edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mallard Trevor: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4975. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to commend the Minister of Internal Affairs on the progress he has made in approach between the last bill and this bill the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. The purpose of this bill is to provide a consent-based service to allow both private sector and public sector agencies to check identity information. It extends the use of the Data Validation Service to public sector and private sector agencies on a strictly need-to-know basis. Labour members are supporting the bill because it allows Government agencies and the private sector to use identity information in the fight against fraud. We are mindful of the privacy concerns around the sharing of identity information and the Government Administration Committee sought the Privacy Commissioner’s assurances during that process. 
Identity fraud is a serious problem. It is a growing problem in New Zealand. It costs New Zealanders and the Government millions of dollars every year. Of course we are all very familiar with the bizarre saga of David Garrett also known as “Dave the Jackal”. It shows how easy it is in New Zealand to commit identity fraud. I know that although certainly the previous people from the ACT Party and in fact the Prime Minister were not uncomfortable with that approach New Zealanders expect higher standards of members of Parliament and also in fact we expect higher standards of systems in order to avoid that sort of thing happening. 
There has been a very recent case of the employment of a known child sex offender in six schools around New Zealand. The Ombudsman’s review of that case found systemic failures by Government agencies primarily around the sharing of information by those agencies which allowed Te Rito Henry Miki to carry on teaching. That is a scandal. It is something that this bill will not totally solve but will make some progress towards solving. 
The last point I want to make is that we are not putting this bill through under urgency but we are using the extended sitting procedures which we do for legislation that has widespread support in the House. I am pleased that we are doing that but what I am hoping—and I am looking in particular at the Minister and the Government whip—is that we do not need to wait another 2 years before we make more progress on it. Thank you very much.
Sabin Mike: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sabin Mike: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4971. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I endorse my colleague Paul Hutchison’s comments. Of course what he was really trying to say was that this bill the Electronic Identity Verification Bill reflects one of this Government’s four priorities in terms of delivering better public services and that this bill is another very good example of that. 
This bill provides the necessary legislative parameters for the igovt identity verification service in that it provides easier and more secure access to online Government services which is very pragmatic and very helpful. It allows individuals to verify their identification to Government service providers via the internet and avoid what most of us will have been through—the need to provide endless screeds of hard-copy documentation to prove one’s identity. 
This has been operating successfully in a limited capacity since December 2009 in that one can order birth certificates death certificates and marriage certificates online which I think has proven to be very helpful. This bill really is an expansion of that so that we can all reap the benefits of online technology. Although that may not be open to all I think it is fair to say that that is where the world is going. Increasingly communities demand to have a greater online presence in terms of their interaction and this bill brings their ability to interact with Government departments more into line. 
I will make just a couple of important points. This legislation is supported by the Privacy Commissioner and again I find myself agreeing with colleagues from the Green Party which does not happen too often. I see the member Jan Logie raising her eyelids in agreement with me there. But the contribution from Mr Hughes and the fact that privacy is at the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is not helping the Greens. This is a very subtle attack. 
MIKE SABIN 
: Surely not Mr Mallard. I would not do such a thing. The fact that privacy has been at the centre of this legislation is important and I think it is important to note the comments of the Privacy Commissioner on that. There are appropriate and stringent safeguards in place in terms of security and there is a degree of flexibility that ensures that people have the option to join in and use the service or use it in part and in fact agencies will have to ensure that individuals can still provide identification in the traditional fashion. So the bill provides an adequate degree of flexibility in that regard. It is a pragmatic bill something that I am sure enjoys wide support not only here but across New Zealand and I commend it to the House.
Hutchison Paul: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4971. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I am going to take just a very short call on this Electronic Identity Verification Bill. I was intrigued to hear that the Government Administration Committee worked so well together and that there was indeed unanimity amongst its members. I hope that Mr Mallard will continue with a constructive tone towards this particular bill which I understand the select committee made some very good progress on. 
The changes made by the select committee included higher penalties for organisations that commit offences under the bill in order to create a sufficient deterrent and appropriate punishment the addition of a regulation-making power to specify the duration for which the Department of Internal Affairs can retain personal information if an individual no longer uses the services tighter control of law enforcement access to identity information clarification of the legal effect of using the services and finally enhancements to the transparency of the service by requiring proactive publication of reports and technical standards. Indeed the select committee did make its deliberations worthwhile and its contribution is well appreciated by the Parliament. 
