edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Collins Judith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10911] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill deals with the main changes to the principal legislation. It involves not only the ACT Party’s “three strikes” policy on which it went into the last election but also the National Party’s policy of no parole for the worst repeat violent offenders. It has been a pleasure working with Mr Garrett and the ACT Party on this bill. The party has been very decent to work with and I thank it for that. 
Changes have been made to this bill through the deliberations of the Law and Order Committee which has been a long process over the last year. I thank the committee chair Sandra Goudie and all the committee members for the attention they gave to the bill. 
In particular some issues have been raised about rehabilitation—that perhaps we should just have more of it. I say that we do: we are doubling the amount of rehabilitation in our prisons. By the end of next year there will be double what there was when we took over as the Government. I do not agree at all that repeat violent offenders who create victims are themselves necessarily victims. At some stage in their lives those people must take responsibility for their actions. Will someone be old enough at 30 to take responsibility or will that person be old enough at 40? 
I think many of us feel that it is very important to have a system in place in our criminal justice system where people are given warnings about what will happen. I am very pleased with the assistance that has been given by judges and the judiciary and by Mr Garrett in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 123 which we are putting forward today which is about how we can make sure that the warning system works best not only for offenders but also for victims and for the criminal justice system. 
This bill is not about locking up people for stealing a loaf of bread; it is very much focused on our worst repeat violent offenders. When we talk about what we can do for them let us talk about what we can do for victims as well. One of the things we can do is keep the very worst people locked in secure environments so that they do not create more victims. I know that it is sometimes very painful for people to have to deal with the raw emotions of victims. I know that judges often find it very difficult to deal with victim impact statements and I know that many of us who have not been the victims of horrendous violent offences find it very difficult to deal with people who are so raw in their emotions. Frankly I think we are lucky to not be in that situation. My heart goes out to those people; I know that it is uncomfortable. But do members know what? We just have to accept it. It is their emotion; it is their life or the life of their family member that has been taken apart and they deserve to be treated with dignity. This bill will give back some dignity to them and to their families.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10911] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10944] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Schedule agreed to.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10927] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10942] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Locke Keith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10917] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 This is an interesting debate. Judith Collins said in her initial speech on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill that criminals have to take responsibility for their crimes. I think that is quite true. When we talk about whether criminals are also victims and about problems in their past we do not mean to say that criminals should not take responsibility for their crimes. But part of the process of stopping reoffending is to make them understand and internalise the horrible thing they have done to some other person if it is a violent offence and to society. That requires a whole process of rehabilitation. That is where there is a link between people taking responsibility for their crimes and the fact that they may be in part also victims. 
Clayton Cosgrove mentioned the case of someone who might be raped at age 5 and who goes on in later life at age 25 to be a sexual predator. Alternatively it is often the case in our prisons that there is a very high rate of illiteracy; a lot of prisoners have not for one reason or another learnt to read and speak very well and tend to fall back in society to not get proper jobs and to resolve matters with their fists rather than by discussion. Rehabilitation in prison often means linking to some degree the crime that they have committed with their past. We need to get them to understand that although they might feel that somehow they have some grievance and some justification for doing what they do they do not really have that justification and we can overcome their disadvantaged background together as part of the rehabilitation programme. David Garrett mentioned some programmes in relation to drug cases that seemed very good too so I am not saying that there is a complete division in this Chamber about how to go forward. 
I think another comment he made was true: the prisoner must want to be rehabilitated. There has to be some movement. But if we implement “three strikes” we are saying to prisoners that they are the enemy we will not give them any slack we are not really trying to understand them and they have no future. If we block off paths in the way that this plays out then we will not put people on the road to recovery. 
