edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tolley Anne: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tolley Anne: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9822. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I did not intend to take a call at this stage but after hearing the last speech which contained flights of fancy I felt I had to make a correction for the Committee. 
The original proposal which is the proposal contained within the Education Amendment Bill that is being debated by the Committee is about statutory interventions. In particular the appointment of a commissioner to a school is done either by the Minister of Education dismissing an existing board of trustees or by the Secretary for Education appointing a commissioner to a school. A number of conditions for the appointment of a commissioner to a school are laid out in the Education Act and they are quite prescribed. In general we find that there is no acting board of trustees in place. Those interventions and the intent of the changes around those interventions are only ever intended to be temporary. The whole ethos of Tomorrow’s Schools is that the board of trustees represents the local community and parents. 
To go off into flights of fancy about corporates taking over schools and students picking and choosing is way outside the intent of the changes that were made. In fact the very changes that were suggested were suggested in order to provide a far wider range of skills that are often needed when we find we have to replace a board of trustees in a school that has a complex range of dysfunctions from employment and financial matters to learning qualities. 
I wanted to take just a very short call to point out that the Green Party’s interpretation of what was intended here is way outside the changes that were made. I repeat that statutory interventions—all of them—are intended to be as short term as they possibly can and a return to the norm will occur as soon as the Minister of Education and the Secretary for Education are sure that the school has the skills and the capability to continue to function as our 2600-odd schools do under Tomorrow’s Schools.
Peachey Allan: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peachey Allan: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9819. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to take a very brief call on Part 1 of the Education Amendment Bill in its Committee stage. I will begin by acknowledging the officials and thanking them for their work. They serviced the Education and Science Committee with good humour worked hard and met the needs of the committee very very well. 
I also acknowledge the work of members of the committee themselves including and especially Opposition members. Under the leadership of Mr Mallard they were positive constructive and very willing to engage in discussion. Members from both sides of the House had very much at heart the interests of children and what is the best thing to do to ensure that they have the very best possible education. 
I will take a moment to reflect on the comments of Miss Street who from time to time has also been a very positive contributor to the Education and Science Committee. I can go a little bit further back regrettably. I began my teaching career in 1974 and I remember those years of shortage. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Neither here nor there. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: What is a year or two between friends? I also remember some marvellously committed schoolteachers. We did not think twice if the principal came along and said “I’m sorry but we are short of a teacher. We can’t find anybody. It will be a month or a term until we find somebody. I need to halve this class and put half of it in with yours.” We willingly accepted that. We got on with the job. I pay tribute to those sorts of teachers. But certainly the environment in which teachers work today is far better. One of the reasons for that improvement has been successive legislation passed through this House that has changed the employment conditions and expectations that teachers have. I endorse the comments of Miss Street in that regard. 
I want to refer to one part of Part 1 and that is the increased flexibility of governance arrangements for schools. When we go through all the factors—and Miss Street mentioned a number of them such as quality of teaching and that sort of thing—we find that quality of governance is equally important. It is important that those in a position to act actually have the tools available to them that they have a range of tools and that they have tools that are flexible to help them react quickly to situations where it is very very apparent that youngsters are losing their opportunity to learn because something is going wrong in the school environment. Often fixing governance does not always solve the problem but it is a start to solving that problem. 
I certainly commend that section of Part 1 to the Committee and I commend Part 1 generally to the Committee. I look forward to it having the support of all parties. Thank you.
Finlayson Christopher: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 18 March 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 18 March 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9817. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to correct an answer given to a question for oral answer on 18 March 2010. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought to correct an answer. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: On 18 March Mr Garrett asked me as Minister for Treaty for Waitangi Negotiations how much Mr Tuku Morgan had been paid by the Office of Treaty Settlements as a Crown facilitator since 16 November 2008. I replied that to that date Mr Morgan had been paid $171093.61. Mr Garrett subsequently submitted to me a small number of questions for written answer. In compiling material to answer Mr Garrett’s written questions it has come to my attention that although Mr Morgan has been paid that sum there were two instances in 2009 when Mr Morgan was inadvertently paid twice for the same work as a Crown facilitator. In the first instance upon being notified Mr Morgan repaid the full amount within 24 hours. Mr Morgan has tonight been notified of the second instance. He was unaware of the double payment and has undertaken to repay that amount. Accordingly although it is correct that Mr Morgan has been paid $171093.61 he should have been paid $144768.61. Having just learnt of these details I wish to draw this issue to the attention of the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
Bridges Simon: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill which along with its earlier 2004 relative if you like the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Bill provides an interesting and innovative set of solutions to what have been thorny and complex problems. I agree with what all of the other speakers have said about those involved in making this happen deserving hearty congratulations from the fisheries commission and the various leaders there including my relative Peter Douglas and others through to Ministers of the Crown members of Parliament and iwi of course. They deserve hearty congratulations. 
