edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Anderton Jim: Motions — Pike River Mine West Coast—Tragedy 
Anderton Jim: Motions — Pike River Mine West Coast—Tragedy 
[Volume:669;Page:15811] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Like all New Zealanders I am deeply saddened by the loss of the 29 miners in Greymouth and my thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones who are left behind. 
As a nation and as a House I am sure we have clung on to a glimmer of hope in the past 6 days. With every passing hour we have put our faith in the possibility of a miracle. Fears over entering the mine safely which had been such a concern to Superintendent Gary Knowles were well justified when the second explosion occurred yesterday. He and Pike River Coal Chief Executive Peter Whittall have shown calm intelligent leadership and great strength at a difficult time. No praise is high enough for all of those who were part of the plans to secure the rescue of these men. Hope however for the 29 men trapped down the Pike River mine disappeared yesterday afternoon. 
This event has of course been a tragedy for the West Coast and its community and needless to say for the whole of New Zealand. It brought back some sad memories to many who have unfortunately been in this space before. Mining is an iconic industry on the West Coast but that does not mean however that the rest of us have no responsibility for ensuring that such a tragedy does not happen again. We must refuse to accept that any of the deaths are a necessary cost of mining. It is a responsibility of all of us from mine operators to the Government and this Parliament to take steps to strengthen mine safety so that the safety of all our miners is our No. 1 concern. 
Pike River is a modern state-of-the-art mine with presumably all of the latest safety technology. But that did not save the lives of the 29 men we lost yesterday. The new mine was on the same coal seam as the mine in Brunner where 65 men were killed by choking gas in 1896. It echoed the Strongman mine explosion which killed 19 miners in 1967. And there have been even as recently as last year many other similar disasters in other countries. How many more deaths must we experience in this industry before we ask some very serious questions about the viability of this type of mine? It will be the best possible tribute to those who died if we carefully examine the most comprehensive safety measures possible before we put any more miners in harm’s way. 
Since colonisation the West Coast has had a long history in mining. The risk of mining has always been faced by miners and as a consequence their families. Today is a time to reflect on the human tragedy of this latest mining disaster but these precious lost lives must be treasured through the efforts of all of us to see that this kind of catastrophe does not occur again.
Hague Kevin: Motions — Pike River Mine West Coast—Tragedy 
Hague Kevin: Motions — Pike River Mine West Coast—Tragedy 
[Volume:669;Page:15809] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 A speech like this is normally given by one of our co-leaders and I want to begin by expressing my thanks to Metiria and Russel for giving me the opportunity to speak on this tragedy today and to express our profound sorrow. I live the closest to the mine of anyone in this Parliament. When I spoke earlier this week about every family and every household in and around Greymouth being connected to at least one of the men who is trapped in the mine I include my own in that. One of my partner’s relations was killed in the Strongman Mine disaster in 1967. That tragedy has echoed down the years through our family and through the community. Now the name of Pike River joins that terrible toll of Strongman Dobson Brunner and many other disasters. Those who were bereaved by these previous disasters will feel afresh their own pain but will also know best of all the anguish and grief now being experienced by the families and friends of the 29 men killed. 
When I spoke on Tuesday I expressed the fervent hope that the men would be brought home. That is still my fervent hope. Families need the bodies of their loved ones to come home so that they may properly grieve and I know that that is well understood and that no effort will be spared nor should it to do this. 
I want to again express my and the Green Party’s sincerest thanks and admiration for the work done by Tony Kokshoorn Gary Knowles and the police the other emergency services and Mines Rescue the district health board and its staff the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union the Red Cross the churches of Greymouth and everyone else who has been involved in providing support. 
I want to express my personal gratitude to other members of this House—those who have been helping out directly on the Coast but also everyone else. I feel that when I return home this afternoon I will be carrying with me the support and well-wishes of this whole House. I will single out Peter Whittall. I know Peter personally but I will take this public opportunity to convey the Green Party’s thanks our enormous sympathy but also our tremendous respect for the integrity responsibility and compassion that he has unfailingly shown. I am sure that that is a feeling shared by the nation. 
There is a memorial to those lost in the Brunner Mine disaster in the road leading out of Greymouth up towards Pike River. It carries an inscription from the  
New Zealand Tablet 
 from 3 April 1896: “While the widows and orphans were watching with heartbroken anxiety at the pit mouth for the result of the rescue work all New Zealand seemed to stand by and share the grief of the bereaved ones.” This is a loss being felt by a whole country. When we consider the devastation and emptiness that we feel we know that this is nothing compared with the utter loss suffered by the bereaved families. Our hearts go out to you. If we could share your burden we would do it but we cannot. We will support you in any way that we can and we will remember them.
Sepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15805] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand to speak on the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. It will come as a nice surprise to anyone who is watching tonight that occasionally we can agree on something. Labour supports this bill as we agree that it improves the lives of older New Zealanders by reducing the requirement to make an additional application to receive their full entitlement. We agree with the mainly technical changes that it proposes. This bill ensures that single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone do not have to make a separate application to receive their full entitlement. The provision of the living alone payment as a supplementary benefit was introduced on 26 September 1990. The Government has taken a position in introducing these changes to reduce the burden of compliance on single superannuitants to receive the full entitlement thereby improving the lives of older New Zealanders and we agree with it. 
The bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. It replaces the living alone payment and the current rates of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension for single superannuitants with the new single living alone rate and a new single sharing accommodation rate. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15804] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Young Jonathan: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Young Jonathan: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15803] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand in support of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill. I believe that the intention of the bill is not only to lift productivity but to build institutional knowledge in our country regarding all the factors and elements that make us far more productive and far wealthier as a country. We understand that it is essential that we increase our economic growth if we are to create the jobs the higher incomes and the opportunities that New Zealand families deserve and long for. 
As anyone knows when it comes to balancing or even improving a budget whether it is at home in business in an organisation or in a Government there are two ends of the pencil that need sharpening: how we earn but also how we spend. How we earn is critical. The world continues to rapidly change around us. We must adapt or be subsumed by bigger economies that would utilise us as producers of raw resources while they add the value and earn the wealth that could and should be in our pockets instead. 
Innovation and technology are an important component of maximising our inputs and efforts driving efficiencies that will achieve more for that same resource that is available. Lifting our output per worker—the amount of goods and services that each worker produces and the value they add—is critical for the faster economic growth that New Zealand needs. It is not just how we earn but also how we spend that is of equal importance. The public sector as we know makes up about a third of the economy. So improving productivity in the public sector is a vital part of sharpening New Zealand’s overall economic performance. 
The Productivity Commission which is to be set up by April next year will consider ways to boost New Zealand’s economic performance across both the public and the private sectors. The Productivity Commission which will have a wide-ranging brief was part of the National and ACT confidence and supply agreement signed after the 2008 election. When we measure ourselves against countries similar to us it is not good enough just to measure the difference in hourly rates. If those countries pay more we must understand why they pay more. Why are they able to afford that higher wage? 
Just as I conclude I say that Mr Gary Banks from the Australian Productivity Commission whose advice we appreciated reported to the Commerce Committee that there was considerable tension in the early years of establishing the commission until it settled on the notion that one cannot redistribute what one does not first produce. I am sure that as we establish this there will be very interesting and lively debate about the philosophies and issues as we become an even more productive country. Thank you.
Lee Melissa: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Lee Melissa: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15800] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I will respond to the previous speaker Stuart Nash by saying this: 9 long years. The member who has just resumed his seat finished his contribution by saying that words do not actually achieve productivity. I say that that is true. For 9 years we heard words. If productivity was such an important issue for the previous Labour Government where is it? Why did we not actually get it? It was all words and no action but we are getting into action and starting it now. 
Productivity is the key to lifting New Zealand’s living standards and wealth. Whether we are at work or at home it is something in which we all must participate to improve our lot. That does not mean we have to work harder or longer hours. We want this country to get ahead and be more productive. We want New Zealanders to take home bigger wages and have brighter futures. The New Zealand Productivity Commission to be set up by April next year will look at ways to boost New Zealand’s economic performance across the public and private sectors. We want growth that is based on private sector investment and exports rather than on the unsustainable increases we have had in Government spending and borrowing over the last decade. 
Productivity is important in all aspects of our lives. Women used to spend long hours doing household chores before technology caught up and helped them to become efficient and before our society became more egalitarian and did not scowl at men for doing so-called women’s jobs. We have to improve productivity in all aspects of our lives and I am very very pleased that we are starting this commission. Let us hope that better productivity will lead to more opportunities for all of us to spend more quality time with our families. 
After the tragic news from Pike River Coal this afternoon I offer my deepest sympathy and aroha to the families of the 29 miners we have lost and to the wider West Coast community. Thank you.
