edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Choudhary Ashraf: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Choudhary Ashraf: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20940. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) just to say once again as my colleague the Hon Shane Jones just said that this bill received very emotional submissions from a number of submitters to the Primary Production Committee particularly from recreational fishers and from customary fishers.  
I think this bill is a balancing act in terms of trying to protect the quota holders as well as take into account the wishes and the concerns of recreational fishers and customary fishers. As has been said before there is opportunity for those who feel aggrieved to take their case to the High Court. Since 2003 there have been only about 10 cases that have gone through this process over concerns about undue adverse effects. I think only two of those cases have been upheld.  
With those few words we support this change in the bill in terms of the undue adverse effect on the quota holders. Also at the same time we make a note of the fact that the other fishers are also concerned about this particular clause. Thank you. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 in his name to section 186ZIA(4)(b) in clause 43A be agreed to: 
to omit “makes a determination under section 186ZP(5)” and substitute “a determination under section 186ZP(5)”. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley to the proposed amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Papers 264 and 265 in his name be agreed to. 
Amendments to amendments agreed to.  
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Papers 264 and 265 to Part 2 in the name of the Hon Phil Heatley be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.
Calvert Hilary: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calvert Hilary: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to commend the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) to the House.
Dean Jacqui: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20850. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 The Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill amends the Policing Act of 2008 to restore the legal position that was held under the Police Act of 1958 in relation to the storage of fingerprints and photographs by the police. That legal position had not been intended to be altered by the Policing Act 2008 as has just been highlighted by the member across the House Annette King. When the Policing Act 2008 was passed it was assumed that the legal situation relating to the police’s ability to retain the identifying particulars of youth had been carried over from the Police Act 1958. In the development of the Policing Act 2008 there was no policy decision to change this provision. But in October 2010 the police became aware that the wording of section 34 of the Policing Act 2008 which deals with the storage of photographs and fingerprints was much narrower than the Police Act 1958 had been in respect of young people. This bill seeks to rectify the impact of the unintentional legislative change that occurred during the drafting of the Policing Act 2008. I commend the bill to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20862. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just for future reference the member must use a title or a full name when referring to members of the House.
Power Simon: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20848. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress and sit again presently. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20877. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20902. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 96 Noes 13.
Power Simon: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20924. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave in response to oral question No. 8 this afternoon.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am obliged to my colleagues. Earlier this afternoon I was asked by the Hon Lianne Dalziel whether I knew whether the Attorney-General shared the concerns expressed by the judiciary about the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. In response I said: “My memory—and I stand to be corrected—is that the Attorney-General gave the bill a clear vet.” By way of clarification I say that in respect of the issue of identification of issues in dispute—the subject of the primary question—the bill received a clean vet from the Attorney-General. However the Attorney-General issued two section 7 reports: one relating specifically to the proposed jury trial threshold and the other relating to three other proposals. Two of these proposals have since been amended by the Justice and Electoral Committee to address the concerns of the Attorney-General and the third concerning retrials is pre-existing legislation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The House has accepted the Minister’s explanation.
Jones Shane: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20939. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 This has been one of the most confounding aspects of this reform: how to strike the balance in terms of the undue adverse effects test between quota owners who obviously need considerable access to parts of the ocean to harvest their fish and those who want to exploit that portion of the coastal environment to grow something arguably of greater value than the scattered number of trevally snapper blue cod or whatever the case might be.  
One of the most egregious examples of where aquaculture development has been held hostage can be found in the Tasman area. This reform and this set of changes arguably crimp or narrow—certainly deflate—the expectations of quota owners and potentially narrow the application of what their quota rights actually entitle them to. The very important point that is made here is that all the industry will not agree with this but there will be an opportunity for those who are quota holders quota owners etc. to enjoy a level of compensation. One hopes however that that compensation will not be excessive because at the end of the day what I think has been correctly captured in this small portion of the reform is that having a quota to fish is having an entitlement to extract something from the ocean. It is not having an entitlement to an excusive level of possession to parts of the ocean. That might happen where a tai-a-pure or a Maori mataitai seafood reserve is created or indeed a new fish farm which is an idea that has taken a long time to materialise unfortunately but is a great idea. So we will be supporting this portion of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3).  
