edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sabin Mike: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Readings[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I will take just a short call on the extended supervision orders component of the debate today. The Hon Phil Goff is very familiar with the regime and he was one of the architects of the legislation and its need has been well traversed and well canvassed I think in the context of this debate.In this bill the changes essentially relate to extending the supervision orders regime for as long as is necessary as distinct from the 10-year period and it is clear that for a very very small percentage of offenders versus the number of people who ultimately go to prison and serve prison sentences this is required.The bill also expands the relevant offences for adult sexual offending some of which is at the most serious end of that and the most serious violent offenders. We are talking in numbers of single digits or certainly low tens in that regard. The legislation increases judicial oversight and puts in place 12-month supervision intensive supervision provisions again with judicial oversight which I think helps outweigh the implications of the breaches of section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and double jeopardy. This is certainly something that committee wrangled with with regard to the fact that there is a risk of double jeopardy when Parliament legislates in this way. The Parole Board will be required to review this every 2 years.The balance is that for these most serious-end offenders we have preventive detention public protection orders and extended supervision orders in that order in terms of severity. There are some who will require all steps in that process although all those steps in that process are required for the most high-level offending. I see the changes in the extended supervision order component of this debate today in respect of the bill as being an important mechanism in getting the balance between public safety but also recognising that there are some offenders who will require ongoing supervision for an indefinite period in some cases and this bill does achieve that. Thank you.
Ngaro Alfred: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Readings[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:871. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National):This week it was White Ribbon Day when ambassadors right throughout the country of New Zealand are wearing white ribbons as a symbol and take a pledge that they will neither commit nor condone violence towards women and children. Inside of that that commitment and that pledge is to ensure that they are champions of change in their home and their community but also secondly that they have the opportunity in their areas of influence to be able to ensure that they keep that pledge. So I am here today as a White Ribbon ambassador with my colleague Steffan Browning over there as well. I suppose that in this area of politics it is an opportunity to exercise our influence to ensure that there is public safety for women and children and for those who are vulnerable in our communities as well.The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill ensure in the management of high-risk sexual and violent offenders at the end of their sentences in their process of reintegration that safety mechanisms are in place as well. I want to commend the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee. As my other colleague over there Denis O’Rourke said there were 12 written submissions and eight oral submissions. I want to just complete my speech by reading from the regulatory impact statement—Carmel Sepuloni: You’ve got more to say than that Alfred.ALFRED NGARO: I have had a lot to say in the first reading. I have had a lot to do with the select committee. We heard the submissions so we have actually done a lot of the work. There is common agreement across the House that this is important legislation so we are not fighting in the debates; in fact we are confirming the role of that legislation. I want to conclude my remarks by quoting from paragraph 16 in the regulatory impact statement where it states: “On balance public protection orders … appear to best meet the policy objective. Public protection orders protect the community from future harm from a very small number of high risk offenders who are clinically assessed as being at imminent risk of serious sexual or violent re-offending”. We believe that the work that has been done through the select committee and the bills that have been returned back to the House ensure that there is both a balance of safety and protection as well as the civil liberties that are also there in our communities. In their second readings I do commend these bills to the House.