I did hear earlier on some discussion about the fact that now that we are in the digital age there is concern that some of those who are not so well off are not able to access it. But I would make the point that it was only the National Party that campaigned in 2008 on bringing out ultra-fast broadband and that is happening today for all our schools and for all our hospitals. That will be benefiting our children right across the board. This is a good bill. I am glad the committee worked so well. I commend the bill to the House.
Mallard Trevor: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4970. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to thank the member who has just spoken on the Electronic Identity Verification Bill Denis O’Rourke. I think in regard to the attempting question it is a serious point. I cannot remember it being properly considered at the Government Administration Committee. It sounds like it is worth a look between now and the time the bill reaches the Committee stage because as all members have indicated other than the first part of the introductory second reading speech on the part of the Minister of Internal Affairs this has been handled on a multipartisan non-political basis. 
I do want to say that I thank those who were in charge of the bill—I think it might have been Nathan Guy at the time—for their positive approach for the work of the officials with the select committee and I think for the view that we should try to get things moving forward. 
I do want to say to Chris Tremain that when we do have these sessions in the House around legislation that is unanimous—and that is the basis that we have here—and the select committee keeps going because we are all at one on the legislation it is not helpful to read from Steven Joyce’s prompt sheet the particular Government lines of the day and thereby politicise a bill around which there is unanimity. I think that if the Government members want to continue with this approach which does require the support of members opposite then the Ministers should be briefed that they should talk to the bill and leave in their offices the sheets that Steven Joyce gives them. Thank you very much.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4968. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal Mr Speaker. Before I start my contribution on this bill I would like to acknowledge and thank all the volunteers who are doing the fund-raising for the Cancer Society. 
I stand to speak on the second reading of the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. The main aim of the bill is to simplify interaction between individuals and agencies. Any process where identification information is exchanged or shared raises inherent questions about the privacy and security of personal information. When that process includes multiple Government agencies the stakes are higher. It has been and continues to be important to get all the fundamentals of this project right. 
The bill ensures that the participating agencies can achieve a high degree of confidence in an individual’s identity by providing the individual with the option of verifying his or her identity by electronic means. The ID is electronic and is made up of up to four pieces of information about the person which can be used by logging into the service and giving consent for the use of your ID. Instead of providing a document that contains a lot of other information such as a passport it reduces the amount of detail about yourself. In order to deter abuse of the service the bill also creates a specific offence and penalties regime relating to the improper use of individual identity information. 
The bill allows an individual person’s personal information to be checked against information held on a specified Government register and database or against the information held by the public sector or private sector agencies that are listed in the regulations. The following details should be given to provide a person’s core uniqueness and to validate personal information: full name the individual’s sex and the person’s date of birth. The electronic identity is personal to the individual and cannot be transferred. I fully support the bill and believe it will be a vast improvement in the streamlining of our electronic identities.
Upston Louise: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4959. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am proud to support the Legislation Bill in the second reading. It has been well canvassed this morning and I do not intend to say anything further than to commend it. 
Bill read a second time.
Tisch Lindsay: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4958. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Raymond Huo. I understand it is a 5-minute call. I will ring a bell at 4 minutes.
Huo Raymond: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Huo Raymond: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4958. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 That is my understanding. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It had better not be that long. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Indeed indeed. I would like to follow the good spirit of my parliamentary colleagues this morning and take a short call to support this Legislation Bill. 
Hon Member 
: Not any point speaking if you’re not going to vote. Just abstain. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Thank you that honourable member. The purpose of this bill is to modernise and improve the laws relating to publication availability reprinting revision and official versions of legislation and bring them together in a single piece of legislation. The Law Commission put it very well when it stated in its report that “The state has an obligation to make law accessible to citizens. People have to obey the law; ignorance of it is no excuse. So they need to be able to find it and understand it. They will not respect the law if they cannot. Moreover law which is not accessible is expensive in terms of both time and money.” So the objects of this legislation are to make sure that the law is accessible to people and that the content of what is printed is reliable in terms of what this House has passed. 
At the Regulations Review Committee the bill was carefully considered because it deals with important constitutional matters. The bill reflects the serious work that has gone into modernising the rules around legislation. The bill provides unelected officials greater power to change the words agreed on by Parliament as the law of New Zealand. These provisions are carefully constructed to ensure that the powers are limited to only obvious errors. 
