edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Shanks Katrina: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shanks Katrina: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7073. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill tonight. I am going to take just a very brief call. Obviously this bill has got the support of all the parties in the House. There are very straightforward amendments in this bill. 
We have had Charles Chauvel speak about the history. We have had people talk about criticisms of the current criminal procedures. We have discussed tonight the four categories of the amendments. We have also discussed the main provisions in the bill. This is a very simple and straightforward bill. 
The previous speaker Denis O’Rourke talked about maritime issues and we will debate those in the Justice and Electoral Committee I am sure. And I am sure we will be inundated with hundreds of submissions on that point you have just raised. The bill will come back to the select committee we will have a discussion around it and I am sure we will get that sorted out for you and get some clarification for you around those issues you raised. 
It is my pleasure to support this bill in the House tonight. Thank you.
Calder Cam: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calder Cam: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7072. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a huge pleasure to take a brief call on this the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. I want to acknowledge the support from across the House on this bill. It was Earl Warren who said that it is “the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive.” Although I would not want to gainsay the eminent jurist I believe we cannot dismiss form of law in such a cavalier fashion. Justice must be delivered in an efficient and a timely manner. These integrated sets of reforms will address significant problems with current criminal procedure. 
Criticisms of criminal procedure over the past 20 years can be summarised under four broad headings. The first of these is excessive delay. For example the median time to dispose of a High Court jury trial is around 16 months—an increase of approximately 5 months in the past 5 years. Another problem is excessive complexity. The main laws for criminal procedure the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and Parts 12 and 13 of the Crimes Act 1961 have been amended numerous times over 50 years resulting as the Associate Minister of Justice said in an impenetrable maze for most non-lawyers. 
Outdated legislative framework is another problem. The current provisions were drafted on the assumption of a paper-based system creating barriers to the use of modern technology. Another problem of course is excessive cost. It is estimated that there are approximately 43000 unnecessary court appearances a year in the criminal jurisdiction and more than two-thirds of court cases that reach a defended hearing fail to proceed on the day. 
Broadly speaking these changes will lead to an estimated 37000 fewer court events 200 to 450 fewer jury trials a 6 to 9-week reduction in the average time to complete a jury trial and potentially millions of dollars of savings. I commend this bill to the House.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7006. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The fact is that a number of serious allegations have been made. I was required to conduct as full an inquiry as I could and I want to report the results of my personal inquiry to the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order.
Genter Julie Anne: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7071. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. Because this is a very non-controversial bill that makes a number of technical amendments and minor fixes we have no problem supporting this legislation at its first reading. But I would like to in this speech raise two concerns. 
When the initial Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill came up in the last term of Parliament the Green Party had serious concerns about that bill in particular because it reduced access to jury trials in our view. What we have seen I think in the justice area from this Government is a pattern of restricting access to justice. Some of that was through the changes to the Family Court and the changes to legal aid. There is a definite pattern on the part of this Government to trade off core principles like fairness for cost cutting or efficiency. It is the Green Party’s view that it is simply not possible to trade off a core principle of democracy—fairness access to justice—for the sake of efficiency. It is simply not possible. 
Secondly and which was highlighted by previous speakers in particular Charles Chauvel is the poor process that has been adopted by this Government time and time again with legislation. What we have here is a bill that needs to be passed quite quickly in order to make a large number of technical fixes. Of course it is quite possible that we would not be in the position of having to take up the time of the House on something so uncontroversial and non-substantive if there had been a good process adopted in the beginning. 
Of course that is something that we have seen time and time again. One thing that has been great this year is we have not seen as much urgency as was applied in the last term of Government. But this idea that somehow you can take a heavy-handed single-minded approach—a sort of “our way or the highway; we are going to rush in and impose our view and not take the time to consult properly and to work collaboratively with members across the House” approach—actually does not save time. It does not result in better outcomes. It results in the time of the House being taken up for non-substantive legislation. 
Those would be the two concerns that I would like to highlight in speaking to this bill. The Green Party does not have any objection to the technical fixes but we are certainly concerned about the pattern of poor law-making and of restricting access to justice that we consistently see from this National Government. Thank you.
Macindoe Tim: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7069. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I thank the member who has just resumed his seat Charles Chauvel for that historical discourse and in particular for his confirmation that the Labour Party will be supporting this bill the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. I also thank the Associate Minister of Justice for his very comprehensive overview of the purposes of the legislation. I have to say that I think he has left one or two of his colleagues who will be speaking later in this debate wondering just how much material is left for a fresh and exciting angle but I am sure that they will rise to the challenge when the moment comes. 
