edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6578] 
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 following amendments in the name of Phil Twyford be agreed to: 
to insert the following clauses: 
9ASocial Issues Board 
(1)This section establishes a Social Issues Board. 
(2)The purpose of the Social Issues Board is to set direction for social well-being policy of the Auckland Council. 
(3)Decisions reached by the Social Issues Forum will be binding. 
(4)Decisions will be implemented by the Auckland Council and/or the appropriate government department. 
9BMembership of Social Issues Board 
(1)The Social Issues Board will include the following: 
(a)Minister of Local Government: 
(b)Mayor of Auckland: 
(c)Chief Executive of the Auckland Council: 
(d)Chief Executive of the Ministry of Health: 
(e)Chief Executive of the Ministry of Education: 
(f)Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development: 
(g)Commissioner of Police: 
(h)Chief Executive of Housing New Zealand Corporation: 
(i)members of the relevant Auckland Council social issues committee: 
(j)representative from the Maori community: 
(k)representative from the Pacific community: 
(l)representative from the Asian community. 
(2)The Social Issues Board will be chaired by the Mayor of Auckland. 
9CResponsibilities of the Social Issues Board 
(1)The key functions of the Social Issues Board will include: 
(a)responsibility for decisions on the regional social well-being strategy; and 
(b)drafting an implementation and funding plan. 
(2)Without limiting subsection (1) the Social Issues Board will also be responsible for: 
(a)identifying social well-being outcomes for the Auckland region using the community outcomes consultation process set out in the Local Government Act 2002: 
(b)developing the regional social well-being strategy that will include prioritising critical social issues for action: 
(c)making recommendations to the Minister of Local Government and the Auckland Council for decisions on resource allocation including the redistribution of resources to address critical social issues: 
(d)deciding what government body will take action: 
(e)setting outcome targets and monitoring progress on the critical social issues: 
(f)engaging with the private sector non-government organisations and philanthropic agencies.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6578] 
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 55 in the name of Sue Kedgley 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:6578] 
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 Phil Twyford to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “20 members” and substitute “25 members”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6578] 
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 amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 61 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 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 60 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 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 57 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:6576] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments 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. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(3)(a)The House of Representatives shall within 5 years of the commencement of this Act appoint a select committee to review the operation of this Act since its commencement. 
(b)The select committee appointed shall consider the following: 
(i)Maori representation on the Auckland Council: 
(ii)the functions powers and responsibilities of the Auckland Council including both the governing body and the local boards: 
(iii)the size and number of local boards: 
(iv)the number of councillors: 
(v)the number of members on each ward: 
(vi)council boundaries: 
(vii)ward boundaries: 
(viii)the voting system: 
(ix)whether any amendment to this Act or any other law are necessary or desirable to improve the governance arrangements for Auckland.  
(c)The select committee appointed shall report back to the House of Representatives within 6 months.
Brownlee Gerry: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7161] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill with amendment progress on the Criminal Investigations (Body Samples) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7161] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 5. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7161] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Boscawen John: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Boscawen John: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7161] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to amend the ACT vote. It should be four votes opposed on each of the last two amendments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. We will amend the vote. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit new section 24L.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7088] 
6.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Is he satisfied with his management of his portfolio? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Although there is never any room for complacency in these matters I am satisfied that a lot of hard work is going into meeting the challenges of the portfolio. 
