edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1447] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 2 be agreed to.
Bennett David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1430] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bennett David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1440] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1360] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my privilege to participate in the third reading of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill otherwise known as the “JBMS” legislation. This omnibus legislation expands the range of requirements to maintain the sharing of information across the border security agencies. To this end the Government is investing $75 million in a new system to administer border management.  
There are three categories of amendment in this legislation which is amending the Customs and Excise Act and the Biosecurity Act. Information sharing between the New Zealand Customs Service and other agencies that are involved in border security is vital for them to ensure that our borders are protected effectively. An example of the good use of technology is the use of SmartGate which uses a computer electronic system to process arrivals and departures. The Joint Border Management System together with the Customs Service has developed this new system.  
There are enormous risks to New Zealand associated with harmful pests and diseases. We need to have a system that is more responsive to the changes is cost-effective for the users and involves everybody doing their bit to manage the risk. Our aim is to get the balance right between managing biosecurity risks and minimising any unnecessary impact on trade and travel. We need to protect our borders. The new Joint Border Management System will bring the Customs Service and the MAF Biosecurity processes together under the same system providing improved security at New Zealand’s border.  
Another major problem affecting our country is the illegal importation of prohibited drugs especially for the trade in methamphetamine. The tracking of illegal drugs through the new Joint Border Management System is essential to prevent these drugs from making it on to our streets and thereby giving criminal gangs the ability to distribute these drugs into the neighbourhoods of our country. The Government is providing $5.9 million to the Customs Service over the next 2 years to fight the illicit drugs trade by intercepting these drugs before they reach our borders.  
In conclusion the National Government intends to do all in its power to throttle the illegal trade in drugs to New Zealand by using the effective sharing of information among the agencies operating at the border. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bills read a third time.
Guy Nathan: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Guy Nathan: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1345] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Customs: I move  
That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. These bills were introduced to Parliament in September 2010 as the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill which was an omnibus bill. This bill had its first reading on 15 September 2010. The bill has been reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Committee of the whole House stage was completed on 6 March this year at which point the bill was divided.  
These bills amend the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Biosecurity Act 1993. The amendments in these bills are important improvements that are required to support the sharing of information across border sector agencies. These amendments will ensure the Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry meet the Government’s priorities in relation to the delivery of the Joint Border Management System and support effective collaboration at the border. The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill also provides for improvements in the effectiveness of customs law enforcement. These amendments will restore the level of effectiveness to the administrative penalty and petty offence schemes that was intended when the Customs and Excise Act was passed in 1996. Finally the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill addresses emerging customs and border management issues and provides clarity to existing legislative provisions to improve administration of the Customs and Excise Act.  
In terms of the purpose of the amendment bills they contain three categories. The first one is amendments to provide for planned information-sharing by the Customs Service with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and across a range of other agencies with interests at the border. There are amendments to enhance the effectiveness of the customs law enforcement mechanisms and finally nine smaller amendments to clarify provisions within the Customs and Excise Act. 
 I wish to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee members who provided a number of amendments including the insertion of definitions of “biofuel” and “biofuel blend” into the bill and clarification of when blending of biofuel for home consumption occurs. These amendments have been incorporated into the legislation.  
The amendments in the bills enhance customs law enforcement which is essential to ensure that the Government can prevent the importing of drugs and precursors and other illegal activity at the border and contribute to the prosperity of New Zealand as a whole. I commend the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill to the House.
Vote: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
Vote: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1345] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Regulatory Reform Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 14. 
Bill read a second time.
Woodhouse Michael: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
Woodhouse Michael: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1345] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is recent precedent for this when the ACT Party sought retrospectively to cast a party vote in respect of the third reading of a bill it opposed and that was declined as outside of the Standing Orders. So I just wonder whether you would reconsider—I am not challenging your ruling and the House is free to make that change but my recollection of that particular event was that leave could not be put in that instance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise honourable members that this particular case because it is the second reading is in the members’ hands. Had it been a third reading then that would have been a different issue. So the member is perfectly free to ask the House and seek leave—the member has done so—for a party vote. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The member may call for a party vote.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1336] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. These two critical pieces of legislation once again show the hard work of this National-led Government towards ensuring a brighter future for all New Zealanders. By introducing the two bills concurrently the aim of the Government is to boost New Zealand’s productivity and international competitiveness and raise the living standards. The efficient regulation bills ensure that the focus remains on lifting long-term economic growth which will create jobs for New Zealanders and raise our standard of living along with providing world-class public services. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Robertson H V Ross: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
Robertson H V Ross: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1344] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Honourable members the question is that the Regulatory Reform Bill be now read a second time. Those of that opinion will please say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.  
