edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16097] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Before we proceed I want to say that members have spent quite some time talking about process and I have allowed that to continue but I remind members that loss attributing qualifying companies are covered in Part 2 and we will deal with them at that stage. We are on Part 1 clauses 3 to 20 and any amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 187. I ask members to concentrate on Part 1 from now on. I have given a fair range in terms of process but we are on Part 1.
Hodgson Pete: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16095] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I thank the Minister of Revenue for getting to his feet a second time and for giving the House further information and a better understanding of the issues that he faced the process he went through and the timing of it.  
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Think about misusing the personal explanation.  
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure what the Minister for Social Development and Employment who is running a rapid commentary across the Chamber has to add to the debate but I thank the Minister of Revenue for that.  
A couple of things arise. The first is that I recall a tax committee coming up with the need to make progress on loss attributing qualifying companies and I think I remember the Government stating in the Budget that it would not make such progress. I wonder whether what has happened—and it would be no big deal if it had—is that the meetings the Minister attended in the month immediately after the Budget were where he and his officials were convinced that revisiting loss attributing qualifying companies would not be a bad idea. I welcome any comment the Minister might want to make on policy as opposed to process and if he does not want to make any comment that is fine.  
On the narrower issue of process however I do not want to put my point as a statement so I will put it as a question. Was the relevant select committee aware of the fact when it was looking at the primary legislation that a significant Supplementary Order Paper was in the wind or was it led to believe that it was not in the wind? I must say that that becomes rather an important question.  
Hon David Cunliffe 
: No idea.  
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have my own colleague saying that the committee had no idea and of course every colleague is to be taken at his or her word. What does the Minister say? If the Minister’s answer to me is that the select committee was not apprised of the fact that there would be a significant Supplementary Order Paper I think that matters.  
I also on the Minister’s behalf acknowledge his comment that there is a bit of a trade-off between timeliness and process. The folk in the tax world were saying to him time and again that they needed him to move faster not slower. I acknowledge that. I am sure that that was the case and I am sure the Minister was feeling constrained by it. That might be how this process conundrum has come about but I want the Minister if he would be good enough to let me know whether my colleagues are correct in saying that they on the select committee had no idea that a Supplementary Order Paper of this size was coming. The Minister might like to assist by getting to his feet for probably the third and last time to tell us how that might have come to be. That is not the way that this particular Minister would ordinarily operate I would think.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16095] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is no objection.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In his previous submission the Minister said that members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee including me were briefed by his officials on the existence of a Supplementary Order Paper. That is not the case. We had a general discussion with officials on the issue of look-through companies which are the subject matter of Supplementary Order Paper 187 but at no stage was the Supplementary Order Paper presented discussed or referred to. I have in my possession a copy of the briefing note that was the substance of that meeting. I have re-checked it and there is no mention of the Supplementary Order Paper nor any reference to it. The Minister has unfortunately been ill-advised. This matter was not raised with us in the terms that he suggests and I feel compelled to clarify that misrepresentation.
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16095] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry I have misread the relevant Standing Order. Misrepresentation does not apply during the Committee stage. The member can take a call so I will give the member the call.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16095] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I apologise if I did not make myself clear: this is a new point of order on a new matter of substance with regard to what the Minister has just referred to. It is subsidiary to the general point that he made earlier. It is absolutely true that the Minister was generous enough to provide to Opposition members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee access to his tax officials in respect of the issue of look-through companies. The meeting occurred at the request of the Opposition and the Minister was kind enough to assent to it.
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16094] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. The member brought up a point of order earlier on and I ruled on it at that stage much earlier on in the proceedings— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Before the Minister had spoken. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Minister had spoken. After the Minister spoke first you brought up a point of order and I ruled it out of order at that time. The Minister has now spoken again and my question to the member is whether this is a new point of order related to what the Minister has said just now. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: OK and we are looking at Standing Order 106. Give me time; I will just see what the Standing Order says.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16094] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a serious point of order and I would not have expected to have to make it in regard to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Revenue. Under Standing Order 106 “Misrepresentation” paragraph (1) states: “A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of the member’s speech …” but paragraph (2) requires that to occur after the member has completed the speech. I am now taking the first possible opportunity to say that I am sorry but the Minister has misled the Committee. I have been misrepresented—
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16097] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will judge the merits of that during the course of the debate. But we have been going for over 45 minutes now on Part 1 and there has been very little debate on Part 1.