Brendon Burns 
: Which Minister of Broadcasting should the House believe: the acting Minister who stated yesterday that the Government had not determined to provide financial support to a Television New Zealand - led bid for Rugby World Cup rights or today’s Minister of Broadcasting who on Tuesday was widely reported and criticised for having said exactly the opposite leading to a U-turn by the Prime Minister? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: If the member looks at those statements carefully and does not try to misrepresent them he will find that they are totally consistent with each other. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: We all know he said— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Pete Hodgson will resume his seat immediately. I am on my feet; the House will be silent. I have had enough. The House started in good humour today and it has deteriorated into totally unacceptable behaviour. When the member is called to ask a question he will ask his question. He will not interject like that. Today I have had to put up with innuendo and interjection on my left with accusations of bias by the Speaker. I have tolerated that from the Hon Darren Hughes in particular. I will not tolerate that kind of nonsense any more. When the member is called to ask his supplementary question he will do that without further interjection. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s less than complimentary remarks about him this morning were a wee bit rough given that the Prime Minister has known about the Maori Television Service’s bid for many many weeks? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Those remarks were absolutely fine. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister not feel just a little bit annoyed about being door stopped by 
 Campbell Live  
at Wellington Airport yesterday afternoon when  
Campbell Live 
 knew that the Prime Minister had done a U-turn and so did almost everyone else but no one had thought to tell the Minister of Broadcasting? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: To be honest I found the whole interview experience quite surreal. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister agree with the chief executive of the Maori Television Service Jim Mather who said he believed that the International Rugby Board even given its vast global experience of broadcasting rights had never encountered anything quite like the events of the past few days? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Mr Mather has expressed a range of beliefs and that is just one of them.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7088] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I apologise to you Mr Speaker. My recollection was incorrect. That is right: the member was ejected after refusing to withdraw and apologise. The point I should have made is that you forced the member to withdraw and apologise because of a comment he made. You said that the logical conclusion of it was that he had accused another member of telling a “mistruth” even though he had not used those words. Mr Mallard’s point of order is that Dr Smith accused the member of misrepresenting something. Surely you must see the same conclusion logically in the two rulings you have made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on this matter. I am not sure how many times the senior Labour Party whip expects me to listen to him on a point of order. I warn him that I have listened to him all I intend to listen.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7088] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the senior Labour Party whip to take his seat. I did not evict a member for making that comment. It was what happened subsequently that caused the eviction of the member. I ask the member when making points of order to reflect correctly on what has occurred in the House. This matter does not require the time of the House to be taken up. If the member had accused another member of lying I would have required the member to withdraw and apologise. My understanding is that he did not do that. I did not hear the interjection because there was so much noise. Therefore I intend to move on.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7088] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point that Mr Brownlee made to you would be perfectly fine if it were not for the fact that you yourself have ejected a member of Parliament because he made a reference to “nose growing” or something or other. You said that the logic meant that that member was accusing somebody of telling a “mistruth”. Dr Smith sat there—
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7088] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member was perfectly on course with the point of order until that point. I think that the point has been made fairly that if the Minister had interjected that the member had been lying I would have most certainly required him to withdraw and apologise for that. If though he interjected that the member had misrepresented the nature of the document that she was seeking to table then I think that is hardly in the same category as accusing her— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell the Hon Darren Hughes to hang on. I am not sure what is wrong with the member’s vision today but I am on my feet— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I thought you were sitting down. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —and the member will not interject on— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You dipped. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and I am standing perfectly steadily. But I will now sit and I invite the Hon Darren Hughes to make his point of order.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7161] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7160] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add after new section 24K(1) the following new subsection: 
(2A)A constable may require a bodily sample to be given only in accordance with a juvenile compulsion order.
Calder Cam: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Calder Cam: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7159] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Power Simon: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7155] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have some comments to make about Part 1 then I will respond to the member’s comments about the amendment that has been tabled by Charles Chauvel in respect of the review period. 
As members will know the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill will be implemented in two stages. Part 1 implements the first stage. It will provide the police with the ability to collect a DNA sample from any person they intend to charge with a relevant offence. The part expands the range of offences for which it is possible to collect a DNA sample. Part 1 will allow a charged person’s DNA profile to be matched against samples collected from previously unsolved crime scenes. 