In respect of the amendment mentioned by the previous speaker Grant Robertson criminals need an incentive to plead guilty because that process in and of itself becomes a recognition that they have taken some responsibility for their crime and can begin the programme of rehabilitation in prison. If we incentivise the other way—for them to deny their criminality and to plead not guilty when they are clearly guilty—all we are doing is keeping them in prison for ever virtually at a huge cost to society and to everyone to the extent that when they do get out of prison they are more likely to reoffend and create other victims because they are anti-society and not rehabilitated. That is not a good solution.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10925] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 86C(4)(a) “unless the Court is satisfied that given the circumstances of the offence and the offender it would be manifestly unjust to make the order” after “serve the sentence without parole”.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10925] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 86A in provision (19) in the definition of  
serious violent offence 
 “excluding accidental or negligent manslaughters” after “(manslaughter)”.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10925] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 86A in the definitions of  
stage-1 offence 
  
stage-2 offence 
 and  
stage-3 offence 
 “resulting in a custodial sentence” after “(a) is a serious violent offence”.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10926] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 86D(2) “unless the Court is satisfied that given the circumstances of the offence and the offender it would be manifestly unjust to make the order”.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10926] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to add to section 86D the following new subsection: 
“(2A)Despite subsection (2) this section allows the court to reduce the sentence imposed by up to 25 percent to take into account the fact of a guilty plea.”
Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10917] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10925] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Collins Judith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10903] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to address some of the issues raised by the previous speakers as to the purpose of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. Quite clearly this Government is very serious about repeat violent offenders and making sure we have penalties that fit the fact that these people have continued to commit violent offences where there are victims. Every one of the 40 offences listed is a serious violent offence. Whether of a sexual or of a non-sexual nature they are all serious. The issue of manslaughter has been raised and whether accidental or negligent manslaughter could be excluded. I say there is a degree of negligence required to establish liability for manslaughter. It is one of the differences between manslaughter and murder and it is why there is a provision in terms of the sentencing that is in the bill as presented to the Committee now to differentiate manslaughter from murder. There are also opportunities in the charging of offenders in the third stage for any third strike. The police will be referring those matters to the Crown solicitor for a review of the charging so there is not an overcharge. Where there is a true negligence situation it will make sure that those people are not overly charged and therefore given a very long sentence. 
I have heard a lot about victims. Ninety-three percent of submitters to the Law and Order Committee supported the bill and many of those people were victims and victims’ families. On the argument that has been put this afternoon that offenders will not plead guilty and will plead not guilty instead I point out that offenders already plead not guilty for a lot of serious offences. On that argument we would be forced to reduce the penalty for sexual violation from the 20 years it is now; I am not proposing that and I do not believe that anybody in this Parliament really believes that that would lead to more people admitting their guilt. 
This has a deterrent effect although it has been stated previously that the Department of Corrections was quoted as saying there was no deterrent effect. Well no the papers referred to the fact that when the Department of Corrections did its calculations on the number of extra beds it would need for prisons it had not taken into account any deterrent effect and that is because it has to work off what it knows. What we are talking about here are our worst recidivist violent offenders and an extra 50 beds in 5 years’ time or about that number. Those are the sorts of numbers we are talking about. We are not talking about the run-of-the-mill silly criminal. We are talking about very serious violent offenders who will not learn and will always create victims. That is what is important and that is what this bill is meant to address.
Goodhew Jo: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10920] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Power Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10900] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill provides for the transition from the old to the new and sets out how the existing Chief Electoral Office and the existing Electoral Commission become the new integrated Electoral Commission. Part 2 enables the new Electoral Commission to be established immediately after the bill comes into force so that it can—as the honourable member Jim Anderton was concerned about—immediately prepare itself to receive the electoral functions required. At the close of 30 September 2010 the bill disestablishes the existing Electoral Commission and revokes the appointments of the current Electoral Commissioners and the current Chief Electoral Officer. Employees of the current electoral agencies will be transferred if they agree across to the new Electoral Commission. These employees are also assured as far as possible of continued enjoyment of their current terms and conditions—their service will be deemed to be unbroken. Other mechanisms provide for the assets liabilities rights and responsibilities of the current electoral agencies to be transferred over to the new Electoral Commission on 1 October of this year. Part 2 also amends the Electoral Act 1993 and other relevant electoral legislation and regulations to make the technical and consequential amendments necessary to implement the policy of integrating the electoral agencies.