Hodgson Pete: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16092] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I have a few questions to put to the Minister of Revenue regarding process. The reason that I will concentrate on process is straightforward. I think I am entitled to say that I have worked enough with the Minster over the years on enough legislation to know that he has a certain style when it comes to the development and promulgation of policy and legislation and as far as I can tell that style is not at play today. I could however be wrong. It seems to me that the Minister who has already given an explanation to the Committee about how these things have come about may like to rise and give us some further detail.  
I wonder whether the Minister would tell us why it is that when the changes were announced in May there was not time for a select committee process to be put in place for legislation that comes into being on 1 April the following year—so about 10 or 11 months later. Why was that not possible? That is the first question. I would be grateful if the Minister would take us through the consultation processes to see how the time got eaten up to see whether a select committee process was possible to see what could have been done in parallel to ensure a select committee process and to ask the question why if it was able to be done in parallel it was not done—all of those sorts of things.  
The second question I have for the Minister is whether anyone knew. I do not have the revenue spokespersonship in this party so I could not be expected to know but those who do or who have finance or other interests in select committees that might have dealt with this—my own colleagues—seem to have been caught short. So they did not know and that makes me wonder who did. Who did know that this would not go to a select committee? Who knew that we would have a large Supplementary Order Paper that was not subject to the ordinary scrutiny of the parliamentary process? Did the various experts who were contributing to the discussion paper and did the people who were responding to the draft legislation that was put out into the public arena know that that was instead of a select committee process? I ask whether the Minister would be good enough to give us some indication on that—I think I see some body language to suggest the Minister will get to his feet in which case I happily yield.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16097] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There are two parts to my point of order. The first is in respect of the ruling you have just given. Respectful as we are we draw your attention to the fact that Part 1 includes clauses 2 10 and 19 and those clauses are all amended by the Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No clause 2 is not in Part 1. Clause 2 is clause 2. It is not part of Part 1. Part 1 starts with clause 3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Further to my point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for that slip but clauses 10 and 19 surely are in Part 1 and therefore are within the ambit of the Supplementary Order Paper which the matter of process goes to. The second part of my point of order is to note that the Minister of Revenue has very generously given further information in his most recent call about the process that he believes was employed. In doing so he has raised further questions of process that it is incumbent on members of the Labour Opposition to address. Mr Chairperson I am sure you will bear that in mind.
Young Jonathan: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Young Jonathan: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16079] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Well the future is here today; is that not exciting? Yesterday I read that Cisco Systems has unveiled a videoconferencing phone called umi—that is you and me—where people can talk across broadband internet in high-definition television. That will change the way that people do business. 
I was talking to one of Taranaki’s chief executives who described what happens when they have a board of directors meeting with directors coming from all around the country. Not only do they take about 12 hours to get there but also there is the price of meals and all of that time and expense is for a 2-hour meeting. It costs about $1000 per director to get there to have their meeting and to make their decisions. So not only does it cost a lot of money but it takes those directors out of productivity during their travel time. Yes they get together talk for 2 hours it is high value and they make great decisions for the forward progress of the company but the time is coming when they will be able to hold those meetings as if they were all together in the same room although they live in different parts of the country. That will save a tremendous amount of money— 
Chris Hipkins 
: How much? 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: A tremendous amount of money; perhaps $1000 per person for each meeting. So if the cost is $6000 per meeting and that is multiplied for half a dozen meetings a year then that is a lot of money that that company can put into productivity. Not only that but also travel time of around 10 hours per person is saved. 
So those are the sorts of changes that ultra-fast broadband will bring to our country. It will lift education. It will lift the level of access to information for our health care systems. It is a great bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Douglas Roger: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Douglas Roger: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16077] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 ACT will support the referral of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. However although three of our members appear to be comfortable with the bill Heather Roy and I have severe reservations about it and may not support it further. [ 
Interruption 
] That will depend on what happens and what we learn—I did not hear that I am sorry. Although the Minister for Communications and Information Technology in his introductory speech outlined what the bill contains he did not in my view attempt to make a meaningful justification for it. In deciding whether this bill is good or bad we will need to analyse the costs and benefits of it. Does the programme of activity that will flow from this bill bring real benefits? If the answer is yes—and it may well be yes—we need to ask whether those benefits will be larger than the benefits that would result if the money it will cost was left in the private sector. There are a large number of questions of this nature that I will want to look at when it comes time for the select committee’s consideration of the bill. 