I make reference to the fact that there are some liberal references in Part 2 to the High Court. It is obvious that in the tradition of fisheries politics the fishing industry and the application of regulation to the fishing industry much of what we are currently talking about will wend its way unfortunately to the High Court because it is a very litigious area. But the main point of why we are very keen to support it is that it is finally going to give a process that recognises the rights of quota owners but to a point and it does not inhibit the expansion of marine farming and aquaculture which arguably is going to generate for “New Zealand Inc.” a greater return. For those reasons Part 2 is supported by members on this side of the Chamber.
Vote: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20944. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 88 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 24; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Independent: Carter C. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Upston Louise: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20928. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in support of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) in its final reading and I am pleased that members of the Opposition also support this legislation. Lifting skills is a key part of the Government’s plan for economic growth in New Zealand. Part of that plan is making tertiary education more accountable and having a higher level of performance for its students which is of course good for the students involved and good for tertiary education providers but more important good for taxpayers and good for the country.  
If we look at the focus on quality we see that one of the other areas where the House has had quite a lengthy discussion is that of supporting students. I refer in particular to giving students improved transparency in terms of how student support services fees are set in order to enable there to be less of a disparity around the range of those fees both in terms of the financial level and in terms of the services that are provided within that. So the legislation provides students with a decent voice. I have spoken quite a lot about the other changes so I will not spend any more time on them.  
I will give a final plug for the changes in international education including the creation of the Crown agent Education New Zealand which will basically unleash this country’s ability to export education across the globe. Also there were changes in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and its legal arrangements which were more of a technical nature.  
I am very pleased to support the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). It is another fine bill brought before this House by a fine Minister who is committed to lifting performance in tertiary education. We have 16500 more tertiary places than we have had since 2008 and I think that is a fine achievement; another one we can tick off for this fine Government.
Goodhew Jo: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goodhew Jo: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Clendon David: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20959. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call on the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill although I am inspired by the previous speaker Grant Robertson to perhaps make a more comprehensive statement than I was going to make. Nevertheless it is nice to stand and support a Government bill against the trend of the previous few days.  
This is very sensible legislation clearly. It seeks to protect the integrity and the value of New Zealand - designed manufactured and produced products and that is a significant requirement. We are a trading country. I could argue—and I quite often do—that we rely too much on international trade rather than seeking to meet our needs from our own resources. Nevertheless we will continue to be a trading nation and as such these sorts of agreements are important to us. It is important that we engage with the international community to ensure that to the extent that we can undertake to protect the integrity of its products it in turn will do what it can to protect the integrity of ours.  
Trademarks and brands are of course significant in terms of the actual market value of a product. As a certain manufacturer of clothing has found to its cost in recent days a trademark is everything. If one loses public support for that one has lost a great deal indeed.  
Initially we saw the sense in this legislation. I am speaking on the basis of my colleagues informing me because the point has been well made that this bill has taken an extraordinarily long time to get through the House. Our primary concerns—in fact our only concerns—initially about this draft legislation were issues relating to the enforcement of the conditions and provisions within it by the Ministry of Economic Development.  
I am assured that the select committee process satisfied my colleague Mr Locke who is not an acknowledged champion of excessive powers being assigned to regulatory authorities. On that basis we are very happy to accept that this bill has found the correct balance and we are happy to support it. Kia ora.
Vote: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20862. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1; Progressive 1. 
Noes 13 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a first time.
O'Connor Damien: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Damien: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20937. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 In the short time before the break I will make a speech supporting the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) as my good colleague Shane Jones has but I will point out a couple of things.  
I went down to look at a couple of Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. There are about six of them and that is very much the nature of fisheries legislation I have to say. Try as we might in this House to make good legislation time and time again in fisheries and aquaculture we have made mistakes. Everyone in this House wants aquaculture to develop and move forward and I commend the Minister for his attempts but having to table in the Committee at the last minute another three Supplementary Order Papers and amendments would indicate that there are probably within the bill other mistakes. They will be exposed by the industry no doubt in a court of law as we move forward.  