Part 1 has also been enhanced by contributions made by the Justice and Electoral Committee and I thank members of that committee on both sides of the Chamber for the work they have done particularly in relation to provisions relating to young people. The committee has simplified the criteria for taking a DNA sample from a young person by applying the protections that already exist in the Children Young Persons and their Families Act and that is entirely appropriate. Another important amendment made by the committee clarified a young person’s entitlement to have an adult present when a DNA sample is taken which aligns the bill with the regime currently in place for young people being interviewed by the police. This is an exceptionally useful and appropriate clause. The effect of the clause is that if the adult chosen by the young person cannot reasonably be located or cannot attend within a reasonable period of time the constable may require the young person to elect another adult or the constable may elect for them thereby ensuring that no deliberate delaying techniques are put into place but at the same time ensuring that sufficient protections are afforded to a younger person. 
The committee made two further changes to Part 1. The first was to insert a definition of the term “charged” in clause 4 and the second was to amend the bill to allow the police to apply to a District Court judge to permit a sample to be taken under new powers as an evidential sample. I thank the select committee again for its valuable consideration and particularly for those amendments and suggestions made in respect of the arrangements for when a young person is providing the said sample. 
In respect of Mr Chauvel’s amendment members will be aware that as expressed in the explanatory note of the bar 1 copy of the bill the Ministry of Justice will “review the operational and cost effectiveness of the entire Act … by August 2011.” On that basis the Government will not be supporting Mr Chauvel’s amendment. The Government’s view is that it is far more appropriate for the Government to undertake reviews of legislation that it administers than it is for the Committee to commit future Parliaments to undertake such a review.
Vote: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7153] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 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 8 
Green Party 8. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Vote: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7153] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 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 8 
Green Party 8. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7153] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 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 8 
Green Party 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7153] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Goodhew Jo: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7153] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7151] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hague Kevin: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hague Kevin: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7150] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I take a call because my colleague David Garrett effectively challenged me to do so by suggesting that the Green Party does not support victims’ rights. The Green Party is a party in this Parliament that has an extremely sound and proud record of supporting victims’ rights. For example I think of the work that Nandor Tanczos contributed towards restorative justice over the years he spent in this House. The Green Party also has a proud record of addressing the drivers of crime. When we come to bills in the justice or law and order area or indeed in many other areas of social policy our approach is to ask what we can do to prevent this problem occurring in the first place. That is always our focus. 
The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill provides for a levy that does not provide a deterrent to other people committing crimes and does not provide a deterrent to an offender recommitting a crime. It responds to the pain suffering and needs of victims in an entirely tokenistic way. The term “window dressing” has been used tonight and I think that term is absolutely appropriate. We part company with other parties where if we see a bill that achieves nothing and is entirely tokenistic in its effect our response is to vote against it. That is why the Green Party has voted against this bill at every stage and will continue to do so.
Bridges Simon: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7149] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Garrett David: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Garrett David: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7148] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I will remove all doubt with regard to Mr Cosgrove’s polite inference that other parties have some scepticism because I recall that in my first reading speech on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill I expressed openly some doubts about this legislation. This has been a very informative debate. It seems to me that with the sad exception of the Greens everyone in the Chamber is in favour of doing something for victims. 
The problem that the Labour Opposition and I see and have some scepticism and concern about is whether this bill will work and whether the administration costs will soak up the levy. It has occurred to me tonight rather late in the piece that there is a way to solve that problem in my view but this is not the time to attempt to do it. I think it is well known in the House that Mr Cosgrove and I do not always see eye to eye—that would be an understatement. But I think that his speech was a very good one. If we find ourselves in the position next year where this levy has not been collectable and needs to be topped up with something else then I will look to supporting an amendment to make it work. 