At any time there is a limited amount of capital and labour available so it is a nonsense to suggest as the Minister did the other day at question time that jobs will be generated as a result of this bill and the expenditure of money that flows from it. The claim that jobs will be created is simply bad economics at best or deliberate deception at worst. This bill appears to be yet another example of politics being put ahead of markets and of the influence of interest groups that are looking to obtain benefits at the expense of voters. Politicians have a huge incentive to exaggerate the benefits that will flow from the bill. I still remember the claims that a National Government made that 420000 jobs would flow from Think Big. The result was probably negative. We may well learn once again that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Not all investment projects create wealth. The Think Big projects of the 1970s and 1980s should have taught us that lesson. When politics replace markets which is what this bill does investment projects often reduce wealth rather than enhance it. 
We will listen with interest to the evidence at the select committee and see what the case for this bill is.
Clendon David: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Clendon David: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16077] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I chose to take the extra few minutes that were left from last night in part because there are a number of comments I would like to make to wrap up in regard to this bill specifically and also perhaps by way of setting—dare I say it—an example for some of the members of the Government who seemed remarkably reluctant last night to engage with their own legislation despite the fact that this particular bill was one of the key planks of their campaign 2 years ago suggesting that this broadband roll-out was a major part of their economic strategy and a major part of their infrastructure development strategy yet seeming remarkably shy about actually speaking to the bill. One hopes that after a restful night and perhaps a good breakfast there will be some energy and some enthusiasm which was so conspicuous by its absence last night. So we do look forward to a day of actual debate rather than simply meaningless 1-minute statements.  
I return specifically to the bill. There is quite a lot riding on this bill; it is an important piece of infrastructure. I did make the point last evening that there are general benefits to be had from this roll-out—from this improved and updated technology. There will be distinct advantages for business; it will enable people to operate businesses from areas of the country where otherwise they might not. It will facilitate education. There will be advantages for people’s lifestyle choices. For all of those reasons it is important that we get it right.  
A great deal of this bill is focusing on the pricing mechanisms that will be in place to endeavour to encourage take-up to ensure that the providers are rewarded and so on. Clearly one of the key issues we have with this bill and something that we think needs to be ironed out in the select committee process is the question of this 10-year regulatory holiday for want of a better word—or break or prevention of any evolution. It is really critical. The experience we had of seeing the movement from dial-up to broadband should be something of a cautionary tale. We know that for people to make that move to upgrade to another technology it is necessary that householders see value in doing it. There will be early adopters who will see the immediate advantage and will adopt the technology in any case. But the majority of householders will need to see real added value for them in order for them to adopt and to create the critical mass of take-up that will be necessary for the success of this infrastructure. There will have to be obvious value added and for that reason the pricing point is critical. We think that the current mechanisms in place in this bill are unlikely to deliver the optimum price. So in summary then I repeat that the Greens will support this bill with reservations.
Lee Melissa: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Lee Melissa: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16082] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 That was an example of how a long speech does not necessarily make it a good one. 
Hon Member 
: That’s right. 
MELISSA LEE 
: Exactly! The member has just complained about how this Government has taken so long to implement the bill. Let me remind the member that the previous Government was in power for 9 years and if this initiative was so good and if its members believe it was so good—and they are supporting this bill—they should have made it happen. For 9 years Labour did nothing. This Government is about action and perhaps that is the reason why National members are taking short calls. 
I commend the examples that Rahui Katene gave. They are examples of how this Government is supporting the communities around New Zealand. Let me just give an example of how the Asian communities will take advantage of this infrastructure. Asia is so huge when it comes to the Internet. No longer do we rely on the weeks that it takes for “snail mail” to get through. Asians are so instantaneous when they communicate with each other. They have videoconferencing on their telephones. Smartphones have been around for such a long time although New Zealand is just starting with this technology. This infrastructure will make that happen. For those communities who have family overseas when they hear news about how perhaps Yeon Byeon Island has been bombed they will get that news instantaneously. They could talk to their families face to face on their Smartphones. That is the outcome that we are hoping for.  