Naylor Jono: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill — Second Readings[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:867. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National):It is with great pleasure that I rise to support a bill again one coming from a Government that is continuing to show its commitment to crime reduction in our country and in particular an ongoing commitment to supporting victims of crime. This is just another part that we want to play in continuing to see victims continuing not to be revictimised and to do what we can to reduce recidivist offending. Both of these bills the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill are I think incredibly important and even though they will affect only a very small number of people—as has been discussed already—what we do know is that this very small number of people have an ability to inflict a great deal of harm on innocent people within our society. It is the nature of the offending and it is the impact of this offending that warrants taking these extra steps to protect New Zealanders from these people.It has been great to hear the level of support that we have had from the other side of the House on this but I am sure that if not in this House then in our community we will get the odd person who will talk about the impact on human rights in us imposing some of these extra supervision orders and public protection orders. But I think it is important for us to recognise that we are not looking to impose something on innocent people or even people who have not yet been proven to be guilty. These are people who have already been found guilty of heinous crimes who have already proven to us that they need some level of supervision to ensure the safety of innocent people. So it is important that we do not forsake these innocent people’s rights to that protection by getting soft and getting too concerned about the human rights of those other people. Yes they do deserve the right to be able to rehabilitate but where they have clearly shown that they are likely to reoffend it is important that we take these steps.I think it is a great step forward. It is something that as we move through in dealing with crime—we have seen offending come down dramatically to very low levels but it is in this area of violent offending and sexual offending that we still need to as a nation make some impacts. I know that this Government is absolutely committed to doing that and in passing these two bills we can start making some small steps towards helping this going forward. Thank you.
Macindoe Tim: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:859. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West):Although I am no longer a member of the Education and Science Committee I was a member of it during the previous Parliament and as a result I had the opportunity to read and hear many of the very large number of submissions that we heard on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to say the committee was very well chaired by Dr Cam Calder the previous chairman.We did indeed hear from a large number of submitters and it is true that many of them had very strong opinions on this bill. However contrary to the assertion of many of the speakers from the other side of the House last night I want to make it very clear that all of the submitters were heard with considerable respect at all times. Some significant changes to this bill were recommended by the committee in our report which was tabled just before the general election especially relating to the composition of the new council which is to be known as the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. I mention this because it demonstrated the value of the select committee process and in particular the merit of making public submissions. It particularly demonstrated the willingness of this Government and the two very fine Ministers in charge of the bill to listen to the people and to take their points on board. That is democracy in action and that is why I am very proud to commend this bill to the House.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Corrections Department—Management of Phillip John Smith CaseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Corrections Department—Management of Phillip John Smith Case[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:844. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the escape from New Zealand of convicted murderer Phillip John Smith. In order for an urgent debate to be held there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Although the escape is no longer a matter of recent occurrence the Government yesterday released the chief custodial officer’s review of the failure to return from temporary release of Phillip John Smith. However the Government has also initiated an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013 into matters concerning the escape of Phillip John Smith the draft terms of reference of which were released on Monday. This inquiry is to be informed by other reviews including that of the chief custodial officer and is expected to run over the next 6 months. In these circumstances I am not convinced that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today to debate the escape. The application is therefore declined.
Faafoi Kris: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:842. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana)to the Minister of State Services: Has she discussed with State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie why he organised a press conference to announce the departure of the CERA Chief Executive Roger Sutton; if so what was his response?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of State Services):Yes; his response was that he held the press conference because he believed it would be a high-profile resignation.Kris Faafoi: Does she think Iain Rennie made the correct judgment in allowing Mr Sutton to present his case at that press conference?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No.Kris Faafoi: Does she believe that Iain Rennie has treated the complainant at the centre of the State Services Commission investigation with professionalism and compassion by allowing Mr Sutton to present his case at that press conference?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I believe that throughout the investigation I have had assurances from him numerous times that he did but I do not believe that Monday’s press conference was right in any way shape or form and it was not fair to the complainant.Kris Faafoi: Can the Minister rule out the complainant at the centre of the inquiry being awarded further compensation because Iain Rennie allowed Mr Sutton to speak at that press conference?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have no control over what either party does.Kris Faafoi: What justification does she give for Iain Rennie staying in his role as commissioner one of our most senior civil servants given her answers?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because he made an error of judgment. He has accepted responsibility for that and has given me an absolute assurance that nothing like it will ever happen again.