My friend and former colleague Paul Quinn once memorably thundered in this House: “Justice denied is justice not done.” Well I have to say that it is very hard to argue with the logic of that but I think the expression he was looking for was: “Justice delayed is justice denied.” And of course that wonderful “Quinnism” which I and so many of us still wish we could occasionally enjoy sprang to mind tonight as I was looking at the purposes of this bill because it is about ensuring the timely delivery of justice and all jokes aside we know that that is a very important vital feature of an effective and fair justice system. 
There are many expected benefits to this particular measure and therefore I am pleased as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee to say that even though we have a very busy agenda over the next few months we will do our best to work through this as expeditiously as possible. I do take on board the point the Minister has made which is that although this might ordinarily be more appropriately dealt with through a Statutes Amendment Bill in fact there is a pressing need to get on with it. We will be doing our level best to ensure that that is possible and I do hope that the cooperative spirit that we have had already indicated from Labour members will be indicated by others. 
So at this point I just want to note that the changes in this bill do form another important part of the very significant pattern of justice initiatives that this busy National-led Government has been working on. We are determined to improve the criminal justice system. In particular we have been working very firmly to put victims at the heart of the process and their families to ensure that they get a much better deal under our judicial system. These are all important components of it. I look forward to working on the bill. I commend it to the House.
Vote: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7065. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Sabin Mike: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sabin Mike: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7064. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am pleased to take the last call on this bill the Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill. I enjoyed the contributions from the House today. This bill does enjoy wide support and for good reason. The Hon Shane Jones of course always makes a great contribution in the House not necessarily because it makes too much sense but because it sounds so good when he talks. He is really the sort of Barack Obama of the New Zealand Parliament in so many ways is he not? If he is tuning in now I am sure his chest is puffing broadly within his jacket. 
On monetary policy it is rather ironic that last night on TV3 there was a showcase of the stand-off between the Labour Party and the Green Party in some potential coalition of the left and the extreme left and the three-way play-off for the finance Minister’s role between David Parker David Cunliffe and Russel Norman. I know whom I would put my money on. But the interesting line-up I thought was Russel Norman—for him it would be the finance Minister’s job; for David Shearer it definitely would not be—finance; Metiria Turei social development; Kevin Hague health—a good guy—Gareth Hughes energy which would be interesting; and Catherine Delahunty taking out the prize for education. I am sure that would have had some fairly interesting impacts with viewers at home. 
This is exactly why this bill is so important. Monetary policy good common-sense policy is so important to the future financial condition of this country. This bill makes further improvement to the Public Finance Act 1989 and our having learnt many lessons from the global financial crisis and still seeing that playing out particularly in Europe it is very much a salient bill. It strengthens fiscal responsibility and encourages greater transparency in three areas: fiscal and monetary policy impacts of the current policy on future generations and managing resources efficiently and effectively. This bill enjoys wide support. I certainly am happy to commend it to the House. Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7007. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I think I will just point you to Speaker’s ruling 134/5. It is very clear what a personal explanation is and that is longstanding in the House. You are right to say that if someone proceeds to discuss something that is not personal to them and involving them personally it is not provided for in this provision. However the House is the master of its own destiny and maybe a way through this would be for the member to seek leave to make a statement on a matter that relates to an investigation into another member of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House is certainly the master of its own destiny and my concern about the personal explanation process is that although a Speaker in the past may have made an unusual ruling the rulings are very clear. The Leader of the House has referred to 134/5. This is a longstanding accepted requirement that a personal explanation must relate to an allegation made against the person seeking to make the explanation. I am prepared to rule that the personal explanation granted leave will not continue because it is not a personal explanation. But I am perfectly happy for the member—I am not sure how best to handle this now whether the member seeks the leave of the House. It is probably best for the member to seek the leave of the House to make a statement and the House is at liberty to grant that leave should the member wish to do that on that matter. 
Hon Members 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear first from the Hon John Banks as I have not heard from him.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7007. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee because I accept that there is an important issue and I certainly do not want to unreasonably constrain the rights of a member of this House.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7007. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I also invite you to balance the various Speakers’ rulings that there are as to what is a personal matter—and the leader of the New Zealand First Party has indicated that he is going to outline some work that he has personally been doing—with the longstanding and I think never tipped over Speaker’s ruling that leave once given cannot be withdrawn. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Can I speak to that?