This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16176] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 36; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Part 7 agreed to.
Roy Eric: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16140] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: As to whether the Standing Orders Committee should look at this matter any member can raise that issue and I advise the member that if he believes it to be a significant issue he should actually do that. I refer the member to Standing Order 169 “Conduct of proceedings” which expressly states that the same rules apply for the conduct of proceedings in a Committee of the whole House as apply in the House. That affirms Standing Order 102. Members might also like to look at Speaker’s ruling 26/3 which again affirms the issues around seniority. So I am upholding the ruling that I have made and I declare the House in Committee.
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16137] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sit down. I will deal with it. He asked whether a colleague on the Government side was seeking the call. That is what he asked. I said that I am the sole judge of who gets the call. I gave the call to the senior Government whip he moved a closure motion and that is what I am putting. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.
Vote: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16141] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 36; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16170] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The provision is in the bill as presented. It has been through a select committee and it has been deliberated on. It is not an amendment; it is actually in Part 7 of the original bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I understand that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My point is that it has been in the bill from day one. It has been accepted in a first reading a second reading and the select committee process and it is contained here. As I said if the member is not happy with it or if a party is not happy with it they have the opportunity to vote the provision down. I made the point about the consequential amendment earlier on: it is a consequential amendment to other particular Acts and they are actually mentioned here. It is in order; it is just like the other amendments throughout the bill. It is within the scope of the bill. That is my ruling.
Adams Amy: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16085] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Addressing broadband and cellphone coverage was one of the issues that I identified very early on as a key thing we could do to improve my Selwyn electorate. It will help people to achieve their dreams and expectations. It will help business to be done better. This bill implements a significant piece of Government policy. I am very pleased to commend the bill to the House.  
Bill read a first time.
Carter John: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16085] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence)  
on behalf of the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: I move  
That the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 6 May 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16132] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16071] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is another piece of legislation that supports this Government’s drive to enable businesses schools learning institutions and individuals to communicate with one another. It is about amending the Telecommunications Act of 2001 and supports the implementation of this Government’s policy programme for the telecommunications sector. 
The bill is about creating jobs it is about creating efficiencies in businesses and it is about creating better technologies. It is one of the six drivers of National’s economic programme. Boosting broadband is part of that initiative. We have heard from the Minister that it is about the ultra-fast broadband initiative it is about rural broadband initiatives and it is about the framework reforms that we are to set up. 
I support this bill and I look forward to the select committee and hearing submissions. Thank you.
Wagner Nicky: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16063] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 The Building Amendment Bill (No 3) is focused on improving efficiency and effectiveness in the building industry and on raising overall performance and productivity. It is designed to allow builders to build better-quality buildings in a more cost-effective manner by ensuring clearer accountability for building practitioners building consent authorities and consumers. It will make sure that work complies with the building code. It includes a code of ethics for licensed building practitioners in order to encourage professional behaviour. It also allows DIY work under controlled conditions. I commend this bill to the House.
Katene Rahui: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Katene Rahui: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16062] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Maori Party about the Building Amendment Bill (No 3). I find it very interesting that the general policy statement for this bill in part says: “Change is needed to provide incentives for building professionals and tradespeople to take responsibility for the quality of their work and to stand behind it.” It is really sad that in this time we need to pass legislation to make sure that people stand behind the quality of their work and take responsibility for it. 
I remember that back in the late 1980s our family bought our first new home. It was built on iwi land by Maori affairs trainees. It was not what one would call a flash home. It cost us $80000 in those days and we had to take out a mortgage with an interest rate of about 18 percent. At one stage it rose to about 24 percent interest so it was very expensive. The first storm we had after we moved in lifted part of the roof. I walked into one room and water was pouring down the wall. We had to get the insurance people to come in and check it all out and get the builders back to re-roof the building and this was only just after it had been built and we had first moved in. This was long before the leaky buildings scandal. 
About 10 years later in the late 1990s we moved into our next new home which was a lot more up-market. In fact it was built by a registered master builder who stood behind his work. He did fantastic work. When we first moved in he lived just down the road from us and he used to make lots of excuses to pop in and check out his workmanship. He would look around to make sure that it was holding up and we felt very comfortable with that because we knew that he cared about the quality of his workmanship about the quality of the building and about the people who were living in his buildings. 