The question now is that the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill be now read a second time. Those of that opinion will please say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.  
Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill read a second time.
Hipkins Chris: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
Hipkins Chris: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1345] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think a party can amend its own vote; that is fully understandable. But to retrospectively call for a party vote where no party vote was called before is I think somewhat newer territory for the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well it is but having said that the House is the master of its own destiny and the member has sought leave. It does not have to be granted.
Tisch Lindsay: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1331] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next call is a split call: Labour and the Greens.
Woodhouse Michael: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1333] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 That was exactly the same speech that the member Gareth Hughes gave I think during the last time we amended the student loan scheme provisions particularly in respect of the student loan repayment bonus. Remember what the Greens said about that? They said it was bad law it had not been researched there was no empirical analysis. Only what we know is that it worked. It worked by reducing the amount of debt that these students had to repay when they graduated.  
Let us just disavow ourselves of one notion and that is debt is not interest-free. The only question is: who is paying the interest? Under the present legislation it is interest-free to the borrower the student when they are there. But that does not mean it is not interest-free. It is not the State that pays it. The State might pay it but it is on behalf of every single taxpayer in this country—hard-working earning New Zealanders and pensioners who have income through interest and other investments are paying for these student loans and it is only right to expect that good value is gained from that investment.  
At a time of recession we are seeing more people going into tertiary education than ever before. The pass rates are higher and the amount of student debt that is accumulated is now finally starting to slow because of the very sensible policies that have been put in place by this Government.  
It is a really straightforward thing. Do not you think if you are going to borrow should not one actually repay the debt? Only the previous Government did not do anything about the number of people who were going overseas with a repayment holiday for at least 3 years and then creating such a debt burden that they were not prepared to come home to face it. Well if Mr Hughes is so concerned about that if he is so concerned about the number of graduates who are going away overseas he should be supporting this bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill because this is exactly what this bill is going to do.  
I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their careful consideration and the officials who helped us. I really look forward to debating this bill clause by clause in the Committee stage. Then we will see what this will really do for our students. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1315] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Services Committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2012 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 188 190 and 191(1)(b) and (c). 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Roy Eric: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1315] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Minister for Social Development in her first call indicated that there would be an instruction to the select committee and as we are breaking new ground somewhat I thought it might be pertinent and of assistance to the House just to acquaint the House with the appropriate Standing Order in relation to the debate. It is Standing Order 286(3) if members wish to look at that: “Any debate on the question for a motion under this Standing Order is restricted to the special powers or instruction set out in the motion. It may not extend to the principles objects or provisions or the bill to which the motion relates.” Furthermore the report from the Standing Orders Committee re-emphasised that very point by saying: “Relevancy should be strictly enforced by the Speaker during the debate on an instruction to a select committee.”
Clark David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Clark David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1320] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise following that very mediocre speech from the member opposite Simon Bridges to outline a few points about why we would support such a bill despite its various inadequacies. Look Labour supports all attempts to make sure that people do pay back what they have been loaned that it is done in a fair way and that everyone pays their fair share. But the way that this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill is structured begins to hint at some of the other things that we have seen recently in terms of restricting access and opportunity.
Goldsmith Paul: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goldsmith Paul: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1324] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of this bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill which implements reforms announced in Budget 2011 and builds on earlier Acts passed last year. These are modest changes to a very expensive scheme. The costs have ballooned since Labour’s cynical act during the 2005 election campaign—to promise interest-free student loans. Now every dollar that we lend is immediately written down to around 54.75c and borrowers are naturally in no hurry to repay their loans when the money is free. But of course the money is not free. It has to be paid for by taxpayers and the rest of the population. So this bill will help turn things round a little and reduce the burden on the rest of society for the cost of this scheme. 
