edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Borrows Chester: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8781. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I thought I would rise just to address some of the comments that have been made by speakers in respect of amendments filed in respect of this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill and to address concerns around tertiary students and people living alone. It is important to note a comment that my colleague Jacinda Ardern made about the significance of age. Under the Social Security Act the significance of age is that from the age of 18 that is the age from which people become entitled to various types of benefits. In respect of children living with their parents who are in receipt of the living alone payment for listeners those young people can come back and live with their superannuitant parent for a period of 13 weeks in any 26-week period—so about 3 months—without affecting that living alone payment that their parent might be getting. Another point to make of course is that while a tertiary student is on a summer break and away from their tertiary studies they may not receive a student allowance but they are eligible for a hardship benefit—in other words for getting an unemployment benefit—over the course of the holiday period if they are not in work. If that young person is disabled in some way then over the age of 18 they would be eligible for a benefit which caters for caring and caters for the disability. 
So it is difficult then to think of any situation where a person over the age of 18 would not be eligible for some sort of a benefit and I note that the people proposing these amendments were not able to give us a situation where they would not be eligible for anything. The comment was made that a tertiary student up to the age of 25 has their parents’ income assessed so there is an element of dependency there. Just to be picky it is actually 24. In any event though that tertiary student is not disallowed from having the ability to obtain a benefit of some kind and some allowance for them because of the mere fact that they would be living with their parent or because of their parents’ income. They are still eligible for those things. So the Government will not be supporting the amendments for those reasons. The Supplementary Order Paper that the Government is putting up Supplementary Order Paper 191 is relating to the dates and the timeliness of the passage of this bill in respect of other work going on within the department.
Sage Eugenie: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sage Eugenie: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8774. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call on the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). The Green Party is pleased to be supporting this bill because of its purpose of ensuring that there is more consistency between local authority elections and general elections with regard to electoral donations and expenses. Certainly the Local Electoral Act is out of step with the Electoral Act which regulates parliamentary elections. Although both pieces of legislation were developed in 1993 the Electoral Act has been revised three times in 5 years to strengthen and clarify its provisions in relation to campaign financing and to provide some additional checks and balances but the donation provisions of the Local Electoral Act have been reviewed only once in 2001. So this bill is timely. 
It is timely of course because of the John Banks saga in 2010 and the fact that the saga highlighted that the controls and obligations in the Local Electoral Act on candidates third parties donors and officials were much less robust. Given that in 2010 we had nearly 4000 candidates standing for 1900 positions on regional councils the Auckland Council community boards and district health boards it is really important to ensure that there is public confidence in the electoral process and that there are robust controls around donations. So this bill is really important in improving that transparency through measures such as the cap of $1500 on the amount for anonymous donations. It will certainly be a strong incentive for these donations to stay at $1500 when any excess has to be paid to the local electoral officer. The bill also improves the definitions of words like “anonymous” and “donations” and it certainly strengthens the candidate disclosure reporting and recording requirements. 
We would like to congratulate the Justice and Electoral Committee. It has done quite substantive work on the bill and the changes that it has recommended certainly improve the bill. Where there has been this cap of $1500 that is one example of getting more alignment between local authority elections and parliamentary elections. Another of the changes in the bill requires a transmitter a third party who receives a donation on behalf of a candidate to disclose to the candidate the identity of the donor if she or he knows it. That certainly would have been helpful in the John Banks case. Another of these areas of alignment ensures that “electoral donation” covers things where you have got a difference between the market— 
Debate interrupted.
Robertson H V Ross: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8773. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Carol Beaumont and inform the House that this is a split call. Is that correct?
Blue Jackie: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Blue Jackie: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8773. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the second reading of this Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). It does modernise local electoral law and improve the transparency of local electoral donations. 
We admit there has been growing concern over transparency and accountability of candidate donations particularly anonymous donations and this bill addresses those concerns. It improves the provisions for the conduct of local elections increases transparency and accountability in relation to donations and strengthens the integrity of the local electoral system. Of course this legislation is planned to be passed by May this year in time for local authority elections by October this year. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee made some pragmatic changes and they include the candidate profile statements. They will have to state whether the candidate’s principal place of residence is within the local government area in question. We know from the last local body elections that there were some individuals who stood for multiple positions and I think it is fair enough that the voters know where that individual resides. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Wilkinson Kate: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilkinson Kate: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8771. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Can I say it is a real pleasure for me to take a very brief call in support of the second reading of the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). As a recent attendee at the Justice and Electoral Committee can I commend what I think is now a very collaborative and usually bipartisan or multipartisan approach. The irony is that the last time I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee temporarily was for the Electoral Finance Bill and I would have to say that that process was a shocker and an embarrassment to the select committee process. I think and I would hope and I am optimistic that Parliament has learnt from those mistakes because I have the view that constitutional reform and electoral reform require a high threshold of consensus rather than party politics. 