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7007. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have plenty of precedent for what I am seeking to do. You will recall that in 1996 I sought leave to explain the future of one of the members of the New Zealand First caucus and that was granted. It was seen as being personal enough being the leader of a party for it to be relevant and within the ambit of Standing Order 354. No one else has conducted the inquiry; I have. I am bound to report a most serious matter to this House.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7006. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Speaker you are not in a difficult position. The member sought leave to make a personal explanation—that is all. If it is not a personal explanation leave is not granted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To go back to the point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard he is correct and I blame myself. I should have sought from the Rt Hon Winston Peters a brief indication of what the matter was that he wished to make a personal explanation about. I failed to do that and I blame myself for that. However a personal explanation is a personal explanation and the issue around which the member wishes to make a personal explanation must relate to that member himself. A member cannot make a personal explanation about other matters and an investigation into other matters does not constitute a personal explanation. The allegation that a member is responding to must relate to a matter affecting the member personally. Even though the House may have granted leave for a personal explanation to be made if one is not forthcoming then it is not in order to proceed. There are already Speakers’ rulings that cover that issue.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7006. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think there was possibly an error on the House’s part at the beginning because normally when people ask to make personal explanations they are asked for an explanation which then restricts the area on which they can comment. The problem that we have as a House is that we have granted leave—which you are now bound to protect I think—without restricting the area in a way that we now appear to be retrospectively trying to do. I think if the honourable gentleman had explained it was about Mr Horan the House would have said no. I think if he said it was about an investigation that he had undertaken we would have said yes.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7006. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because I do not want to act unilaterally I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Brendan Horan—Inquiry into Allegations Against Member and Expulsion from Party 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7006. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 354. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Thank you Mr Speaker and thank you to the House. In recent weeks a number of allegations have been made against Mr Horan most of which arise from a family matter and Mr Horan is an MP in New Zealand First. The allegations are of a nature that requires they should be treated seriously— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise for interrupting the right honourable member but a personal explanation can be made only with regard to a matter relating to the member personally. If the matter that he is describing does impinge on the right honourable gentleman personally then he is perfectly at liberty to make the personal explanation but a member cannot make a personal explanation on matters relating to another member and I am absolutely certain I am right in that matter. I do apologise for interrupting but the member must relate the personal explanation to matters that affect him personally. Does the member wish to continue?
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: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7002. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What announcements has she made on the Expert Advisory Group on Information Security who will oversee the development of the initiatives in the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Today we have announced the appointment of the former Governor-General the Rt Hon Sir Anand Satyanand to lead the Expert Advisory Group on Information Security. The Vulnerable Kids Information System and the new risk predictor tool are vital in strengthening protections for vulnerable children. The group will ensure these tools are secure and easy for front-line professionals to use while also balancing privacy and security considerations. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What will the expert group focus on in regard to the Vulnerable Kids Information System known as ViKi and the risk protector tool? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Well this group will oversee the entire implementation but there are particular issues with the implementation I think that I have asked them to really centre in on. When you are looking at that information it is who has access to it what kind of information is stored should you know if your name is on it or your child’s is how long should we keep it and can you access it in 20 years. These are the sorts of difficult but I think really important things that this group needs to investigate. 
Tim Macindoe 
: How will the Vulnerable Kids Information System and the risk predictor tool work to protect vulnerable children better from abuse and neglect? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The most vital part of the whole information system is that it is putting the pieces together from different professionals so that you know what children are in there what everyone knows about them and you can put it together. For all of the cases that I have seen—whether they be coroners’ reports to the Mel Smith inquiry on children to the evidence from both overseas and locally—if you see a child who has been hideously abused or even killed if a professional had been able to put all of the pieces together I believe they would have acted differently. This tool does that.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7000. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Primary Industries 
: What announcements has he recently made on boosting innovation in the New Zealand primary sector? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced that the Government’s Primary Growth Partnership is to fund half of an $87 million innovation programme proposed by one of New Zealand’s leading meat exporters ANZCO Foods. The programme will identify opportunities to create new high-value food ingredients and health care products. This announcement lifts the total Government-industry investment in the Primary Growth Partnership to $665 million—further proof of this Government’s commitment to lift economic growth through primary sector innovation. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why is the Government focusing on increasing innovation and improving productivity in the primary sector? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: This Government has set an ambitious target of increasing exports from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP. As the primary sector makes up 72 percent of New Zealand’s merchandise export and is the backbone of the New Zealand economy increasing innovation and improving productivity are essential means of achieving this target. 