We want to see aquaculture grow. In fact all the indications internationally are that aquaculture is where we will get a large amount of fish protein to fill the growing world population. It will be through good aquaculture. We have some of the best science in the world and we have some of the best water but we have been hampered not by politicians necessarily and not by bureaucrats but by the industry. We have a quota management system that has allocated rights to individuals and companies to fish amounts of a set quota laid down by the Minister in the wild fish fishery. When aquaculture proposals come and impact on that area we end up with some debates that have been lengthy and protracted. There have been some very sad outcomes for individuals through the long legal battles that we have seen and in fact those battles have not finished.  
There is one key Supplementary Order Paper. It is Supplementary Order Paper 265 and it is the Minister’s attempt to try to resolve the battlefield that has hampered aquaculture development involving the rights of existing quota holders versus the intentions and wishes of those people who want to further develop aquaculture. I set aside the speculators. No way in the world do I want to support people who just want space to sell on—they can take a walk. But where there are people who genuinely want to put ropes in the water and develop new innovative ways of growing aquaculture we want to help them. This Supplementary Order Paper lays down a process whereby the holders of quota will have their rights upheld but must accept some compromise to allow aquaculture to move forward. Without this compromise and without the arbitration laid down in the Supplementary Order Paper we could still be battling in the courts for another 10 years.  
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Dean Jacqui: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20915. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 When the Policing Act of 2008 was passed it was assumed that the legal situation relating to the police’s ability to retain identifying particulars of youth was carried over from the Police Act of 1958. It was not so the Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill we are debating today seeks to rectify that position. I commend the bill to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20908. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: On the vote on the question that Part 1 stand part I announced that the Ayes were 96 and the Noes were 13. The correct figures should be the Ayes are 106 the Noes are 13. The record will be amended accordingly.
Calder Cam: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calder Cam: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to take another call on the Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill. I take cognisance of my colleague Rahui Katene’s impassioned comments about the unemployment rates for young Maori particularly and offending among young Maori. It is a huge concern for this Government and I draw to her attention that there are thousands more Youth Guarantee places and places in trades academies on stream to help address that problem as well as growing our economy of course.  
However this particular bill we are considering now is not really the time for that argument. That argument is not apposite to this debate. What we have here as has been pointed out by a variety of speakers is an unintended consequence of the drafting of a bill that has led to the removal of the police’s ability to use certain tools. These tools are the storage of identifying particulars of young offenders.  
When the Policing Act 2008 was passed it was assumed that the legal situation relating to the police’s ability to keep these identifying particulars—fingerprints and photographs—would be carried over from the Police Act 1958. The simple matter is that it was not. There was no policy decision made to change this; it was as we know an unintended consequence of the drafting of the bill. We have heard many reasons why from members who were in the House at that time.  
I think it is a very simple situation we are dealing with here. I acknowledge the concerns of my colleague. I will say no more at this stage other than to commend the bill to the House.
Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I understand that it is the intention of the Government not to take any further business and therefore I seek leave for the House to now adjourn. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes the Government has indicated that it will not continue with any future business in the urgency motion.
Tisch Lindsay: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20934. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on Part 1 includes schedule 1.
Locke Keith: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Locke Keith: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20903. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I appreciate that the Minister in charge of the bill has answered some of the questions that have been raised. I think that is very good. It is true that the Police Act 1958 has been amended but from what I can gather section 57 in particular has been amended in only a very minor way and certainly not in the substantive piece that she referred to. It is true that section 57(3) of the 1958 Act talks about holding particulars unless the person is acquitted but it is also true that the second paragraph of subsection (3) talks about that provision not applying if a person is acquitted on account of his insanity or is discharged under section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act 1954. The qualification for section 57(3) uses the word “discharged”.  
In fact it is interesting that when one goes to section 83(1) of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 it talks about the concept that young people are not convicted if they come under one of the section’s provisions. The first one is if the court discharges the young person from proceedings without further order or penalty. Again it uses the same word “discharged” to exempt the person from the identifying particulars requirement which is the same wording that is used to exempt the person under section 57(3) of the 1958 Act.  
