edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEstimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5183. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Scott Simpson (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee):It is a great pleasure to stand and rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill. I chair the Local Government and Environment Committee and it was a great pleasure to have before the committee at the estimates hearings only a few weeks ago three of the most competent most able most inspired and most passionate advocates for our environment and they all happen to be Cabinet Ministers in this John Key National-led Government.We had before the committee the Minister of Conservation the Hon Maggie Barry who has spent an entire life working in the area of conservation and is dedicated to preserving our natural environment in a way that most New Zealanders understand completely because they have seen her for years on our screens. She has a reputation and a credible track record that is unimpeachable in terms of her commitment to our environment and to conservation in New Zealand.We had before us the Minister for the Environment the Hon Nick Smith. He is another person who has dedicated his life and his parliamentary political career to ensuring that the New Zealand environment and the standards we have as a nation are constantly improved. We had before us also the Minister for Climate Change Issues the Hon Tim Groser who has brought to that portfolio a level of intellectual rigour that was never apparent when other Governments occupied the Treasury benches.Those three Cabinet Ministers provided the Local Government and Environment Committee with a very good understanding and analysis of what is essentially this Government’s blue-green agenda for our environment. It is a blue-green agenda that is based on the principles of economic growth and improving the environment hand in hand at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Those principles include an absolute understanding that good science is critical to quality environmental decision-making at every level and further that collaborative solutions developed by sectors and communities working together are far more sustainable and enduring than any kind of policy rant and cant that can occur from members opposite.There are six priority areas that the Minister has presented to the select committee and they made it clear that resource management reform is still an absolute high priority on this Government’s agenda. I am confident from the messages that we saw—
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5183. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we now come to votes in the environment sector—volume B.5 volume 3. The question is that Vote Conservation Vote Environment and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stand part of the schedules.
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5173. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we now move to votes in the education sector—volume B.5 volume 2. The question is that Vote Education Vote Education Review Office and Vote Tertiary Education stand part of the schedules.
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5173. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Otherwise that becomes another call.
Borrows Chester: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5155. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members we come first to the votes in the Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector—volume B.5 volume 1. The question is that Vote Business Science and Innovation Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Vote Labour Market and Vote Transport stand part of the schedules.
Borrows Chester: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5154. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The House is in Committee for consideration of the Appropriations (2015/16 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the estimates. The Business Committee has determined that the estimates debate be divided into 10 separate debates covering the sectors set out in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2015-16.Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of the select committee nominated by the Government as the major committee reporting on the sector. The Labour Party will have two calls the Green Party will have one call New Zealand First will have one call and the Minister in the chair will have three calls in response. All calls are 5 minutes in length. Members may take unused allocated calls later in the estimates debate. In addition there are 52 5-minute supplementary calls that have been allocated to parties and those may be taken as parties see fit during the 10 sector debates. At the end of each debate the question will be put that the votes in each sector stand part of the schedules. The time taken on each question is in the hands of members depending on parties’ use of their allocation of supplementary calls. However this debate expires after 11 hours.The estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. All of the votes are available for debate. The compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table. The reports on Vote Labour Market and Vote Transport are not contained in the compendium but are available separately on the Table.
Young Jonathan: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5153. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak and thank you for the very magnanimous support from members on the other side of the House for the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. Indeed it is something that we need to take through the House in a timely and a speedy way can I say even though it is to do with speed limits because as the previous speaker Phil Twyford said this is an aspect around safety around certainty and around the setting of by-laws by the regional councils or the road-controlling authorities.We understand—in a few closing remarks—that in May 2015 the Kāpiti Coast District Council advised the New Zealand Police that its speed limit by-law appeared to have been inadvertently revoked in 2012 under the Local Government Act 2002. I am very sure that as we have seen on the news tonight and will see in newspapers tomorrow every district council in the country will have heard about this piece of legislation. I am sure that we are going to see some very strong attempts to not have this situation occur again. For the sake of timeliness I am very happy now to stand and support this piece of legislation. Thank you.