 One concern shared by a number of parliamentary colleagues as expressed by the Hon Maryan Street at the bill’s first reading is about any proposed changes to the disallowance mechanisms. At the select committee we looked closely at the regulations and disallowance changes proposed in this bill. The provisions in the bill that separate the publication and the disallowance of delegated legislation and the broad definition of “disallowable instrument” ensure that there will be parliamentary oversight of the use of delegated powers by the executive and this will make it more difficult to avoid disallowance. 
This bill establishes the practice of having revision bills which will be overseen by the Attorney-General and the bill will provide for the revision of the wording numbering title etc. of Acts of Parliament. The aim of such bills will be to simplify New Zealand legislation and make it easier to access and understand. The bill establishes a 3-yearly programme of systematic revisions of Acts. One of the other changes being proposed under this bill is to modernise drafting style or plain English drafting. They are good initiatives and as the Law Commission said in its report the State has an obligation to make law accessible to its citizens. Thank you
Woods Megan: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woods Megan: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4958. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 It is my intention to take a very short call on this bill the Legislation Bill because members have gone into a lot of the detail that is contained in this bill. I would like to commend the Regulations Review Committee for the work it has put into this bill and to commend the chair of that committee Charles Chauvel for his work. 
This may seem like a very technical bill and in many ways it is but it is an incredibly important piece of legislation. It really cuts to the heart of how it is that people understand the laws that we make in this House—that they are accessible that they are written in plain English that people can understand and that we get rid of some of the archaic language. So modernising and making our legislation more accessible is something that Labour is all in favour of. 
The ability of people to engage with what we do here and understand the laws we are making that govern their lives is incredibly important. There is plenty of scope for us to reform how it is that we make laws as legislators in this country. This piece of legislation that we have before us is a start. It is certainly not the end of the reform agenda in terms of legislation and where we could go but there are certainly some very good starts in here. For this reason Labour is happy to commend this legislation to the House.
Sabin Mike: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sabin Mike: Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4954. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I must admit that I did not anticipate as a member of the Regulations Review Committee ever standing here speaking on a bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? Oh come on! 
MIKE SABIN 
: Can I firstly commend the chair of the Regulations Review Committee—it is all quite a mystery to me I must say Mr Mallard. Can I firstly commend the chair of the Regulations Review Committee Charles Chauvel for the way in which he does shed light on what does appear to be something of a mystery to me at times and for his leadership of that committee. 
This bill the Legislation Bill is really about clear and accessible law being a fundamental part of the rule of law. People need to be able to understand what it is about and the courts need to be able to interpret legislation. Certainly in my former life as a police officer I saw I guess the other end of that particular spectrum and the importance of it. As has already been mentioned the Law Commission has rightly said that our statute law as a whole currently lacks coherence it is untidy and it can be difficult to understand and use. This bill obviously goes to the heart of that. This Legislation Bill supports the efforts of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Law Commission to address this problem by tidying the statute book and making it easier to understand and I think we have all found consensus on that point. This bill aims to modernise and improve the law relating to the publication availability reprinting revision and official versions of legislation and in fact brings together for the first time the law on drafting publication and disallowance of legislation. It ensures that legislation is made available to the public appropriately and conveniently and preserves and enhances the powers of the House to scrutinise and challenge delegated legislation. 
I do not know whether I would go as far as my friend from the Green Party the previous speaker Julie Ann Genter although I would have to say that we do not find consensus in many of our views but I will not dwell on that point. Lastly the bill preserves the independence of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the importance and significance of that is not to be understated. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4866. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: How many State houses have been made warmer and drier under this Government? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Over the last 3½ years the Government has taken improving the condition of the State housing stock and the living conditions of our tenants very seriously. Over 19000 State houses have been identified and found and then they have been insulated in that time. Over 9000 houses received a new form of heating. Altogether we have invested over $75 million in energy-efficiency retrofits and heating upgrades. We have got just under 8000 houses to go. We hope to have those insulated by the end of next year. 
