edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Williams Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williams Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5664. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 My question is to the member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill. What will the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill enable—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! I think the member has not finished asking his question yet. [ 
Interruption 
] Order!
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5664. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What progress has the Government made on promoting fuel efficiency in heavy road vehicles? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Last week I launched the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority’s Heavy Vehicle Fuel Efficiency programme which will help fleet operators cut their fuel bills by 10 percent on average with some achieving savings of up to 20 percent. If all heavy vehicle fleets in New Zealand reduce their fuel bills by 10 percent nationwide savings could total $130 million each year. This initiative will help our vehicle fleet to become significantly more fuel efficient with the wider economy and the environment reaping the rewards. 
Mark Mitchell 
: How important is the heavy fleet sector for fuel efficiency? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Transport makes up around 40 percent of New Zealand’s energy use and New Zealand’s heavy vehicle fleet of 127000 makes up about a fifth of this. At an individual company level a fleet of 25 trucks using 1 million litres of fuel annually which is not unusual could realistically make savings of $130000 per annum. With a very competitive industry and with small profit margins these savings are very significant to the bottom line of companies.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5664. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is objection. Question No 12. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! That question is dealt with. I have called question No 12.
Mathers Mojo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mathers Mojo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5659. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Will he consider using regulation to increase New Zealand’s levels of captioning for free-to-air television; if not why not? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I have considered this but I do not think that regulation is necessary at the moment given the large increase in voluntary captioning by free-to-air broadcasters. For example 100 percent of prime-time Television One and TV2 is now captioned. 
Mojo Mathers 
: Is he aware that Australia has committed to 100 percent captioning for all free-to-air TV channels from 6 o’clock in the morning to midnight by the end of 2012 and will his Government commit to ensuring similar levels of captioning in New Zealand? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I am aware of that move in Australia. It is an admirable move and I fully encourage New Zealand broadcasters and entities in this space to follow their Australian cousins. 
Mojo Mathers 
: Does he believe that a hands-off approach to regulation will achieve full captioning in New Zealand given the low levels of captioning on TV3 during prime time which is only 53 percent according to figures from 2011? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: As I understand the question I do acknowledge that TV3 levels are lower than Television One and TV2 but I also note that total captioning hours have moved from 70 hours a week in 2000 to 240. In a competitive environment and market I am quite sure that those at MediaWorks TV3 will be paying attention to these questions. 
Mojo Mathers 
: Will he rule out pay-to-view companies such as Sky television receiving funding until free-to-air captioning is at an acceptable level? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I do understand that Sky particularly via Prime Television on free-to-view has been in discussions trying to gain assistance to provide captioning. I do also note that of its own volition it has invested funds in captioning in a very competitive market. I will repeat the answer to my previous questions: I am quite sure competitors in this space will take strong notice of today’s discussions and what the competitors are doing.
Visitors — Australia—Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network Commonwealth Parliament 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Visitors — Australia—Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network Commonwealth Parliament 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5647. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 26 September 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network Commonwealth Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network Committee from the Parliament of Australia led by the Chair Robert Oakeshott is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5567. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: What progress has the Government made in encouraging New Zealanders to participate in the ShakeOut earthquake drill? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 The Ministry of Civil Defence set a goal of 1 million people taking part in our first ever nationwide earthquake drill ShakeOut. The good news is that we have exceeded that target with 1.3 million New Zealanders now signed up. This includes 2000 businesses and 4000 schools and preschools where everyone will drop cover and hold at 9.26 a.m. tomorrow morning. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What reports has he seen of particular plans for participation in ShakeOut? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I have seen reports that Wellington Airport is running a large-scale earthquake drill including passengers and airport and airline staff. A community hospital in Waikato is turning off its power and water for 24 hours to find out what it would be like in a civil defence emergency. These are great examples of using ShakeOut to improve preparedness. The Parliamentary Service has also signed up and I encourage all MPs to take part and to particularly consider the preparedness of their own families.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5566. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is it still his position that the test for his confidence in Hon John Banks was that he complied with the law; if so on what basis does he believe that Mr Banks complied with the law with respect to anonymous donations under the Local Electoral Act 2001? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because Mr Banks has given me an assurance that he met the law. The police statement quite clearly said that there was insufficient evidence that there is a statute of limitations and that he has complied with the law. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he accept the view of the police as outlined in paragraph 38 of the police criminal assessment report on John Banks that Mr Banks’ return was “wrong in content as the donations for Skycity Dotcom and [a withheld name] should not have been recorded as anonymous.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not in a position to offer a view on that but what I can say is that as I saw reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the police concluded that the return was false but could not prove Mr Banks had known that when he signed it. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he further accept the view of the police in paragraph 39 of the police report that the fact that the donations should not have been recorded as anonymous was the reason that this was a false return by Mr Banks? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot offer a view of that but what I can say is that the police statement quite clearly established that the return was compiled by a campaign volunteer who assured Mr Banks it was accurate before Mr Banks signed it. I would also say that I have seen from the police report that they believed there was insufficient evidence and as the  
New Zealand Herald  
said not enough information to prove that Mr Banks would have known it was false. 