Goodhew Jo: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10911] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Power Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10899] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will address very quickly just two or three of the matters that have been raised. I assure the member who has just resumed his seat David Parker that I welcome any constructive discussion on these issues through the next 4 to 5 months. Give and take operates on both sides of the yin and yang so I look forward to continuing discussions as we try to work our way through what will not be straightforward as we beaver through these electoral finance laws. 
In respect of the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s comments on resourcing and the information campaigns that the Electoral Commission will need to oversee I am confident that there will be vigilance on that matter and I am confident that the commission will have the necessary resources and time frames to ensure that vigilance. 
In respect of the comments that the Hon Jim Anderton raised on time pressures around getting education campaigns moving I guess the only advice I can offer the honourable member is that the sooner we get through the Committee stage and the third reading debate the sooner the commission can get on with the task at hand. 
Lastly a number of members have raised the issue of encouraging the Standing Orders Committee to develop a procedure to apply for the appointment of members of the board of the Electoral Commission and for that matter of other similar bodies. The Government has no difficulty at all in that course of action being followed. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Upston Louise: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Upston Louise: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:10893] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand as the final speaker in the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. Education is my top personal priority. For this National Government lifting achievement in schools and building opportunities for every young New Zealander is vital to growing our nation. There are a couple of ways in which this bill does that. Firstly it is focusing our funding on the front line reducing red tape and lifting achievement. Kelvin Davis the member who spoke before me did not think that children’s safety in schools is a priority. I think that if a child is unsafe at school because of a contractor not having had a police vet it is a major barrier to that child’s learning. I will not stand here and tolerate unsafe school environments. 
This bill is about improving efficiency in the schooling system reducing compliance costs for schools and early childhood education centres and improving the quality and effectiveness of education legislation. Labour Opposition members have talked at length about what they would have liked to see in the bill. Well this is a Government bill. This is not the Labour Opposition’s bill. That is why we have talked about what we believe is important: putting the focus on the front line which is students and their learning and reducing red tape. 
Unfortunately one Opposition member in particular filibustered for quite some time in the bill’s second reading. He went on and on about the changes that he would have liked to see happen but two former Ministers of Education in his Government did not make these changes happen. Well I place priority on children’s safety whether it is in a school environment or in a home-based early childhood education centre which this law also extends protection to. That is why without any unnecessary delay I am thrilled to support this bill. This Government understands the importance of education and makes it a priority. Thank you.
Roy Eric: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10907] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove I just remind members that we are on clause 3 “Purpose”. I am not getting at anyone in particular but I think we have progressed slightly to quite a broad debate and I wish to not have it extend any further because there are only two paragraphs in the purpose clause. Members should just have a look at them. There will be ample opportunity as we progress through Part 1 etc. to get into the broader parameters of what this bill is about. This is just a wee heads-up. Thank you.
Dalziel Lianne: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10900] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will not take a lengthy call on Part 2; it is the machinery to bring into effect the new Electoral Commission. But I thought I would not let the opportunity go by to comment on clause 26 “Restriction of compensation for technical redundancy”. It identifies that when somebody moves into the new Electoral Commission from one of the existing agencies—the ministry or the existing commission—he or she has substantially equivalent employment which means substantially the same position and on terms of conditions that are no less favourable than those applying immediately before on terms that treat the period of service with the previous employer and any other service recognised by the previous employer as continuous service—sorry I left out that bit before—including any service-related redundancy and superannuation conditions. 
