edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Borrows Chester: Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) Care of Children Amendment Bill Adoption Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) Care of Children Amendment Bill Adoption Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20589. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to reassure the member who has just resumed his seat Su’a William Sio that the Government does not take anything for granted whatsoever. The Government recognises that although it can legislate for many things it cannot change the course of behaviour until people see that need. Unfortunately there are families in this country who seem to spend their lives teaching their young sons that the way to treat their partners is to beat the hell of out of them and teaching their daughters that their role in life is to accept a beating every now and then. It is not right. This Government—in fact this Parliament because as I understand it Parliament is supporting this legislation—is sending a message very clearly to the community that that is not the way that we see the various roles within our society. It is no longer the way that we wish to go. 
These bills seek to support the rights of young children to live in environments that are violence-free. This legislation seeks to reinforce the rights of young children to be represented before courts in decisions that are made about them and their futures and the ways that they will continue to live. It is good that counsel for the child is able to continue representing young people whether it is in proceedings pursuant to the Care of Children Amendment Bill or to the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2). We will do what we can to ensure their safety. 
This Government has passed numerous pieces of legislation frequently with the support of the other side of the House in order to further protect children. I am proud to be part of a Government that takes that lead and I look forward to seeing the implementation of this legislation. Even more so I look forward to seeing a change in this society where our country no longer has ugly statistics in respect of child abuse and neglect and we can take a rightful place as a caring community on the planet. Thank you.
King Colin: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Colin: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20584. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). I too congratulate the chairman Allan Peachey and other members of the Education and Science Committee on the diligent way they worked on this very important legislation. This legislation really will improve our tertiary education system. Let us consider the aspects of it. 
Export education contributes $2 billion to the New Zealand economy. On that basis one can begin to understand how important this legislation is to improve and enhance the reputation of New Zealand. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority is long overdue to be modernised and improved. The evidence that has been mentioned in the House today about student fees shows that they need to be brought under control. 
I draw the attention of the Green Party member to the work that was done at the select committee to adjust the powers of the Minister for Tertiary Education. In actual fact new section 227A(1)(b) inserted by clause 26 contains a lot of work that was rewritten. The select committee took on board the comments and views of the members of that select committee and adjusted the bill. All the Minister can do now is advise and direct; he cannot tell those institutions what to do. So I think the Green member was well out of order in talking the way he did. I will leave that issue there. 
The other point that is quite interesting inside the legislation is that with changing modernising and improving there are always transitional arrangements. In Part 2 a lot of work was done to improve the transitional arrangements. There are organisations that are delivering training at the moment that will be affected by the bill. Provided they react appropriately within the legislation within a 12-month time frame they will be able to continue to do what they do. So it is very good legislation. I commend it to the House.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. Members have pointed out to me that the Standing Orders did not provide for this urgent question to be asked and I have ruled consistent with the Standing Orders. That is the end of the matter. The House must now move on. Question time is a time for questions to be asked. The member was quite at liberty to lodge an urgent question. I felt there was some merit in the question he lodged but the Standing Orders precluded my dealing with it today.
Peachey Allan: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peachey Allan: Education Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20581. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 The Minister for Tertiary Education clearly outlined the provisions and the intentions of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). I do not feel any need to reiterate those. I want to make two comments if I may. The first is that as chair of the Education and Science Committee that held the hearings and reported back to the House I want to endorse the Minister’s comments about the work of the select committee and express my appreciation to all members for their contribution. The second thing I want to do is welcome Labour’s support for this legislation. It is good legislation it will improve tertiary education it will improve international education and I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20578. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Freedom Camping Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 40; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a second time.