Shane Ardern 
: Has the Primary Growth Partnership been successful in providing innovation funding to a wide range of firms and sectors? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Yes it certainly has. Thanks to this collaborative Government-industry approach we have projects under way across a complete range of sectors from dairy to arable to red meat to wool to forestry to seafood to aquaculture and to manuka honey. Over $300 million of Government funding has been committed to a wide range of firms such as Zespri Comvita and Brownrigg Agriculture. Even the Young Farmers organisation is involved in the Beef and Lamb project.
Mathers Mojo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mathers Mojo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7004. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Other than the LD50 test will he rule out other animal tests for the pending psychoactive substances testing regime? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 With regard to psychoactive substances I have directed the Ministry of Health to develop a regulatory regime consistent with international best practice and avoiding animal testing wherever possible. The standards for approval for psychoactive substances will be set by an independent expert committee to be established early next year. 
Mojo Mathers 
: Why is there not a single non-animal testing option included in the Ministry of Health’s testing regime recommendation paper dated March 2012? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: There have been a number of alternative options proposed. They are all to be considered by the expert committee. I should make the point that the material that was the subject of the release last week which got the weekend publicity was neither ministry advice nor Government policy. They were comments contained in a report from an independent toxicologist. 
Mojo Mathers 
: How does he reconcile that omission with the purpose set out in Part 6 of the Animal Welfare Act to “replace animals as subjects for research and testing by substituting where appropriate non-sentient or non-living alternatives:”? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am not attempting to reconcile the two statements for this reason. The material that the member refers to which was the basis of the publicity at the weekend was neither official advice to the Ministry of Health nor a statement of Government policy but a statement by an independent toxicologist. The expert committee that I referred to in my original answer in developing the standards for approval will obviously be guided by all relevant pieces of legislation including the legislation to which the member has referred. 
Mojo Mathers 
: I seek leave to table the Ministry of Health report from March 2012 which outlines the proposed safety testing regime and it is called  
Regulations governing the control of novel psychoactive drugs defining parameters associated with toxicity 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mojo Mathers 
: So will he now commission a report into non-animal options for safety testing of new recreational drugs? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Can I repeat for the member’s benefit my original answer. I have directed the Ministry of Health in developing the regulatory regime consistent with international best practice to look at avoiding animal testing wherever possible. As I said earlier the precise regime will be developed by the independent expert committee which will be established early next year.
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:6993. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the competitiveness of New Zealand’s business sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received the World Bank’s report  
Doing Business 2013 
 which assesses how easy it is to do business in 185 economies around the world. Overall New Zealand is rated the third-easiest economy for doing business behind Singapore and Hong Kong. We are ahead of the US; the United Kingdom in seventh place; Australia in 10th; and Japan in 24th. Through the Business Growth Agenda and other measures the Government is working hard to help New Zealand businesses be more competitive so that they can invest further and employ more people. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: How does the World Bank measure New Zealand and other economies in assessing the ease of doing business? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! The Minister has not even opened his mouth. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The World Bank assesses 10 specific areas in respect of ease of doing business. They include starting a business dealing with construction permits getting electricity registering property getting credit protecting investors paying taxes trading across borders enforcing contracts and resolving insolvency. The World Bank confirms that New Zealand across these 10 different dimensions has an excellent environment for doing business but of course it needs to improve so that we can provide more jobs for more New Zealanders. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: What other reports has the Minister received regarding the performance of New Zealand businesses? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The performance of our businesses matters because the key to more jobs is businesses that are willing and able to provide those jobs. The latest  
ANZ Business Outlook 
 survey shows an improvement in business confidence in the context of a reasonably flat second half of the year with a net 26 percent of businesses expecting general economic conditions to improve. Businesses’ own-activity expectations are a bit higher with a net 32 percent of respondents expecting more activity in their business over the coming year. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: What steps is the Government taking to help improve the competitiveness and productivity of New Zealand businesses? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is relentlessly focused on the competitiveness and productivity of our businesses. Over the past 4 years we have reformed the tax system by lowering taxes on business and increasing consumption tax and tax on property investment. We have reduced red tape invested heavily in modern infrastructure and increased investment in science and innovation. We have set out this extensive programme in the documents published as part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda.