Bridges Simon: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5150. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I move That the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill be now read a third time. Councils and other road-controlling authorities were always meant to have powers to set speed limit by-laws. This bill makes these requirements clear. This bill clarifies the power of local councils and other road-controlling authorities such as the New Zealand Transport Agency to set speed limit by-laws. In the interests of removing doubt and providing clarity this bill validates all speed limit by-laws and confirms that they were made correctly under either the local government legislation or the land transport legislation. This also removes any concern about the validity of any enforcement action taken concerning speed limits. The bill will remove any ambiguity and amend the Land Transport Act 1998 so that there is a clear power for all road-controlling authorities to make a speed limit by-law under this Act.The bill will make it clear for all road-controlling authorities including territorial authorities that in future speed limit by-laws will be made under the Land Transport Act 1998. We intend no change to the current need for councils to use the Local Government Act 2002 public consultation requirements. The Government will review those requirements in time and if any change to that aspect is required then that issue will be brought back to the House.The Government sees a continuing role for road-controlling authorities especially councils in determining and setting speed limits. This bill confirms this and also confirms councils’ responsibilities to continue making local decisions about speed limits which includes consultation with their own communities. Swift action is required to ensure that there is no confusion over the validity of speed limits and that road-controlling authorities such as councils were always meant to have clear powers to set speed limits. I commend the bill to the House.
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5150. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that Part 1 stand part. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I also had an amendment to clause 6.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes but that is in Part 2.Part 1 agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 2 be agreed to:in clause 6(1) delete “and to be and always have been valid”.
Bridges Simon: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5150. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):I know you are wrong. I do not want to go through a precise legal analysis. I am conscious that a court may one day read back this transcript and I do not want to be the bush lawyer that Clayton Cosgrove accuses me of being. But I assure the member that that is not our analysis.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to:in clause 3(a) replace “remove any doubt about the validity of” with “validate”.
Parker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5149. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I hope I have not run out of contributions. This might be my last one. If that is intended to be the effect prospectively is it your intended effect? Just reading clause 7 of this bill it says: “(1) Every specified bylaw”—and specified by-laws are by-laws that have been made from 2004 until the date of this bill effectively—then to avoid doubt those provisions of the Local Government Act do not apply to those by-laws. But what about any by-law that is produced in the future? Are we meaning that if the council passes a new by-law under its by-law - making authority it might not be a specified by-law under clause 5 and therefore clause 7 will not apply to it? [Interruption] You hope I am wrong.
Bridges Simon: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5149. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport):This takes me back. I feel like I am arguing in front of Judge Harding or some such judge at the Tauranga District Court. [Interruption] No I was never that good sadly but I did win a few cases. Be that as it may I think I can help. Clause 7 makes it clear that the Local Government Act does not apply and that this is under the Land Transport Act. Clause 11 deals with the position prospectively and bylaw-making prospectively and of course—well not of course but I can assure the member that the review provisions apply only under the Local Government Act so that in clauses 7 to 11 where we are effectively making clear that everything is in the Land Transport Act there are no review provisions prospectively.
Parker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5149. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Just following on from my colleague Phil Twyford I seek that too because I have just had a look at sections 22AB(1) and 22AD(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 which I have before me. These are the sections that are amended by clauses 11 and 12 of this bill. I thought until now that it was actually those amendments that removed this obligation to review by-laws every 5 years. That is why I and other members in the Chamber have been seeking clarification that that is indeed the effect of these clauses because that is how we thought this was being done. But when I read sections 22AB(1)(d) and 22AD(1) neither of them impose the obligation to renew these by-laws every 5 years. So it is actually not those amendments that fix the problem in respect of the 5-yearly reviews of these by-laws that have not been conducted.I suspect then that we actually have to look at clause 7 of the bill to find the clause that corrects or changes for the future the obligation to review these by-laws every 5 years for the speed limits to remain valid. I am still not clear enough for this to pass to the next stage. I am not clear enough in my understanding as to what provision it is in this bill that we are considering that fixes this 5-yearly review obligation for the future. I understand how we are validating the things that have not been properly reviewed in the past but I thought we were being told in the explanatory note and in the speeches we have heard from the Government so far that we are clarifying the procedures for the future so that those 5-yearly reviews are not necessary. I have still not yet got my head around how it is that we are doing that.If it is not clauses 11 and 12 that do that–and I do not think it is from my reading of the existing legislation combined with these clauses 11 and 12—I am left with searching for what else it might be. Maybe it is clause 7 of this bill which says: “(2) To avoid doubt sections 158 to 160A of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply to a bylaw to which subsection (1) applies.” Perhaps the Minister could clarify for me how in this legislation we are removing that 5-yearly obligation.