All that having been said I think the question is—and I think the Minister has now admitted it—that one can have doubts around all of this the meaning of legislation and what the intention was etc. but certainly in terms of what was explicitly stated during the parliamentary debate or in any of the documentation that the Government put out around that debate there was nothing that nailed the interpretation of the 2008 legislation to what the Labour Party or National are saying now. In that context and the in context that a whole lot of young people who have gone through the court system will not suddenly be jumping up and wanting to brought back into the spotlight with appeals there will not be a problem for the Government or society if we consider this in a more considered manner rather than rushing this whole bill through Parliament under urgency. We appeal to the Government at this late stage to change its course and to let us have a longer period to deal with this bill. We have time we can do it and we should not just push it through today under urgency.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress are district health boards making in providing faster cancer radiation treatment for patients? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Great progress. All cancer patients needing radiation treatment are now receiving it within the 4-week world gold standard for radiation treatment. I can inform the House that in the last 2½ years not one patient has been sent to Australia for cancer radiation treatment. Members will recall that not so long ago patients often had to wait up to 15 or 16 weeks to begin their radiation treatment and many had to travel to Australia. Our doctors nurses and community cancer workers have achieved this through improved productivity the purchase of 10 new linear accelerators and more staff being provided in our cancer centres. They are doing a great job. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What other progress can the Minister report on better cancer treatment for New Zealanders? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government is working very hard to improve cancer services for patients. Seven hundred and fifty women have had access to Herceptin treatment which they would not have got 3 years ago. Our bowel cancer screening programme will begin shortly in the Waitemata District Health Board and it involves 60000 people. That is a first for New Zealand. We have also invested more in cancer medicines to treat leukaemia Hodgkin’s disease lymphoma bowel cancer lung cancer pancreatic cancer skin cancer and prostate cancer. There are still challenges before us but I think our clinicians are making a lot of progress.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20924. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave in response to oral question No. 8 this afternoon.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am obliged to my colleagues. Earlier this afternoon I was asked by the Hon Lianne Dalziel whether I knew whether the Attorney-General shared the concerns expressed by the judiciary about the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill. In response I said: “My memory—and I stand to be corrected—is that the Attorney-General gave the bill a clear vet.” By way of clarification I say that in respect of the issue of identification of issues in dispute—the subject of the primary question—the bill received a clean vet from the Attorney-General. However the Attorney-General issued two section 7 reports: one relating specifically to the proposed jury trial threshold and the other relating to three other proposals. Two of these proposals have since been amended by the Justice and Electoral Committee to address the concerns of the Attorney-General and the third concerning retrials is pre-existing legislation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The House has accepted the Minister’s explanation.
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20939. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 This part makes changes to the Fisheries Act 1996 which is the principal statute governing the management of New Zealand’s fisheries resources. The impact of aquaculture on fishing is managed through the process known as the undue adverse effects—or UAE—test. The bill as reported back by the Primary Production Committee places emphasis on agreements being reached between aquaculture applicants and commercial fishing quota holders. However the bill in its present form does not necessarily enable the best-value use of the coastal marine area between commercial fishing and aquaculture. If a proposed aquaculture activity will have an undue adverse effect on commercial fishing the aquaculture activity can proceed only with the consent of quota holders even if the proposed marine farm would deliver much greater returns. Supplementary Order Paper 265 therefore proposes further changes to provide for a better balance between the interests of wild catch commercial fishing and those of aquaculture. The principal amendment is to clause 46 to insert new sections 186ZN to 186ZR into the Fisheries Act 1996. This is about better balancing the interests of commercial fishing quota holders with those of marine farmers. 
The existing Fisheries Act 1996 protections for non-quota management stocks and for customary and recreational fishing remain unchanged. The changes introduced by the Supplementary Order Paper will firstly provide that independent arbitration may be sought if agreement cannot be reached; secondly require the independent arbiter to determine whether the aquaculture activity has materially more value to New Zealand than the commercial fishing in that space; and thirdly provide for a methodology to be established in regulations to determine the value of the proposed aquaculture activity the affected commercial fishing and the compensation payable. 
In addition to the amendments I have already indicated I have tabled an additional minor technical amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 277.