I am amazed to hear members from the other side—members from the deep south whom I would have thought would be concerned about rioting students jumping on the roofs of houses—complaining about the provisions of this bill. If anything it could be going further. 
In detail what we are looking at here is a bill that makes it mandatory to provide a New Zealand - based contact person when applying for a repayment holiday and that holiday will be cut from 3 years to 1 year. This is very simple stuff that I do not think anybody reasonably could object to. The student loan Budget package includes a change requiring every new loan received by StudyLink to include that contact person as a condition of getting a student loan. This bill would allow for that contact information to be used by the Inland Revenue Department. That is important. It is a very very small thing but there is just a practical detail of trying to contact someone who has gone overseas and disappeared without a trace and to be able to talk to the parents most likely and to catch up with where that person is will make a very significant improvement to the way we collect these student loans. 
The latest bill also includes a very important provision in relation to excluding losses from the calculation of net income. To maximise repayments from New Zealand - based borrowers the bill makes amendments to exclude losses such as rental losses from the calculation of net income for student loan repayment purposes. Again this is an important feature in terms of just trying to be more realistic about what the net income of the student is and to raise the repayment rates for the loans which are costing the rest of the country a great deal of money to maintain. 
We have heard also that the prediction is that this may be increasing repayments by around $14 million a year. It is not a large amount compared with the overall loans but it is quite a significant increase—about 2 or 3 percent—on the repayments that we are getting on a regular basis. So that is very worthwhile. It is getting extra money in to repaying what is a very large debt to the rest of the community. I am in favour of this bill and I am looking forward to hearing further about it in the Committee stage. Thank you.
Vote: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1315] 
A party vote was called for on the question That 
 the  
Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill  
be now read a first time.  
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.
Woodhouse Michael: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1314] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 Not a single person listening to this debate on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill this afternoon will be any the wiser about what the other side thinks. We already knew that it thought the Government was bashing beneficiaries. We have heard for so long “Where are the jobs?” and “Not a single solitary coherent alternative argument or plan has been put in place.” I have to say I find it very ironic that Mr Tirikatene said today “Where is the plan?” when in this House last week all Labour could say was “There are too many plans. We are being overwhelmed by plans; stop producing so many plans. We cannot keep up with them.” There is a very good reason why that is the case because when we came to office Treasury was predicting that unemployment would go above 9 percent and that we were facing 10 years of fiscal deficits. Well I am very proud of the fact that this Government has halved those fiscal deficits the unemployment rate never went over about 6.5 or 6.6. percent and is dropping and we have had growth in every single one of the last 10 quarters bar one. That is a plan. That is a plan that is working.  
The most disgraceful aspect of this debate was the member Holly Walker and her scaremongering for beneficiaries about what this bill will mean for them. Well I have a reassurance for them. There is not a single person on a welfare benefit in this country who needs fear anything by this bill. But I will tell you what is bashing beneficiaries: it is leaving 16 and 17-year-old young men and women to disappear out of the education system—90 percent of them popping back up on the unemployment benefit when they turn 18. It is leaving vulnerable young women to drop kick boyfriends who are not the parents of the children those women have borne and it is about leaving them to fend for themselves—that is bashing beneficiaries.  
I am very proud of the work that is being done by this Minister and this Government to rectify that. I am very proud of the fact that this bill is being brought in at a time when it is most needed and I strongly support it.
Delahunty Catherine: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
Delahunty Catherine: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1345] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to amend our vote which would be to call for a party vote on the Regulatory Reform Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1334] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 14. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1293] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Joyce Steven: Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Joyce Steven: Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1293] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
.
Ngaro Alfred: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Ngaro Alfred: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:678;Page:1357] 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I stand in support of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill in their third reading. I really do want to commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for the commendable work it has done to get this legislation to this stage. This is especially shown by the fact that there is widespread support right across the whole of Government here and inside the House tonight. It is great to hear that support. These bills make improvements that are required to support the sharing of information and key to that is that border management is dependent on the effective sharing of information amongst agencies.  