Can I also say in supporting this bill that laws alone cannot however bring integrity to our electoral system. We had in my own electorate a $20000 donation—admittedly it was disclosed—in return for help with a subdivision. Whether that is money for policy I do not know but there will be some who think that there is a huge stench in that. The difficulty with that is that once that donation is disclosed it is too late because the vote has already been passed. Some will say that $20000 for help in a subdivision is not right. It is not illegal but integrity is more than the laws. 
So it is up to us as representatives in this Parliament to ensure not only that we obey the law but that we obey the spirit of the law and that we show good leadership so that our community can have trust and confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. This bill goes a long way towards that but it is not all of it.
Ngaro Alfred: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ngaro Alfred: Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8769. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) in its second reading. I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker Holly Walker who is a constructive contributor to our Justice and Electoral Committee. I also want to acknowledge our previous chair the honourable Tim Macindoe who ably led us through the electoral amendment legislation and also through the submissions. 
There is one thing though that I must say about our Green member and about transparency and accountability. If I recall it was last year when the Green Party did not have transparency and accountability when it did not disclose that some of its paid staff members were paid to solicit signatures from the public for the referendum. Again there was a lack of transparency and accountability there. It just somewhat confuses me a little bit about that. In fact— 
Hon Member 
: They were caught. 
ALFRED NGARO 
: No I have got it just fresh off the boat that they were caught out—they were actually caught out. They were not transparent and they were not accountable. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee and its changes have been significant. There is growing public pressure and concern about transparency and accountability especially around candidate donations and particularly around anonymous donations. We are clear about that. But the thing is Labour passed the current loose provisions around anonymous donations and had 9 years to fix them. Instead they waited until they were in Opposition before saying anything. The thing is changes around the local electoral donations will bring the Local Electoral Act closer in line with the Electoral Act. But Labour seems to forget somewhat that both major Auckland mayoral candidates were able to receive substantial anonymous donations under Labour’s legislation. These changes will improve that transparency. 
These changes also reflect the recommendations from the Local Government Commission’s review of the Local Electoral Act. We feel that as a select committee we have put these amendments through we have listened to the submissions and we feel this adequately reflects the concerns of the public and most important the value of trust that we in this Parliament have heard the issues about transparency and accountability and they will be addressed in this Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor Simon: Marine Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Simon: Marine Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8759. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I want to begin by acknowledging what really has been cross-party support for this bill the Marine Legislation Bill and that I am conscious that various parties are not completely in tune as to where the Government is going. Two quick points I wanted to make in a sort of retort is that I am not sure that “inevitable disasters” is a fair statement. Of course that is a point for debate I suppose. Any role of the Government is to try to mitigate risk and there is risk involved with everything from getting up in the morning to having a drink and so forth. So I think we do need to be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and understand that the Government is about mitigating risk particularly around deep-sea drilling. 
We also heard concerns from the Labour Party about why the time frame has been what it has. I suppose there is an element of “good things take time”. But I mentioned last night to the point of consistency—and I just note that the bunker convention was adopted in 2001 during Labour’s time. In 2001 the bunker convention was adopted and Labour sat on that so one has to be very careful about talking around time or making accusations. 
I think it is important to acknowledge the hard work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think it was incredibly constructive under the chairmanship of David Bennett. But I think what was most notable was that people coming to present to give their submissions—both written and oral—were heard were listened to. When I think of things around load lines ferry usage and alcohol as well people came and submitted the select committee debated and discussed and it took advice from officials and continued to develop it from there. 
This is a good piece of legislation. It is time as we continue to move it through the House to take it through to Committee stage and on to its third reading. So I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time.
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8757. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a split call. The Hon Ruth Dyson.
Auchinvole Chris: Marine Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Marine Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8753. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 What a pleasure it is to follow Mr Richard Prosser after his dissertation on the previous New Zealand First member fitting in a few details about the Marine Legislation Bill as he went. Those details were significant and I thank him for doing that because he clearly has a details type of mind. I in fact would probably say that I am more of a generalist so I am going to have a general look at this bill. When it came into the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I read that it was an omnibus bill that amends the main Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. 