I will not speak for long at all; in fact I will be very brief. But I will locate this bill in what I think is its proper broader context where there are two fields at play essentially: aquaculture and of course Treaty settlements. They come together in this bill. I certainly would not say I know a lot about aquaculture. My only indirect dealings would have been up at Ohiwa Harbour in the Eastern Bay of Plenty with the fish and chips there and the oysters and the like. I have been there many a time. 
I agree with the comments of the Hon Shane Jones that there is some controversy around aquaculture but I also agree with him that it is an area of real potential that perhaps has not been realised in any way previously. Its time I think has come and we as a Government and probably as a Parliament want to see it turn into a billion-dollar or multibillion-dollar industry that creates wealth for this country so that we do not have to worry about things like a deficit growing by $240 million a week. As I say we combine that with resolution of Treaty grievances but I will not talk about that field at all. Suffice to say when we combine aquaculture with resolution of Treaty grievances I think we get a scenario where Maori can move forward and iwi can move forward in a tangible way to becoming powerful players in the New Zealand economy who really help to take this nation forward. 
I was going to go through the bill and say what it does but that has been well-canvassed. It is quite an elegant solution I think that provides as we know a financial-equivalent method in relation to iwi so that $97 million in compensation will be provided. I am sure that iwi will use that money thoughtfully and responsibly and turn it into much more money. Certainly that is my and I am sure the iwis’ hope. With those remarks I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
Waiata
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9772. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When the Minister was speaking he referred to documents that are prepared for him to speak in the House. I invite him to table the documents that he referred to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot do that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: He said he was referring to documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot do that.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9766. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What progress has the Government made in attracting business migrants to New Zealand? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Last July the Government announced it would revamp the business migrant scheme to boost economic performance. The changes have made it easier for migrants to invest or set up a business in New Zealand and to gain permanent residence. There has been healthy interest in the new policy. Immigration New Zealand reports that over 100 expressions of interest have been received by prospective migrant investors since last July. In total new immigration policies have attracted approximately $194 million in potential new investment. 
David Bennett 
: How does the performance of this Government in attracting business migrants to date compare with that of the previous Government? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The current Government has attracted more business migrants in 8 months than the previous Government did in 2 years. In other words the previous Government took three times as long to produce less than half the result. 
Rahui Katene 
: How confident is he that the business skills being sought after in attracting migrants are not evident in the 64000 New Zealanders officially registered as job seekers and in particular the 21000 Maori job seekers? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Business migration policies aim to complement existing capital and entrepreneurial skills within the economy so there is no such thing as having too much of either.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9764. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has she received any reports on measures to cope with the forecast increase in prisoner numbers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. I am very pleased to report that great progress has been made with the implementation of double-bunking in our prisons. More than 700 bunks have been restored in the Northland Spring Hill and Otago corrections facilities. Installation of the final 170 bunks at Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility is now under way. When completed in September double-bunking will have added nearly 900 prison beds. This is one of the measures that will help avoid the prison bed crisis that we were heading into under the previous Government. 
Melissa Lee 
: Has the double-bunking project tracked to budget so far? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It has done better than that. I am very pleased to report that savings of $30 million against the original capital budget have been achieved so far. These savings have been obtained through design innovations good planning and excellent collaboration between the onsite project teams custodial staff and the contractors. An independent capital cost review of the project will occur shortly so that the positive lessons from this project can be applied to future projects.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9761. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave as the Prime Minister is not in the Chamber today to answer my question to defer my question to the next sitting day’s question time when the Prime Minister is present. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9759. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on improving treatment for women requiring breast reconstruction surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have been advised that the Hutt Valley District Health Board has announced that it is to restart delayed breast reconstruction surgery for women in the lower North Island for the first time since 2006. For the first time in nearly 4 years women in Hawke’s Bay Whanganui Manawatu Wairarapa Wellington and Nelson-Marlborough can ask their general practitioner to refer them to Hutt Hospital for breast reconstruction. The Hutt Valley District Health Board plans to undertake 300 of these delayed operations over the next 3 years. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Is it expected that the women who will benefit from the surgery will be new referrals; and when are these operations expected to commence? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Some of these women were told that they would get their operations and were put on waiting lists in 2006 when the district health board stopped taking referrals and stopped doing delayed breast reconstruction. But I am further advised that the first of these delayed operations has already been delivered. Although some of these patients have been waiting for up to 10 years by the end of June 18 women who were on the list in 2006 will have received their breast reconstruction surgery. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What other advice has he had in relation to the recommencement of this surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have been advised that for the first time the Hutt Valley District Health Board is contracting the neighbouring Boulcott Hospital to help deliver delayed breast reconstruction operations. This is a good example of how the public and private systems can work smarter together for the benefit of patients and of how district health boards are trying to reverse the legacy of the previous Government.