Reti Shane: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeReti Shane: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:842. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei)to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: What progress is being made in preparation for Gallipoli 2015 commemorations?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs):Good progress has been made on the 100th anniversary Anzac Day commemorations at Gallipoli next year. After the first tranche of the ballot 632 double passes were accepted. The second tranche of the Gallipoli 2015 ballot is now under way with just over 300 double passes to next year’s Anzac Day commemorations being reallocated this month. Australian and New Zealand officials are in constant communication with each other about preparations for the event. Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with trans-Tasman officials taking part in the Gallipoli bilateral meeting and I recently discussed the preparations during a bilateral meeting with the Turkish foreign Minister. I am very encouraged to see that all effort is being made to ensure that this will be a fitting reflection of the huge sacrifice made nearly a century ago.Dr Shane Reti: How long do applicants have to accept the tickets they were offered in the second tranche of the ballot?Hon CRAIG FOSS: New offers of tickets were made to the next group on the waiting list earlier this month. Those people allocated passes have until 7 December to complete their details—[Interruption] You might want to show some respect for this topic members opposite. Those people allocated passes have until 7 December to complete their details and details of their accompanying persons. It is essential that those who have been offered passes in the second tranche of the ballot act quickly and make arrangements if they want to be part of what will be a significant commemoration to honour New Zealanders who took part in the Gallipoli campaign.
Prosser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:841. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First)to the Minister for Primary Industries: How much will it cost to make the nutrient management tool OVERSEER fully fit for purpose across all agricultural land users in New Zealand?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):That depends on your definition of “fully fit for purpose”. Increasing funding to cover every soil type and every variation of every farming system is not economically feasible or required by stakeholders. However we are confident that we can find ways of using OVERSEER and other tools to create an enduring framework for nutrient management that drives change and behaviours to achieve better environmental performance.Richard Prosser: What steps has he personally taken as Minister since 2012-13 to ensure that OVERSEER is fit for purpose when AgResearch’s annual report stated: “With the requirement for Regional Councils to apply nutrient limits Overseer is playing an important role in Regional Plans Environment Court hearings related to nutrient limit setting and compliance monitoring and it will need significant development to be fit for these intended uses.”?Hon NATHAN GUY: There are about three questions in one there. What is happening is a huge amount of work in science. That science is feeding in to OVERSEER. The member needs to understand that OVERSEER has been around for 20 years. It is evolving it is going to be very important into the future and science is playing a big part in that.Richard Prosser: What confidence can farmers have that this is not going to become a gravy train given that Country-Wide magazine reported earlier this year that it took Ravensdown Fertiliser Cooperative consultant Charlotte Glass who is an experienced OVERSEER operator 22 hours to carry out just 1 year’s nutrient budget at a potential charge to the farmer of somewhere between $4000 and $6000?Hon NATHAN GUY: That is just anecdotal. What I will say is that farmers realise that there is a challenge as do all of the professionals who are providing a valuable service in the primary sector. They all realise that their nutrient performance and how they are managing their nutrients inside the farm gate and elsewhere in primary sector systems are going to have to improve. OVERSEER will play an important role in that.Richard Prosser: I seek leave to table a document showing that the cost to a farmer—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need the source of the document.Richard Prosser: It is from a farming paper that is not widely available.Mr SPEAKER: I will accept the member’s word that it is not widely available and therefore I will put the leave and the House can decide. Leave is sought to table that particular publication. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
O'Connor Simon: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:840. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki)to the Minister for Communications: What recent reports has she received on the number of end users able to connect to the Government’s Ultra-Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband Initiative?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications):Last week I was pleased to announce that at the end of September 536000 end users were able to connect meaning that the ultra-fast broadband build is now 40 percent complete. We have seen a 39 percent increase in connections taking connections across New Zealand to now more than 10 percent ahead of projections at this stage. A further 2259 schools are fully fibred and ready for service. Te Awamutu recently became our second fully fibred town after Whangarei. For the rural programme the build is now 70 percent complete with 282 towers having been upgraded 98 new towers having been built 213000 premises able to receive fixed wireless broadband and an additional 75000 fixed lines having been upgraded.Simon O’Connor: What additional benefits has the upgrade to rural broadband services brought for New Zealanders?Hon AMY ADAMS: Over the past 3 months alone we know that on just one mobile network more than 1.2 million unique users used the new Rural Broadband Initiative towers to make mobile calls showing the versatility of the programme in providing a range of connectivity benefits. Improving mobile connectivity is key to driving productivity which is why during the election campaign we announced that a further $50 million would be committed to a mobile black spot fund part of this Government’s nearly $2 billion investment in telecommunications infrastructure.
Kuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:837. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country)to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on progress on the National Health Targets?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):The National Health Targets first quarter results have been released and are very strong. District health boards across the country provided 42343 elective surgery discharges from July to September 2120 more than planned. Emergency departments also had the strongest winter performance since health targets were introduced with 93 percent of all emergency department patients admitted discharged or transferred within 6 hours.Barbara Kuriger: What changes are being made to the National Health Targets to deliver faster treatment for cancer patients?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This quarter all 20 district health boards ensured that all patients ready for treatment received their radiotherapy or chemotherapy treatment within 4 weeks. From 1 October the Government introduced and will be reporting against a new faster cancer treatment target. Our goal is to ensure that by June 2017 90 percent of patients will receive their first treatment within 62 days of seeing their general practitioner. That is the international gold standard for cancer treatment.
Woods Megan: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:837. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram)to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with Judith Collins that Cameron Slater “manufactured a story and he wanted to believe it” and the findings of the Chisholm Inquiry that Cameron Slater is “prone to exaggeration”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I am not in a position to give the member a yes or no answer because I was not a party to the discussions between Cameron Slater and Judith Collins. My role as Prime Minister was to establish the Chisholm inquiry which Ms Collins had requested that I set up. I accept the findings of the inquiry and I am delighted that it has cleared Ms Collins.Dr Megan Woods: Why does he believe Cameron Slater’s recollection of events regarding the Gwyn inquiry but does not believe Cameron Slater regarding the Chisholm inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe all of them but what I do know is that where Mr Slater has said that it was his idea to put in an Official Information Act request in relation to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security’s report one of the reasons why I think it is highly likely that he made that call was that a lot of other media decided to do exactly the same thing. It was based on the public comments that Mr Goff and I had made.Dr Megan Woods: Which findings if any of the Chisholm inquiry does he contest?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The document is 110 pages long so I do not have it with me. I am sure there would be things that would be contested by others but I would say this though: I do not contest—Iain Lees-Galloway: Haven’t you read it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I actually read the whole thing. I do not contest paragraph 3 where it says there is no probative evidence that Ms Collins undermined or attempted to undermine Mr Feeley and that the implication that she was so involved is untenable.Dr Megan Woods: Did his office have communications with Cameron Slater between 23 and 25 November regarding the Chisholm inquiry or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security’s inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think so. I am not aware of that no.Dr Megan Woods: Did he have communications with Cameron Slater between 23 and 25 November regarding the Chisholm inquiry or the inspector-general’s inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Mr SPEAKER: Would the Prime Minister please repeat his answer? [Interruption] Order! I was calling the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister actually gave the answer so I did not hear it. I am calling the Rt Hon Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.