That introduction could lead one to think that this would be an updating regulatory reinterpretation sort of bill which might not be the most riveting part of one’s parliamentary life. It did involve updating it did involve reinterpretation and regulation and it was a very large piece of legislation but what a riveting interesting piece of legislation it has been. I will always remember it for four main reasons: first for the phenomenal reach of the experience knowledge and practical common sense of the officials in response to our questions. There seemed to be little that they could not handle immediately and it was amazing the way they did that. The range of subjects and activities involved in the bill were from oversight of port and marine safety and environmental effects through to the appointment of harbour masters the role of the harbour masters how to deal with putting writs on derelict ships and alcohol limits. 
Listening to the clarity of submissions from groups of people who have saltwater seemingly running through their veins and the accumulated knowledge of generations of master mariners in their profession was a privilege that was a pleasure to experience. They took their work extremely seriously they thoroughly enjoyed their work and they were pleased to put their experiences and opinions as submitters before us. 
The fourth reason why I particularly wish to commend this bill to the House is in recognition that marine regulations and mariners through those regulations carry our country’s wealth. They carry our exports to market and bring our imports in through seaports using the regulations that are legislated in this House. That is 49 million tonnes of product coming through our ports—49 million tonnes a year at a value of $75 billion. 
Good marine legislation has always been critical and crucial to New Zealand. It is crucial to New Zealand and always will be crucial to New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Vote: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8742. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8742. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Question agreed to.
Macindoe Tim: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8742. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Although I am no longer a member of the Social Services Committee I was for 4 years and until quite recently a member as a result of which I had the opportunity late last year and early this year to work with my colleagues on this bill the Social Services (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I want to correct Dr Prasad. It is fundamentally dishonest to suggest that all submitters were against the bill. They were not. But more important I want to remind him that this was a major campaign issue in the 2011 general election. We campaigned hard on it and I am absolutely confident that this bill enjoys very strong public support from throughout the country because there is a very strong desire to see everybody who can be supported into work get that support. The unrelenting focus of the bill as Mr Sio has just reminded us is on achieving exactly that end. 
The other thing I want to say to Asenati Lole-Taylor is just that I believe that all honest work is inherently valuable and although some is work that a lot of us would shy away from and that some of us are fortunate enough not to have to do I have nothing but respect for those who are working on some of those humble and at times very very unpleasant jobs. I am sure that every member of this House would want to support those people and not in any way undermine their efforts. 
I believe that this is a bill that was already very good. The select committee has worked incredibly hard and has made it even better. It is in the national interest and I have great pleasure in supporting it at its second reading. 
The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to.
Mathers Mojo: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mathers Mojo: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8741. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party opposes this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. We believe that it is fundamentally flawed in its approach. Imposing sanctions for failing to comply with what the bill terms “social obligations” means that parents and caregivers will be coerced into adopting specific parenting practices even when it is not in their child’s best interests. A parent may have a child who for whatever reason is simply not ready to attend early childhood education for 15 hours a week. It may be that their child has a disability. It may be that their child has poor health or they cannot find a centre that will meet the social and cultural needs of their child. 
We also believe that it is both unethical and counter-productive to enforce these social obligations by cutting the benefit by up to 50 percent. We fully agree with the advice from the Ministry of Health that imposing financial sanctions will cause children harm and that there are more effective and more constructive approaches to enable better uptake of primary health care. The other huge area of concern we have with this bill is how it will impact on disabled people and those with chronic illnesses and mental illnesses. The reality is that in New Zealand there are many people with disabilities who want to work and who have tried for years and years to get suitable employment and constantly get knocked back because of systematic failures because of negative attitudes around disability and because of assumptions about what disabled people can or cannot do. 
Take Jack for example. Jack is profoundly deaf. He is unskilled but fit and capable. He has applied for many jobs over many years and he has been constantly told: “We cannot take you on for health and safety reasons.” This is the stark reality of trying to find a job in New Zealand for many deaf and disabled people. After more than 20 years on a benefit Jack was so desperate and so frustrated that he sat down in the middle of the floor of a Work and Income office crossed his arms and announced: “I want to work. I want a job. I am not leaving until you find me a job.” The staff flapped their hands and ran around in a fluster but then they actually found him a job in the catering industry and 2 years later Jack has that job and is proud of it. But he should not have had to take such drastic steps to get Work and Income to do something constructive about it. 