To me there is one very simple and obvious amendment. It is this: when offenders are bailed in our courts they go downstairs to the cells while the bail bond is drawn up and they do not walk out of the door until the bail bond has been signed. It seems to me that we could do this very simply with this levy. An offender who is convicted is sent downstairs and told that when his mum his girlfriend or his scumbag mate comes up with 50 bucks then he will go. He will start his community service negotiate with the registrar over the fine or whatever. The collection costs are virtually nil. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s only going to be paid by people who don’t go to jail. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Yes perhaps so. I am giving notice that the ACT Party and I will be following carefully whether this measure works. If it does not then I do not think I will need to support Mr Cosgrove in this matter. The initiative may well come from us to pass an amendment in the nature of the one that I have just described. Everyone can come up with 50 bucks. For the idiots who smoke cigarettes that is three packets of fags. They will all have access to 50 bucks. If this bill does not work and if the dire predictions of Mr Cosgrove come true then we will be looking to support an amendment to make it work. Thank you.
Power Simon: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7145] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 2 as introduced amended the definition of “fine” in the Social Security Act to include the offender levy. That was to allow Work and Income to disclose information such as addresses and telephone numbers to the court to enable the location of any beneficiary who is in default on payment of the offender levy. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee amended Part 2 by creating a schedule of amendments moving the proposed amendment to the Social Security Act to the schedule and adding four other Acts. The definitions of “fine” or “fines defaulter” in the case of the Tax Administration Act are amended to include the offender levy. The amendments allow people who owe levies to be matched as part of the authorised information-matching programmes run by the Ministry of Justice. The schedule also amends the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 to ensure that if the court makes a payment order under sections 81 or 83 payments received from an offender are paid in the order of priority set out in new section 105C of the Sentencing Act. That order—for the sake of absolute clarity—is reparations first offender levies second and fines third. 
Supplementary Order Paper 67 removes reference in the schedule to the Immigration Act 1987 because the intent of the amendment has been affected by a Supplementary Order Paper to the Immigration Bill. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7144] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You are right to proceed as you do. The only plea I would make in mitigation is that my colleague Lianne Dalziel called for her second call immediately the bell went— 
Hon Member 
: Third call. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —for her third call and there are other colleagues on this side who wanted to have a call. Secondly Mr Borrows has already spoken. I do not know whether that member has the ability—I am not sure what the count is—to move that the question be put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will draw this to a quick conclusion. There is some conjecture on the Opposition side as to whether a member who has already spoken can move a closure motion. My advice from the Clerk is that yes that member can. That is point No. 1. The second point is whether I am entitled to put the question to the House. I say that that is without dispute. I make the point that in this debate there seems to be no contest about whether to be for or against. The last two speeches were not Committee stage speeches; they were second reading speeches of a very general nature. So I thought the Committee had come to the end of its wind on this part. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Borrows Chester: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7144] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is—[ 
Interruption 
]—that the question be put.
Heatley Phil: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7143] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
McClay Todd: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
McClay Todd: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7142] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Goodhew Jo: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7141] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bridges Simon: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7136] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on Part 1 of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. I will make two or three very brief points in response to some of the things that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said. 
I absolutely agree with him that there was quite a discussion at the Law and Order Committee about the issue of whether judges would take into account the $50 levy and try to add it on to other fines or reparation but I say to members that I simply cannot see that. I agree with him that judges are not fools—they certainly are not. I also think they take their jobs pretty seriously; they want to be true to their oath. His point would have a lot more power if we were talking about a levy that was at the level of say $200. But at $50 I think judges will take clause 6(5) very seriously. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: So they are serious at $50 but not serious at $200? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I think that is right and they will take that amount into account when they decide that. 
Because I do not want to take all my time I will make another very brief point in response to Clayton Cosgrove’s other point—and these are not his words—that it is a slap in the face for the victim of a rape conviction that the levy is only $50. This bill is quite clear about amending section 105B(3) inserted under clause 7 which states: “The levy is not a sentence and is in addition to any sentence.” We are not dealing with something that is trying to punish; the purpose is quite different. It is not about punishing the offender; it is about making a contribution to the victim’s costs. So I do not think it would be proper to see it as somehow commensurate with the kind of offence that the conviction is for.