Smith Lockwood: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it helps to expedite the business of the house I am very happy for that leave to be sought again after further discussion.
Hughes Darren: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask for 10 minutes’ indulgence in order to speak to the Acting Leader of the House before that leave is put to the House? There is no initial opposition to it but I want to catch up. There has been a subsequent discussion and I want to make sure that both sides of the House are on the same page as it were. If we could put the leave again in 10 minutes’ time that would be most helpful.
Ryall Tony: Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ryall Tony: Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I seek leave for the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill to have its second reading on Thursday 25 March 2010 despite Standing Orders 287 and 263 should printed copies of the bill as reported from the Maori Affairs Committee not be available.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Attorney-General Western Australia Tibet—Delegation People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Attorney-General Western Australia Tibet—Delegation People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region led by Mr Qianba Puncog Chairman of the Standing Committee of the People’s Congress is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Attorney-General Western Australia Tibet—Delegation People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Attorney-General Western Australia Tibet—Delegation People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Hon Christian Porter MLA Attorney-General of Western Australia is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 18 March 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister 18 March 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9817. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 12 to Minister 18 March 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to correct an answer given to a question for oral answer on 18 March 2010. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought to correct an answer. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: On 18 March Mr Garrett asked me as Minister for Treaty for Waitangi Negotiations how much Mr Tuku Morgan had been paid by the Office of Treaty Settlements as a Crown facilitator since 16 November 2008. I replied that to that date Mr Morgan had been paid $171093.61. Mr Garrett subsequently submitted to me a small number of questions for written answer. In compiling material to answer Mr Garrett’s written questions it has come to my attention that although Mr Morgan has been paid that sum there were two instances in 2009 when Mr Morgan was inadvertently paid twice for the same work as a Crown facilitator. In the first instance upon being notified Mr Morgan repaid the full amount within 24 hours. Mr Morgan has tonight been notified of the second instance. He was unaware of the double payment and has undertaken to repay that amount. Accordingly although it is correct that Mr Morgan has been paid $171093.61 he should have been paid $144768.61. Having just learnt of these details I wish to draw this issue to the attention of the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
Business of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business of the House 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Business of the House 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I seek leave for the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill to have its second reading on Thursday 25 March 2010 despite Standing Orders 287 and 263 should printed copies of the bill as reported from the Maori Affairs Committee not be available. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask for 10 minutes’ indulgence in order to speak to the Acting Leader of the House before that leave is put to the House? There is no initial opposition to it but I want to catch up. There has been a subsequent discussion and I want to make sure that both sides of the House are on the same page as it were. If we could put the leave again in 10 minutes’ time that would be most helpful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it helps to expedite the business of the house I am very happy for that leave to be sought again after further discussion.
Visitors — Australia—Attorney-General Western Australia Tibet—Delegation People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Visitors — Australia—Attorney-General Western Australia Tibet—Delegation People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 24 March 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Attorney-General Western Australia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Hon Christian Porter MLA Attorney-General of Western Australia is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. 
Tibet—Delegation People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the People’s Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region led by Mr Qianba Puncog Chairman of the Standing Committee of the People’s Congress is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Coleman Jonathan: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Coleman Jonathan: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12104. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Trade 
: I move  
That the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee consider the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 29 July 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) 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.
Street Maryan: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12093. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 The Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill provides the legislative framework for what is essentially a free-trade agreement with Hong Kong but it also rationalises the approach between Hong Kong and China. 
The New Zealand - Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement will allow businesses from New Zealand and those New Zealand businesses that are currently in Hong Kong to move freely and without any impediment by regulation or legislation between Hong Kong and China and between Hong Kong and New Zealand. In other words this agreement provides part of what will be a seamless network I think of free-trade apparatus that allows New Zealand business interests to springboard out of Hong Kong and into China because the conditions surrounding that export trade have been rationalised and evened out. 