Twyford Phil: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5148. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):I thank the Minister for that contribution. There was one point that he did not address and it was that I was seeking a detailed explanation of how clauses 10 to 12 of the bill deliver on the intent that is set out in the briefing notes that the Government has provided prior to these debates. It says that the proposed amendment is consistent with Cabinet decisions in 2007 and 2010 to consolidate traffic by-law powers in the Land Transport Act 1998 and although this would have the effect that they are no longer subject to the 2002 Act or the 2002 review provisions other disciplines would apply.It is not clear as a layperson based on the information we have in front of us how those final clauses in the bill deliver on that intent and specifically the review provisions that got us into this mess in the first place where councils are required to review after the first 5 years and then subsequently every 10 years. I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to how the last three clauses—I think it is really talking about clause 11—actually achieve that.
Twyford Phil: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5145. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):Just to follow on from those comments by Su’a William Sio I want to raise a couple of questions and invite the Minister of Transport to give us an explanation based on the briefings that he has had on clauses 10 to 12 of the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill.The regulatory impact statement—the section on the underlying problem—makes quite interesting reading. It explains how the councils got into such confusion really about the powers. If I can briefly summarise those comments what happened was that there was considerable confusion about the legislative framework for setting speed limits by by-law after there were significant legislative changes in 2004. Up to that point councils had had bylaw-making powers for setting speed limits under the Local Government Act 1974 and also the Local Government Act 2002. Basically confusion arose between those two powers and when legislation was drafted in 2004 it appears that there was some confusion and that the power of section 684 of the Local Government Act 1974 was in fact being relied upon by councils. In the legislation that resulted basically there was a conflict between the Local Government Act and the specific power limited to Ministers under the Land Transport Act.I suppose my question for the Minister really is to ask him to set out for us—given that we have not had the benefit of a select committee process the briefings from officials and the opportunity to tease through this–some explanation about precisely how clauses 10 to 12 resolve any of these ambiguities. In particular I would be keen to hear from the Minister about what we are advised that the bill achieves which is that while clarifying the bylaw-making powers of the local territorial authorities it removes the requirement for the regular review—first 5-yearly and then 10-yearly—of those by-laws. That is the thing that was not complied with that has led to these by-laws and all the offences and infringements and sanctions that flow from it too have been rendered technically invalid. So that is my question and I would appreciate some explanation.
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I have given some thought to this and it would be my intention that we would start our count again. People will not be retrospectively disadvantaged and that would mean that members could have up to four calls if they so wish on the Committee stage. Is there any objection to this process? The Committee is agreed so we are now in Committee on all parts and the initial clauses of the bill.
Parker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to clarify what that means in respect of members’ ability to take calls.
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member is seeking leave for the Committee stage of this bill to be taken as one debate but for the votes to be taken individually.
Hayes Joanne: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes Joanne: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National):I seek leave to have Part 1 and Part 2 taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): All parts?JOANNE HAYES: All parts.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): All parts including clauses 1 and 2?JOANNE HAYES: Yes.
Parker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5140. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Having said that we support this bill being passed under urgency I think it is important that we have an assurance from the Minister of Transport that the detail of every clause has been thoroughly checked by him and that the Minister is assuring the House that there are no more errors or ambiguities being created by this legislation which is being fixed under urgency.The reason I think it is proper that we seek that assurance from the Minister is that the Minister is asking the House to pass this under urgency without the normal protections that flow from a longer process. The protections that flow from a longer process are that persons who are in society who are interested in these matters get the chance to pore over the legislation and with the time to properly consider it reflect on whether it is clear and whether mistakes are being made.In this sort of legislation we would expect that the Automobile Association and various membership parts of the Automobile Association throughout the country would be poring over it. We would expect that the medical groups that are interested in accident safety would be looking at it. We would expect that someone in the Accident Compensation Corporation would perhaps be looking at it and checking it. We would expect that someone who practised law in these areas or who was already looking at defending a charge that had been brought in respect of these speed limits and thought that it was invalid would no doubt come along—or they might come along—and point out to the select committee why this was being done in an improper way or why this was being done in an improper way that was not correct in detail.So for those reasons—because those normal checks and balances are not there because the select committee does not have the time to read through the legislation properly and because political parties do not have the time to hear from concerned constituents and concerned members—it is all the more important that we can rely upon an assurance from the Minister that the Minister is satisfied that every clause in this bill is proper that every clause in this bill is necessary for the stated purpose in the legislation and that no further powers are being conferred by this legislation than are necessary to cure this defect in the speed limits which should have been put through a renewal process after 5 years but have not been. I might leave this particular contribution at that and let the Minister respond to that.
