crimes fall under about four or five main headings: sexual violation murder manslaughter use of a firearm against a law enforcement officer kidnapping and aggravated robbery. If Opposition members want to say in this House that they are not serious crimes against the community and society then they do not deserve to be in the Opposition. When we consider these crimes and the variations thereof against the fact that 70 percent of prisoners who go to prison have committed at least 10 crimes before they go to prison for the first time we see that the reality is that those Labour members deserve to leave their seats so we can bring someone else in. With those few words it gives me great pleasure to support the third reading of this outstanding bill.
Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11230] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the third reading of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and I acknowledge the members of the Law and Order Committee for their hard work and I acknowledge the staff the Department of Corrections the New Zealand Police and David Garrett from ACT for the excellent work that has been done in the process of this bill. 
This bill has been a milestone. I am delighted that we are on its third reading and that it will be enacted because keeping the public safe is one of the most fundamental obligations of any Government. It is not about being soft on crime which is exactly what the Opposition is. Labour members say that this legislation could result in disproportionate sentences for offenders at stage three. This Government makes no apology for that because by stage three an offender has been convicted of two previous violent offences and has been warned both verbally and in writing on two different occasions of the consequences of further convictions for serious violent offences. 
This bill is about serious violent offending. I point out that all of these serious violent offences are identified in clause 5. The specifications for these serious violent offences are in the Crimes Act 1961. I say that because some queries were raised about the specifications for the serious violent offences. One of the queries was from the AIDS Foundation which I have had the privilege of being a member of. I was pleased that the foundation raised the matter and that we were able to clarify that the specifications for its particular area of concern are in the Crimes Act but the actual offence is identified in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. Let us face it: it is a serious violent offence to wilfully inflict a disease—AIDS—upon another member of the public. If anybody accepts that it is otherwise then that person is deluding himself or herself. There is nothing acceptable about the wilful passing of such a disease on to another human being. It is a serious violent offence that is rightly identified in the schedule of serious violent offences and the specifications for it can be found in the Crimes Act 1961. It has been around for a long time so nobody should be in any doubt about the details of those particular offences. 
This legislation recognises the repeat nature of offending by those few who fail to heed warnings and continue to offend regardless of the consequences. These are the people whom we cannot necessarily do anything with. These people are a minority which I think has been made abundantly clear time after time. The National-led Government promised to get tough on crime—to toughen up on criminals—and this bill does exactly that. I am proud to support this bill with ACT as our coalition partner in its passage through the House.
Wilkinson Kate: Budget Debate 
Wilkinson Kate: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11226] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Boscawen John: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Boscawen John: Statutes Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11256] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will support the Government in the passing of the Statutes Amendment Bill. 
Bill read a second time.
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11205] 
5. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What are the objectives of the Budget 2010 tax package? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The main objective of the Budget 2010 tax changes is to foster faster economic growth. It does this in several ways. Across-the-board cuts to personal tax rates will help families by giving them the incentives to get ahead under their own steam. It will also attract and retain skilled New Zealanders in this country. The tax package including the measures taken around cutting the company and savings tax rates extending the tax base and lifting the rate of GST will make the tax system fairer as well as close loopholes. 
Amy Adams 
: How will the tax package help hard-working New Zealand families to get ahead? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It will leave more cash in the hands of those hard-working New Zealanders in order to give them more choices and better incentives. Under the changes 73 percent of income earners those earning less than $48000 a year will now face a top statutory income tax rate excluding tax credits of 17.5 percent or less. For those near the top of this income range the tax rate is almost halved from 33c in the dollar just 2 years ago to 17.5c today. 
Amy Adams 
: How will the tax package make New Zealand’s tax system more internationally competitive? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The shift in the tax system will help to attract and retain the skilled workers this economy needs. Before this tax package on a straight dollar for dollar basis all Australians earning up to $228000 a year were paying less tax than New Zealanders on comparable incomes. This package reduces that figure to about $55000 a year. In other words all New Zealanders earning more than $55000 a year will be paying less tax than Australians who are on the same income. The cut in the company tax rate from 30 percent to 28 percent means that our headline rate reaches 28c sooner than in Australia. This will help lift investment and create jobs. 
Amy Adams 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of support for dropping the top personal tax rate to 33 percent and dropping the company rate to 28 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen a number of reports including one that states: “This allows New Zealanders to keep more of their own money.” I have seen another report about dropping the company rate which states that it will “create an environment in which enterprises can succeed—both New Zealand enterprises and those that are attracted from overseas.” Those statements were both made in 1988 by Phil Goff when he implemented those tax measures.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11208] 
9. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What increase did Budget 2010 give to school operational funding? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Budget 2010 invested an additional $155.9 million into school operational funding over the next 4 years. This means that despite the Government facing very tight fiscal conditions we have delivered a 4 percent increase in funding to schools. 
Allan Peachey 
: What does this increase in school operational funding mean for an average-sized school? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am advised that the 4 percent increase in school operational funding means that for an average primary school there will be an additional $10700 next year and for an average secondary school there will be an additional $26700 next year. That is a substantial cash increase to schools in a very tight fiscal environment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the figures she has just given the House on the basis of a 4 percent increase does she accept with a 5.9 percent inflation that the average secondary school will be $13000 a year worse off next year? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I understand that part of the 5.9 percent is the one-off spike from the rise in GST and the underlying inflation is closer to 3 percent. I am also advised that the Ministry of Education receives a cash disbursement for the GST component of operational funding that is passed on to schools. That means when the rate of GST increases cash payments to schools increase by the same amount as the GST increase so schools are compensated for the GST rise and they get a 4 percent increase in their operational funding. I am surprised that Mr Mallard does not know that because he was Minister of Education. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why then did she announce them as GST inclusive? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Budget was announced as GST exclusive. 