Grant Robertson 
: What police report was the Prime Minister referring to in that answer? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The one the member was talking about. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Prime Minister now telling the House that he has read the police report; if so will he now not conclude that Mr Banks was found by the police to have breached the law; therefore he did not comply with the law; therefore he should no longer have the confidence of the Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No.
Hughes Gareth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5566. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does he stand by his statement on fracking that he has “full confidence in the ability of councils to manage it” when unlined earthen blow-down pits were used without resource consent for over a decade and now the soil and groundwater near Kapuni well sites in Taranaki is contaminated? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yes I stand by my statement in the context that it was given. In the case of Kapuni which the member refers to water quality sampling of the Kapuni Stream has been undertaken by the regional council in recent years and has shown no evidence of any impact. Regardless I am advised that the Taranaki Regional Council has indicated that the storing of fluids now requires a resource consent and pits would need to be lined. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Why then has the Minister changed his views in regard to Taranaki fracking from it is being done very very well to a statement last week when the extent of the soil and water pollution was revealed that it is being “reasonably managed um there haven’t been any significant incidences”? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Well I stand by both statements. I disagree with the claims of the member that there has been water pollution. As I said testing of the stream suggests that there has not been so I no see no particular difference between my supporting the activities of hydraulic fracturing in New Zealand particularly in Taranaki over many many decades. If this is the worst incident that the member can come up with then I would argue that he is struggling. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Why then is more than 50 cubic metres of contaminated soil being trucked to Wellington 300 cubic metres of soil being remediated from the Kapuni well sites and there is a plume of dissolved hydrocarbons under five well sites at Kapuni which the council’s own report says it cannot clean up? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The soil is being trucked in order to get it tested. Soil is not groundwater or surface water I would remind the member. The reason that there is oil and gas under the wells is the reason why the wells are there—they are trying to get out the oil and gas. 
Gareth Hughes 
: How can the Minister still have confidence in the council’s ability to manage fracking when it has allowed the use of pits without consent for over a decade it has taken no enforcement action against these polluting companies and it has no plan to clean up the groundwater pollution which has come about because of the use of these blow-down frack pits? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: As TV3 revealed the other night for decades the normal practice was to use unlined pits. As the Taranaki Regional Council has said and assured the nation today the practice is not to use unlined pits. All pits would need to be lined if they were to get a resource consent and I congratulate it on raising its standards.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to improve access to foundation-level tertiary education for young New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 Data released today by the Tertiary Education Commission shows that the Government’s Youth Guarantee scheme is successfully moving young people who have not previously achieved at school into fees-free tertiary education. The 2011 results show that average course completion rates across the Youth Guarantee scheme at all tertiary providers including private training establishments and wananga were 65 percent. This is very encouraging given that more than half of the 3597 16 and 17-year-olds taking up fees-free places at tertiary providers under Youth Guarantee had no prior qualification and a third of them had only National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 1. Clearly the Youth Guarantee scheme is working very well for young people who find the traditional classroom environment challenging. 