Power Simon: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15769] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not have any problem with the motion; I apologise to my colleague. In respect of the vote and in fairness to my colleague from the Greens I had extracted him from the House to discuss recent developments that have come to the attention of the media in the last 20 minutes. The Green member was obviously not in the House. The Greens as I understand it are not supporting this legislation to go to its first reading and I wonder whether the House would mind allowing the member to seek leave to alter the Green’s vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately I have already declared the result. The only way forward is for leave to be sought by the member for the vote to be put again. I have already cast the vote and announced it.
Shanks Katrina: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Shanks Katrina: New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15797] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call tonight on the New Zealand Productivity Commission Bill. It was good to have this bill before the Commerce Committee and to listen to the submitters who came along. Not a huge number of submitters came to the select committee and that was disappointing because this is quite a significant bill for New Zealand and for productivity in New Zealand moving forward. Not only that it is also important for our economic development and our growth in New Zealand. We know that New Zealanders want to have a better standard of living. We will achieve that through raising real wages and salaries in New Zealand. The only way we can do that is to be smarter and cleverer with the resources we have and what we do with them. 
The Productivity Commission will be looking at ways we can be smarter and much more clever with the resources we have in New Zealand. The Productivity Commission is modelled very closely on the Australian Productivity Commission which has been operating for more than 10 years. It has been a very successful commission. It is interesting because when we talk about productivity we do not talk just about the labour force which is what the unions came and talked about; we talk about a vast range of different activities. I will mention just a couple of the activities that the Australian Productivity Commission is looking at. Currently it is looking at care for older Australians disability care and support educating and training the workforce emissions reduction policies and carbon prices in key economies an annual review of regulatory burdens on business and performance benchmarking of Australian business regulation planning zoning and development assessments. 
As can be seen the commission looks at a very wide range of topics. I think that is invaluable because at the end of the day everything adds to our productivity. It will be interesting to see what is selected by our own Productivity Commission and what it begins with from its own research and in its own projects and what direction it heads in. I think this is an important initiative for New Zealand. It is a shame that it was not implemented 9 years ago when we had the best economic times ever to really uplift our exports get them going and get New Zealand’s boat moving a bit quicker. The Productivity Commission is here now and I think it will provide a great initiative for New Zealand to increase its productivity and to improve its wealth overall. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill tonight.
Power Simon: Business of the House 
Power Simon: Business of the House 
[Volume:669;Page:15789] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I apologise to my colleague. As a mark of respect for the victims of the Pike River coalmine tragedy and their families I seek leave for the House tomorrow Thursday 25 November following prayers to consider a Government motion without notice relating to the tragedy and for the House to adjourn immediately following the consideration of that motion notwithstanding Standing Orders 62 and 65. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.
Vote: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15769] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Graham Kennedy: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15769] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 With respect I would like to put that request because this is an important vote. It is a very important bill and we are recording the vote in good faith and with sincere intent and we would like for it to be on the record. I seek leave for a party vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15763] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Today we are debating the first reading of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. This bill will be a big step in reforming criminal procedures thus reducing unnecessary delays and inefficiencies in our court processes. I congratulate the Minister of Justice Hon Simon Power on his thoughtfulness and action on this longstanding issue. 
The National-led Government under the leadership of the Rt Hon John Key since it came to power has promoted a number of changes in the justice system so that unnecessary stress to victims witnesses jurors and other people involved in criminal processes can be avoided. The credibility of a Government is determined by an effective and efficient judicial system. We have to ensure that justice is delivered as soon as possible. We cannot keep on building new courtrooms and appointing more judges. We need to remedy the inefficiency in our system. This bill will help in freeing up thousands of sitting hours in the court every year. It will also bring about 43000 fewer court events. If we talk about the savings in dollar terms it is estimated that $24.3 million will be saved in the next 5 years. 
This bill also has approval to permit courts to proceed in the absence of a defendant if the court is not satisfied that the defendant has a reasonable excuse for his absence. Another important change is to be sure of name suppression. The changes could allow publication of the names of defendants or other details or evidence in particular cases. Presently it is not clear why a suppression order is granted. The Government has already introduced a number of provisions so that justice can be delivered sooner rather than later. I am happy to commend this bill to the House and look forward to participating in the forthcoming select committee process.