The point I make is that there is a whole stack of people out there in the private sector who get no redundancy when they are made redundant and this House had a really good opportunity recently to pick up my colleague Darien Fenton’s member’s bill which would have provided for at least some minimum redundancy to apply. I think what we see reflected here is that the Government is appropriately concerned about technical redundancy being picked up in an area where there are widespread redundancy provisions designed to protect people should they be made redundant from their position and not be able to take up substantially the same position on ongoing conditions that recognise all of their previous continuous service and that continuous service lasting. But that is not so for the private sector—in very few instances now do we see it. It is really only those areas where there are well-organised unionised workplaces that have built redundancy provisions into their conditions of employment. 
I will say one other thing because it is important. I would like the Government to reflect on this: in other parts of the State sector there is a practice being developed in order to get around those redundancy provisions which are quite widespread within the public sector. There is a practice of trying to develop short-term fixed-term contracts and then enticing people to resign their existing position when they are being made redundant and putting them into a fixed-term contract. That would not stand up in a court of law. It would obviously be challenged. But a lot of people are feeling quite vulnerable and want to maintain some income—facing alternatively redundancy and not knowing whether they will be able to pick up another job. I thought that it was an ideal opportunity to simply mention that this is going on. I hope that the Government will do something about it next time it has an opportunity. I acknowledge my good friend Darien Fenton for the good work she attempted to do in this area. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Power Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10894] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 1 establishes a new Electoral Commission to undertake electoral administration in New Zealand. The new commission is to be an independent Crown entity. This part also provides for the appointment and removal of the three governing Electoral Commissioners which will be done by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House. 
Part 1 sets out the core functions and powers of the Electoral Commission which will enable it to independently and effectively administer our electoral system. It also sets out the commission’s statutory duty of independence and its objective to administer the electoral system impartially effectively efficiently and in a way that maintains confidence in the administration of the system. The Electoral Commission will have a statutory duty of independence. It will be able to advise the Minister of Justice or the House at the request of either or at the commission’s own volition. 
The appointment of Electoral Commissioners will be done via the House thereby creating an additional incentive for the Minister of Justice to seek consensus across the House in support of the appointment motion—in a way that is similar I guess to the appointment of members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee. The Justice and Electoral Committee specifically considered what form the new entity should take and particularly whether it should be established as an Officer of Parliament. The committee concluded that the electoral agency did not have the defining characteristic of an Officer of Parliament which is to scrutinise the executive. Instead it would be responsible for delivering impartial and transparent elections in accordance with the law. 
Establishing the electoral agency as an Officer of Parliament could also have a potentially adverse effect on the role of the Speaker who could end up being given political responsibility for its performance. Officers of Parliament are also limited in their ability to be involved in the policy development process as they are divorced from the executive branch. The independent Crown entity model proposed under this part of the bill ensures that the new Electoral Commission will be independent and will also have a direct relationship with this House. Submissions on the bill focused on the need for both. We will all be able to hold confidence in the Electoral Commission established under this bill.
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:10894] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10888] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is one point of order back from that attempt. We had an assurance earlier that Dr Nick Smith was not involved in regulatory matters. We have just had it from the Minister of Finance that he is involved in regulatory matters— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —to do with the environment— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. I take a very dim view of that point of order because the member knows it is nothing to do with the order of the House at all. An experienced member would know that and I do not want this trifling with the House to carry on.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10887] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 In reference to an earlier question I seek leave to table excerpts from a report from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) that dealt with the questions raised by Annette King in respect of—[ 
Interruption 
] I seek leave to table excerpts of the report from ACC that deal with the issue of a statement by the College of Psychiatrists and General Practitioners that was provided to me in October 2009.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10887] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a press release in which the Minister for the Environment announced Government policy that doubled the fines for people who have minor breaches of consents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the date of the press release? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not have the date. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have made a pretty longstanding ruling of not allowing the seeking of leave to table press releases. I did make an exception to that today where there was a matter of direct controversy across the House but I do not want to go back to a situation where press releases are tabled.