Parker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5139. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Can I endorse the comments of Dr Russel Norman. I do not think there is much to add to that really. We are not creating new offences through this retrospective legislation. We should always take care in this House as a general rule to not pass retrospective legislation. But there are always exceptions to the general rule and the Labour Party has formed the view that this is a suitable exception to that normal rule that we should not have legislation pass with retrospective effect.In terms of the issue of urgency when these sorts of issues do arise as they seem to every 3 or 4 years—I can remember a prior change to one of the police Acts about 3 years ago where we had to retrospectively validate what had been happening—when there is a need to do it retrospectively it sometimes goes with the need to do it promptly which we achieve through urgency. As Russel Norman has said and I am sure other speakers have said as a consequence we are willing to say that we will retrospectively validate what these by-laws have already purported to do but in some cases have not done legally.So the change that Parliament is proposing to endorse through the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill is to validate the speed limits that have been set by councils in a way that they thought was legal but in a way which we are now being advised by the Government it is clear that in some situations it has not been legal. And in the process for the future we are trying to fix the process to remove the automatic obligation to review these speed limits every 5 years. That is not to say that speed limits cannot be reviewed. Indeed they could still be reviewed every 5 years by councils if they wanted to but they do not have to review them every 5 years in order for them to remain valid. So with those brief comments I support the bill.Bill read a first time.
Young Jonathan: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5136. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak here on the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. Yes it is regretful that we do have to do some retrospective legislation but of course every amendment bill is retrospective legislation in some respects. We are reaching back to repair a glitch in the system that came through since 5 April 2004 so that is in a period of time in the previous Government’s regime. However it has happened and it is important that we do—for the sake of certainty and the sake of safety when it comes to New Zealanders using our roads—ensure that we have a comprehensive complete system of regulation around speed limits.I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill. Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry: UrgencyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Urgency[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5133. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I move That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing through all stages of the Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill. The Land Transport (Speed Limits Validation and Other Matters) Bill removes uncertainty concerning the validity of speed limits and consequential enforcement actions dating back to 2004. It retrospectively confirms that local councils and road-controlling authorities had the unambiguous legal power to set speed limits and will continue to do so into the future.The ability to set speed limits and enforce them is essential for road safety. This is why the Government is moving swiftly to eliminate any ambiguity uncertainty or confusion around the legislation. This legislation as it was first intended is designed to protect the best interests of the motoring public.Motion agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s PerformanceText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s Performance[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5130. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Jacinda Ardern—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s PerformanceText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s Performance[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5129. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi—5 minutes.
Carter David: Urgent Debates — Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s PerformanceText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates — Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s Performance[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5116. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Kelvin Davis seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the allegations about organised fighting the taking of drugs and access to contraband by prisoners at Mt Eden Corrections Facility. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Mt Eden Corrections Facility is managed by a private provider but the prisoners remain the ultimate responsibility of the State. The Minister of Corrections has announced an investigation into the allegations of organised fighting and possession of contraband. It is absolutely critical that the public has confidence in our corrections system. Having carefully considered this application I have decided to allow a debate. I call on Kelvin Davis to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.
Mark Ron: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5114. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes; because they are competent and hard-working.Ron Mark: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Corrections given that he believes the Serco-run Mt Eden Corrections Facility “… in terms of their core security in terms of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and a whole range of factors … still perform in a way that exceeds other prisons.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sure that in the context that those statements were made they were correct. What the Minister has also done is ensure that there is now a wide-ranging review of what has taken place at Mt Eden Corrections Facility. In the fullness of time we will get a sense of any issues that might have presented themselves there.Ron Mark: Does it not concern him that a previous report into a fight club in a prison which was done over a year ago was ignored by his Minister of Corrections; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I do not have details on that report. If the member wants to ask detailed questions about it he really needs to ask the Minister of Corrections. But I am not even actually sure that he was the Minister of Corrections at the time that that report was issued.Ron Mark: Does he believe that the new standard of Government that he sought to establish in 2008 is best served by his Minister of Corrections addressing Serco’s failure with financial penalties when the public’s perception is that gross breaches of this nature should have resulted in the termination of its contract?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the member is a long way ahead of himself. We do not actually know the details yet. We do not know what and how and why and how widespread the issue is. But what we do know in the case of the Mt Eden Corrections Facility as run by Serco is that we do have the capacity there to have penalties because of the nature of that contract which is more than we would have if there was a fight club of any sort operating in any other prison around New Zealand.