One issue in which I am particularly interested is that National has focused on preventing the importing of drugs and precursors and other illegal activity at the border. P is destroying families and communities in all areas of New Zealand and the people who import it must be stopped. Budget 2010 shows that $5.9 million was invested into the Customs Service over the next 2 years to fight the illicit drugs trade through enhanced tracking and surveillance. Tools of this kind are vital to clamp down on criminal gangs and the methamphetamine trade. The Customs Service is already doing a great job but this continues to help give the Customs Service the conditions it needs to keep busting drug importers. The amount of precursors to P that customs officers intercepted in 2011 was enough to manufacture at least 169 kilograms of methamphetamine saving an estimated $68.3 million of potential harm to our communities.  
There is enough that has been said tonight about the legislation. It is in its third reading. We do support the legislation. The great thing about this is that the Government has made a $75.9 million investment in new systems that can deliver a real change in border management. The member across the House talked about the importance of not being too reliant upon information technology systems but the issue around information technology failure is often to do with human behaviour rather than the information technology itself. I think a combination of a good information technology system with good training makes a real difference to these bills and also to the industry as well. So I stand in support of these bills tonight. Thank you.
Little Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Little Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1290] 
9. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Which of the investigations now under way in ACC—the Malcolm Crompton—led investigation into privacy issues or the Police investigation into alleged blackmail—will deal with the disclosure of former ACC Minister Nick Smith’s letter regarding Bronwyn Pullar to the media? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I am not convinced that either investigation is likely to deal with the disclosure of this letter as Dr Smith released the letter himself to the media following confirmation from Ms Pullar that she was happy for him to do so. However if the Privacy Commissioner or the police wish to look into this then that is a matter for them. 
Andrew Little 
: How did a communication from former National Party president Michelle Boag about her involvement in Bronwyn Pullar’s case and intended only for the Minister get disclosed to the media including social media? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is a matter that I would like to know the answer to. However any people who send me information about ACC can expect that I will send it straight to ACC. That is what a Minister does. 
Andrew Little 
: Does she believe that it is appropriate for Ministers or their staff to disclose to the media including social media personal information held by departments agencies or Crown entities about people who criticise the Government? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Certainly not. 
Andrew Little 
: What assurance can she give ACC claimants who are finding decisions on their claims frustrating and difficult that their concerns are being taken seriously by ACC and that they too will not find their details leaked to the media including social media?  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am very concerned about the privacy issues. That is why I asked for a report from ACC—I made sure that that was available for the public to see on the website a few days after the leaked emails—in terms of the information that Ms Pullar had and she had put out to the  
Dominion Post 
. I was very concerned about that. That is why I am very much obliged to the Privacy Commissioner for the work that she is doing to in fact lead this inquiry into the privacy issues around ACC. I actually think it is extremely important that this issue be dealt with properly.
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1290] 
8. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: What announcements have been made about the first school property public-private partnership in New Zealand? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced that Learning Infrastructure Partners are the preferred bidder for the first school property public-private partnership in New Zealand. The Ministry of Education has entered into negotiations with Learning Infrastructure Partners. If successful the consortium will design construct finance and maintain the new Hobsonville Point primary and secondary schools for the next 25 years. This is an important milestone in the process towards completing negotiations for the first school property public-private partnership being developed in New Zealand. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What will be some of the benefits of having a school property public-private partnership? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: This public-private partnership model will give boards and principals more time to focus on student achievement by transferring property management and responsibilities to a private partner. Evidence shows that educational outcomes improve when school leaders are able to focus their time and energy on education rather than administrative matters such as property management. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: What safeguards will he require in the contract with Australian company Programmed Facility Management to ensure that it does not cut corners or provide a poor quality service in order to maximise its profits as has occurred in some public-private partnership examples overseas? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I understand there are many successful models overseas but the member can be assured that the ongoing and final negotiations of the contract will contain clauses that the consortium must deliver to a good standard required as will be in the contract when it is announced.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1291] 
10. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What progress has the Government made to combat the trade of objectionable images of children? 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Last week I announced that the Department of Internal Affairs censorship compliance unit has been working with Microsoft on the development of PhotoDNA world-class technology designed to make it easier to identify images that exploit or endanger children. This technology will allow investigators to process data more efficiently as well as re-examine the methods they use to review the images. The trading of objectionable images of children is abhorrent and as a Government we will be doing all we can to stop it.  