That was very good. He did not need a Building Act or anything like that to force him to do it. But we realise that times have changed and there are cowboys out there still. We realise that some people will act only when the heavy arm of the law is resting upon their shoulders. So although it is regrettable we support this bill being referred to a select committee.
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16053] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 April 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Roy Heather: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Roy Heather: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16062] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Building Amendment Act (No 3) on behalf of the ACT Party. I have to say that the previous speaker Kevin Hague seemed to be struggling to fill his 10 minutes. It seems in summary that this is not such a bad bill but he had to say something negative because it is Government legislation. We think that this is a very good bill. It will make a number of changes to the Building Act to improve its productivity efficiency and accountability which should always be strived for. 
The amendments will exempt a broader range of low-risk building work from consenting requirements which will free things up significantly in the building sector and that is well needed at the moment. It will also require building contractors to disclose more information to enable building consumers to make better-informed decisions. That too is very important. 
I do not think the criticism about leaky homes was valid. I think this Government is taking leaky homes very seriously. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: The Labour Government did nothing. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Yes the previous Labour Government did not do a great deal. I sat on one of the select committees that heard one of the bills. In fact if Labour members had been listening to the debate on the prior bill they would have heard that the Minister involved is fully engaged with this matter and has taken on the cause very passionately. Few could actually criticise his approach or what it is that he was trying to achieve. 
Hon Hon Member 
: If you had been here you would know we spoke on that bill. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: In fact I did sit through his speech and it was an excellent speech. 
The ACT Party is fully supporting this bill. We look forward to it going to the Local Government and Environment Committee where of course it will receive proper examination in a great deal of detail by the committee members.
Auchinvole Chris: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16058] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 In following on from Phil Twyford I say that it is a pleasure to hear a series of cathartic speeches from the other side of the House. Obviously he has fully considered the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) and I concur with his view that we can all look forward to good debate at the select committee. I think that is where the debate will occur. 
I take pride and pleasure in being part of the John Key - led Government which introduces purposeful and practical legislation and has done since it took office. This particular bill is both practical and purposeful and I commend it to the House.
Goodhew Jo: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16067] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 As this debate on the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) draws to a close I want to reiterate simply this: the building and construction sector is vital for New Zealand’s economic performance and prosperity. This bill is yet another tool in National’s determination to make sure that economic prosperity comes from this Government’s term in office—so different so very very different from the previous 9 years of inaction. Therefore I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.
Kaye Nikki: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16065] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 This bill is about cutting red tape reducing compliance and reducing bureaucracy and it is about affordable housing. One of the reasons I came to Parliament was because I got to see members opposite in their true colours. I will never forget being a researcher when members opposite said that it was a  
New Zealand Herald  
beat-up to say that we have leaky homes in New Zealand. I was very sad for the many families who suffered under the previous Labour Government. It did nothing—absolutely nothing—on the rotting homes crisis. So I am very proud of our Ministers that we have given certainty to so many of those families. As a constituency MP it has been heartbreaking to see the many families who spent years under the previous Labour Government—firstly when it denied there was a situation and secondly when it did nothing. So I am very proud to be part of this National Government which has developed policy around weathertightness and leaky homes. 
This bill is about Kiwi DIY. This bill is about saying that it will not cost an arm and a leg to do up one’s own place. I am very proud to be supporting this bill which is not only about reducing compliance costs and red tape and providing greater affordable housing but about recognising the historic injustices some of which were caused by the previous Labour Government and about the average Kiwi person who does not want to pay thousands of dollars just to do up their home. So I am very pleased to support this bill because life is not a beach for some of those people. Some of those people have suffered significantly. I am very pleased to support this legislation.
Douglas Roger: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Douglas Roger: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16047] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 ACT is very pleased to support the first reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill and will support its referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I listened to the honourable member Kevin Hague from the Green Party. He started by saying he was going to make a short speech; fortunately we were saved by the bell! I make one comment in reference to his speech and that is that generally the best judge of what a person needs is that individual not the Green Party.
Borrows Chester: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16048] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill. The Government has stepped up with a financial assistance package to help people get their leaky homes fixed more quickly. Our priority is getting homes fixed and we must move beyond the current state of endless disputes and litigation. This package is about spreading the costs as evenly and as fairly as possible to get action. We need to help affected homeowners to move on with their lives. I commend this bill to the House.