Ngaro Alfred: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5112. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.ALFRED NGARO (National)to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received on how the KickStart Breakfast initiative is supporting vulnerable children?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):As students head back to school this week the 5-millionth KickStart Breakfast since the Government expanded the programme in 2013 will be served. An investment of $9.5 million over 5 years has seen the programme expanded from two to five mornings per week and to include all primary and secondary schools that want or need it regardless of decile. In fact the majority of schools are reporting improvements in general health and well-being at 85 percent concentration at 78 percent and behaviour at 66 percent. This is another fantastic example of the Government communities and the private sector working together to ensure that children have the best possible start that we can give them.Alfred Ngaro: What other steps is the Government taking to ensure vulnerable children are well supported?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Budget 2015 provides for a $790 million child hardship package that includes a $25-a-week increase in benefit rates for families with children which is the first increase above inflation in 43 years; an increase in Working for Families payments to low-income families not on a benefit; more childcare support for low-income families; and increased work obligations for sole parents on a benefit as part of our plan to support people back into work which provides their children with the best chance of living successful lives.
Davis Kelvin: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavis Kelvin: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5112. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau)to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement that Mount Eden Corrections Facility is “the highest performing prison” for measures of core security rehabilitation and reintegration?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections):Yes I stand by all my statements in the context in which they were given.Kelvin Davis: Why has his department taken more than a year to act on a report alleging an organised fight club at Mt Eden Corrections Facility?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: That report had a number of conclusions and statements that were unsubstantiated.Kelvin Davis: Why have the terms of reference for the investigation into fight clubs been narrowed down to paying attention to the past 3 months thereby conveniently excluding the findings of the report accepted by the Department of Corrections on 9 July 2014 which by all accounts “does not make nice reading”?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: It is not an investigation; it is a review and that review is not inclusive of just the past 3 months. It is an all-encompassing review that can go back as far as it needs to go.Kelvin Davis: How many of the YouTube videos showing fights at Mt Eden Corrections Facility have corresponding incident reports from Serco and if he does not know how can he have any confidence in Serco’s claimed assault rate at Mt Eden?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I do not have that information to hand but what I can say is that assaults are an issue not only at Mt Eden prison but also right across the prison estates. We are dealing with some of the most difficult and violent people in our society. For example in the last financial year five serious prisoner-on-prisoner assaults were made at Mt Eden Corrections Facility. That compares with five at Christchurch Men’s Prison six at Spring Hill Corrections Facility and seven at Rimutaka Prison. When we look at prisoner-on-staff assaults in the last financial year Mt Eden had one assault compared with Waikeria Prison which had three.
Hayes Joanne: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes Joanne: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5111. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.JOANNE HAYES (National)to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: How is the Government delivering more of the skilled ICT graduates that New Zealand needs?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):As the member will know the information and communications technology industry is growing rapidly and last week I announced the successful host of the first two new information and communications technology graduate schools in Auckland and Christchurch. These schools will help to link our fast-moving information and communications technology sector with students and education providers and will shape the information and communications technology talent. The Government has committed $28.6 million to the development and delivery of three schools and once fully established they are expected to train in excess of 350 additional students annually on top of the 1600 to 1900 students currently graduating with degree-level or above information and communications technology qualifications.Joanne Hayes: What is the focus of the newly announced schools?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Auckland school will be hosted by the universities of Auckland and Waikato with satellite locations in Hamilton and Tauranga. It will be focused on developing industry-focused postgrad information and communications technology students with the communication critical thinking business and enterprise skills that employers need. The southern school will be focused on issues relevant to regional economies hosted by the South Island Tertiary Alliance which is a group of South Island tertiary institutions with a campus in the Christchurch innovation precinct and a satellite site in Dunedin. A third graduate school will also be opened in Wellington with an announcement about that provider later this year.Joanne Hayes: Why has the Government established the information and communications technology graduate schools?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Highlighting the ongoing diversification of the New Zealand economy New Zealand’s IT services and software industry is growing rapidly with more than 10000 domestic IT businesses now employing over 26700 people and with employment growing in this sector at 12 percent in 2014. Exports from this sector have also doubled in the past 5 years from $400 million to $930 million with a compound annual growth rate of 14 percent. The schools will add more information and communications technology graduates with work-relevant business-focused skills to help assist the information and communications technology industry’s continued growth.