Melissa Lee 
: What other improvements have been made to the State housing stock under this Government? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Government has invested over $300 million in upgrading State housing stock so that thousands more of our tenants are living in houses that are fit for purpose. In addition we have also spent over $600 million on acquiring over 2000 new State houses—new builds or new-build leases—in the right place of the right size and of good quality. We are partnering with the community housing sector and have co-funded projects that will result in 700 new houses. We have spent on average over $200 million a year on maintenance compared with $133 million a year under the previous Labour Government. 
Melissa Lee 
: What other initiatives has the Government taken to support the provision of housing for those most in need? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Recently over $37 million allocated in the 2011-12 Budget for social housing projects by community housing organisations was handed over. This will result in 250 new houses for affordable rental and homeownership across the country. A further $104 million is appropriated over the next 3 years. The Government is also looking at opportunities to use Crown land or State housing stock to grow the community housing sector.
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4864. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress can he report on immunising young children against common infectious diseases like whooping cough and measles? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The latest quarterly national health targets will be published tomorrow. In 2007 only 67 percent of 2-year-olds were immunised on time against the most common childhood diseases. Tomorrow the figures will show that the country has achieved 93 percent immunisation coverage for 2-year-olds. What is most significant is that the families that achieved the highest immunisation rate were the most well-off families in New Zealand and also the poorest families in New Zealand—both on 94 percent. Pacific Island and Asian children have the highest immunisation rates of all—97 percent and 98 percent. With Maori children at 92 percent fully immunised there is virtually no gap to the overall rate of 93 percent. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What further progress does he intend making with immunisation rates? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We are now changing the national immunisation target to focus not on 2-year-olds but on 8-month-olds so that they get their primary immunisations at 6 weeks 3 months and 5 months. Younger children are the most vulnerable to these infectious diseases—61 percent of all hospitalisations for whooping cough are in fact infants. The new target will ensure that our children are vaccinated earlier and on time. The Government is also making it easier for parents to get their babies immunised at the right time. We have introduced at-birth enrolment which means that maternity unit staff will be able to notify general practices of a child’s birth before the mother and baby leave the maternity unit.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4861. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Have the members at the back of the House quite finished? Because I want to be able to hear Tim Macindoe.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4861. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 My question—[ 
Interruption 
]
Smith Lockwood: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4851. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Brownlee Gerry: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4851. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions in the Business Committee I seek leave for the Committee stage on Part 2 of the Alcohol Reform Bill to take the form of an in principle debate on the issue of age for sale and purchase of alcohol from licensed premises and for the issue to be decided at 5.30 p.m. on Thursday 30 August 2012 by way of an election from the three options—18 years 20 years and a split age—and if this election does not produce a majority decision from the votes cast for the option receiving the fewest votes to be eliminated and the issue to be decided between the remaining two options by a personal vote without any debate; and for the Committee to report progress at the conclusion of the voting following which any amendments to the bill necessary to implement the Committee’s decision will be drafted by parliamentary counsel. 
I further seek leave that in the event that there should be a second vote required the bells ring for just 1 minute between the declaration of the vote and the commencement of the second bell.
Voting — Correction—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Voting — Correction—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4933. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Voting 
Correction—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to correct a vote on the last bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and to cast proxies on behalf of John Banks and Peter Dunne voting in favour. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The decision now is Ayes 80 Noes 40.
Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4881. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill 
In Committee 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee for both parts and the title and commencement clauses of the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Alcohol Reform Bill — Procedure 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4851. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 29 August 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Alcohol Reform Bill 
Procedure 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions in the Business Committee I seek leave for the Committee stage on Part 2 of the Alcohol Reform Bill to take the form of an in principle debate on the issue of age for sale and purchase of alcohol from licensed premises and for the issue to be decided at 5.30 p.m. on Thursday 30 August 2012 by way of an election from the three options—18 years 20 years and a split age—and if this election does not produce a majority decision from the votes cast for the option receiving the fewest votes to be eliminated and the issue to be decided between the remaining two options by a personal vote without any debate; and for the Committee to report progress at the conclusion of the voting following which any amendments to the bill necessary to implement the Committee’s decision will be drafted by parliamentary counsel. 
I further seek leave that in the event that there should be a second vote required the bells ring for just 1 minute between the declaration of the vote and the commencement of the second bell. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Robertson H V Ross: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4936. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s time has expired. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.
Robertson H V Ross: Voting — Correction—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Voting — Correction—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4933. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The decision now is Ayes 80 Noes 40.