Hughes Gareth: Freedom Camping Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Freedom Camping Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20578. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker I did; you must not have heard it. I seek leave to record a party vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to record a party vote. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Tisch Lindsay: Freedom Camping Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Freedom Camping Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20578. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have made it very clear that when a vote is called the party vote must be asked for at the time. If the member wants to cast a party vote he or she must indicate that quickly. If the member wishes for that he will have to seek leave.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20563. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The acting Acting Leader of the House should not use that kind of language; it is not becoming. [ 
Interruption 
] It is my decision whether an urgent question is appropriate. If in fact there was no chance to ask further questions if things were going to happen before there was the opportunity to do so and there is no opportunity to ask further questions today without an urgent question being accepted—in my view there would be grounds for the Speaker to accept an urgent question. In respect of my initial ruling until the matter was drawn to my attention by the person who had lodged the question my initial understanding was that nothing would happen before further questions could be asked in this House. That would appear not to be the case. I believe that in respect of a matter of public interest if an action is to be taken before there is the opportunity for a question to be asked then those are grounds for an urgent question and that is why I am allowing the question.
Auchinvole Chris: Freedom Camping Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Freedom Camping Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20575. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I would like to give a brief presentation on the Freedom Camping Bill. I will begin as have other speakers by commending the work of the officials by commending the contributions from submitters and by thanking the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for the way they handled this particular issue. It was done at some speed but it certainly was not rushed. Something that never fails to impress me with the processes that we have in Parliament is that short-term submissions are none the less of high quality. We had high-quality submissions on this bill and some high-quality work has been done by the committee. 
I must say that I occasionally find myself wondering whether I had been to the same meeting as some of the people who have spoken in this debate. I find astonishing the range of interpretations that can be taken from the same subject by different members. 
Basically in my mind this bill establishes three things. It establishes the rights of freedom campers and for everybody to engage in freedom camping. The bill certainly does not restrict that right; it creates it as the default position. Freedom camping is a right. 
It does create infringement notices. My colleague Kevin Hague said that the bill is a sledgehammer to crack a nut—a phrase that was later taken by Phil Twyford who said it was his phrase. In fact that is the current situation whereby if people wish to move campers on they have to take them to court. The bill will create infringement notices that can be used by the Department of Conservation and by councils and that is an interchangeable responsibility. 
The bill allows the management of camping activity within 200 metres of a road. It is pretty much as simple as that. 
Coming from an area that benefits from 1.2 million bed-night visitors a year I look forward to being down on the coast again shortly once this bill has passed. I am sure we will be commended for the way it has been handled. Thank you.
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Some members think electoral law makes one’s eyes glaze over but of course it is of fundamental importance and constitutional significance. I think—as Carol Beaumont an authority on constitutional matters said yesterday in the House on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2)—that there is really nothing at all controversial about this bill. That is a testament to what this Government has done in this area. We have taken much of the heat and controversy out of electoral law matters. 
This bill is the final stage of two stages of reform to amalgamate electoral agencies. It is a good measure without controversy and I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a third time.
Mallard Trevor: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I just want to make it clear that I totally endorse the comments of Chris Hipkins.
Hipkins Chris: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I intend to take only a very very brief call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2)— 
Paul Quinn 
: You’ve said that before. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —but the more Paul Quinn interjects the longer it will be. My contribution will be brief. I welcome the introduction of electronic voter enrolment. It is particularly relevant for younger enrolees and prospective voters. It is of huge concern to me that younger people under the age of 25 dominate the list of people who are eligible to enrol to vote but do not. I hope that allowing electronic voter enrolment will certainly go some way to addressing that. 
I hope that in the next Parliament and the near future we will have a debate about whether electronic voting should be allowed in this country because I think that would potentially also encourage more young people to vote. I know that will be a source of significant debate. I hope it is one we can address in the next Parliament not this one. I think it should be addressed. 
Overall it is a good bill and Labour will be supporting it.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said that that is the end of the matter. Well I will hear it; I want to understand what the point of order is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point of order is to make it clear to the House that the Labour Opposition will not object if the Minister asks for leave—
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister wishes to make a ministerial statement that is debatable. There is no personal explanation that I am aware of that the Minister can use here. The matter has been dealt with. I sought to enable an urgent question to be asked. It was pointed out to me that that was inconsistent with the Standing Orders. I totally accept that—it was inconsistent with the Standing Orders. I have to rule in favour of that. I sought leave on the recommendation of the chief Opposition whip. Leave was not granted and that is the end of that matter.