Colin King 
: What other benefits does the Government’s Youth Guarantee scheme provide for young people? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Youth Guarantee gives young people the practical skills and the opportunity for a career particularly those young people at risk of dropping out of school. The scheme is motivating young people to learn skills and gain a qualification that will set them up for a career in priority trades areas such as carpentry engineering horticulture plumbing gasfitting bricklaying and blocklaying. The scheme is also working well for young Maori who make up a third of the students enrolled in the Youth Guarantee scheme which is higher than the number of Maori in mainstream tertiary education.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5560. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How many times has he been formally briefed by the Government Communications Security Bureau by year since November 2008? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 My diary indicates that I have been formally briefed by the Government Communications Security Bureau the following number of times by year since 2008: twice in 2008 15 times in 2009 11 times in 2010 10 times in 2011 and 15 times in 2012. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why was he not briefed by the Government Communications Security Bureau about who would be involved in the raid on Kim Dotcom given the involvement of the Government Communications Security Bureau the New Zealand Police and an American agency so that he could be aware that the Government Communications Security Bureau had met with Crown Law the police and US authorities 2 months before the January raid on Dotcom’s residence? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The activity in question did not require a ministerial warrant and I am not briefed on operational matters on every operation it undertakes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When was he first briefed about the ministerial certificate that his Deputy Prime Minister signed on his behalf? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Last night.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5561. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Rt Hon Winston Peters—[ 
Interruption 
] Does the member wish to ask a further supplementary question? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No thank you very much. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My apologies.
Event: Speaker’s Rulings — Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Event: Speaker’s Rulings — Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5557. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
4 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members on Thursday last week the senior Labour whip raised a point of order about the preliminary ballot for members’ bills that are the same or substantially the same. Standing Order 277 provides for a ballot to be held when fewer than eight orders of the day for the first readings of members’ bills are available for consideration. If the Clerk receives notices of proposal for two or more bills that are the same or substantially the same in substance the notice to be entered in the ballot is determined by preliminary ballot conducted by the Clerk. The purpose of the same question rule is to promote effective use of House time by preventing a proposition having the same effect from being brought up again. Speaker’s ruling 103/1 establishes the principle for questions that are the same or substantially the same and that is “having the same effect”. 
The senior Labour whip raised whether two bills that seek to achieve the same outcome but by different means are in fact the same in substance. Each case has to be judged on its merits. It is possible that the policies proposed to achieve an outcome could be so different as to merit the House allocating time to consider both proposals separately. In such circumstances the scope rules may provide useful guidance. If the difference between the policy proposals is one that could be bridged by an amendment that is within scope then the bills can be considered substantially the same. In such a case the proper course is for a preliminary ballot to be conducted. Should the successful bill be introduced the member responsible for the unsuccessful bill would be at liberty to propose an amendment to the introduced bill addressing the proposal in his or her bill.
Urgent Debates Declined — Government Communications Security Bureau—Inquiry into Unlawful Interception of Communications 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgent Debates Declined — Government Communications Security Bureau—Inquiry into Unlawful Interception of Communications 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Government Communications Security Bureau—Inquiry into Unlawful Interception of Communications 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! What is wrong with certain members on the National backbench there? Honourable members I have received a letter from David Shearer seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Prime Minister’s announcement that he has requested an inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the circumstances of unlawful interception of communications of certain individuals by the Government Communications Security Bureau. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The big hurdle to get over in applications for urgent debate is whether the matter has reached the stage where the business of the House ought to be set aside. The test is a high one. There must be an element of urgency or substantive policy change for the matter to take precedence over other business. Although the announcement of an inquiry may warrant an urgent debate the circumstances must be exceptional especially where the inquiry may take some time to finalise. 
Furthermore at the current time there is also a risk of a breach of the rule against referring to matters pending adjudication in the courts. For these reasons I am not persuaded that the setting aside of the business of the House for an urgent debate can be justified today. The application is therefore declined.
Speaker’s Rulings — Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Speaker’s Rulings — Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5557. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 25 September 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Bills Members’—Preliminary Ballot 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members on Thursday last week the senior Labour whip raised a point of order about the preliminary ballot for members’ bills that are the same or substantially the same. Standing Order 277 provides for a ballot to be held when fewer than eight orders of the day for the first readings of members’ bills are available for consideration. If the Clerk receives notices of proposal for two or more bills that are the same or substantially the same in substance the notice to be entered in the ballot is determined by preliminary ballot conducted by the Clerk. The purpose of the same question rule is to promote effective use of House time by preventing a proposition having the same effect from being brought up again. Speaker’s ruling 103/1 establishes the principle for questions that are the same or substantially the same and that is “having the same effect”. 
The senior Labour whip raised whether two bills that seek to achieve the same outcome but by different means are in fact the same in substance. Each case has to be judged on its merits. It is possible that the policies proposed to achieve an outcome could be so different as to merit the House allocating time to consider both proposals separately. In such circumstances the scope rules may provide useful guidance. If the difference between the policy proposals is one that could be bridged by an amendment that is within scope then the bills can be considered substantially the same. In such a case the proper course is for a preliminary ballot to be conducted. Should the successful bill be introduced the member responsible for the unsuccessful bill would be at liberty to propose an amendment to the introduced bill addressing the proposal in his or her bill.