There are many people like Jack who want to work but are being constantly knocked back. Placing yet more obligations on people like Jack to look for work and be work-ready is cruel and ignores the reality of the barriers to employment that disabled people face no matter how hard they try or how work-ready they are. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8740. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand the next call is a split call.
Robertson H V Ross: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8724. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I just want to caution the House that all members in the House are honourable and that is it. We refer to each other as “honourable” despite what we may think otherwise. We call the member what we ourselves would want them and us all to become. So I caution the House. We see the world as we are not as it is.
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8717. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. It was a rather robust debate and I thought the member handled it quite well.
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8717. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Robertson Grant: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8717. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the police report into the investigation into John Banks’ donation which shows that he broke the law.
Hughes Gareth: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8714. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to assist I think you might also refer to Standing Order 107 which gives the member the right to reply if a member is misrepresented misquoted or misunderstood. But I think also that Mr Brownlee is out of order to apply—
Carter David: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8714. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Mr Speaker point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any further assistance at all. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I’d like to debate the point of order that’s been raised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I do not need any further assistance whatsoever. This is a general debate. It is a robust debate it occurs every Wednesday and it is a good opportunity for politicians to have a strong debate. I take that to be a very strong debate. I think the member who raised the point of order the Hon Gerry Brownlee is probably referring to Standing Order 355 which is around the impugning of a member during oral question time. This is a debate. There are other calls for the National Party. If the member was really offended he had the opportunity to make that comment at the time but did not do so. We are moving on with the next call.
Hipkins Chris: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8713. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The general debate has traditionally been a very robust debate. In fact Gerry Brownlee himself made a very robust contribution in which he made a number of allegations about other members that they also may well have found to be very offensive. 
David Shearer 
: I know. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The member in front of me is actually the person whom I was referring to. So if Gerry Brownlee wants to have one set of rules for himself and one set of rules for everybody else perhaps he is actually illustrating the point that Mr O’Rourke was making.
Carter David: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8713. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can the member point me in the right direction for the Standing Order please. The general debate is a debate at the end of the day. I did not think the comments were that offensive to the member. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes but you can’t stand up and just tell abject lies and misrepresentations like that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The opportunity for the member to— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I know it’s his method. It’s what he does all the time. There’s no question about that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a point of order. If the member took offence he should have raised it at the time.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8713. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just searching through Standing Orders and I ask for your assistance. I believe that where a member is impugned in a speech there is an immediate right of reply provided for in Standing Orders. I believe that that most outrageous speech from the previous speaker Denis O’Rourke did make such unparliamentary references and I would like to have that right of reply.
Carter David: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8712. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member’s time has expired.
Carter David: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8710. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s time has expired.
Wilkinson Kate: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilkinson Kate: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8706. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for Primary Industries 
: What announcement has he made on the drought in New Zealand? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 Last Friday I announced that a state of drought has been officially declared throughout the entire North Island. This announcement means that extra funding will be available to rural support trusts that work closely with farmers providing support and guidance. Of course rural assistance payments are also available from Work and Income in cases of extreme hardship and the Inland Revenue Department can provide flexibility in the timing of tax repayments. I acknowledge that this has been a particularly tough time for farmers and would like to assure them that this Government backs them. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: What has the recent rain meant for drought areas? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The rain over the last few days has been a very welcome relief. It has psychologically lifted spirits. It has also meant that some green grass shoots have reappeared. Although we have received substantial rain here in Wellington it is not widespread as many people think. I am continuing to closely monitor right across New Zealand. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: What initiatives is the Government undertaking to reduce the impact of droughts in the future? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The last few months have shown that action is needed to take account of managing our water in a more productive manner. New Zealand does not have a water-supply problem. We have a water-storage problem. That is why the Government is investing up to $400 million on irrigation projects. We will establish a Crown company to oversee Crown investments in these schemes. I encourage all political parties to support this important infrastructure investment. It is good for productivity and good for the economy.
Simpson Scott: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Simpson Scott: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8703. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the Government doing to extend access to free flu vaccines? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Health: Around 400 New Zealanders die directly or indirectly each year from influenza. Last year the disease put more than 1000 people in hospital and nearly 50000 people visited their general practitioner with influenza-like illnesses. The Government is announcing today that children under 5 who have been hospitalised for respiratory illness or who have a history of significant respiratory illness will be able to receive a funded influenza vaccination this year following a recent Pharmac decision. That means that from 1 April the parents of these children will have the option of vaccinating their under-fives who have conditions like asthma which previously did not meet the funding criteria. That will better protect them from influenza. 