Upston Louise: Voting — Correction—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Voting — Correction—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4933. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to correct a vote on the last bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and to cast proxies on behalf of John Banks and Peter Dunne voting in favour.
Smith Lockwood: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4928. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member’s point is not unreasonable. There is a lot of noise as visitors leave the gallery and as members not involved in the next debate leave the Chamber. I would ask members leaving the Chamber to please do so reasonably briskly so that we can get on with members’ order of the day No. 5.
Hipkins Chris: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4928. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think given that we have quite a significant presence in the gallery who are currently departing it is very difficult to hear what is going on. Perhaps we could have a brief pause in parliamentary proceedings before we begin the next bill.
Vote: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4928. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 80 
Adams (P) 
Dunne (P) 
Kaye 
Sharples 
Ardern J 
Dyson 
Key (P) 
Shearer 
Auchinvole 
Faafoi 
King A 
Simpson 
Banks (P) 
Fenton 
Lees-Galloway 
Smith L (P) 
Barry 
Flavell 
Little 
Street 
Bennett P (P) 
Foss 
Logie 
Tirikatene (P) 
Blue 
Genter 
Mackey 
Tremain 
Browning 
Goff 
Mahuta 
Turei 
Brownlee 
Goldsmith 
Mallard 
Turia 
Calder 
Goodhew 
Mathers 
Twyford 
Carter 
Graham (P) 
McCully (P) 
Wagner 
Chauvel 
Groser (P) 
McKelvie 
Walker 
Clark 
Hague 
Moroney 
Wall 
Clendon 
Harawira 
Norman (P) 
Wilkinson (P) 
Coleman 
Henare 
Parata 
Williamson 
Collins (P) 
Hipkins 
Parker (P) 
Woods 
Cosgrove (P) 
Horomia 
Prasad 
Cunliffe 
Hughes 
Robertson G 
Curran 
Hutchison 
Roche 
Dean 
Jones (P) 
Ross 
Teller: 
Delahunty 
Joyce (P) 
Sage 
Dalziel 
Noes 40 
Ardern S 
King C (P) 
Peters 
Tolley (P) 
Bakshi 
Lee 
Prosser 
Upston 
Bennett D 
Lole-Taylor 
Robertson R 
Williams 
Borrows 
Lotu-Iiga 
Roy 
Woodhouse 
Bridges (P) 
Martin (P) 
Ryall (P) 
Yang 
English (P) 
McClay (P) 
Sabin 
Young 
Finlayson (P) 
Mitchell 
Shanks 
Guy 
Ngaro (P) 
Sio 
Hayes 
O’Connor D 
Smith N 
Heatley (P) 
O’Connor S 
Stewart 
Teller: 
Horan 
O’Rourke 
Tisch 
Macindoe 
Bill read a first time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 78 Noes 40. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Vote: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4913. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Chauvel Charles: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4911. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to begin by congratulating the sponsor of the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill my friend Catherine Delahunty on putting this measure forward and also note the remarkable luck that she has had with members’ bills. This is for those who have not been keeping count I think her fourth bill to be drawn from the ballot. Members will know that that is indeed a very lucky record. 
Tonight is a members’ night and it is being used in the way that the Standing Orders intend that it should be used. Catherine Delahunty has put forward a bill that reflects one of her fundamental beliefs—a commitment to a clean environment. It is a pleasure to be able to stand and make this short contribution to support what she is doing. It will be an absolute pleasure for me to be able to do the same thing in a few moments for my friend and colleague Louisa Wall. 
This bill would amend the Resource Management Act to limit the maximum period for which a discharge permit or a coastal permit may be issued to 5 years. At the moment there is absolutely no limit on the amount of time for which this sort of permit may be issued under section 107(2)(a) of the principal Act. There is only a requirement that there be exceptional circumstances for the issue of such a permit. 
My colleagues on this side of the House want to ensure that our coastlines and rivers are protected from pollution and we support the idea of having a conversation about whether this section is appropriate for New Zealand and the regulation of its environment going forward. For those reasons my colleagues and I are very proud to say that we will be voting to send this bill forward to the Local Government and Environment Committee and support its reading for a first time. I hope that enough other members of the House will join my colleagues and me in doing that. With those words I want to conclude my contribution and I look forward along with others present tonight to the rest of the business of the House.