Sabin Mike: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sabin Mike: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5641. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 Sorry I thought the members would take the opportunity to speak more on this bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. Can I just say as a former police officer that the importance of juries cannot be overstated in the New Zealand justice system. This bill really goes to the heart of providing pragmatic measures to ensure their safety and that the way in which they interact with the justice system can be achieved as best it can in the service of justice. So that is a win-win not only for jury members in my view in terms of the changes being made here but also I believe for justice as it stands in this country. 
There have been some comments made about it not going far enough it going too far and it taking too long to get to the House. I suspect that it has more to do with members on the Opposition benches trying to find a way to fill up 10 minutes than it has to do with this bill. This bill will make good sense to New Zealand citizens and I have no problem in commending this bill to the House and commending the Minister of Justice for her work. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5641. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Are there any further speakers?
Huo Raymond: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Huo Raymond: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5640. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: This is the relaxation tape starting. Sit back and chill back everybody. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: That probably reflects well the attitudes of the National backbenchers. 
I rise to take a call to support this bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. Having listened to the contributions from members across the board it is fitting for me to wrap up. Basically the bill addresses three main issues. Firstly it allows certain people to be excused from jury service on the basis for example of their disability or their health or if they are over the age of 65. The Human Rights Commission is of the view that the proposed amendment will have the effect of perpetuating stereotypical ideas about older people’s ability to contribute constructively to society. The National Council of Women of New Zealand had reservations with regard to the proposed changes. The New Zealand Law Society also emphasised that the fundamental principle that must underlie all criminal justice legislation is that the right to a fair trial is an absolute right. 
Secondly it prevents persons who have served a home detention sentence of at least 3 months from qualifying for jury service for 5 years. There is a loophole in the Sentencing Amendment Act 2007 which created home detention as a sentence in its own right but failed to amend the Juries Act. This means that those who have served or are serving a sentence of home detention could still sit on a jury panel. 
Thirdly as the title of the second part of the bill suggests it provides protection of particulars of jury list information in order to maintain the privacy safety and security of jurors. Much has been said about the incident where a self-representing accused corresponded with persons whose names and addresses were on the jury panel for his trial. This raised concern about the privacy safety and security of jurors and it was therefore decided to amend the Juries Act to restrict access to jurors’ details. 
Although the bill is limited in its real impact it does introduce some necessary changes and it is worth supporting. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5640. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: This is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.
McKelvie Ian: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McKelvie Ian: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5640. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a very brief call on this bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. I cannot help but comment on the last speaker’s comments about the Government taking 18 months to get the bill here when the last speaker Dr Rajen Prasad spent 10 minutes speaking about all sorts of things and about 2 minutes speaking about the bill. 
I have got no problem defending this bill. I think it is a very good piece of legislation. It extends the Government’s great record in respect of law and order and it sets juries up for them to be I guess much easier and much more likely to attract people to jury service in the future. So I have got no problems supporting this bill and it is a great pleasure doing so.
Mitchell Mark: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mitchell Mark: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5637. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. Congratulations Minister Collins for bringing a bill to the House that improves both the system’s administration and the integrity of maintaining juries’ privacy safety and security. 
Part 1 of the bill is very good in that it tightens up rules around disqualifying people from jury service who have been sentenced to home detention for 3 months or more in the preceding 5 years. It provides both judges and registrars the discretion to excuse people from appearing as jurors if they meet the criteria as laid out in the bill. 
Part 2 of the bill deals with the removal of addresses of potential jurors from jury lists and prevents the accused from ever seeing potential jurors’ addresses by prohibiting the defence lawyer or court appointed adviser from showing the addresses to the accused. It can be daunting and intimidating for members of the public to embark upon jury service. For many it may be their first experience in a courtroom setting and to give them the peace of mind that their personal information is protected is very important. 
People over 65 can be permanently excused if requested in writing. This is a very good clause in the bill as it gives retirees a choice. Many will choose to be available for jury service but others will be able to remove the stress of worrying about having to appear as a juror. People over 65 are still very active in our communities and many of our important voluntary and community services are kept afloat by our senior Kiwis. There will still be many over-65s who will choose to take on jury service but it is great that they will have a choice. 
