edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:5102] 
10.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: How many jobs will be created by the replacement of the Kopu Bridge which was brought forward as part of the Government’s $500 million jobs and growth plan? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Was that question as on the Order Paper? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe it was but if I am wrong I apologise to the member. I ask her to read the question on the Order Paper please. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It is exactly as I read it. I will read it again. To the Minister of Transport how many jobs will be created by the replacement of the Kopu Bridge which was brought forward as part of the Government’s jobs and growth plan? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: The Minister is advised that when construction is in full swing up to 50 people will be working full-time on the site. Construction is expected to take 3 years. There will be an additional 100 people involved in the downstream jobs supplying material and providing support services. This project will greatly improve freight and passenger access into the Coromandel region boosting economic development and tourism and saving significant time for people who sit in traffic congestion. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How long have the people of the Coromandel had to wait for this new bridge? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: For far too long. The replacement of this 82-year-old bridge which has been talked about for a long time and strongly advocated for by the local MP Sandra Goudie is occurring now only because the Government has brought it forward by providing extra money in the National Land Transport Fund via the February stimulus roading package of $142 million. The previous Labour administration signed off on a 9 percent decrease that would have seen projects like this one not get off the ground or even be cancelled. 
Darien Fenton 
: How many of those jobs will be going to local contractors and firms and what percentage of the total expenditure will stay in the local communities? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The member will be pleased to know that very soon there will be an announcement of the successful tenderer. I am led to believe by New Zealand Transport Agency officials that the successful tenderer will be a New Zealand - based company. The member needs to know that a significant number of jobs will be created as a result of this project. I have already alluded to that in my primary answer. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is the Minister aware that only 3000 tonnes of the 11000 tonnes of steel required for the bridge will be sourced locally and that the rest will come from overseas; and how does that support or create jobs for locals and New Zealanders? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The member should be aware that a good chunk of the steel that will be used in the bridge construction project will be sourced from New Zealand. However small portions of specific types of steel that are not manufactured in New Zealand will need to come from overseas.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:5097] 
6.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has she received of schools closing down their adult and community education programmes? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The decision whether to provide adult and community education is one for individual schools to make. The Tertiary Education Commission is currently running an application process for Government funding for schools for 2010. I have encouraged schools that wish to offer adult and community education to engage with this process. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Is she aware that Newlands College has been running a community education programme since 1976—that is for 33 years—and that it now has to close that programme because of her funding cuts? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I repeat that that decision is entirely one for the school to make. It could continue to run courses both Government-funded and on a user-pays basis but that decision is entirely the school’s decision to make. 
Colin King 
: What reports has she received on the Government’s commitment to adult and community education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Government is committed to adult and community education and that is why we are investing $124 million in it over the next 4 years. But I have received reports of Labour Party members spreading misinformation about the Government’s plan. Lynne Pillay for instance said that we would not be funding sign language classes. Well she is wrong. Maryan Street said that we are cutting $152 million. Well she is wrong. With that level of distance from the facts both those members seem to be a perfect fit for the Labour Party leadership. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Is it of any concern to the Minister that the introduction of a user-pays system as she suggested in her answer to the primary question to allow the continuation of the Newlands College community education programme would see fees double or probably treble according to the principal of the college and that such cost increases would put skills acquisition out of the reach of many of the people in the community that Newlands College serves? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I repeat to that member that the decision is entirely the school’s to make. I encourage and will continue to encourage schools to engage with the Tertiary Education Commission. It has sought expressions of interest by the end of this month and I encourage schools to be talking with the Tertiary Education Commission. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What has she to say to the 3200 people who enrolled in the Newlands College community education programme in the last financial year and who will now not be able to advance their skills through that vehicle next year or to the 81 tutors who ran the 321 classes and who will now be without a job? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I would say to those members of the community that they should be talking with their school about the provision of some of those courses that they may well be prepared to pay for on a user-pays basis.