Jacqui Dean 
: How else is the Government contributing to international efforts to combat access to objectionable images?  
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: The Department of Internal Affairs is very active in pursuing and prosecuting individuals who participate in the possession and trade of child sexual abuse images. This includes close cooperation with enforcement agencies both in this country and overseas to close down sites and rescue children. By way of example Department of Internal Affairs officials recently identified offending and notified the United Kingdom police who rescued two children and apprehended the perpetrator all within 48 hours of the initial detection. We should be very proud of the work that this unit does to keep children safe.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1288] 
6. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Why is the Government reforming New Zealand’s welfare system? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Today the House will have the first reading of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. The Government spends more than $7 billion a year on benefits and that is more than $20 million a day. Thirteen percent of the working-age population—that is one in eight—receive a benefit and 220000 children live in benefit-dependent households. We are making these changes as currently the system leads to significant long-term benefit receipt for many people and we know the outcomes and the trap that this can lead them into. 
Tim Macindoe 
: How will these changes target Government support to those who are most at risk of long-term dependency? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This bill makes comprehensive changes to reform New Zealand’s welfare system placing greater work obligations on beneficiaries targeting support particularly for those young people who are on a collision course with long-term welfare dependency contracting with providers to wrap around support and encouraging and helping them to get into those jobs which they find so hard to get to. We need to and we simply must do more to help those young people who are at risk instead of picking off those who are at the other end of the spectrum. 
Tim Macindoe 
: How will this legislation improve support for those on welfare to achieve independence? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This legislation will also enable greater work preparation and work availability obligations alongside those incentives. For example for sole parents we are introducing a benefit run-on payment. This is for those who find employment before their work obligations require them to acknowledging that it can be really tough to be on benefit and go into work and for there to be a gap. So they can keep their benefit by it being reduced by $100 a week until it is all gone in that run-on period.
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1293] 
12. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why has the New Zealand Government taken a different decision to the Australian Government with regard to security matters relating to Huawei’s involvement in broadband projects? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 As has been the longstanding practice of this House by successive Governments I do not intend to comment on matters of security. 
Clare Curran 
: Has he been briefed on the reasons for the Australian Government’s decision to ban Huawei Technologies from tendering for national broadband network contracts and if so has he taken any action since to instruct relevant Ministers to re-examine New Zealand’s taxpayer-funded broadband contracts with Huawei? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There has been no such instruction. 
Clare Curran 
: Can he guarantee the security of the new broadband network in the light of decisions to award Huawei supply deals with the Government’s partners for the ultra-fast broadband scheme in an equipment deal last year with Chorus? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: We take network security very seriously. The Government works with all suppliers and operators to address any security concerns that may be identified and is committed to working with operators and suppliers to protect the integrity and confidentiality of New Zealand’s telecommunication networks. 
Clare Curran 
: How many visits to Huawei’s Chinese headquarters in Shenzhen have occurred since November 2008 by National Cabinet Ministers? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am unable to answer that question on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1334] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 14. 
Question agreed to.
Bennett Paula: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bennett Paula: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1315] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Services Committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2012 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 188 190 and 191(1)(b) and (c). 
 I make mention of the shortened time period for the select committee particularly on the basis of there being a 3-week adjournment period where members will have an opportunity to hear submissions and actually hear the rest of it. This bill has been well and truly traversed. In August last year the Prime Minister made announcements and gave details around it. We had a Welfare Working Group that worked over a period of quite some months and traversed up and down the country. We believe that the public have had a great opportunity to see this. They should be able to get their submissions in on time and that is why we advocate for the shorter select committee process.
McKelvie Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McKelvie Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1283] 
3. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What actions is the Government taking to increase employer confidence to hire new workers? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 For businesses to hire more workers they need confidence that they can compete within New Zealand and internationally and that the Government provides a regulatory and economic environment that supports their competitiveness. That is why the Government is undertaking a large range of actions to encourage businesses including returning the Government’s books to surplus by 2014-15 which will help keep interest rates lower for longer; building the transport links exporters need to get their goods to market; and undertaking reforms of the Resource Management Act. Progress is steady with economic growth in 10 of the last 11 quarters. By encouraging confidence businesses will feel secure when taking on new employees. They will be able to earn the necessary revenue to sustain their growth. 