O'Connor Simon: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5108. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki)to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received on the number of B4 School free health and development checks completed in the last financial year and what do they show?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):I have received a report that 58600 children received B4 School Checks in primary care in the year to June and that this is a record 92 percent of eligible children. B4 School Checks test a child’s hearing vision and oral health. Behaviour development and growth are all assessed and immunisations are also checked. The Government invests $10 million each year to provide these free primary care B4 School Checks which have now benefited more than 300000 children and which ensure that Kiwi kids start school in the best possible health.Simon O’Connor: Has he had to do any checking of the numbers in recent reports relating to checks on children?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes I have. My office had to spend a lot of time last week following up a claim that 22 out of 26 GP practices in central Auckland had opted out of free visits for under-13s but several hours later the Labour Party apologised to journalists conceding that their figures—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will have the first one.Chris Hipkins: The first one is that it is actually a real stretch to get the supplementary question related to the primary question. The second point of order is that the Speakers’ rulings and your rulings in fact are very clear that supplementary questions from the Government on Government questions should not be used to attack the Opposition.Mr SPEAKER: On the first—and I think it then relates to the second point of order—the supplementary question in my mind was in order. There was no way I was to know what figures the Minister had had to take time to correct. So the question was definitely in order. As the answer has progressed it is getting to a stage now when I could conclude that it has been designed for no other purpose than to attack the Labour Opposition. I would be grateful if the Minister if he wants to conclude his answer would do so without further reference to Labour.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Sure. In actual fact of 10 practices in central Auckland nine are offering free doctors visits for under-13s. I accept Mrs King’s apology. I would like to table the transcript of a radio article entitled—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. Such transcripts are freely available to all members if they so want them.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5103. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement in 2010 that “Looking four five ten years into the future I’d hate to see New Zealanders as tenants in their own country …”; if so why after almost 7 years has his Government failed to collect specific information on foreign buying of land and homes in New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that both Beijing and Shanghai for example have laws preventing non-residents from inflating demand and buying houses in those cities and does he consider that such measures would be racist if applied here?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well every country has different rules but what I would say is the current rules around foreign investment were actually passed by the Labour Government in 2005. They are actually in line with the vast majority of developed countries. For example in the UK the US Canada France Germany Ireland Italy Japan Sweden and many other OECD countries there are no or very few restrictions on foreigners buying residential property. When it comes to Australia which theoretically has a restriction in relation to second-hand properties it has been spectacularly unsuccessful.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why will his Government not in his own words “get some guts” and introduce restrictions on foreign buyers of our homes and land like for example in China Hong Kong and Singapore or are they too racist and xenophobic?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well for a start I am proud to lead a Government where if we were to make changes around foreign investment it would be to every country and every ethnicity and we would not just cook things up and single people out.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not the case that his opposition to New Zealand First’s foreign ownership of land and homes register bill is because he is scared of Kiwis finding out under his watch just how much land and housing have been flogged off to overseas buyers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No in our view it was poorly drafted.
Carter David: Authority to Administer OathText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Authority to Administer Oath[Sitting date: 21 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5103. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Members the following authorisations have been received by the Deputy Speaker and the Clerk of the House from His Excellency the Governor-General to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of the House. The authorisations read:Pursuant to section 11 of the Constitution Act 1986 I Lieutenant General The Right Honourable Sir Jerry Mateparae Governor-General of New Zealand hereby authorise youThe Honourable Kerry James (Chester) BorrowsDeputy Speaker of the House of RepresentativesandDavid Martin WilsonClerk of the House of Representativesto administer to members of Parliament the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen required to be taken or made by every such member before that member shall be permitted to sit or vote in the House of Representatives.BILL ENGLISH Acting Prime MinisterAuthorisedJerry Mateparae Governor-General16 July 2015