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:5095] 
4.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What steps has ACC taken to implement the Government’s policy of shifting resources to front-line services? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is implementing the new Government’s policy of moving resources to the front line. This has involved reducing the corporate office by 70 and putting an additional 100 front-line staff to work in assisting claimants to get back to work with quicker and more effective rehabilitation. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: By how much have staff numbers at ACC’s corporate office grown in recent years and how does this compare with changes in front-line staff numbers? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Corporate office staff numbers grew from 377 in 2003 to 490 in 2008 a 30 percent increase. This change was 27 percent faster than growth in front-line ACC staff. This balance was wrong and needs correcting. That is why the new Government is making changes. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How will accident compensation claimants benefit from this shift in resourcing to the front line—particularly the increase in service delivery staff? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government is requiring of ACC a strong focus on rehabilitation because of the consistent deterioration in this area over the last 5 years. This has been having a very detrimental effect on accident compensation finances as well as adversely impacting on people’s lives. The additional 100 front-line staff are to be focused on improving the timeliness of the service that ACC provides for claimants particularly those on income compensation so that they can return to work as quickly as possible. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister confirm that his triumphal announcement today was first made on 27 May and that there has actually been a net loss of 70 jobs as a result of the restructuring of ACC? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes in May we did announce a reduction in staff at head office of 70. Labour wants to talk about only one side of the equation. On this side of the House we are interested in providing real services for the public. That is what we think public services are about and that is why putting 100 additional front-line staff in ACC so that it can more quickly rehabilitate people is exactly what the people of New Zealand voted for and want. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Minister comfortable that 70 hard-working New Zealanders have lost their jobs in an agency he is responsible for? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Of course there would not have been a need for the staff losses at corporate office if not for the policy of the previous Government to have a bloated Wellington Public Service. If members opposite want to shed crocodile tears about it they should talk to the former Ministers who allowed a 30 percent increase in the size of ACC’s corporate office at a time when that was unaffordable.
Dalziel Lianne: Points of Order — Maori Language—Pronunciation Crimes (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Dalziel Lianne: Points of Order — Maori Language—Pronunciation Crimes (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:655;Page:5087] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I seek leave to introduce the Crimes (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Amendment Bill in my name. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Points of Order — Maori Language—Pronunciation Crimes (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Points of Order — Maori Language—Pronunciation Crimes (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:655;Page:5087] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. In light of the discussion about next week and in respect of issues around order in the House I remind members that the Maori Party has in the past made a commitment to Maori language and in particular correct pronunciation. I remind members that next week is Maori Language Week. As we lead into that week I ask that members give some serious consideration to the delivery of Maori language. The Maori Party has pronunciation sheets to help out all members as we move towards celebrating Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori. Kia ora tatou.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:655;Page:5087] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I agree that there is reasonably broad support for the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill which stands in the name of the Hon Murray McCully. The shadow Leader of the House will also be aware that an event is coming up in the middle of next month that may require all sides of the House to cooperate to enable members to go to celebrations marking the anniversary of the coronation of King Tuheitia. That bill seems to me to be one that might progress on that day in order to facilitate the requirements of all parties in the House.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:655;Page:5087] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Firstly I thank the Leader of the House for facilitating the maiden statement of David Shearer the new member for Mt Albert at 5.45 p.m. on Wednesday 5 August. I ask the Leader of the House whether there might be an opportunity to debate the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill for which I understand there is broad support in the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:655;Page:5087] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 28 July it is the Government’s intention to take the first readings of the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill and the Inquiries Bill and to make progress on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill and any remaining parts of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) left over from this week. Wednesday 29 July is a members’ day and the third reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill will be taken on Thursday 30 July.
Points of Order — Maori Language—Pronunciation Crimes (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Maori Language—Pronunciation Crimes (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:655;Page:5087] 
Points of Order 
Maori Language—Pronunciation 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. In light of the discussion about next week and in respect of issues around order in the House I remind members that the Maori Party has in the past made a commitment to Maori language and in particular correct pronunciation. I remind members that next week is Maori Language Week. As we lead into that week I ask that members give some serious consideration to the delivery of Maori language. The Maori Party has pronunciation sheets to help out all members as we move towards celebrating Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori. Kia ora tatou. 