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4900. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4898. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I do not want to make a long speech on this bill the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. I would note going from the last point that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove was I think at the time a fourth-former at St Bede’s College. I am told that Gerry Brownlee was there also in the fourth form but in his case it was for the third time. The member Nick Smith referred to Spring Creek Mine. Spring Creek Mine was a joint venture that was set up between Solid Energy and—it was a subsidiary company that was set up to be a joint venture in order to sell a pile of coal to a guaranteed buyer a guaranteed offshore buyer and to keep a pile of jobs that would not have been there if it was not for the setting up of the joint venture. I know Nick Smith hates Kiwi workers having jobs. He prefers Aussies and the Chinese to have jobs but that was done to give some miners on the West Coast some jobs. I note that now it has been wound up by the National Government those workers today got the sack and Nick Smith is the person who is responsible for that. I say shame on Nick Smith—shame on Nick Smith for that. 
This is not the shape of the bill that I would prefer. It is not the approach I would have taken but it is great to highlight the disgraceful approach to State-owned assets that this Government has.
Tisch Lindsay: State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.
Vote: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4886. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.
Robertson H V Ross: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4886. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Honourable members just before I declare the vote can I just advise members of the House that there is to be no comment at all during the taking of a vote. It can be seen as intimidation and could eventually lead to a breach of privilege.
Robertson H V Ross: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4881. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Mallard Trevor: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4881. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee for both parts and the title and commencement clauses of the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill to be taken as one question.
Roy Eric: Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 23 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4761. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not.
Woodhouse Michael: Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 23 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4761. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 We have made excellent progress this afternoon. I seek leave for the House to adjourn 5 minutes early.
Roy Eric: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 23 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4760. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: During the third reading debate the Greens indicated that they wished to vote against one of the bills. So I propose to put the bills in three parcels to allow that to happen. 
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill Animal Products Amendment Bill and Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time.
Henare Tau: Tabling of Documents — Schools Charter—Performance of Schools in New York 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Tabling of Documents — Schools Charter—Performance of Schools in New York 
[Sitting date: 23 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4757. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wanted to seek some assistance from you about the tabling of media articles. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 148/4(3) and if I can have a bit of time I will read the last sentence: “It is not the intention at all to prevent the tabling of those or likewise media articles from overseas publications that would not be readily available to members but would be relevant to them.” I seek leave of the House to table a  
Wall Street Journal  
article dated 27 July this year on charter schools. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: As the member is aware it is our normal practice not to table media that are currently available and given that the article is an international one the House can determine. So I will put the question of leave. Leave is sought for that purpose— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to make sure it is not an online article. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is not online. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! We are not going to have a conversation. I think the point has been made. I shall put the leave. Leave is sought to table an international document from an overseas news source. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. 






Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Graham Kennedy: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 23 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4746. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Just speaking to the earlier point of order I want to add my voice in support of the expression of concern. I do so for two or three reasons. 
Less than 4 months is an inadequate amount of time for the House to consider this particular bill the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It is well known and should be well known to the Minister for Climate Change Issues that there is a qualitative difference between the process by which a bill is developed by the Government through a series of hui and meetings and listening to submitters as the Minister said on the one hand and the parliamentary process by which the Government brings the bill into the House for it to be digested and debated by colleagues on all benches. They are completely different processes. To cite the first process and the length and comprehensiveness as he put it of the first process as a reason to truncate the second process is wrong and irrelevant. It is surprising that a Minister of the Cabinet should produce such a weak argument. 
Secondly on points of substance there is arguably no greater issue of moment before society and New Zealand and therefore this Parliament than climate change. To suggest that we can truncate that issue of any issue within a 4-month period is also erroneous. 
Thirdly on substance we heard in all glorious technicolour this afternoon a full range of views arguably from mine on the one hand to the Hon John Banks’ immediately following on the other. Unless we regard the parliamentary process as simply mindless unhearing unthinking legislative machinery then we would have regard to seeing whether there is any scope for either getting complete common ground between the Opposition and Government or at the very least identifying areas of disagreement that have been expressed this afternoon that we could at least shave off to move towards some common ground. Common ground on this issue as farmers business and other sectors have said is an essential criterion of predictability for investment purposes. To suggest that we just do not give a damn about that and that we will just run this thing through with the numbers as fast as we can is unedifying in the extreme and is not doing justice to the importance of the issue.