Parata Hekia: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
Parata Hekia: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15768] 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa. Huri noa i to tatou Whare tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Katahi ano tatou ka rongo i te korero mai i Te Tai Poutini kua pahu ano. Te ahua nei kare e ora nga tangata na reira koinei te wa tuatahi maku hei tuku aroha ki nga whanau ki nga hapori o tena moka o te motu me te tangi o te ngakau hoki ki a ratou i tenei wa uaua. Na reira he whakaaro poto noa iho tenei hei hoatu aroha ki a ratou katoa i tenei wa. Hoki mai ki a tatou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us all throughout the House. We have just heard from the West Coast that there has been another explosion. It seems likely that there are no survivors. This is my first opportunity to extend thoughts of compassion to the families and communities in that part of the country. I grieve for them as well in this moment of difficulty. This is but a brief moment at this time to express love to them all and now it is back to us so salutations to you all 
.] 
This is the first opportunity I have had to send my support and best wishes to the families of the miners in Te Tai Poutini and to join with this House in sharing our support for them all. 
Turning our attention to the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill I am pleased to stand and take a short call on this legislation. The fact is that our system has been clogged for many years and needs to be fixed. Over the last 10 to 20 years the law relating to criminal procedure has attracted increasing criticism. The principal statutes governing criminal procedure are out of date and excessively inflexible. It is unacceptable that there are at least 43000 unnecessary court appearances each year and that it takes an average of 16 months to complete a jury trial in the High Court and 12 months in the District Court. National believes that justice delayed is justice denied. This bill will ensure that timely justice is delivered for victims witnesses defendants and all of the community affected. 
The key legislation currently in place dates back to the 1950s and has been subject to years of ad hoc reform. We cannot continue to mask delays and inefficiencies in criminal procedure simply by building more courthouses and appointing more judges. We are committed to improving the criminal justice system particularly for those who find themselves in it through no fault of their own while maintaining a defendant’s right to a fair trial. We are confident this bill will achieve both aims. I commend the bill to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.
Lee Melissa: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
Lee Melissa: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15765] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of and to take a short call on the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. Before I get going I would like to note that I have just heard very distressing news that there has been a second explosion at the Pike River mine and that there may not be the possibility of the miners coming out alive. How distressing that news is. Technology is a wonderful thing—we can get news so quickly and that enables us to pay our respects. It is awful to hear that news and my heart and my prayers go out to those families and the community in Greymouth. 
The main provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill work to try to reduce unnecessary delay and inefficiency in court procedures so as to avoid unnecessary stress to victims witnesses jurors and others involved in criminal procedures. Earlier tonight Mr Harawira talked about his belief that justice delayed may not necessarily be justice denied. Let me reiterate an incident I had to deal with for a constituent of mine who had been a victim and for a witness in the court case. I do not want to go into the details of the court case but I can say that a victim who had been just standing was punched to a pulp for no known reason and the witness wanted to appear in court. The witness is still yet to appear. It has taken more than 3 years for the witness to appear before the court to give their story and to get justice for the unprovoked attack. 
We need to get our justice system right so that victims can have their say in court to get justice. I believe that the provisions in the bill will go towards reforming criminal procedures to make the justice system more responsive to the needs of the victims and witnesses and that has to be good. I have not been here in the House all evening but earlier a member from the Green Party said that this bill will reduce the number of court cases by 43000. Between 1000 and 1400 fewer court cases will need to be designated for a trial by jury and 300 to 600 fewer cases will proceed to a jury trial and savings of $24.3 million will be made over a 5-year period. 
I speak as someone who has been a victim and has appeared before a court as a witness. Mr Harawira said that not having the face-to-face experience of justice was not right but for the victims when the offender’s guilt is being proven sometimes intimidation by the offender can have a detrimental effect for the court case. I experienced that personally. I feared it so much that I ended up moving my home. I did not want to live where I was attacked. 
Perhaps when we get through all of this we will have proper justice and victims will feel safer in New Zealand where we make sure that victims’ rights are upheld. I commend this bill to the House.
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:15738] 
1. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill and how many of these submitters have requested to be heard in person? 