Again I would like to congratulate the Hon Judith Collins on this bill which is part of a comprehensive programme of reform that is making Kiwis safer. Thank you.
Ross Jami-Lee: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ross Jami-Lee: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5635. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity. This bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is a good bill. It will be good to see it pass through its third reading—hopefully tonight. 
I think it is rather unfair to characterise the bill as being inconsequential. I do not think that the juror whose details were utilised by a defendant where that defendant wrote to the person to give them a good scare would think that a change like this is inconsequential. There is an important change that is being made here whereby jurors’ address details their personal details will be kept confidential and will not be able to be passed to the defendant. Even if the defendants are defending themselves they will not be able to see the jurors’ details and it would even be an offence for a lawyer representing them to pass the details on to them. We do need to take it very seriously that jurors’ private and confidential details their address details should be kept confidential to them and should not be passed on to a defendant because there is the potential—it has happened before—that a defendant may misuse that information. 
Also I think we should take seriously the changes that we are making around those aged 65 and older. I have heard the comments throughout the second reading the Committee stage and earlier tonight about 65-year-olds. I struggle to see the argument that some are making that it could be discriminatory because at the end of the day those people will be choosing whether or not they wish to be excused permanently. It is completely at their choice. No one is going to force them to be excused permanently. If they decide for themselves that they feel they are in a position where they wish to be excused permanently from a jury they can choose that. No one will be forcing it on them. 
Otherwise these issues have been well canvassed by the House previously. It is a good little bill. I would not say it is inconsequential. It has got some important changes for those serving on a jury. It will be good when it is passed. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5632. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Members when we were last debating this bill Jacqui Dean had the call and has 4 minutes 30 seconds remaining if she wishes to speak. The Hon Phil Goff.
Woodhouse Michael: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5632. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 In the spirit of the agreement that Dr Kennedy Graham has articulated and because I was very strongly in support of the comments made by Mr Jones this is a necessary discourse. It may well be overdue as he said but I think he credited his colleague David Parker with having a reasonably intelligent discussion about monetary policy and where it might go. I do note however that it has been a couple of years now since the Labour Party signalled its intention to unhook itself from the monetary policy accord but we are none the wiser about what the alternative monetary policy framework might be so I look forward with interest to that. 
It was a little unfortunate that the discourse between Dr Norman and some backbenchers was a little bit acrimonious. I want to pick up on one point he made in respect of National backbenchers not reading IMF reports. Well I have read the IMF report that he quoted and sent a press release out in fact in early July around the IMF stating that the New Zealand dollar was overvalued by 15 percent. In fact it did not say that. I cannot find anywhere where it said that. What it did say was that the dollar was 13 percent higher than its 1998-2011 average and it is quite another thing altogether to draw an inference that that means that the dollar is overstated. It may well be uncomfortably high as the Prime Minister has described it but I also want to quote that report in respect of monetary policy—and Mr Parker probably knows this but has not said it. The IMF said: “The current accommodative monetary stance is appropriate. If the recovery remains on track and downside risks dissipate monetary policy will need to tighten gradually to contain inflationary pressures.” So at a time when Mr Parker advocates a loosening of monetary policy and a widening of the parameters for inflation which would be very hard on our lower-income New Zealanders particularly if that results in a lower exchange rate and then higher import prices like in respect of fuel in fact the IMF was advocating quite the opposite. So I think this is a case often of picking a statistic to suit a point of view rather than taking a neutral stance and looking through the numbers. But in supporting this bill I certainly support the continuation of that discourse. 
Bill read a second time.
Tisch Lindsay: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5631. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Kennedy Graham. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.
Barry Maggie: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5629. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. This is an bill that allows the Government to meet its obligations as a member of various financial institutions including the IMF. The Finance and Expenditure Committee which I am a member of recommended that the bill be passed without change. 
We heard earlier from one of the more ambitious and less able members of the Green Party—the Australian one who has acquired a doctorate I think on the history of the Alliance Party or something relevant and of great moment like that. Anyway week after week at the Finance and Expenditure Committee we watch him as he struggles with the concept of New Zealand keeping its place in the world. He has proved again his lack of understanding of economics his watermelon variety of economic philosophy where he is green on the outside but bright red to the core. He refuses to acknowledge that New Zealand as a small open economy benefits tangibly from a stable and prosperous global economy—none of the isolationist Green stuff. 