Human Rights Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Human Rights Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7079. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Human Rights Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 29 November. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I was on the verge of taking a call on this Human Rights Amendment Bill when the House adjourned last Thursday evening. As I look up at the clock I suspect that the House may be spared the benefits of most of my thoughts on the subject again this evening. But in view of the fact that it has been several days since we began considering the measure it might be helpful if I just remind you of some of the key points that the Minister of Justice outlined about the purpose of the bill in her introduction because it is a significant measure. It is an amendment to our Human Rights Act of 1993 and it comes about in part because of a measure that the previous Labour Government took in the final months of its term in office in 2008 when it ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 33 of that convention requires States to “maintain strengthen designate or establish with the State Party a framework including one or more independent mechanisms as appropriate to promote protect and monitor implementation of the present Convention.” That is a very wordy article but the gist of it is that we need to ensure that we have a very specific designated role for somebody to look after human rights under the broader constitutional arrangements that we have. 
I see that Mr Speaker is about to stand—no I am getting a bit more time. Mr Speaker has very kindly moved an extension of my time. It has never happened before and I am very grateful for this. The changes in the bill therefore will enable the Human Rights Commission that we already have in place to look after better the very important human rights field. At the moment we have an Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and a Race Relations Commissioner. Those roles will continue to exist but in a slightly amended form. This enables us to bring human rights up on to the same level—an equal footing. It is quite an important change to the structure. It is one that the Government is firmly dedicated to getting right. 
Debate interrupted.
Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7008. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. This bill is set down for second reading next sitting day. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I did not hear the member call. This is purely procedural. I do not think it is the end of the world. 
GARETH HUGHES (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 With the closing of question time there was all the kerfuffle in the Chamber and you could not hear. I yelled it out pretty loudly. So I urge that the Green Party vote can be recorded on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the House can go back. The Speaker has already announced the result of the first reading. Does the House wish me to go back? It is purely procedural. The vote is put without debate and it is something that is standard. I think the House really can proceed. There will be plenty of opportunity to debate these issues. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member called No as the member I am assured did because he was heard by members this far away if not your distance away. I am not sure whether he called for a party vote. But given the hubbub I think it would be reasonable for a vote to be held. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must make the point that just because a member votes No does not mean a party vote will be held. A member must call for a party vote. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just in support of the musterer for the Greens I did see his lips moving very clearly calling for a party vote through the noise. So there is no doubt in my mind that that was his intention. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am prepared under the circumstances to go back but I stress to the House that this is purely a procedural matter. Members have hours to debate the financial reviews. This is purely a vote to get the House in a position to be able to debate the financial reviews. If members want a party vote on that so be it. Let me go back then and put the question again. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Roy Eric: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7062. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Hon David Cunliffe—5 minutes.
Barry Maggie: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7062. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill at its first reading. This is a piece of legislation of course that is entirely consistent with this Government’s philosophy. We are all about responsibly managing the Government’s finances. It is one of our main priorities along with ensuring that the Crown’s resources are managed more responsibly which are alien concepts to the Opposition benches. 
We have outlined already the three main new principles. The Minister of Finance set them out at the outset of this debate and I will not go over those again. I agree with the other speakers that although the Public Finance Act 1989 has served us well as a nation for more than two decades now—the public reporting and transparency side of it—we do need to take up the lessons from the global financial crisis and this bill gives us further scope to make improvements. I certainly believe unlike the Opposition forces that the taxpayers in New Zealand deserve better. They need a decent report card to accurately measure what is going on with Government expenditure they want predictability and stability and they want efficiency and fairness in the tax rates. I think that our Government’s fiscal performance is consistent with its strategy but this is a piece of legislation that will ensure that other Governments in the future adhere to these principles of fairness. 
I commend this piece of legislation for all the reasons that have been outlined. I think it is important that we formulate a fiscal strategy that does recognise the likely impact on current and future generations. It is for this longer view this broader vision that cannot possibly be appreciated by the narrow purview of the opposing forces. This is the kind of long-breadth vision that National under John Key aspires to and this is a perfect piece of legislation. I commend the Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill to the House. Thank you very much.