Wilkinson Kate: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilkinson Kate: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20564. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just speaking to that point of order and because it is a matter of public interest and very serious— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not understand what point of order can be raised here because that matter has been dealt with. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Can I seek leave? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can seek leave indeed. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I seek leave to clarify the situation and attempt to answer the question.
Barker Rick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barker Rick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20564. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have made it very clear it is the end of the matter. There can be no further points of order on this matter so it has to be on a different matter. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Well it is on this matter but it is a different aspect of it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because the Hon Rick Barker normally has something worth hearing I will hear the member. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The situation is not too dissimilar from when Ministers walk from the Beehive across to this House. Members of the press gallery do not give prior written notice to Ministers of issues they wish to doorstop them on. Let us be frank about that. They turn up as they come by and Ministers are expected to answer the questions when they are there. I accept they do not give them notice that they will turn up. All Ministers understand that. When they walk across they are prepared to answer any questions. I accept your point Mr Speaker that the Standing Orders prohibit it in that regard but I seek leave for the Hon Trevor Mallard to be able to ask one further question to the Associate Minister of Immigration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection to that— 
Hon Annette King 
: Gutless! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —course of action. The Hon Annette King will get to her feet and withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Annette King 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20564. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not hear any more on this. The House will come to order straight away. Serious matters of public interest are never a shambles in this place—never. Serious matters of public interest that Ministers are responsible for should be treated seriously and this is the place where Ministers are held to account. I ask the member for the Standing Order again as I did not hear clearly which one he was referring to. [ 
Interruption 
] It is 379(1). 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with the matter and I will not hear a further point of order while I am dealing with the matter. There is no question that the member is right. I think on that basis I cannot allow the question because it is not in order—[ 
Interruption 
] No no no. I think the dilemma we have is that the question was lodged with the Clerk so late that it is impossible to deal with it properly. I want the House to come to order because this is a serious issue. The Standings Orders do have to be complied with and at the time I had to make a ruling on it the Minister did not have a copy of the urgent question. So the Standing Orders had not been complied with. I cannot overturn the Standing Orders. But I want the House to treat this matter seriously. I cannot depart from the Standing Orders. I have tried to make every opportunity for a matter of public interest to be dealt with but the Standing Orders are the Standing Orders. That is the end of the matter.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20563. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just refer you to Standing Order 379(1) which says the member must also give a copy of the question to the Minister involved. I want to clarify whether that has occurred. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon David Carter. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: An urgent question is something that occurs on a very infrequent basis in this House for urgent matters. To allow this to proceed is frankly making a shambles of the process.
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20563. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There were ample opportunities for the member to ask supplementary questions. If his supplementary questions were inept well that is it.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20563. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The reason why that point is relevant is that were that not to be the case then I would have allowed the urgent question. My understanding was that the Minister had indicated that would not necessarily be happening. If that is not that case then I believe the question should be allowed. Perhaps to clarify the matter I should allow the urgent question. I have perhaps made a wrong assumption so I will hand the question over for the urgent question to be asked.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20563. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that mean that we have an assurance in the House that the deportation order to take effect on Saturday will not happen?
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20563. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am just considering a matter here that is quite important. I beg the House’s indulgence. [ 
Interruption 
] I apologise to the House for that distraction. What happened was an urgent question was lodged with me and I have to decide whether the facts of the matter as before us justify the urgent question. It is my ruling that on this occasion they do not because the Minister has indicated to the House that nothing will happen before there is a chance to ask further questions and therefore an urgent question is not appropriate today. Had that not happened I think the matter would have justified an urgent question.
Davis Kelvin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Davis Kelvin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20562. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by all of her answers to Oral Question No 8 yesterday? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Kelvin Davis 
: What does the Minister make of the fact that 533 or over a quarter of 1922 analysed school charters are non-compliant? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Well the ministry is assessing those charters on a variety of criteria and it is working with schools to develop their charters so that they are compliant. 