Korako Nuk: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKorako Nuk: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:836. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.NUK KORAKO (National)to the Minister for Social Housing: What progress is Housing New Zealand making on rebuilding and repairing properties damaged in the Christchurch earthquakes?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing):Housing New Zealand is making great progress in repairing or rebuilding the 95 percent of its homes that were damaged in the Christchurch earthquakes. It is ahead of schedule on the repair of 5000 earthquake-damaged homes by the end of 2015 with more than half of the repairs completed already; $67.2 million has been invested in the repair programme so far; and the target of building 700 new homes by the end of 2015 is also well on track.Nuk Korako: Kia ora. How is the rebuild programme getting more tenants into homes that better suit their needs?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What Housing New Zealand has been able to do is think about a programme of sensible intensification that is able to get far more Christchurch people housed in the right-sized homes in the right place. So for example nearly three-quarters of people on the social housing register in Christchurch need a one or two-bedroom home and many existing homes are simply too big. Just last week I visited a site in Spreydon where Housing New Zealand is building five modern two-bedroom homes on a site where there was only one three-bedroom home. On another site in Riccarton it is replacing three old homes with 19 two-bedroom homes. That will make a huge difference for the people there.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to MinisterText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAmended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:881. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Amended Answers to Oral QuestionsQuestion No. 4 to MinisterRt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave to question No. 4 today.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In response to a question asked by Dr Woods today as to whether I had had communications with Cameron Slater between 23 November and 25 November regarding the Chisholm inquiry of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security report I said no. Given the member’s primary question was regarding the Chisholm inquiry I answered in that context as that is what I thought I heard her say. Subsequently I have checked the transcript and have realised that the member had also added on to that and asked about the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security report. My corrected answer is no with regard to the Chisholm inquiry and yes in relation to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security report. On Monday 24 November I received an unsolicited text message from Mr Slater with a reference to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security report. There was a very short exchange where I briefly acknowledged that text message.
Urgent Debates Declined — Corrections Department—Management of Phillip John Smith CaseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — Corrections Department—Management of Phillip John Smith Case[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:844. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedCorrections Department—Management of Phillip John Smith CaseMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the escape from New Zealand of convicted murderer Phillip John Smith. In order for an urgent debate to be held there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Although the escape is no longer a matter of recent occurrence the Government yesterday released the chief custodial officer’s review of the failure to return from temporary release of Phillip John Smith. However the Government has also initiated an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013 into matters concerning the escape of Phillip John Smith the draft terms of reference of which were released on Monday. This inquiry is to be informed by other reviews including that of the chief custodial officer and is expected to run over the next 6 months. In these circumstances I am not convinced that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today to debate the escape. The application is therefore declined.
Vote: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:812. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill be reported to the House by Tuesday 2 December 2014 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions 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 despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Motion agreed to.
Vote: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:812. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party votewas called for on the questionThat the words “Tuesday 2 December 2014” be deleted and replaced with “Tuesday 10 February 2015”.Ayes59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:802. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes107New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 14.Question agreed to.
Vote: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:802. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill be now read a first time.Ayes107New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 14.Bill read a first time.The question was put that the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.
Tisch Lindsay: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:832. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.
Fox Marama: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFox Marama: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:831. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party):I am grateful for the indulgence of the House as I get up at this late stage. I read an interesting comment once that said that the colour of truth is grey. In my brief experience of parliamentary debate I am acutely aware that for some bills we will be challenged by the linear thinking required by the vote—either a vote of support or a vote of opposition and nothing in between. The Māori Party is far more accommodating of difference than such an approach allows. We see positives and we see negatives and we are always aware of the potential for change.In this bill therefore we voted in support at the first reading on 21 July this year. In taking that vote we were supportive of the recognition in the bill that wānanga need councils that reflect their unique status as institutions characterised by āhuatanga and tikanga Māori. The other issue that shaped our vote was the impact that the party had enjoyed in relation to Māori representation. Prior to the intervention of former Ministers Sharples and Turia the legislation stated that councils “could” consider the issue of Māori representation. Following their intervention the specific wording in the bill was changed from “could” to “must”.In light of these moves we supported the bill’s referral to the Education and Science Committee confident that the public consultation process would enable us to be informed by the views of students tutors administrators governors and of course whānau hapū and iwi as well as representatives from the teaching profession. As is now well known 937 submissions were received with the majority of them not supporting the proposed changes to the bill. Although we do not resile from our support for increased Māori representation to reflect that at least one member of the wānanga or university council is to be a Māori representative as a result of the select committee feedback—
Tisch Lindsay: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:831. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Marama Fox—5 minutes.