King Colin: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
King Colin: Education Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:10890] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak during the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. The education system in the 21st century certainly needs to be dynamic and flexible and the bill will go some way to ensuring that it will be through these changes. The bill itself does that in a number of ways. Firstly it adapts the police-vetting system to require vetting of the non-teaching staff employed at schools who may have unsupervised access to children during school hours. Secondly the bill introduces information sharing between the Ministry of Education and the Teachers Council which will finally close off a loophole for unregistered teachers. 
With regard to the police vetting of non-teaching staff the legislation also makes mandatory the police vetting of anyone 17 years or over in a home-schooling situation. In fact those requirements for police vetting will apply to early childhood education centres primary schools intermediate schools and secondary schools. Additionally those police vets will be required to be initiated by the management team or board of trustees depending on the school type and will be required to be conducted within 4 weeks of this bill becoming law. After that in any future case they will be required no later than 2 weeks after non-teaching staff likely to have unsupervised access to children start work. 
This Government takes education seriously and in doing so has set educational achievement as our children’s No. 1 priority and as the No. 1 priority for the country. That being the case we recognise the importance of a first-class education system and first-class conditions for our children and our teaching staff. In conclusion I make the point that such a priority really does highlight the importance of a policy such as national standards to improve our children’s education literacy and numeracy. It is important that we place that as a touchstone for the quality of our education. Education is a powerful force; it transforms people’s lives for the greater good. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10884] 
9. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What actions has the Government taken to improve business research and development? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Last week the Prime Minister announced a $321 million package of spending on research science and technology. Of that funding $234 million is for the business sector; it will boost research-intensive firms and provide new opportunities for smaller firms through a voucher scheme. It will also lead to better linkages between Crown research institutes universities and businesses. It will also provide postdoctoral fellowships bring in international talent and provide research infrastructure. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the Government’s research and development initiatives announced last week? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I have seen many positive reports on the Government’s science package. Business New Zealand praised the initiative stating that “the potential for high-tech manufacturing and services in New Zealand would be boosted.” NZBio said the initiatives were “positive and practical steps”. And the Royal Society said the announcements were “hugely empowering for scientists”. Even the Green Party said it was “a step in the right direction”. 
David Shearer 
: Given that Australia’s 25 percent increase in research and development spending and its 40 percent tax credit for innovative companies are much greater than the Minister’s announcement how does he expect we will be able to catch Australia particularly when his announced funding is half of what Labour already had in place? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Labour’s package meant that New Zealand had to go into a huge deficit and every week has to borrow $250 million. The National Government’s package is targeted is focused on research and development firms and frankly will be more effective. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What has the Government done to support small businesses? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Government has increased the level of support for small businesses. For instance we have the voucher scheme. But in addition to that we already have the existing TechNZ system which is worth $55 million a year. Many many small businesses have found it hugely helpful to their growth. 
David Shearer 
: Given that he has cut $96 million from current research science and technology spending on other areas which areas of science and innovation does he consider do not require funding? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There has been some reprioritisation; the details of course will be in the Budget. That is because this Government is focused on economic growth. The tradable sector under the previous Government had been flat since 2005. This Government was elected to turn that round.