Power Simon: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7133] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I apologise to the Committee of the whole House for my absence prior to the dinner break. I would like to take up Jacinda Ardern’s question about how the amount of the levy was arrived at. When we were in Opposition we had time on our hands to look around other jurisdictions at how this levy may work. We managed to look at a number of jurisdictions—from within New Zealand I might add; we did not have to travel overseas to do it— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What happened to the drivers of crime? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I tell Ms Dalziel to watch this space. Just so that members are aware of this I say that other jurisdictions tend to have a split levy. A good example is New South Wales where it is A$140 if a person is convicted on an indictment or pleads guilty split to A$60 if a person is convicted otherwise than on an indictment or pleading guilty. In the Northern Territory the levy for an adult is somewhere in the vicinity of A$60 and A$40 for any other offence that is not one following a prosecution on an indictment. In South Australia where Mr Cosgrove’s good friend is from a split levy is run also—[ 
Interruption 
] Indeed. I say to Mr Cosgrove that it is split three ways somewhere in the vicinity of A$20 A$70 and A$120 depending on what the criminal offending is. I will leave Tasmania for one moment. Looking at— 
Grant Robertson 
: It doesn’t support the Minister’s argument! 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Not at all; quite the contrary. I just wanted to get on to Canada. Canada has a more complicated system whereby a percentage of any fine is imposed on the offender as a levy which is not the case here. In the absence of a fine it is Can$50 for summary conviction offences and Can$100 for indictable offences. 
When we looked at all of those examples from around the world it struck us that a tiered system would only add complication to the process. Once we had looked at the range of options that were available to us we settled on $50 as being a reasonable and payable sum within the context of those international examples.
Joyce Steven: Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill — First Reading 
Joyce Steven: Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7130] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Customs 
: I move  
That the Government Administration Committee consider the Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 16 November 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7130] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Bill read a first time.
Brownlee Gerry: Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7117] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I think there are only two questions that the previous speaker Chris Carter has to answer. The first is whether it is true that his is the face of the new captain on the Flight Centre ads given his extraordinary experience of travelling around the world. Or is he perhaps going to retire to a Holiday Shoppe franchise once he leaves Bowen House? Everyone knows what a huge traveller this particular man is. And can he confirm that he has actually written to the Minister responsible for this bill asking whether he can have Fly Buys points for the amount of times he uses SmartGate as he travels around the country? The only thing he has going for him is that these days as we travel internationally increasingly airlines are looking at gross weight per passenger. In his case he can take huge Samsonite baggage; in my case of course I get a brown paper bag with two handkerchiefs inside it. So he is somewhat at an advantage in speaking on this bill because he knows so much about travelling and the experience of going through various countries’ borders. But we can assure him that his support of this bill will mean that the experience is a lot better when it comes to crossing the Tasman in the future. 
I will just pick up on the issue of biosecurity which the member Chris Carter quite rightly highlighted as being a major concern for this country. But I point out that all of the incursions he just spoke of occurred during the term of the last Labour Government. I mention that not to point a finger but simply to say how difficult this particular issue is and to put on record the case for the National-led Government continuing to do whatever is necessary to ensure that New Zealand has as strong and as well-protected borders as are possible. I look forward to supporting this bill later in the proceedings.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7113] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Kedgley Sue: Urgency 
Kedgley Sue: Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7113] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House did not give any reasons why urgency should be accorded to these bills and I think it would be helpful if he— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I do not accept that. The Leader of the House did so and I have accepted his explanation.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:658;Page:7112] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and first reading of the Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill and the Committee stages of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. 
The first bill mentioned today the Border (Customs Excise and Tariff) Processing Bill is designed to facilitate the SmartGate arrangements that New Zealand and Australia are cooperating on at the moment. It does not quite make travel between our two countries a domestic experience but it makes it a very similar experience to domestic travel. The challenge I guess will be for airlines to ensure that bags are available on the carousel as quickly as people are able to progress through the gates. 