Ian McKelvie 
: What forecasts has he seen of job creation as the economy recovers over the next few years? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There have been several forecasts demonstrating that New Zealand businesses will create a significant number of jobs as the domestic and world economies recover. For example the most recent Department of Labour  
Short-term Employment Prospects 
 forecast 39300 jobs to be created per year over the next 3 years. What the Government is determined to do is provide an environment that encourages the growth of competitive businesses.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1282] 
2. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she have confidence in the Board of ACC? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes.  
Grant Robertson 
: When she told the media this morning that only herself one staff member chairman John Judge and the chief executive of the ACC had the information about Bronwyn Pullar which of these people does she believe leaked that information to the media? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is not correct. What I said was that Miss Boag sent the information to me and one staff member in my office. I did not send it to anyone else. My staff member sent it to the chief executive of ACC and the chairman of the board as I requested her to. It was not sent anywhere else from my office.  
Grant Robertson 
: Given that answer does she believe that board chair John Judge leaked the information about Bronwyn Pullar? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have asked Mr Judge and he has denied the allegation. 
Grant Robertson 
: Given her statement to the media that she has ruled out herself and her office as the source of the leak will she rule out board chair John Judge or chief executive Ralph Stewart as the sources? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: This information that was released to the media is information belonging to Miss Pullar and Miss Boag. If either of those people wishes to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner then I would support them in doing that. It is not for me to speculate as to who released it. I am simply saying that I am 100 percent certain that it was neither me nor anyone in my office—100 percent certain; absolutely. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does she accept that by ruling out herself and anyone in her office and saying that the email went only to John Judge and Ralph Stewart she is implicating both of them in the leak? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No.
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Hon Ralph Kerr Maxwell MBE 
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Hon Ralph Kerr Maxwell MBE 
[Volume:678;Page:1281] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 25 March 2012 of the Hon Ralph Kerr Maxwell MBE who represented the electorate of Waitakere from 1978 to 1987 and the electorate of Titirangi from 1987 to 1990. In 1990 he was the Associate Minister of Agriculture and the Associate Minister of External Relations and Trade. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Obituaries — Hon Ralph Kerr Maxwell MBE 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Obituaries — Hon Ralph Kerr Maxwell MBE 
[Volume:678;Page:1281] 
Tuesday 27 March 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Hon Ralph Kerr Maxwell MBE 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 25 March 2012 of the Hon Ralph Kerr Maxwell MBE who represented the electorate of Waitakere from 1978 to 1987 and the electorate of Titirangi from 1987 to 1990. In 1990 he was the Associate Minister of Agriculture and the Associate Minister of External Relations and Trade. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1293] 
Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1279] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 Part 2 and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Part 1 Part 2 and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Crown Pastoral Land (Rental for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill without amendment and no progress on the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. 
Report adopted.
Roy Eric: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1279] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Just another caution: votes will be taken in silence.
Mallard Trevor: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1279] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee for the three votes on this bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not.  
A party vote was called for on the question that Part 1 Part 2 and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.
Browning Steffan: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Browning Steffan: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1278] 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 I will finish the Green Party’s contribution. I have a further statement; it will be quick. In terms of the purpose of the Crown Pastoral Land (Rental for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill I note that the previous speaker Ian McKelvie noted some scope for environmental protection in how the Valuer-General might set some of the capacity issues there. But you have to ask where the rules are.  
I was very concerned at the earlier reading of this when people from the Government side called and bellowed and suggested that I was anti-farmer. Far far from it. What we need in this is a formula that protects family farmers at the same time as putting in environmental constraints. The environmental constraints need to be put in place in such a way that they do not deter the family farmer from staying on the farm. The Green Party is about getting people on to the land and we want them to be there operating in the most sustainable way possible. 
So while there is a fair bit of chatter going on there at the front I just need to make it very very clear that the Green Party supports family farmers and we are looking forward to seeing more people on these places farming where it is appropriate. But we seek a formula that actually ensures environmental protection—and watching the clock I will leave it at that.
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1264] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Search and Surveillance Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 6; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time.