Bennett David: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7059. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I just want to take a short call. I think Nick Smith gave a very good speech outlining some of the fundamental arguments on what this bill the Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill is about. But I am a little bit perplexed by the Opposition parties here tonight and especially first of all New Zealand First. It is a party based on principle I would imagine— 
Andrew Williams 
: We certainly are. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: They certainly are are they not Andrew. It is a principled party that will not support a bill that sets down the principles of how you would run the finances of New Zealand. That is something that just goes without mention. On the one hand members of the New Zealand First Party advocate principles but when it comes to the practice of actually implementing them in this House they run a mile. They just cannot live up to what they say. Then you have got the Labour and Green parties. It is very unusual for the Green Party to support a bill. This is all part of the Russel Norman approach of being seen as a moderate economic person. The Green Party finally is going to support a financial bill in this House but the Green Party and the Labour Party would not be able to satisfy this bill. Any of the policies that they have put up in the last year or so—there are not many of them but any of them that they have like their capital gains tax their emissions trading scheme reforms and their housing policies—would not satisfy this bill. The Labour and Green parties would not be able to satisfy it because they are not in the best interests of New Zealand’s position going forward. It is amazing that the Opposition parties are now supporting a bill that they would never be able to satisfy. Thank you.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7046. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; 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 Justice and Electoral Committee.
Shanks Katrina: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shanks Katrina: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7045. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call in the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill in its first reading tonight. I am going to take a brief call. I think this has been well debated already in this House and I look forward to the Justice and Electoral Committee and the submissions that we are going to hear in that process. I do want to respond to a couple of the comments that have been made already in this debate. Andrew Little just before he sat down talked about an unknown uncaring Government that does not know what it is doing. Well I am just looking at who spoke on this bill tonight from our side of the House and I would just like to let him know that we had the Hon Chester Borrows who was a policeman for over 20 years and then a lawyer speak first. We had Alfred Ngaro speak. He was an advocate in the Family Court and on many task forces appointed by both Governments. We have had Mark Mitchell speak on this who also spent numerous years in the police force. Mike Sabin who also spent numerous years in the police force spoke on this as did Tim Macindoe who also has a law degree. So if we want to know about people who understand what they are talking about look at this caucus because we have got a true depth when it comes to law and order and justice. So when you say we are an unknown uncaring Government that does not know what we are doing you are absolutely wrong. I look forward to debating this further in the House and when it comes to our select committee. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7044. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call David Clendon—a 5-minute call.
Tisch Lindsay: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7043. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand the next call is a split call. I call Andrew Little.
Mitchell Mark: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mitchell Mark: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7032. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on this the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I was a bit disturbed to hear that just about the whole of Mr Chauvel’s speech was in relation to lawyers and I think that a great thing about this bill is that it is actually trying to wrap more protection and more rights around children. I think in this country there has to be a strong focus on children and children’s rights because there are some social issues that we are facing. 
The bill does aim “to ensure a modern accessible family justice system that is responsive to children and vulnerable people and is efficient and effective.” In response to serious concerns that were raised by court users including the public judges lawyers and counsellors Cabinet directed the Ministry of Justice to undertake a review of the Family Court in April 2011. The review found that “In addition to concerns about rapidly rising costs the Court lacks sufficient focus on meeting the needs of children and on achieving sustainable durable outcomes for families. The review also found complicated court processes caused lengthy delays.” It found that the Family Court is “negative for children and is not focussed enough on their needs”. It is “not focussed enough on the most serious cases”—the most serious cases normally being cases that involve family violence or domestic violence. So the bill is all about improving the court’s response to domestic violence. 
The bill better supports vulnerable people including through improving responsiveness to domestic violence and I think this is a very important part of the bill. It is expanding the definition of psychological abuse in the Domestic Violence Act 1995 to include financial and economic abuse. I think something that goes on a fair bit within domestic and family violence is people partners or parents actually using what should be financial support as a tool to try to manipulate and create even more stress within the family unit. I think this is actually something that has been overlooked in the past so I am very pleased to see that it is being addressed in this bill. 
This legislation responds to concerns raised by the public judges lawyers and counsellors during a very comprehensive review of the Family Court. I commend Minister Borrows for bringing this bill to the House. I am sure that my colleague Tim Macindoe the chair of Justice and Electoral Committee is looking forward to receiving this. I must say it would have been nice to have got it on the Law and Order Committee. I look forward to it coming back to the House. Thank you.