Our commitments to the IMF are essentially premiums. They are an insurance policy against damage to our economy from an unstable world and they are also an important part of our international reputation. Again that is something that the Greens in particular have not understood well. We understand it only too well and I support this bill. Thank you.
Hayes John: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hayes John: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5627. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I need to say to Andrew Williams the last speaker that in fact New Zealand is not in dire straits and he could start by looking at the difference in the unemployment rates between here and Spain for example. I have got to say to him that he knows nothing about exchange rates. The reason the US dollar has depreciated vis-à-vis the New Zealand dollar is that the Americans have been printing dollar notes. That is their problem; it is not our problem. I think he should go and look at a statement that came out today from Business New Zealand that was talking about the importance of our not fiddling with the exchange rates. It was an article talking about the cross rates between the New Zealand dollar and the Australian dollar where we have a 25 percent margin and most of our exports go to Australia. I wish that you would go and learn something about economics because you should not be talking to the community here in New Zealand as you are. 
But let me come back to the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. This Government believes it is really important to be an active participant in the international system. Whether it is by being an active member of multilateral organisations like the United Nations and like the Pacific Islands Forum or economic organisations such as the IMF we need to be internationally engaged. Why? Because we are a small open economy. We benefit considerably from a stable global economy. Our commitments to the IMF are a bit like paying your earthquake premiums. I am trying to put it in words that you might understand. They are effectively like paying a premium on an insurance policy against damage to our economy from an unstable world. Contributing to the IMF and global financial stability are also necessary for New Zealand’s international reputation. I thoroughly support this bill and commend it to the House.
Bennett David: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5624. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That was a pathetic speech from—I do not know who it was—somebody in the Green Party. He mentioned the green economy. I would like Russel Norman to talk about the price of carbon and how the New Zealand economy would have done so well with the price of carbon. He will not answer that question will he because he knows the price of carbon is going down to a dollar and that is effectively what is happening in the world. 
The Green Party talked about our trading partners devaluing their currencies. Well I look forward to the Green Party submitting evidence of our trading partners devaluing their currencies because I have not seen any. I do not see the Australian economy devaluing its currency. That is the voodoo economics that you get from the Green Party. It has no idea of what it is talking about. It comes into this House and it can only do personal attacks to get its arguments across. It is completely unfair to this Parliament that the Green Party engages in that. 
The Labour Party on the other side—we had a problem there; we did not know who to believe. Was it Parker or Cunliffe—David Parker or David Cunliffe? Who is the finance spokesperson for the Labour Party? It certainly is David Parker but I think David Cunliffe was going in there and saying “I know better than David Parker today.” There are cracks within its finance team that are huge. It is a shame for the Labour Party because it is a fine party of tradition. It is sad to see the Labour Party not being able to put its economic policy together and to have a cohesive approach to it. That is a bit of a shame for New Zealand politics. It means that we have to have the Green Party come in with its madness to fill in the gap. 
The Labour Party talks the rhetoric. It says all these things about having a productive economy and at the same time it wants to put a capital gains tax on the most productive parts of our economy. The things do not add up. The New Zealand economy is in the best shape of many of the Western economies in the world. That is why our dollar is valued so high. It is because New Zealand is seen as having a strong economy. It is seen as having strong economic management from its Government and it is seen as having as strong fundamentals as other Western countries can have at the moment. Those are good things. The Labour Party and the Green Party talk about this rhetoric to change it. It is rubbish. Do not believe it. You have got the best you can get. We are delivering. This International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill is part of that.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5615. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time.
McKelvie Ian: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McKelvie Ian: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5615. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancing Amendment Bill. I will be brief and to the point. I am a traditionalist and I totally reject the claim of Mr Goff that this is all about snobbery. This is all about in fact in my view tradition and respect. Frankly if you look at this House this House operates on tradition and respect and that is the strength of it. 
Very briefly Part 2 of this bill offers the opportunity for the shareholding in legal firms to be tidied up and put in a practical manner and secondly it reinstates the appointment of Queen’s Counsel. I think Queen’s Counsel is a very important part of New Zealand’s legal history and a very important part of what is going on at the moment in this country. It certainly gives businesses the opportunity to acquire information and advice that precludes a lot of other expense. Senior Counsel of course remind me very much of my grandfather’s day when you went to visit an old joker with a wig and a quill. I very much support the second reading of this bill. Thank you.
Roy Eric: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5614. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I understand that this is not a split call. So Louisa Wall you have the call.