Hon TAU HENARE (Chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee): 
 4178. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question asked for two figures: how many have been received and how many have asked to be heard in person. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There were two questions within that question. As far as I am aware I have to answer only one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me make it clear that that is certainly the case with supplementary questions but this was a primary question on notice. It asked “How many submissions have been received …” and I presume that was the answer the Minister gave—4000 and something—and it also asked “how many of these submitters have requested to be heard in person?”. The House has a reasonable expectation to get that figure. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: 522. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Will he ensure that as is required of him under Standing Order 220 the select committee’s examination of submitters is done in a fair way and that as per Standing Order 401(t) evidence is given without intimidation from committee members? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I take my job as chairman of a select committee very seriously and I am sure that the other members of my select committee do so as well. I hope that member does his job as well as we do ours.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:15731] 
9. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that “We want a tax system that tilts the economy towards work investment and savings and away from the unsustainable borrowing consumption and over investment in housing of the past decade”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes and the tax package announced in the Budget this year and implemented on 1 October and 1 April next year will go some way in that direction. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why then did the Minister ignore Treasury’s advice and not bring in a capital gains tax on property excluding the family home which would have helped to reduce housing speculation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I know that the Green Party has advocated for a capital gains tax for some time. The Government decided not to proceed with one for a couple of reasons. One was the complexity of such a tax. The second was that it would take quite a long time to generate significant revenue compared with the other measures available from the Tax Working Group. Nor did we want to cause too much disruption at a time when many New Zealanders were concerned about their house values and their job security. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why will he not actually do something about both the medium and the long-term effects of unsustainable borrowing to fund housing speculation and take Treasury’s advice and the Green Party’s advice in the Mind the Gap package that a capital gains tax excluding the family home is a critical step towards tilting the economy to meet his intentions? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can only give the same answer as I did before. The Government has looked at the option seriously because it is a serious proposition. A number of countries have capital gains taxes of some sort. We decided in the circumstances earlier this year not to take that option. However we did increase the effective tax rate on investment housing by abolishing allowances for depreciation.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:15731] 
8. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What further progress has been made on the Waikato Expressway road of national significance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The New Zealand Transport Agency board has announced that it has approved funding for the $169 million Ngaruawahia section of the Waikato Expressway. It marks another big step forward in developing this particular road of national significance. The construction contract is now out to tender and is likely to be awarded in April of next year. Construction is likely to begin in 12 months and will take 3 years. 
David Bennett 
: How does the Ngaruawahia section fit into progress on the Waikato Expressway overall? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Construction of the Ngaruawahia section will add another 10 kilometres to the expressway and will create up to 300 jobs directly with many more jobs in downstream industries. Construction will get under way later next year meaning that three sections of the Waikato Expressway will be under way next year: Te Rapa Rangiriri and Ngaruawahia. This is excellent progress towards National’s challenging pre-election commitment to improve the Waikato economy by completing the road within 10 years. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: By what percentage was the benefit-cost ratio of this project increased when the new tool known as wider economic benefits was added to the analysis? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The standard benefit-cost ratio for the Waikato projects is 1:4—I do not have the ratio for that particular section with me. Including wider economic benefits it is 1.8 at the 8 percent discount rate. Those figures increase to 1.9 and 2.4 respectively at the 6 percent discount rate.
Power Simon: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Procedure 
Power Simon: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Procedure 
[Volume:669;Page:15723] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) following its second reading to be set down for its third reading forthwith without debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:15734] 
11. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What major changes in immigration legislation are being implemented on 29 November this year? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Immigration Act 2009 comes into effect on Monday 29 November. The new Act significantly modernises New Zealand’s immigration laws and provides us with a robust framework for the future. It will help us improve the efficiency of immigration services and so help encourage the visitors students skilled workers and new residents that New Zealand needs in order to grow our economy. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What are some of the key aspects of the new Act? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The key aspects of the new Act include the ability to utilise biometrics a new refugee and protection system a strengthened framework for sponsorship and a universal visa system. It is vital we have immigration legislation that allows us to protect the security of New Zealand’s borders and the integrity of our immigration system. At the same time we must manage immigration in a fair and balanced way. This Act allows us to do all of these things. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How is Immigration New Zealand assisting employers to meet their requirements under the Immigration Act 2009? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: To assist employers Immigration New Zealand has developed an online tool VisaView that allows employers to check whether employees are entitled to work in New Zealand for that employer. VisaView is a free online service and will help employers meet their immigration obligations without having to grapple with red tape and overly bureaucratic measures. VisaView has been operating since August and already 920 employers have registered. Feedback from employers has been very positive.