Allan Peachey 
: What response has the Minister received from the education sector to the increase in operational funding? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have received a number of responses welcoming the increase. One response from a chairman of a school principals association said that the Government is showing that education is a priority. Another response from a member of the national executive of the New Zealand Educational Institute said that the increase in operations grants was a “biggie” for primary schools in the Budget.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11208] 
8. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: On how many occasions has he as Prime Minister dealt with actual or perceived conflicts of interest involving himself since the election? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I cannot recall exactly on how many occasions I have considered actual or perceived conflicts of interest matters involving me but I do know that there have been at least two. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he believe that he has avoided or might avoid conflicts of interest issues arising because he has taken the precaution of putting his relevant domestic assets into a blind trust? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well that would be my hope. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Will he recommend to all his Cabinet Ministers that they establish a blind trust for relevant assets so as to reduce the growing list of conflicted Ministers who have come to public attention for real or perceived conflict of interest issues such as Dr Worth the Hon Dr Nick Smith the Hon Chris Finlayson or himself with Jackson Mining and Tranz Rail? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are two aspects. Firstly I refute that the members listed have conflicts of interest; just because that member says they have one does not mean they do have one. Secondly it is up to individual Ministers to seek advice from the Cabinet Office on that matter. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has the Cabinet Office confirmed that his blind trust has been established in a manner that means he cannot know what he owns from one day to the next and is therefore fully compliant with the relevant sections of the  
Cabinet Manual 
; if so why will he not require that other Ministers do the same? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: To the best of my knowledge yes. I am not aware of the blind trusts arrangements that Ministers have. They take them up with the Cabinet Office.
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11203] 
3. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on how Budget 2010 delivered for New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The reactions have been generally pretty positive—so much so that the Opposition did not even ask a question on the Budget today. Most commentators agree the Budget has struck the right balance between maintaining public services and controlling debt while making worthwhile and overdue improvements to the tax system which will help to rebalance the economy. 
Craig Foss 
: Has he seen any surveys of public responses to the Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: A wide range of surveys have indicated a public response. I will simply refer to one from the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development where a vast majority—about 80 percent—approved the reductions in personal income tax rates 73 percent supported the tax base broadening measures 69 percent supported the Government’s investment in ultra-fast broadband and around 70 or 80 percent supported the increased investment in schools and hospitals. Rounded up with all the issues including the tax increases approvals outnumbered disapprovals by about two to one. 
Craig Foss 
: What conclusions does the Government draw from the reaction to the Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think it means that New Zealanders have a pretty good grasp of what went wrong in this economy in the last decade and what is required to put it right. It also means that when they understand the issues—and in this case they are issues that affect every household and every small business—they will support bolder policy initiatives. Taxpayers who are interested to know their own position can go to the website www.taxguide.govt.nz. The website has had about 300000 hits and I encourage all New Zealanders who want to understand their position to visit it. 
Craig Foss 
: What possible measures were considered and rejected for Budget 2010? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We had a number of suggestions including some that were raised in this House. We rejected an increase in personal tax. We rejected the idea of fiddling with GST to create exemptions. We rejected the idea of getting back on the treadmill of unsustainable Government spending and we rejected the idea of significantly increasing Government debt beyond responsible levels. All those suggestions came from the Labour Opposition.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:11202] 
2. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has he received any reports regarding the comment attributed by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 to National MP Shane Ardern that “Mr Hide could stop the ETS if he wished by reconsidering his party’s confidence and supply agreement with National”; and what is his view of the ETS and the confidence and supply arrangement? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am aware of the comments. My view of the emissions trading scheme is that it strikes a good balance between our economic opportunities and our environmental responsibilities. My view of the confidence and supply arrangement with the ACT Party is that it forms the basis of a very positive and healthy relationship. I thank the ACT Party for its contribution in our stable and balanced Government and in particular I thank the Minister for the great work he has done in reforming Auckland. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does he share ACT’s concern that the entire net gain from tax cuts for the 550000 households earning between $40000 and $85000 shown to be 0.4 percent of their income on page 9 in the Minister’s Executive Summary in the Budget is eaten up by the 0.4 percent extra cost of the emissions trading scheme as shown on page 65 in the Economic and Fiscal Update—that is that what Bill English has given back Nick Smith has taken away for over a million middle-income New Zealanders? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because the estimates I have are that the emissions trading scheme will cost the average household around $3 a week and the tax cut for someone on $50000 even if they consume the lot net of GST is about $14 to $15 a week. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Is the Prime Minister therefore saying that the figures contained on page 9 in the Minister’s Executive Summary and on page 65 in the Economic and Fiscal Update showing respectively the extra income for middle-income households earning between $40000 and $85000 and the extra costs of the emissions trading scheme are wrong? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No; but the answer is that one is a measure of the CPI and one is a measure of their general income.
Amended Answers To Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
Amended Answers To Oral Questions — Question No. 11 to Minister 
[Volume:663;Page:11270] 
Amended Answers To Oral Questions 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 349 to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question during question No. 11 at question time today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I wish to correct an answer given to a supplementary question asked by Ms Sue Moroney during question No. 11 at question time today. During this supplementary question Ms Moroney asked me to confirm that the top 20 hours’ early childhood subsidy rate was to drop from $12.45 per child per hour down to $10.88 per child per hour. In my response I began by stating “I challenge the member’s figures.” I did not have the funding rates with me at the time but to the best of my recollection thought that those figures were incorrect. I have this evening reviewed the funding rate figures and I can now confirm that the figures stated by Ms Moroney are correct. I wish to withdraw the beginning of my answer to the supplementary question being the words “I challenge the member’s figures.” The rest of my answer to this question stands. I apologise to the House and to Ms Moroney.