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20934. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 This part includes measures to transition the existing marine farming industry into the new law with minimal disturbance and no loss of rights or certainty. The processing of the last remaining pre-moratorium applications which are now a decade old will be able to be completed from the commencement of the new law. The processing of applications frozen under the current law will in most cases be able to resume on the commencement of the new law. The aquaculture unit within the Ministry of Fisheries—which has now been merged with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry—has worked closely with local authorities to help them get ready for this. The amount of space that is created for aquaculture from those outstanding applications will depend on the decisions of applicants and the outcome of the consent process. What is important is that the process can now move forward.  
I would like to inform the Committee that I am not proceeding with the following amendments: on Supplementary Order Paper 264 the amendment entitled “New Schedule 2: paragraph 4” and on Supplementary Order Paper 265 the amendment entitled “Schedule 1: new Schedule 2”. These changes are superseded by the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 278.
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20941. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Before I explain a little about this part I would like to thank the Iwi Leaders Group chaired by Matiu Rei for its input and also the aquaculture iwi advisers: Justine Inns Laws Lawson and Keir Volkerling. Without their valuable input the Government would not be in the position today to propose such a strong amendment to the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3).  
The Government is committed to upholding the Maori commercial aquaculture claims settlement. The bill as introduced in November 2010 included provisions to ensure the Crown would be able to fulfil its obligations but at that time I signalled those provisions might be revised later in the legislative process if engagement between the Crown and iwi identified a better mechanism for delivering the settlement. That team found that mechanism.  
The new provisions introduced by Supplementary Order Paper are the outcome of a process of engagement and consultation over several months. The proposed mechanism is the best possible compromise between the preferences of iwi and those of the Crown. That mechanism will enable the settlement to be delivered through regional agreements in a way that best fits iwi aspirations and preferences region by region—a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. The new provisions provide the flexibility for regional agreements to deliver on the Crown’s commitment as new space becomes available for marine farming over time.  
The new mechanism recognises iwi’s likely preference for space but provides flexibility for cash or other deliverables to form all or part of the settlement package by agreement between the Crown and iwi or where the provision of the space is not practical. The proposal is common sense. It is an approach that recognises the interests of iwi in a regional way and the Crown’s interest in removing uncertainty for mainstream marine farmers. Iwi the wider aquaculture industry and the country as a whole all stand to benefit from iwi participation. If iwi do well if Shane Jones does well then we all do well. In addition to the amendments I have already indicated I have tabled an additional minor technical amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 277. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call Shane Jones—honourable.
Tremain Chris: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tremain Chris: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20877. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to commend the Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill to the House. Thank you.
Hipkins Chris: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20910. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I will be very brief because the issues on this bill have been well traversed on both sides of the argument. I have listened quite carefully to the arguments put forward by the Green Party and the Maori Party. Although I accept that many of the issues they are raising are genuine issues they are much wider than the bill as it stands at the moment. 
I think it is really important that members make themselves familiar with new section 34A on the back page of the bill. It makes very clear the circumstances in which a young person’s identifying particulars are able to be kept. Basically it means that in all of these cases it is accepted that the young person has done whatever it is that has been alleged that they have done. I think it is really really important that we make that really clear. The police will not be keeping the photographs and fingerprints of young people who are found to have done nothing wrong. They will not be keeping them. That is really really important and I do not think it was clear from some of the contributions we have heard from those arguing against the bill. Those records will be kept only if the person is convicted. 
I think it is also really important that we acknowledge particularly in the case of new section 34A(d) where somebody may be discharged without conviction that these young people are probably at the highest risk of reoffending so making sure that the police can identify them and having that information readily available is really important. 
I have listened carefully to the debate. Ultimately the change in the law was not intended; the responsible thing for Parliament to do therefore is to revert to the status quo. If members feel strongly that the status quo is wrong there are opportunities for them to bring a bill to the House to change it but simply legislating to protect a mistake is not the way to do it.