Sue Moroney 
: Are there schools that have refused to submit their charters by the 1 July deadline as well as the 533 schools whose charters are non-compliant; if so how many? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I would not have any way of knowing whether a school has refused to do that. That is asking for an opinion and I do not have access to information about it. But I can say to that member that of the so-called rebel schools that submitted their charters—about 437—338 of their charters have been analysed and almost half of those did contain national standards targets. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does she still intend to take control of schools away from parents by putting in a statutory manager if they do not comply with her national standards policy? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No we are working with schools that may be breaking the law in a variety of ways helping them to understand that they are in fact breaking the law and making sure that they have every assistance to comply with that law. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does she think the stand-off she has created between her and 533 school communities is beneficial to the education of New Zealand children? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The member’s assertion is incorrect because as I have said the criteria that the ministry is using to assess those charters as being compliant are much wider than just whether they have targets that go against national standards. What I can say is that there are over 2000 primary schools and the majority of those are implementing the standards. In fact I was at a school this morning where it was said to me that already the school could see that using national standards targets had lifted the achievement of its students. That is what this Government is all about: we are about getting results for kids not about creating stand-offs with unions.
Tisch Lindsay: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21704. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now move to debate Part 2 clauses 7 to 47 and schedule 1.
Vote: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21703. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 73 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1; Mana 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand Labour 42; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Power Simon: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Road User Charges Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21703. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Victims of Crime Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Victims of Crime Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21693. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to debate the first reading of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. National is focused on putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. They find that the criminal justice system is a confusing minefield to trawl through. This Government was elected to improve the justice system. The Government’s response is the Victims of Crime Reform Bill to enhance the rights and services provided to victims of crime and ensure they receive positive and encouraging outcomes. This bill builds on the eight additional services for victims of crime that were introduced last year and funded through the $50 offender levy. 
The purpose of this bill is to change the law relating to the victims of crime to enhance victims’ rights and to increase the accountability of Government agencies that provide services to victims. This bill will broaden the matter of what a victim can include in his or her victim impact statement allowing the victims to include a photograph or a drawing with their statement and provide victims of serious offences with the right to read their statement in court. This is an important and crucial provision to make victims feel more empowered confident and able to give a full and complete statement in court. 
This bill will also extend the opportunity and improve the effectiveness of the victim notification system such as notifying victims when an offender is convicted for breaching their release condition relating to their victim or their victim’s families. This is also a very significant provision. There have been many incidents recorded where a victim’s family feels threatened by an offender who is in breach of his or her release conditions. 
Before I conclude I would like to reiterate that this Government led by the Rt Hon John Key is committed to strengthening the existing legislation relating to the victims of crime and to expanding the rights of victims of serious offences. They should be better informed of their rights. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Crown Entities Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Crown Entities Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21681. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crown Entities Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Mana 1; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Goudie Sandra: Crown Entities Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goudie Sandra: Crown Entities Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21678. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak to the Crown Entities Reform Bill. I am not surprised that on the one hand the Green Party is supporting the bill and on the other they say they are going to oppose it. That is really in line with the muddled thinking that continues to be exhibited by the Green Party. 
I say that I am just delighted with the bill what it brings to this House and the changes it makes. The purpose of this bill is to amalgamate certain functions of existing agencies for greater efficiency and effectiveness. That is absolutely necessary. It is one of the hallmarks of the current Government. It is about the coordination and quality of public services and the streamlining of bureaucracy and we want to place a great deal of emphasis on this. I say that the changes are anticipated to save $19.6 million in the 4 years from July 2012 with an ongoing savings after that of $4.1 million. So although there will be small transition costs of about a million dollars I think that the savings overall will be of huge benefit to the Government and to the taxpayers of New Zealand. 
We want the State sector to be based on the following principles: clear priorities high-quality services and reduced waste. I cannot understand why any political party could not support that and vote for the bill accordingly but that is not the case of course with the Greens. Currently we have 38 Government departments over 150 Crown entities and more than 200 agencies and we need to make sure they are efficient robust and effective and that they provide quality services. We need to make sure that we get bangs for our bucks and get the best outcome possible for every single dollar we spend. That is why I absolutely applaud the provisions of this bill.