Scott Simpson 
: What result would the Government like to see from the influenza vaccination campaign this year? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Last year around 23 percent of New Zealanders—that was around half a million—had a flu vaccination. The goal this year is to vaccinate more than double that number—1.2 million people. The flu vaccination is available free to those who have the greatest risk of serious influenza complications including New Zealanders over the age of 65 pregnant women and people with ongoing health conditions such as asthma or heart conditions. It is available from all general practitioner clinics.
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8697. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received from Police on the success of pre-charge warnings? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Pre-charge warnings were introduced nationwide in September 2010 as an alternative resolution to low-level offending such as breaching a liquor ban or disorderly behaviour. In the 2011-12 financial year police issued just under 22000 pre-charge warnings which freed up around 37000 police hours. This is the equivalent of 21 additional front-line officers out in the community. The warnings also reduced the number of minor offences passing through the District Courts by 12 percent freeing up the court system. 
Mark Mitchell 
: What are the benefits of pre-charge warnings? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Pre-charge warnings are a common-sense and practical approach to policing. An offender is arrested and taken to the station removing them off the street and away from a volatile situation. They avoid a conviction for stupid behaviour that would probably have led to diversion but the warning goes on the offender’s record and is included in police crime statistics. An analysis of pre-charge warnings in 2011-12 found that nearly 80 percent of offenders were not arrested for a subsequent offence within 6 months of the receipt of a warning showing that police are using their discretion wisely and appropriately and that offenders are taking them seriously.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8687. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I understand the point of order that has been raised by the member he is asking me not to disrupt the proceedings of the House today but to have a more significant look at it. I am only too happy to do that but I do refer to Speakers’ rulings which certainly give the Government the ability and the right to transfer questions as it sees fit. So we will proceed today—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! And I am happy to meet the member after question time to further discuss that matter.
Lotu-Iiga Sam: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lotu-Iiga Sam: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8717. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I sat 5 metres from the honourable Minister and I could not hear a word he said in the last 2 minutes of that speech. I did not want to interrupt him and I do not want to interrupt Clare Curran but you did give a warning to members opposite that the noise was obviously excessive and they continued with that noise level. Some members in here do want to listen to the speeches and I ask the members opposite to just lower the tone of their voices.
Carter David: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8714. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I do appreciate that contribution but we have moved on. I have made a ruling.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8687. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before we come to questions I would like to ask you to not now but with due consideration rule on a question of order in relation to the transfer of question No. 1 today. I think as you are aware this was originally lodged to the Prime Minister. It was slightly differently drafted and it asked the Prime Minister’s opinion on the Prime Minister’s criteria. As you are aware the question has been transferred. The Prime Minister has chosen not to answer the Leader of the Opposition’s question. I have been able to go back only to 2002 because that is as far back as the electronic records do show and there is no example in the period 2002 to 2013 where the Prime Minister has been shown in the House to be unwilling to answer a question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —well no this is a factual matter—unwilling to answer a question from the Leader of the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Has the member finished his point of order? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The last point that I would want to make is that the Prime Minister always holds information that is not available to other Ministers: the briefings from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the private briefings that he gets from business people in Auckland and in other places. When people want to question him on whether a particular criterion has been met it is his mind and the briefings that he has had that are important not those that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises has had.
Tisch Lindsay: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8678. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Dr David Clark. Part 2.
Roy Eric: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I note the member’s comments and I do not think that I could be accused generally of curtailing speaking in the Chamber. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no you’re generally pretty good. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am. At the time I took the closure every single person who was seeking the call had spoken—every single person had. I measure very carefully what has been said. I think the member knows that I am on the case.
Mallard Trevor: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I would like to draw to your attention a matter that relates to the judgment as to whether or not a closure motion should be taken. I know that it is a matter entirely for your discretion but I would want to point out that this bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) is actually a significant piece of legislation that Part 1 was a very big part and that we had less than an hour’s debate on it. I just want to say to you Mr Chairman that it is the view of Opposition members—a number of whom including the deputy leader of the Labour Party had just come down to speak on it—that we were very much short-changed.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8671. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8671. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 184 in the name of Tracey Martin to clause 10 be agreed to.
Hayes John: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hayes John: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8670. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8657. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8658. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Barry Maggie: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8671. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8657. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8657. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8655. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
O'Connor Simon: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Simon: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8652. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8643. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to.