Lee Melissa: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLee Melissa: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:831. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MELISSA LEE (National):I rise to take a very short call on the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). I just want to start off by saying that all parents want to see their children succeed and particularly in my community the Korean community education is a major thing. Often I think I was bit of a failure in my mother’s eyes because I did not complete my PhD. Education is a big thing in the Asian communities so I am very pleased to see that provisions in this bill actually strengthen pastoral care for international students. Our international education sector is worth $2.6 billion and we are hoping to increase that.There are also provisions in the bill to strengthen the ability of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to contribute to the higher-quality tertiary education sector which I am very pleased about. It means that the authority is able to do its job and better prevent dishonest education providers from trying to rip off the Government as well as students. Often it is actually the foreign students who get ripped off as well because they do not understand the system in New Zealand. They are often sent over here by parents who do not really know the system and we should do everything we can to protect these students who come here. Our reputation is paramount in making sure that our education sector is actually growing. I commend this bill to the House.
Foster-Bell Paul: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:827. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):It is a pleasure to take a brief call after that contribution by the member Tracey Martin. After her praise for the Government’s speech-writers may I suggest that the member avail herself of such services and she might be able to deliver a more coherent statement to this House about what that party’s views are.I need to respond to a couple of suggestions made by some of the Opposition members: firstly that the new Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand—the new teachers’ council of New Zealand—is somehow undemocratic because the Minister appoints five teachers as part of its nine members. Well those members opposite might like to reflect on their own party selection for a leader in which five members can decide who the Leader of the Opposition is in spite of the views of thousands of other members of the party—ordinary rank and file members.I want to respond to a couple of specific things that our excellent Minister of Education and our Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment have actually made sure are represented in this bill. Firstly there is the disciplinary framework for teachers which I hope the member for Te Tai Tokerau Kelvin Davis who I know holds the spokesmanship in this area will touch on if he is to make a contribution in this debate. I think there are some very positive measures there where we see disciplinary matters being automatically reported through to a disciplinary tribunal but also a substantial increase in the fines for non-reporting of misconduct. I think New Zealanders have a right to expect that children are in a safe environment when they are in school and that there does not have to be a third party complaint—that these can actually be investigated by the council. That is a positive in my view.Also having had the pleasure and the honour of sitting in on the graduation ceremony of Madame Peng the Chinese First Lady last week at Massey University and hearing her very eloquent explanation of the importance of growing international education and having international students coming into New Zealand I am delighted by and warmly welcome the introduction of the higher standard of pastoral care that this bill will inevitably require in those institutions that are hosting international students. They contribute such a great part not only to our economy but also to the education system in general and the experience that New Zealanders have within it. It is a pleasure to commend this bill to the House.
Yang Jian: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYang Jian: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:822. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr JIAN YANG (National):I rise to speak on the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). First of all let me briefly introduce my background particularly my relationship with the education sector. As you may know I was a university lecturer before becoming an MP 3 years ago. My wife still works at the university. My parents and parents-in-law are all in China. They are all retired teachers in China. My younger brother is a deputy principal in China and my sister-in-law is an official in charge of education in Shanghai. So my two families all relate to education. I feel passionate about education and feel very honoured and privileged to be able to chair the Education and Science Committee.I support this bill because we believe the bill as eloquently elaborated on by Minister Parata will ensure that our education system is well equipped to meet the challenges of modern learning contexts. Also it will help to achieve the goal of five out of five students achieving success in education. The National Government has always paid special attention to education simply because we understand that education is the key to success in terms of individual success and in terms of national success. For that reason we launched the $359 million Investing in Educational Success initiative which will create communities of schools to strengthen collaboration between principals schools and teachers in order to raise student achievement.We believe we should reward and recognise expert teachers and expert principals. I understand the Opposition never liked that idea. You know the reason? Their argument is very simple: because all teachers are experts—all teachers are experts. If they are not that is a problem of the Government. I find this argument very very ridiculous. Why is that? We can argue that all researchers are experts and all students should be A+ students otherwise that is a problem of teachers. This is ridiculous. The reason here is very simple. Labour the Opposition never rewards talented responsible and hard-working people. We reward these people. We recognise them. We reward them. That is why we believe that Labour or that part of the Opposition never indeed will be able to enhance the quality of teaching in New Zealand. We will support our teachers—expert teachers and expert principals. For that reason I believe I will support this particular bill. Thank you.
Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCountering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:810. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Phil Goff.
Woodhouse Michael: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:797. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):I am very pleased to take a call on this very important bill. I want to acknowledge those members who have made what I think have been very thoughtful interventions overall although I have to say how disappointed I am at the interventions from the Green Party. If there is any example of why that party should never be on the Treasury benches it is in this because the very first role of Government is to protect its people.I want to acknowledge the very thoughtful Dr Kennedy Graham. In his suggestion that this smacks of arrogance he does what he often does. He quotes somebody to make his point. In this case it is Benjamin Franklin whose famous quote is thus: “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” He suggests that this is some kind of zero-sum game—that the restriction on liberty is necessary in order to increase safety.Well I want to commend another Benjamin to Dr Graham and he is Benjamin Wittes who wrote a very thoughtful article completely refuting the popular myth that that is what Ben Franklin was actually saying. He goes on to talk about “purchase” not being a metaphor. In 1755 when Ben Franklin made that quote he was talking about taxation not liberty. I encourage Dr Graham to go and read that article because what Ben Franklin was saying was nothing of the sort of the misunderstanding and the myth—that somehow safety and liberty are two ends of a spectrum one necessarily having to give way to the other. I do not accept that. It is absolutely necessary for Governments from time to time to provide some form of surveillance with the necessary protections that go around this.Mr Little—and I acknowledge his promotion to Leader of the Opposition—in his very thoughtful intervention talked about the importance of privacy but of course this is not a matter of principle on privacy. It is a matter of process and a very important one I would accept but nevertheless one that I think this Parliament and many free parliaments around the world have acknowledged is an argument that has already been made. We need to work out what we do in what is a very rapidly evolving situation. I think if anything the events in Ottawa are examples of where vigilance is absolutely necessary.I want to touch on a second point that Dr Graham made about the arbitrary deprivation of the right to nationality. The suspension or removal of a passport does not constitute the removal of nationality or the creation of statelessness.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Tisch Lindsay: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:795. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call I understand is a split call. Five minutes—Catherine Delahunty.
Seymour David: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:793. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):I rise in support of this bill in its first reading. It would be tempting to stand up and say that those who would sacrifice any freedom for security deserve neither but it would also be churlish because our heritage in a classical liberal country is actually that that is precisely what we have done. We have just managed to circumscribe State power very well and get a good bargain for the freedom we have given up in various times in order to seek State security.There are three measures or substantial parts of this bill that I regard as being changes in degree rather than any particular principle. Extending the period of passport withdrawal to 3 years with annual reviews is one of those measures. A temporary 10-day passport cancellation and extending powers already available to one Government agency the Police to the same as the SIS I also regard as falling into that category.However the relationship between the power of the State and the freedom of the individual is one of the most important topics that we will ever debate in this House. When it comes to the idea of 48-hour warrantless surveillance that is quite different from the other measures we are debating. It is not so much a change in degree as a change in principle. We are told by the proponents of this measure that there are so many safeguards that it will never be a real threat to human liberty. If that is indeed the case then the logical answer would seem to be to just get a warrant.Notwithstanding that I believe that there are urgent needs to be addressed within this bill. With that in mind I will be voting for this bill to proceed to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee so we can interrogate examine and advance the bill into something that will be somewhat easier to support. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:793. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. David Seymour—5 minutes.
Vote: UrgencyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Urgency[Sitting date: 25 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:780. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat urgency be accorded.Ayes96New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes25Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.Motion agreed to.