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10883] 
8. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements on health? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes including the statement that one of the major reasons that individual district health boards are looking carefully at their service priorities is that the previous Government set them on a track to delivering towards $200 million of unfunded services. This Government has delivered record levels of funding and front-line services. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What does he say to Henry an 84-year-old Invercargill man whose issue of home support cuts has already been raised in this House—but nothing was done about it by the Minister—and who was subsequently admitted unconscious to Invercargill hospital as a result of overexertion and not eating properly an incident that makes a mockery of the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that older people are safe and well despite his home support cuts? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would have to receive full information from the member on that case; then I would look into it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When he told a conference in February of this year that Vote Health would not get an increase of the size it got last year why did he not tell the conference that this year’s health budget will not allow existing health services to even stand still—and that is before any GST increase is taken into account? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Of course one would have to wait until the Budget is tabled on Thursday. But I note that the member opposite has predicted that district health boards will get $330 million. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has he seen on improving front-line services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Just last week I saw a couple of reports on improving front-line cancer treatment services in New Zealand. I had the privilege of attending the opening of the new brachytherapy bunker at Wellington Hospital and announcing the approval of funding for a replacement linear accelerator machine. Later in the same week I was at Christchurch Hospital to mark the opening of its new linear accelerator. Both of these events are part of the Government’s drive to have every patient commencing radiation cancer treatment within 6 weeks a goal that we are committed to reducing further to 4 weeks. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When he said that the cancellation of one shift of the current 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week district nursing service in the MidCentral District Health Board region would not see a reduction in nursing cover what did he mean? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What I was talking about was that the relevant district health board is ensuring that arrangements are in place to deal with that issue and that includes providing services to patients. With the MidCentral District Health Board we are providing more elective surgery faster cancer treatment and good emergency department waiting-times.
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10881] 
5. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding providing financial assistance to owners of leaky homes? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government announced its financial assistance package to help people get their leaky homes fixed faster. The package will see the Government contribute 25 percent to homeowners’ agreed repair costs. Upon receipt of work done local authorities will contribute 25 percent with the homeowners funding the remaining 50 percent backed by a Government-guaranteed loan. The package is expected to cost the Government around $1 billion over 5 years. It will help the many thousands of New Zealanders and their families who are stuck living in leaking damp and mouldy homes that are rotting around them. We want to see more homeowners get their homes fixed faster so that they can move on with their lives. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: When will the financial assistance package be available for owners of leaky homes? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: There are a lot of complex details that need to be worked through with the parties involved such as the banks and local authorities but the Government aims to have the entire financial assistance package up and running fully early next year. In the meantime affected homeowners can apply to the Department of Building and Housing to make a weathertightness claim. If their claim is accepted then the clock will stop running on the 10-year limitation of claims at the date on which their application was received. If I may I will make a plug and say that www.dbh.govt.nz is the website and 0800 116 926 is the phone number if anybody is interested in any further information. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Why has the Government not extended the 10-year liability limit? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The 10-year liability limit is well established in law. It puts a necessary boundary around claims. The issue is that with the more time that passes the harder it is to identify the cause of damage to a house—what is normal wear and tear and normal depreciation and what is damage done by the egress of water. This package announced by the Government will be a financial lifeline to the estimated 23500 eligible households and it will help them get their homes fixed faster.
Norman Russel William: Motions — Department of Corrections—Death of Corrections Officer Jason Palmer 
Norman Russel William: Motions — Department of Corrections—Death of Corrections Officer Jason Palmer 
[Volume:663;Page:10870] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I add our heartfelt sympathies and condolences to the family and friends of Jason Palmer. Losing a loved one is devastating especially when it means losing someone so young with a family and children who needed him. The tragic circumstance of this death can only make it harder. Our thoughts are with the family now. 
We in the Greens offer our gratitude to New Zealand’s hard-working corrections officers for the difficult and important job that they do in an increasingly dangerous environment. We know that they will be suffering deeply from the loss of a colleague. We offer them our condolences and support at this terrible time. We hope that everything possible will be done to stop any further tragedies like this one from happening again. We send a tribute to Jason Palmer and his family. We acknowledge him and his work. On behalf of the Green Party I thank all corrections officers for the hard and difficult job that they do.
Collins Judith: Motions — Department of Corrections—Death of Corrections Officer Jason Palmer 
Collins Judith: Motions — Department of Corrections—Death of Corrections Officer Jason Palmer 
[Volume:663;Page:10869] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
:  
I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the recent death of corrections officer Jason Palmer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I move  
That this House express its deep sympathy and condolences to the wife family friends and colleagues of Spring Hill Corrections Officer Jason Palmer who died on Sunday as a result of an assault by a prisoner. 