Calder Cam: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calder Cam: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20908. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Lee Melissa: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lee Melissa: Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 August 2011. Volume:675;Page:20859. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 Ahn nyung ha se yo Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill. Before I begin I say to the speaker who has just resumed his seat Chris Hipkins that he should agree with the Minister of Police more often because “scruffy” does suit him; “dirty” does suit him. It is a good look. Agreeing with the Minister of Police who does a fantastic job does suit that young man.  
This Government is keen to ensure that young offenders are apprehended face the consequences of their actions and have the interventions put in place to help them stem any risk of their reoffending and becoming more serious criminals in the future. Obviously we are equally determined to make sure that the victims of crimes are protected. In relation to this unintended situation as the previous Minister of Police Annette King has admitted it was the previous Parliament that passed the Policing Act in 2008 without the intention of giving the police fewer powers. If the bill is not passed today the unintended situation means that the police would not be able to retain the identifying particulars of these young offenders. That would mean that the police had fewer powers and that is not what we want.  
Identification of young repeat offenders is a key tool in assisting the police to do their job of preventing future repeat offending by these young people. We need to make sure that the young people do not continue to reoffend. When the Policing Act 2008 was passed as I said earlier and as other speakers have said the legal situation relating to the ability of the police to retain identifying particulars of youth was carried over from the Policing Act of 1958. It was not removed on purpose; it was done totally unintentionally. Therefore I think we are all in agreement in this House today—except for some people who believe that this is a conspiracy; I do not agree that there is a conspiracy—I support this bill. Thank you.
Barker Rick: Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21837] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 In this debate on the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill I want to make two brief points. The first one is that in this debate over sleepovers one of the key points that I think has been overlooked is that these people who are asleep at night carry responsibility. There are lots of people in this world in New Zealand who get paid fabulous salaries not because of the work they do but because of the responsibility they carry. The people who are in charge of these rest homes and these homes at night carry the responsibility for all of the people who are in them. If we think about responsibility and the responsibility for the care of those people and having to carry that responsibility the amount of money they are paid is inadequate. 
The second point I make is that this is historical. This House has to look in the future at legislation and support mechanisms that pay people in this sort of category of work a wage that is appropriate. A wage of $13.50 an hour is simply inadequate recompense for the amount of work these people do. The personal care the personal chores they have to do for people in their homes and in these particular establishments is incredibly personal and very direct. I do not think there would be anybody in this House who would want to have to clean up the sorts of messes and take care of the responsibility for the things that these people do at all no matter how much they were paid. We expect these people in our community to do this for a measly $13.57 an hour. I think that is wrong. I have never agreed with it this House should never agree with it and we should put in place mechanisms to ensure that these people are paid appropriately and funded. So the challenge for this Parliament is to do right by these people in the future. We should tidy up the past but we need to do things for these people in the future. 
My last point is on my behalf to say thank you to the Speaker and all those who have supported this House through the last 3 years. Thank you.
Ryall Tony: Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Ryall Tony: Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21835] 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave for all the provisions of the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. The question now is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part. Is any member seeking the call? I shall put the question.
Power Simon: Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21834] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Just noting the time I seek leave for the House to sit beyond 6 p.m. this evening to complete the business outlined in the urgency motion. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Vote: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21832] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Roy Eric: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21824] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the next member I wish to correct the record. The votes on the amendment in the name of Keith Locke and that the provisions of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill be agreed to were incorrectly announced as Noes 115 Ayes 15 and Ayes 105 Noes 15 respectively. The correct result on the Locke amendment is Ayes 14 Noes 105 and on the main question Ayes 105 Noes 14. The record will be corrected in both cases.
Ryall Tony: Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Ryall Tony: Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:676;Page:21836] 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill be now read a third time 
. I would like to thank members for their contribution to the second reading debate and their support of the bill in the Committee stage and I acknowledge the generosity and the goodwill of spirit not only on behalf of the unions but also on behalf of the employers who are also making a contribution to the back-pay here. I also thank the officials from the Ministry of Health and the Department of Labour who worked very speedily and swiftly in order to get the good piece of legislation before the Parliament very quickly. With the passing of this legislation we will then be able to process those claims and be in a position to ensure that people’s rights under this legislation are realised as soon as they can be. Finally Mr Deputy Speaker thank you very much and I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and other members all the very best for the next 7 weeks.