Goodhew Jo: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16052] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill and I do so actually with quite a heavy heart. This bill has come to this House not before time after the good work of the Minister Maurice Williamson. But it is too late for some. It is too late for my family members who were challenged by a leaky home and who went through tremendous pain anguish and suffering over what was a couple of years. I must say that that probably contributed to a now terminal illness on the part of my mother-in-law. This legislation is too late for them. It has taken a National Government with the guts determination and ability to get on and do something after 9 long years of waiting for Labour to stop the rhetoric get on and take some action. It did not happen; thank goodness it has now. Therefore we can congratulate this National Government once again. I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.
Macindoe Tim: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial Assistance Package) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16050] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I would say to the member for Mt Albert who has criticised Government members for making short speeches that his party in Government talked for 9 years about this issue and that is what it is still doing now whereas our Government is determined to act and that is why we are getting on with the job. 
Along with most electorate members of Parliament I imagine I have had the sobering experience of meeting constituents who face the sobering terrible ordeal of owning leaky homes and it is very hard not to be moved by their distress. Fortunately the problem is not as extensive in my city of Hamilton as it is in some other parts of the country but for every single homeowner who is caught up in this tragedy it is an absolutely shocking state of affairs. 
There is much that I would like to say on this bill but because of the circumstances I will confine my remarks to an acknowledgment of the Minister local authorities and officials who have put together this admirable package. It is an honourable and just response to a serious problem. I am very proud to be a member of the governing party that has responded to such a difficult and longstanding challenge. I join other members in commending this bill to the House and I sincerely hope that it will make a huge difference for the thousands of homeowners who are in this ghastly position.
Young Jonathan: Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Young Jonathan: Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16037] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tena tatou huri noa e te Whare. I also extend my greetings to the iwi of Ngati Apa on this the day when we come to the third reading of the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill. To the iwi I say that it is a great day for this House and for their house that we come to a place of settlement. I believe settlements must lead to “settledness” where people can move forward. I join with the previous speaker Nanaia Mahuta and concur with her comments in wishing Ngati Apa’s representatives in the gallery all the very best for their future. I trust that this future is strong for them and their iwi. I acknowledge those who have gone before them who have persevered and endured and who have held up the strength of their people in their rohe and their area. I am sure that today they see them here with pride. 
The reports we received stated that back in 1849 Ngati Apa entered into an agreement with the Crown with the wish to obtain the benefits from the establishment of a European settlement in their vicinity including peace protection and prosperity. I believe that today the House joins together to wish this upon the iwi. It is our prayer that they will find great prosperity in their time ahead that throughout the generations that follow there will be great strength and great success that they will have protection and peace and that all success will come to them. Kia ora.
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16027] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Urgency 
Hughes Darren: Urgency 
[Volume:669;Page:16012] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For absolute clarity I say that if the Government attempts to include a bill that was not on the list read out by the Leader of the House it would be out of order for us to consider that bill. Is that correct? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: While under this urgency the list should be the list that the Leader of the House read out. That is my understanding.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:669;Page:16012] 
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 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Foss Craig: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Foss Craig: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:16017] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I commend the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill to the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:669;Page:16012] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It may help if I table the list for clarity—[ 
Interruption 
] Perhaps I could read it again—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There was quite a lot of interjection across the House and I am quite convinced that the list I have read out is the list of bills that we wish to pass. I suspect the Opposition believes that I have left something off the list. Of course in the end it is the Government’s list that we work through. If I have left something off which I do not believe I have clearly the Opposition’s eagerness to go into urgency would facilitate our passing it. But I am satisfied that the list that I read out is the list that we want to work through. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To ensure that the House is aware of what it is doing as it takes this vote can I be certain that the first reading of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill was actually read out? It may have been mispronounced. I would like to make sure that the House is aware of the bill. Today plenty of people have mispronounced words in this House. All members are aware of that and it is an easy thing to do when reading out a long list. I think I should make sure the House is aware of what it is voting on because the House is about to vote on the motion. As I understand it the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill is on the list that the House is voting on. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is correct. I read out the first readings of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: For the sake of clarity I appreciate that.