Crimes (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I seek leave to introduce the Crimes (Abolition of Defence of Provocation) Amendment Bill in my name. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:655;Page:5087] 
Thursday 23 July 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 28 July it is the Government’s intention to take the first readings of the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill and the Inquiries Bill and to make progress on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill and any remaining parts of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) left over from this week. Wednesday 29 July is a members’ day and the third reading of the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill will be taken on Thursday 30 July. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Firstly I thank the Leader of the House for facilitating the maiden statement of David Shearer the new member for Mt Albert at 5.45 p.m. on Wednesday 5 August. I ask the Leader of the House whether there might be an opportunity to debate the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill for which I understand there is broad support in the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I agree that there is reasonably broad support for the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill which stands in the name of the Hon Murray McCully. The shadow Leader of the House will also be aware that an event is coming up in the middle of next month that may require all sides of the House to cooperate to enable members to go to celebrations marking the anniversary of the coronation of King Tuheitia. That bill seems to me to be one that might progress on that day in order to facilitate the requirements of all parties in the House.
Coleman Jonathan: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Coleman Jonathan: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6696] 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee to report progress. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6696] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6681] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit after the words “ 
relevant agency 
 means the following New Zealand Government agency as the case may be that holds was the source of or was provided with classified information” the following: 
(a)Aviation Security Service 
(b)Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand 
(c)Department of Corrections 
(d)Department of Internal Affairs 
(e)Department of Labour 
(g)Maritime New Zealand 
(h)Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 
(i)Ministry of Fisheries 
(j)Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
(k)New Zealand Customs Service 
(l)New Zealand Defence Service 
(o)a government agency established in substitution for or set up to take over any function of a department or agency listed in paragraphs (a) to (n).
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6681] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 be agreed to.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6637] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Street Maryan: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Street Maryan: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6607] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Periodically the Vice-Chancellors Committee releases a report on the destination of graduates from universities and that tends to chart the salary band that new graduates go into. Typically it is not very high. Frequently we are told that a degree will enhance people’s earning power and therefore they will be able to earn more in their lifetime—and I hope that is true. I am concerned however that many people who on emerging from a university or a polytechnic with a degree and encumbered by student debt are not in a position for many years to take advantage of this legislation. We have legislation that is designed for the wealthy—for those who have additional money left over after they have already paid off what they need to pay off on their student loan and have then paid out for living expenses. If one has a spare $500 sloshing around after that then this bill may be of some assistance to those people. However for the vast majority of people this is not going to provide any relief at all. I am pleased to say however that there is one redeeming feature to this legislation: my colleague Trevor Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper. I congratulate the Government on accepting the Supplementary Order Paper even though it was not accepted in the select committee. It was accepted by the Government in the end because it is the only thing that makes this bill tolerable and it is the only reason why Labour will move to support it. 
The Supplementary Order Paper relates to the “health warning”—the piece that says “for goodness’ sake get some financial advice”. It inserts new section 45G with its heading: “Commissioner must advise borrowers to seek financial advice”. In other words the commissioner is required in all material to provide information about repayment bonuses and make sure that people get financial advice. The only people that this bill really suits are rich stupid people. They are people with extra money but too stupid to realise that their money would work better for them if they put it into an interest-bearing account than if they reduce a loan that does not have any interest on it. It is particularly ridiculous legislation in that the only time it is likely to make an impact on anybody’s student loan debt is towards the very end of the life of that debt. We will not stand in the way of it however because the Government has seen fit and seen the sense of accepting my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper that inserts this “health warning”. 
Bill read a second time.
Hipkins Chris: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6606] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I will be very brief on this. One would have to be completely crazy to take up the student loan repayment bonus. Therefore I think it is important that before people take up the repayment bonus they receive adequate advice so that they can ensure that they are making a prudent decision. There are very very few circumstances in which it would be in somebody’s best interests to take it up. My colleague Trevor Mallard has put forward an amendment to that effect which would ensure that somebody receives appropriate advice and guidance before taking up the repayment bonus. I commend his amendment to the House.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6585] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 23A is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. An additional amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to add clause 25 relating to transitional personnel provisions is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. A typescript amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to omit the schedule is ruled out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6585] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Phil Twyford’s amendment to add Subpart 3 to Part 3 is ruled out of order because it is outside the scope of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 54 in the name of Sue Bradford be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6577] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 59 in the name of Hone Harawira be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6577] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1; Progressive 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The next amendment which is in the name of Hone Harawira and on Supplementary Order Paper 58 is ruled out of order as being contingent on a previous amendment which has been negatived. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Mita Ririnui be agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6696] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Blue Jackie: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6695] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I will take a short call on Part 4 which concerns arrivals and departures. This is not a contentious area at all. It does not deviate too much from the original 1987 Act. 