This is a significant move not only in the export of goods but also particularly in the export of services. In this respect some high-tech industries already have a foothold in Hong Kong. These industries are New Zealand - owned and operated and are being run out of Hong Kong and I think particularly of some high-tech industries that are based in Tauranga.
Bridges Simon: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12089. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I have respect for the previous speaker David Clendon and I think he has raised some valid points. But I think he has at base proceeded from a misguided sense of what this bill is doing. He is essentially saying to this House that the human rights of the prisoner will be transgressed by this bill. Well I say to him and to other members of the House that that is not actually what this bill does at all. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Didn’t the Nats vote against this in 2005? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I will give Carmel Sepuloni a little bit of advice on this bill. I agree that it was originally her party’s bill and I am supporting it so there is not really any need for heckling. But I say to David Clendon that he comes from a misguided position. In fact this bill does not take away any prisoners’ rights. Let us say that a prisoner is wronged in a serious way by a prison guard and the prisoner receives compensation. I agree that that prisoner should receive the compensation. But the issue then is what happens with that money. Rightfully and morally the guard owes the victim of the prisoner’s crime some money. Perhaps the victim has been seriously and substantially put out of pocket because of the wrongs the prisoner has done. Well I say that morally that person deserves some of that money. That is what this bill does. His rights have been vindicated because the State has had to pay out for argument’s sake $25000 to him. It could be a “her” but it is more likely be a “him” going on the numbers of men and women in our prisons. But then from that his victim of crime is also vindicated. 
The idea that the State pays out for its wrongs is not without controversy. I happen to agree with that. But it was something that the courts did without reference to Parliament and I think it was through Baigent’s case in the early 1990s. It had another name— 
Simpson v Attorney-General 
. That case was not without controversy. I personally agree with it. But it is controversial to argue that somehow dishing out compensation is a basic fundamental right. It is not necessarily the absolute truth. But I come back to the point. This is a good bill and it does the right thing. I think David Clendon although working from good motives is misguided when he says that the human rights of prisoners are transgressed with this bill.
Guy Nathan: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Guy Nathan: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12084. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill is straightforward. It prevents significant parts of the existing Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 from expiring on 1 July 2010. The bill maintains the status quo for 2 years giving the Government the opportunity to pass new legislation that will direct compensation payable to prisoners to the victims’ services appropriation after any victims have claimed against it. This bill ensures that compensation payable to prisoners for claims made before 1 July 2012 continues to be subject to the existing restrictions on awards of compensation. Those restrictions require prisoners to make use of the many existing complaint mechanisms that are available to them before they seek compensation through the courts. 
If a claim is made through the courts compensation can be ordered only where it is absolutely necessary to redress the harm done. If compensation is ordered victims of the prisoner may first seek redress for the harm they have suffered. The prisoner can access the compensation only once the victims’ claims process is fully complete. In effect this bill creates a transitional period whereby prisoners with outstanding grievances have an incentive to seek resolution before the second set of planned changes comes into force. If their claims are made before 1 July 2012 they will be subject to the existing regime. However prisoners who make a claim after that date will not receive the benefit of compensation if it is awarded. Their victims will still be able to claim against it and anything remaining will benefit victims generally through the victims’ services appropriation. Let me restate that prisoner mistreatment should not be tolerated. However it is time to resolve historical grievances and ensure that where compensation is necessary victims have an opportunity to seek redress for the hurt they have suffered. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12083. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Tremain Chris: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tremain Chris: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12070. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee for the Committee stage of this debate to be taken as one debatable motion and that there be unlimited speeches. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That there be one debate and unlimited calls. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Limited to the scope of the bill of course. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Could the member restate the leave so that I understand it. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I seek the leave of the Committee for the debate on the Committee stage of this bill to be taken as one question and that the number of speeches are unlimited but limited to the scope of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not to be. Leave is granted.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12070. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a second time.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12070. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I am privileged to participate in the second reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. The bill extends the restriction on the awarding of compensation for a further 2 years starting from 1 July 2010 and going to 30 June 2012. The second amendment is that the victims’ claims process applies to compensation awarded or to be paid pursuant to an out-of-court final settlement in relation to a prisoner’s claim made on or after 1 July 2010 but before 1 July 2012. The Government wants to eliminate the all-too-frequent horror stories where victims are forced to relive traumatic events simply because the system has been deficient or has let them down. Invariably the offenders are getting a better deal than their victims. Since this Government took office it has been working hard to improve the law and order situation in New Zealand. It has also given victims’ rights top priority. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12059. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a third time.