 This assault happened on Saturday as Jason and two colleagues were unlocking the prisoner. The prisoner punched Jason in the face and he fell hitting the concrete floor. Jason was taken to hospital but the consequences of the assault were ultimately fatal and on Sunday Jason’s life support was turned off. 
Jason started working at the prison in November last year having previously served as a marine in the United States. Jason was held in high regard by his fellow officers. He was known as an ambitious officer who was keen to learn. Jason was considered by his colleagues to have a high level of personal integrity and had a reputation for being firm but fair with the prisoners whom he managed. The work that corrections staff do on behalf of all of us is critical to public safety. However the work by virtue of its nature can sometimes be dangerous and Jason’s death is a grim reminder of the risks that corrections staff face every day as they fulfil their duties. Our thoughts now go out to his wife Tracy their two young children Abbey and Riley and the rest of Jason’s family as they deal with their devastating loss. Once again I would like to sincerely express the House’s sorrow and extend our deepest condolences to Jason’s family friends and colleagues.
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10880] 
4. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: He aha nga reta aha atu ranei mai i a Tuwharetoa Taranaki Whanganui Ngai Tahu kua whiwhi i a ia e mea ana ko te awhero a nga iwi nei kia rite ano te hua o o ratou whiriwhiringa whakataunga mo te Tiriti pena i whakaae te Kawanatanga ki te tuku i te tino rangatiratanga katoa o Te Urewera ki a Ngai Tuhoe? 
[ 
What correspondence if any has he received from Tuwharetoa Taranaki Whanganui and Ngai Tahu to suggest that these iwi would have expected the same outcome in their Treaty negotiations settlement had the Government agreed to fully vest the park in Tuhoe ownership? 
] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I have not received correspondence from those iwi but I meet with iwi on a regular basis and some iwi have raised informally these issues with me. I expect these issues will be raised more formally by some iwi as Treaty negotiations progress. 
Hone Harawira 
: Is it not true when the Prime Minister says he is concerned about the return of Te Urewera setting precedents that such precedents have in fact already been established in Treaty settlements to date such as the top-up clauses that apply in the Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements; and how does the Government intend to address this new policy direction on how to deal with settlements? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government does not have a new policy direction on precedent. 
Hone Harawira 
: Is the Minister aware that the Crown Law Office Treasury and the Department of Conservation had already worked through all of the legal issues in respect of the Tuhoe settlement; if so can he please tell the House what was the additional information about the impact on settlements that caused the abrupt cancellation of the Tuhoe deal at the last minute? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why does the Minister think that misleading and mocking Tuhoe is evidence of Crown good-faith claims negotiations? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No Minister has adopted that attitude at all. Negotiations have been conducted over a substantial period and in good faith with Tuhoe. This Government remains very keen to secure a just and a durable settlement with that tribe.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10874] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Might it assist the House if I were to put the second part of that leave motion again separately for the House’s consideration? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may do that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I again seek leave for the House in order to save time now that we have tabled the answers the Minister was about to give to move directly to question No. 3. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. I call question No. 2 Craig Foss. [ 
Interruption 
] I have called Craig Foss and I would ask this— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Thanks Gerry; thanks mate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Hon David Cunliffe realises his crime there and will not do it again.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10874] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Leave was granted in order that the House may save some time. So we can move on to question No. 3. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is leave sought to move to question No. 3? [ 
Interruption 
] Unfortunately I put to the House the request for leave for the documents to be tabled; I had not heard that the member had included in that course of action that the House should move to question No. 3.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10874] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to save the House’s time by tabling the supplementary questions and answers for question No. 2. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can seek leave for all sorts of courses of action but I am not sure how that one is possible. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have been gifted the questions and the Minister’s answers in advance— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK the member has made it clear. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith that when the Speaker is on his feet there will be no further interjection. The House is being very unruly. A member has sought leave to table certain documents. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. Question No. 2. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.