Vote: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21653. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Procedure Bill the Bail Amendment Bill (No 3) the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 3) the Corrections Amendment Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 5) the Criminal Disclosure Amendment Bill the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Amendment Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 2) the Evidence Amendment Bill the Juries Amendment Bill the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill the New Zealand Bill of Rights Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 6) the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Mana 1. 
Bills read a third time.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Credit Rating—Downgrade 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Credit Rating—Downgrade 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21637. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member will recollect that the Budget was presented to this House some time back. Urgent matters are matters that have occurred very recently. Please understand that I am not saying that the matter the members—either Dr Russel Norman or the honourable Leader of the Opposition—have raised is not important at all. It is just that it does not meet the requirement of Standing Order 380 for an urgent debate. Members have asked questions about it because questions can be lodged about that issue. But it does not meet the requirements for an urgent debate for the business of the House to be set aside under Standing Order 380.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Credit Rating—Downgrade 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Credit Rating—Downgrade 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21637. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is really getting into debating issues here although I accept he is linking them to my decision. But I point out to him that the Standing Order requires it to be a recent matter that the Government has been involved in. The member mentioned a couple of issues. One for example is growing debt. I am sure members of the House would argue the issues have been going on for some time; they are not a matter of recent occurrence. That is why those issues cannot meet the requirements of Standing Order 380 because they do not involve any recent ministerial action. The member’s own words make that very clear.
Cunliffe David: Urgent Debates Declined — Credit Rating—Downgrade 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Urgent Debates Declined — Credit Rating—Downgrade 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21637. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without wishing to revisit your ruling I ask your consideration of the following. The credit rating downgrade was specifically related to two matters of public policy: first the growing current account deficit and second the growing net international investment deficit driven largely by private debt. There has been some debate about the responsibility by the Government for private debt but no debate whatsoever from the Government about the responsibility for the current account deficit.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21635. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does the Government support changes to the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes and I hope the House does too. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does he intend to seek or make any further amendments to the bill when it returns to the House for debate? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why did it take him 17 days after the Supreme Court decision in  
R v Hamed 
 to advise other political parties of his intention to introduce urgent legislation and can he assure the House that he will approach his job in a less leisurely fashion from now on? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: When the—[ 
Interruption 
] I have been told to be nice. When the judgment was released some time was required so that certain aspects of it could be redacted and then I immediately got on to the task in my usual sedulous manner. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does he now regret the fact that he and his colleagues failed to take up Labour’s offer made a year ago to progress the Search and Surveillance Bill and will he give the House an assurance that from now on he will be an advocate for expediting the provisions of that bill? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As to the first part no. As to the second part as I have said the Government accepts the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee that after the new Parliament is formed everyone will have to get their skates on to deal with the issue of the Search and Surveillance Bill. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does he agree with the assessment of lawyer Robert Lithgow QC as told to the select committee that “The Crown want to win when they lost.” and what are the implications to our legal system when the Crown makes the non-criminal criminal through retrospective legislation? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No I do not because I think everyone in this House agrees that those who actually succeeded in the appeal should have the fruits of their victory. Quite frankly I do not know what that gentleman is talking about.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21636. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What progress has been made in getting leaky homes fixed faster? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 More good news. Since the Government passed the weathertight homes resolution service financial assistance package just a couple of months ago several thousand homeowners have made applications to sign up to the assistance package where the Government will pay 25 percent of the repairs the local authority 25 percent and the remaining 50 percent will be paid by a loan from the banks with an underpinned loss-sharing agreement. Many homeowners have waited a long time to get this sort of assistance to get them out of the trap they have been stuck in where they have had zero or negative equity and could not move forward. What the Government has put in place gives them a fantastic future. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What has been the uptake by owners of leaky homes to the financial assistance package so far? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The uptake has been spectacular—more than 200 homeowners have already put their applications in and qualified. That represents about $23 million of subsidy paid out already—$18 million from the Government and $5 million from local authorities. In addition a remaining 684 claims are currently under process. They represent 626 stand-alone homes and 58 multi-unit buildings. For members’ interest here are some demographics: 70 percent of all the eligible claims come from Auckland 20 percent from Tauranga and Wellington and the remaining 10 percent are from—and I know that Mr Power will be interested in this long list—Christchurch Whangarei Hurunui Taupo Kapiti and Rodney.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Credit Rating—Downgrade 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Credit Rating—Downgrade 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21636. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from Dr Russel Norman and the Hon Phil Goff seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the downgrade of New Zealand’s credit rating by two rating agencies: Fitch Ratings and Standard and Poor’s. For there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence that involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government and that requires the immediate attention of the House. It is for members to make out a case for an urgent debate not for the Speaker to discover one. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case that is sought to be debated. 