I will make some comments about advance passenger identification. I think that is obviously a very important way that we can screen arrivals in New Zealand. I have had a tour of Auckland International Airport and I was able to look at the very sophisticated ways in which immigration staff look at on-board profiling and pre-board screening. It is very sophisticated and clearly that is the way to go to prevent people from reaching our borders and to stop them getting to our borders in the first place. 
This bill establishes immigration control areas for immigration processing and maintains advance passenger processing obligations. In the debate on Part 2 we talked about biometric screening and clearly that is the way of the future. Part 4 states that passengers travelling to New Zealand are obligated to provide biometric information. I note in clause 110A that people who are leaving must also allow biometric information to be obtained from them. I think that this is a non-contentious part of Part 4 and I commend this part to the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 89 be agreed to.
Locke Keith: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6695] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Although there are benefits from Advance Passenger Processing overseas there are also downsides from that and those have been identified by Amnesty International and the Human Rights Commission in their submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Immigration Bill. I have an amendment to clause 89 to try to correct that situation. 
Both the Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International say clause 89 may infringe article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which every person has the right to seek asylum. That is from the Amnesty International submission and the Human Rights Commission’s submission is very similar in that respect. Clause 89 could also infringe New Zealand’s adherence to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees because it is out of the spirit of that convention to prevent asylum seekers from hopping on a plane to come to New Zealand to claim asylum particularly perhaps when they are coming from a rather repressive country. I think New Zealand has flights arriving from Dubai and Shanghai—places with repressive Governments. There may be asylum seekers from those countries and under clause 89 of the bill the aircraft carriers are supposed to deny those asylum seekers the right to get on a plane if they do not have fully effective documentation. 
I have set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in my name an amendment to rectify that by adding to clause 89(1) the following paragraph: “(e) that the carrier or person or person in charge of any craft cannot be held responsible under subsection (1)(a) if the passenger is to claim asylum in New Zealand under the Refugee Convention 1951.” This amendment makes it clear that if someone comes off a plane in Auckland from Dubai or Beijing and claims asylum then the carrier does not have any responsibility for that. It is important to put that provision into the legislation. Otherwise we are violating as I said the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and our adherence to the 1951 convention. 
Already the number of people who are claiming asylum at the border has gone down to virtually single figures I think and that is partly because of the Advance Passenger Processing system. We are already lucky in that we are at the end of the chain in terms of the desire of people to claim asylum here compared with say countries in Europe. We should not put additional legal barriers in the way of asylum seekers. It is a very important part of having a compassionate society that we should be open to people who come here to seek asylum. We cannot glory in having such a dramatic drop in the number of applications that we are receiving; that is not the mark of the humanitarian society that we should be.
Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6694] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 We are getting into the detail of the Immigration Bill and Part 4 is very much a process part of the bill. As the previous speaker mentioned—quite glowingly I think given her being the person who thought of it—this part also relates to the processes around advanced passenger processing. 
I come back to the comment that the member for Dunedin North made about Part 1 particularly around the issue of review because it is relevant to Part 4 in the context of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister of Immigration has brought forward. In fact Mr Hodgson tabled an amendment for a review of this bill within 2 years or alternatively 4 years. That amendment probably had members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee shivering in their boots when they thought about the fact that this bill has taken nearly 5 years to get to the Committee stage. I completely understand what the member was trying to do but certainly a review in 2 years’ time would not be anything like as comprehensive as the making of this legislation. The member agreed that there were other ways to do it. 