Locke Keith: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Locke Keith: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12057. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will continue to oppose the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill for the reasons we have outlined. It is with a certain degree of sadness; I think that we would like a democracy where everybody including judges the military and the police could contest every position. But there is a case for the separation of powers with national and local legislatures as it were being separated off from people who either stand in judgment over the law like judges the people who enforce the law like the police or the people who are in a particular position as potential enforcement agencies both domestically and internationally like the military. 
I am pleased with the way the debate has been conducted since I have been here. I think that it has brought out the useful points. I think—and I support Carmel Sepuloni on this—that it would have been good to have had a select committee consideration particularly so that the advice of some of the finest legal minds like those of the Law Society could have been brought to bear. The question of separation of powers and of not having a conflict of interest is something that perhaps bigger legal minds than mine could exercise their brains on. I was a little disturbed that there was a comment which might be referring back to Mr Ron Mark who was a New Zealand First MP in the previous Parliament that somehow his bill was a result of his having a bit of meanness a personal agenda or something like that. As I recall his comments at the time both formal in the House and informal were that he was genuinely exercised by the political arguments for this. He did that very vigorously and I think he had good reasons for going down that track. So I am standing up for him to an extent in this Parliament today and saying that there are real arguments for being against this legislation. I think that Ron led the way on them in the last Parliament. Thank you.
Collins Judith: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12057. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I take another opportunity to thank those members who have constructively supported this amendment bill and to thank the whole House for the way it has allowed this debate to be conducted. 
This Government is committed to supporting our police and their rights as private citizens in a democracy. The bill achieves this objective when it comes to police employees standing for local councils by putting all police staff on a level playing field with other State servants. The bill is a small amendment to the Policing Act 2008 but as it will help strengthen the strong ties that police have with their local councils the bill is important for all local communities throughout the country. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12057. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Tremain Chris: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tremain Chris: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12053. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate on the Committee stage of the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill to be taken as one wide-ranging debate with unlimited speaking slots. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Collins Judith: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12050. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I take this opportunity to thank the parties who have agreed to support this bill. Their support will ensure that the bill is passed in time for this year’s local government elections. In the short term the bill will give certainty to those police staff who intend to stand for the elections later this year and it will give them time to plan for their campaign. Longer term it will give assurance to all police staff that there are no legal restrictions to their right to stand for local councils in any future elections. 
I think I can safely say that we as a society have high expectations of the way our police conduct themselves not only in the line of duty—that is performed in public view—but also to an extent in their personal lives. But this does not mean that we should take private or democratic rights away from those who choose to take the constable’s oath or make a career serving the police. The police have had various staff serve on local councils for decades without issue. The potential for conflicts of interest whether actual or perceived can be managed so that they do not arise. At the end of the day if a local community is not happy with the way their councillor has performed they will simply not elect them again. The bill will ensure that when it comes to standing for local councils nothing in legislation prevents police staff enjoying the same rights as other State servants. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12050. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time.
Collins Judith: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12037. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 Nearly 2 years ago when the Policing Act 2008 was passed there were some provisions within that legislation that set some police staff apart from their fellow State servants. Under section 99 of the Policing Act all constables authorised officers and supervisors without any constabulary powers must be placed on leave if they want to stand as a candidate in a local authority election and if they are elected they must resign from the police. 
Under section 115 of the Act there is an exception for police who were sitting members of local authorities at the time the Policing Act came into force on 1 October 2008 but only for as long as they are re-elected. For other State servants however there is no law that stops them from standing or serving on a local authority. They are simply required to remain politically neutral in what they do and follow any departmental rules that are in place. Any conflicts of interest must be declared but it is up to the individual and the department to manage them. This Government sees no reason why police should be treated any differently and that is what this bill aims to achieve. 
If this bill is passed then police will have in place rules and policies along the lines of those of other Government departments which have to manage any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise. Many members of the police already have strong relationships with their communities. It is common to have area commanders community constables and other police working together with local councils to make their local community safer. Making it easier for police staff to serve on local councils will help strengthen that relationship. This Government is keen to ensure that when it comes to standing for public office all police employees enjoy the same democratic rights as any other State servant. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.