Power Simon: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
Power Simon: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15753] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the 
Leader of the House 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:15727] 
4. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received on the Government’s efforts to confiscate the proceeds of crime? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report that since the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act came into force last December the police asset recovery unit has investigated 201 cases. That has resulted in an estimated $34.6 million worth of assets being made subject to restraining orders under the Act. Those assets are now in the hands of the official assignee awaiting further legal orders with the objective of confiscation. The assets involved in those cases include $6 million in cash and bank accounts; 36 residential and commercial properties worth an estimated $15.8 million; eight farms orchards and lifestyle blocks worth an estimated $10.5 million; 44 cars vans and four-wheel drives worth an estimated $852000; and 24 motorcycles worth an estimated $423000. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How are the funds gained from confiscated assets likely to be used? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Government is planning to put the money to good use. Police are working with other agencies on plans to expand alcohol and drug treatment and extra law enforcement initiatives to fight organised crime groups.
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Procedure 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Procedure 
[Volume:669;Page:15723] 
Wednesday 24 November 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) 
Procedure 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) following its second reading to be set down for its third reading forthwith without debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:669;Page:15789] 
Business of the House 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I apologise to my colleague. As a mark of respect for the victims of the Pike River coalmine tragedy and their families I seek leave for the House tomorrow Thursday 25 November following prayers to consider a Government motion without notice relating to the tragedy and for the House to adjourn immediately following the consideration of that motion notwithstanding Standing Orders 62 and 65. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.
Tolley Anne: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
Tolley Anne: Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15769] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education)  
on behalf of theMinister of Justice 
: 
 I move that the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary No.
Bennett David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15782] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Before I start on the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill I would like to pay tribute to the many people of the West Coast those in the mining community their colleagues and all those involved in that industry. I think at this time all New Zealanders realise what a small country we have what sacrifices that the good people of this country make to build a strong country and that whatever role we undertake in our lives in this country we are all intertwined. It is a very sad day for New Zealanders. Our hearts are with those families involved and also with the people of that area and the wider mining community. 
As has been said taxation bills come before the House quite often. They are necessary as part of the continual upgrade of our taxation system to take into account any movements that taxpayers may be making to avoid or to reduce their taxation payments. 
Basically this bill closes a loophole in regard to phoenix fraud schemes that undermined the integrity of the GST rules. A very simple solution is being proposed in this bill. It is basically the zero rating of transactions involving the sale of land over a certain size. Basically if both parties agree then there can be a zero-rated transaction and no GST consequences. 
That change will have a large impact on many transactions for land especially in rural communities and commercial transactions for land where the GST component has been paid for and claimed in the past. I think the Maori Party touched on the fact that some taxpayers have been structuring deals to be on invoice or other bases in order to take advantage of GST rules and the member touched on the nature of phoenix fraud schemes where people took one half of the deal but did not actually pay the GST. So the Government was left out of pocket by about $40 million. This bill is an attempt to cover that situation. 
In all taxation areas things develop and change and people try to take advantage of new rules but that is how it works. This bill is very important and in the best interests of all New Zealanders as it creates a fairer playing field in the taxation area around GST on these transactions. We support the second reading and look forward to the passage of the bill. Thank you.
Power Simon: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
Power Simon: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15751] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. This legislation comes before the House each year. This year it confirms or validates 50 orders and regulations made under I am advised 10 different Acts. Parliament must confirm all of these orders and regulations otherwise they will lapse. 
The orders and regulations themselves cover a variety of areas including animals products civil aviation passenger levies tariff rates meat and grape levies excise and excise-equivalent duties on tobacco and alcohol products gambling levies road-user charges and increases in various benefits allowances and war pensions. The bill was referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 13 October this year and I am grateful for the committee’s prompt and thorough analysis of it. Following some correspondence with the relevant Government agencies the committee has recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. This bill is routine legislation; the Regulations Review Committee has raised no issues with it. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9306] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9321] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9320] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9320] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9307] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9307] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to add the following new clause: 
44AExpiry 
This Part expires with the close of 1 October 2033.
Roy Eric: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9306] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Committee has had an opportunity to express its will on a variety of expiry provisions. Therefore I rule out all other amendments adding expiry clauses after clause 43. We will now have a similar arrangement with regard to adding a new clause 44A which is a sunset provision. I wish to begin by putting the question on the amendment with the earliest expiry date that I can find in the name of Grant Robertson. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to add the following new clause: 
44AExpiry 
This Part expires with the close of 19 September 2011.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9306] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to add the following new clause: 
43AExpiry 
This Act expires with the close of 22 October 2025.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9321] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported with amendment.