There is no ministerial responsibility for the decisions of credit rating agencies. The fact that questions have been addressed to Ministers about such ratings does not necessarily mean that they involve ministerial responsibility on which a debate can be founded. The concept of ministerial responsibility for a matter qualifying for an urgent debate is narrower than it is in respect of questions which encompass any matter relating to public affairs with which the Minister has an official connection. I refer in that regard to Standing Order 369(a). The credit downgrade is an important issue but the grounds for an urgent debate under Standing Order 380 are not made out. The applications are therefore declined.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21632. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he seen about the bowel cancer screening pilot which is set to start at the Waitemata DHB this month? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 New Zealand’s first bowel cancer screening programme is being run at the Waitemata District Health Board. It is about to invite the first 500 people to join the programme. Of cancers bowel cancer is the second-biggest killer in New Zealand and the $24 million pilot which was promised for years by the failed party opposite will run over 4 years and inform us about the costs and benefits of rolling out a full national bowel cancer screening programme. It has been reported that this is the first State-funded cancer screening programme to include men. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What has Waitemata District Health Board been doing to prepare for the pilot? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The district health board is setting up a dedicated endoscopy facility at Waitakere Hospital in west Auckland—another new facility there—to provide colonoscopies for people in the screening pilot who return a positive test result. It has also been working to reduce waiting times. The number of people in the district waiting for a colonoscopy was around 950 earlier this year; it is now down to 550 and it is on track to be around 200 by the end of the month. Ireland the member may be interested to know has recently announced a delay to the start of its bowel cancer screening programme because it did not have the capacity to deliver colonoscopies but the Waitemata District Health Board is very confident it will be able to deliver this long-awaited service.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 04 October 2011. Volume:676;Page:21630. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received on the level of recorded crime in New Zealand? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report that the rate of recorded crime dropped 7 percent per head of population in the fiscal year to 30 June. The rate of crime dropped in all police districts with the biggest falls in Canterbury Southern Tasman Central and Waitemata districts. I am also pleased to report that the murder rate is the lowest since fiscal-year reporting began in 1986. It is also good to see a drop in recorded family violence and acts intended to cause injury. The police are to be congratulated on the outstanding work they have been doing to make our communities safer. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What advice has she received on the reason for the fall in the rate of crime? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The continuing fall in the level of crime in New Zealand is very encouraging. It shows that crime can be brought under control when the police are backed by the Government and given the tools to get on with the job. It also reflects the strategies being implemented by the police under the Policing Excellence programme. A greater focus on prevention and initiatives such as neighbourhood policing teams are starting to make a real difference in our communities. Although the drop is encouraging it does not mean that we will be taking the pressure off criminals. This Government will continue to back the police in the excellent work they are doing. 
Rahui Katene 
: When will she recognise that crime in New Zealand will never drop to a satisfactory level as long as there is prejudice against Maori in the justice system; if she has already come to that realisation when can we expect the Maori Party’s justice policy of reviewing the justice system to happen? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: My focus is always on victims actually. I think it is important to recognise that although Maori are overrepresented in the crime statistics as offenders they are also overrepresented as victims. Frankly focusing on someone’s race is not going to make it any better. We have to bring down crime deal with offenders and in fact prevent victimisation.