One way I think is to future-proof the legislation to enable those sorts of changes to be effected as opportunities and technologies come about. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper in relation to pre-screening and the trans-Tasman agreement that has been reached between Kevin Rudd and the Prime Minister is a very good example of the sort of future-proofing that we can do. We have here an amendment that will enable the processing of passengers before they get on to the plane from a biosecurity and a passport control perspective and that will certainly speed up the process at the point of embarkation. I think that is a really good example of not waiting for a review to make that change but also of future-proofing because the provision does not just apply to a trans-Tasman service; it is written in a way that could apply to any international inbound service to or from New Zealand albeit it would probably be most effective in a point-to-point transfer and if a stop-off was required in transit in the Middle East or South-east Asia the system might be a little less effective. Nevertheless we have future-proofed this part. 
I also want to mention again biometric testing. Whereas in Part 2 we had the power of the Immigration Service to require biometric testing we now have in Part 4 an obligation on the passenger to supply that information. The same sorts of risks and onuses both on the passenger and on the Immigration Service remain and I do not think it is worth relitigating that. But I acknowledge that this is another part where the obligation now falls on the passenger. We are into the business end of the bill and I certainly commend Part 4.
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6693] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am so pleased to be able to speak to Part 4 of the Immigration Bill and to speak only positively about advanced passenger processing. I was the Minister of Immigration when we introduced advanced passenger processing and it was a very proud moment in my life. Extending the border offshore is certainly something that is of significant benefit. But it does raises privacy issues. 
I will share a recollection I have of a privacy seminar that I spoke at a short while after we had moved to introduce this measure. Justice Michael Kirby was speaking at the seminar as well; in fact he was opening it. It was a very interesting debate because he raised the question of the vast quantities of information held by airlines. It was a significant privacy issue given that the information was in the hands of private organisations and some State-owned organisations. Huge amounts of information are held by these carriers. The point he was making though was whether it was an appropriate digression from normal principles of privacy to allow those vast quantities of information to be brought together. His view was that there was a difference with the airlines bringing people into Australia or New Zealand—those were the examples that he was using. In neither Australia nor New Zealand does one have to produce an ID card just to be walking down the street. There are countries in the world where one has to produce an ID card if asked to do so. In New Zealand and Australia something that we actually value about living here is that we do not have to have ID cards. He said that for us to be part of a process that enables us to know who is coming here who they are where they have come from and why they are coming here that is perfectly acceptable. I think that goes a considerable way to meeting a lot of the concerns that people have about information that is being held by carriers. 
I think it is important that we can shift the border offshore because we can manage a lot of the concerns we have as a small isolated island State and a lot of the risk around our borders. We are subject to some of the concerns that overseas countries have to deal with on an hourly basis although in New Zealand it is on a daily basis a weekly basis or a monthly basis. So I am very supportive of this part of the bill.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6693] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 7; Maori Party 5. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6692] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will follow up on the comment that David Bennett made which flows on exactly from the point that Keith Locke was making. People are told to apply for temporary visas to come here to look for the job that they know will lead them to residence. They are told that in the London branch of Immigration New Zealand; they are told that in various offices around the world. David Bennett can shake his head all he likes; I know that people are told to do that. It is very simple for somebody who does not need to apply for a visa: they can come here for 3 months visa free and they can apply for an extension when they get here. A lot of people come to New Zealand on a temporary visa on their journey to residence and it is a perfectly legitimate way to use the policy to get here. 
The second thing is that there are people in this country at the moment who are working on a work-to-residence permit. If they are made redundant they are given up to 3 months by Immigration depending on which office they deal with. If they do not find an equivalent job—they have to get a job that meets the points they have claimed under their expression of interest—then basically they are told to go. That is the story that was on the front page of the 
 Press. 
 I tell this Chamber that that story on the front page of the 
 Press 
 cost us big time as far as skilled migrants coming to New Zealand from the UK is concerned. That is exactly the point that Keith Locked made. 