The other bills as I have mentioned are at their Committee stage and are part of the Government’s 100-day programme. They are all designed to facilitate the activity of either detecting criminals or denying the opportunity for people to participate in criminal activity. We think that that is a sound reason to make the progress required during this next 2½ hours. It is reasonable for me to signal that the Government does not intend to resume urgency tomorrow morning. We expect to report progress a few minutes before 10 p.m. this evening.
Goodhew Jo: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7112] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 As the last speaker in this debate on the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill I think it is a really good idea that we end the debate by remembering what the key objectives of this bill actually are. They are to improve the detection and deterrence of money laundering and the financing of terrorism to enhance New Zealand’s international reputation to contribute to public confidence in the financial system and to realise these objectives with minimum cost. Finally we can remember what this bill is all about. I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.
Garrett David: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Third Reading 
Garrett David: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7112] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill. Having lived up in the Islands for some time I realise and recognise what a problem there can be in various parts of the Pacific. We will be supporting this excellent bill.
McClay Todd: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Third Reading 
McClay Todd: Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7112] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill. I think it is important that we move quickly to the vote on this important legislation. The previous speaker Pete Hodgson attempted to suck all the intelligence out of the debate in the Chamber and I think he was largely successful. I recognise those who have worked hard to make this legislation the great bill we have before us: the submitters; the banks; our officials; Government members; our chair on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee John Hayes; and of course our Minister of Justice Simon Power. I make particular reference to Keith Locke. Without that member’s good work in the committee we would not be here with this good legislation. When I look at my list I see that that is it. No others need recognition and I look forward to voting on this very soon.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Motion Supporting Armed Services 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Motion Supporting Armed Services 
[Volume:658;Page:7098] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice supporting the defence forces consistent with the signs currently showing on Labour benches. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me understand just exactly what is being sought. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Leave is being sought to move a motion without notice supporting the defence forces consistent with the signs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is being sought to move a motion without notice and there is no question that leave can be sought for that without notice. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection. I ask the senior Opposition whip to remove the signage please. I thank the honourable member.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7095] 
11.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What announcements have recently been made about encouraging philanthropic giving to the arts? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I recently announced the appointment of a task force to investigate ways to improve private philanthropic giving to arts and heritage organisations such as the New Zealand Film Archive which I visited today. The task force seeks to advance the Government’s election promise to turbocharge community and not-for-profit groups. It is chaired by Peter Biggs who was an outstanding chair of Creative New Zealand and includes some of New Zealand’s most high-profile supporters of the arts including Dame Jenny Gibbs and Caroline Henwood. The culture of private giving adds a great deal to the resources of overseas cultural institutions but is less well developed here. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Where does philanthropy fit in the Government’s vision for the arts? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Although we wish to encourage a culture of greater individual giving this is in addition to the Government’s funding of the arts. This year’s Budget increased funding to Creative New Zealand and the Royal New Zealand Ballet by $10.2 million over 4 years and helpfully an additional one-off payment was also secured through the Lotteries Grants Board for Creative New Zealand the Film Commission and the Film Archive. This Government believes that the arts should receive public and private support because they provide real social and economic benefits to this country. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Will he provide an answer assuring that there will be no decrease in Government funding for the arts and culture sector as a result of any increase in charitable giving by private individuals to the arts and cultural institutions? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am seeking to grow the arts budget. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that the Government has very real responsibilities to fund the arts and that in addition the increase in funding from private and corporate sources will encourage an explosion in the arts.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7094] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a further point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This will be heard in silence but I will not take the matter further. I will hear the member— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sure and I think it is a matter probably for tightening up in the future rather than the past. But I can differentiate between a question that asks a Minister whether he or she agrees and that therefore gets right into the area of ministerial responsibility and question No. 11. If it had said “What announcements if any has the Government made …” or “has he made …” there would be no argument about it. It just seems to me that some words are missing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the point the member has made but I must confess that I think the “if any” wording is getting a little pedantic. It is very easy for a Minister to get up and say that actually the Government has not made any announcements in that area. So I think that is getting a little pedantic.