When we hit a recession we have to have a mechanism for just seeing us through. Quite frankly letting people who are on that direct route to residence have an open work permit until the recession is over would be a much better idea. They would not be able to apply for benefits so if they could not find a way of looking after themselves in the meantime they would go of their own accord. But they will not be front-page news because Immigration has told them they have to go. People have failed to cotton on to that point as far as this recession goes. We will need those skills again yet we are telling those people that we will flick them even if they are on a route to residence. We will flick them if they do not meet the criteria after being made redundant in these circumstances. Jim Anderton and I have written to the Minister of Immigration about that point. We want to talk to him about it. I hope that he sees this as an opportunity to test the bona fides of what we want to do. We want to do it for our country. We think New Zealand’s reputation will be on the line if we continue to have those stories in our media. They are reported on the other side of the world instantaneously as the Minister knows and it is costing us big time reputationally. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Peachey Allan: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6689] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I will take what I trust will be a relatively short call on Part 3 of the Immigration Bill. Part 3 is another very substantial part of this bill. It establishes a universal visa system. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee did quite a bit of work around this area and recommended a number of minor and technical amendments. As a result of that work Part 3 has a greater clarity about it and reads in a more logical fashion. 
The National Government certainly supports a simpler visa system. The single term “visa” will replace the terms currently used in the Immigration Act 1987: “visa” “permit” and “exemption”. Instead the term “visa” will be the only term used and there will be three types of visa: residence class temporary entry class and transit. As I have said the purpose of this change is to simplify things. The bill establishes a universal visa system that maintains flexibility in managing people’s travel into New Zealand and their time while in New Zealand. The bill gets rid of the old distinctions so we will no longer talk about visas permits and exemptions. It uses the one term to refer to the authority to travel to to enter and to stay in New Zealand. 
A universal visa system means that all foreign nationals require a visa to be in New Zealand. Visas can be granted or they can be deemed to have been granted. That is to maintain flexibility in managing risk and the range of unique circumstances under which a foreign national may enter New Zealand. I am interested to note that for example a visa may be deemed to be granted when a foreign national enters New Zealand territory in Antarctica. This is because he or she may travel directly to Antarctica from another country rather than through New Zealand. 
The bill introduces a new concept in allowing interim visas to be granted for the purpose of maintaining a foreign national’s lawful status in New Zealand where he or she has applied for a further visa and his or her application is under consideration. That is fair reasonable and proper. It is a positive change that should benefit foreign nationals who wish to extend their stay in New Zealand. I commend Part 3 to the Committee.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6689] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6687] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I need just a 60-second call I think to conclude Labour’s contribution to Part 2. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on ensuring that we have a fix in Supplementary Order Paper 32 as it affects school children who are the children of people who might be here unlawfully. Clause 14A states that if one is here unlawfully one cannot work or study and now there is a Supplementary Order Paper stating that that provision applies unless one is a pupil in primary or secondary school and that is great. 
It is a matter of fact that in the term of our Government when this law was not in place we were having to do this by Cabinet directive. It may even be the case that the incoming Cabinet was perhaps not as aware of it and did not maintain pressure on officials because there seem to have been many instances of kids who were not going to school when they should have been going to school—and they were not going to school only because they were the children of parents who were here unlawfully and had therefore been damaged. 
It does not fix the problem entirely because of course the mum or dad still may not want to send their kids to school and have the school know their home address. But it does mean as I understand it that those children can go to school free of charge just as an exchange student can come from France to New Zealand and attend school free of charge. To the extent that that is the case well and good and in any case the immigration impediment is now gone and the Government should be congratulated.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6683] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6683] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 1 and the following amendment in his name to clause 5C be agreed to. 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(1)For the purposes of this Act a person is deported from a country if the person leaves the country (whether or not at the expense of the government of the country) and an order for the person’s departure made by the government of the country an authorised official of the country or a judicial authority in the country is in force. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6682] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause: 
6A 
This Act will be subject to a full review process involving public communication which process must begin no later than 4 years after entry into force and be concluded by a report to Parliament no later than one year after commencement.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6682] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause: 
6A 
This Act will be subject to a full review process involving public communication which process must begin no later than 2 years after entry into force and be concluded by a report to Parliament no later than one year after commencement.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6682] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 5 be agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6660] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6650] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Parts 3 to 6 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Parts 3 to 6 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6650] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to.