edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15162] 
7. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What priority is being placed on the provision of alcohol and drug addiction treatment in New Zealand prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that I have just recently opened another drug treatment unit for prisoners. The new unit at Auckland prison is the first of its kind in the Greater Auckland area. It brings to eight the number of treatment centres operated by the Department of Corrections. There are now more prisoners receiving drug and alcohol rehabilitation in our prisons than ever before and we are going to increase this number further. By 2011 we will achieve our goal of doubling the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment in any year from 500 to 1000. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why is the Government placing such a high priority on increasing drug and alcohol treatment for prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is because drug and alcohol addictions are major drivers of crime in New Zealand. About two-thirds of prisoners enter our jails with drug and alcohol problems. If we want to reduce the number of people behind bars it is crucial that we break the cycle of drugs and alcohol offending. Drug treatment units are very effective in doing this and the programmes run by the Department of Corrections are producing excellent results. Recent analysis has shown that they can reduce reoffending by up to one-third and we plan to open a further treatment unit in Whanganui next year.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15151] 
1. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister but it would be helpful if the House allowed the Minister to say one word before just a barrage of interjections. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am pleased the House is so enthusiastic about the 3-monthly accounts. The accounts show that the impact of the Canterbury earthquake and lower-than-expected tax revenue contributed to a $3.7 billion operating deficit which is about $2.2 billion higher than forecast. The lower tax take was due to largely subdued consumer spending as New Zealanders paid down debt and saved more. This in turn led to lower business profits which impacted on corporate tax revenue. Although Treasury expects some of the lower tax take to reverse in coming months the accounts reinforce the need for ongoing fiscal discipline. 
David Bennett 
: What steps is the Government taking to manage its finances responsibly? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is taking many positive steps. In the past 2 years the Government has identified around $4 billion of low priority spending and redirected it from back-office bureaucracy to better front-line services. We have also committed to capping future new Budget spending at $1.1 billion. In some ways though restraint in the public sector is only just starting. The Government has set itself the task of getting back to surplus which will take 4 or 5 years of disciplined spending constraint. 
David Bennett 
: How does the Government’s approach to managing its finances compare with approaches in other countries? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would describe the Government’s approach as moderate and balanced. A number of other deficit countries like us have taken a more aggressive approach to spending cuts. The UK is looking at cuts of up to 20 percent in departmental expenditure. I am advised that in France the Government is in the process of sacking 45000 teachers. However in New Zealand we have focused on longer-term change. We have been willing to run significant deficits as the economy gets on its feet but over the next 4 or 5 years there will need to be strong spending constraint. 
David Bennett 
: What kinds of policies would put New Zealand’s return to budget surplus at significant risk and burden hard-working New Zealanders with more debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any policy that either allows wasteful and inefficient spending to continue or proposes more wasteful spending—such as a GST exemption on fruit and vegetables or Labour’s persistent call to keep the Wellington bureaucracy growing as fast as it was under the previous Labour Government—would be reckless.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:668;Page:15234] 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Given that the House has made progress and in order for the next member speaking to complete her speech all in one hit so to speak I seek leave for the House to now rise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Goodhew Jo: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15184] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15164] 
9. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What trends are there in New Zealand’s international education industry? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The number of international students enrolled to study in New Zealand is continuing to increase. The latest enrolment figures show a nearly 5 percent increase in numbers for the first 8 months of this year. This increase comes on top of an increase of 6 percent for 2009. International education contributes at least $2.1 billion to our economy and supports about 32000 jobs so it is very pleasing to see the sector continuing to grow despite strong competition from Australia and other countries. 
Allan Peachey 
: What more can be done to improve the industry’s contribution to New Zealand’s economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government of course is already investing additional funds in marketing international education with an additional $2 million in the Budget last year and again this year. The Government is confident that New Zealand has an excellent education system and the Government— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There was a massive cut the year before. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: If there was a massive cut the year before it was when Mr Mallard was in Government in 2008. I think that is called an own goal.
Bridges Simon: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15061] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2)—we can put it bluntly I think—is the result of a cock-up. Although the previous Labour Government made it National voted for it so let us all accept that and not sugar-coat it. 
I will not go through what the bill does; it has been very well explained by Minister Wilkinson and Charles Chauvel. Effectively I want to make the point that in correcting something that has happened we are acting retrospectively to take away the right I suppose we can say to have a jury trial. No injustice at all has been done in that act because common sense would suggest that the persons involved have done minor offences—theft and the like at a very minor level. They are summary offences and they should be summary offences but through the mistake we made they were indictable offences under the old law which we are amending. 
We are acting as I said retrospectively. A number of academic lawyers would take issue with that. There will be some hand-wringing about it. But in this very short call I suggest that the hand-wringing over retrospective legislation by academic lawyers is sometimes overdone. Some might say—and I do not necessarily say this—that it is because they see it as a problem with parliamentary sovereignty. They say it should be rule by lawyers—not necessarily rule by law—rather than as we are in this Parliament because we are democratically elected ruled by the people. 
I say to this House that we are sovereign. Parliament is able to in appropriate circumstances retrospectively enact law that corrects things. Sometimes in a technical sense at least it does away with rights although with this bill it is a common-sense thing to do. We should not shy away from that. We should of course take care and we should not do it unnecessarily but there are appropriate instances—and this is such an instance—when we need to act retrospectively. We should not and academic lawyers should not conflate the “never act retrospectively” with the “take care when acting retrospectively” in this Parliament. It is a right that we have that we should jealously guard. 
As I said the changes we are making with this bill are the right thing to do morally politically and legally. We are talking about minor crimes that never should have come with a right to jury trial. We fix that cock-up today.
Delahunty Catherine: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Delahunty Catherine: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15065] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I will take a brief final call. The Greens the only party that is abstaining from voting on the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) echo many of the comments that we have heard. I am a new MP and I am not a lawyer but omnibus bills seem to me to be particularly problematic in terms of consistency. The issues are all over the place often in terms of people recognising the consequences of the provisions. We as legislators have to recognise that not only do we have to write fair law but also it has to be seen to be fair. So when we do make mistakes owning those mistakes and recognising who bears the consequences of them is a very important part of what we are here to do. Although the two major parties may have supported each other on the previous legislation we certainly did not. We are also very committed to being consistent. We agree with the need to tidy up and rectify the legislation but we do need to abstain from voting in this instance out of consistency a commitment to fairness and the desire to be seen by the public to be fair. Thank you very much.
Wilkinson Kate: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15064] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. As the House has heard this bill addresses a misclassification of some minor property offences by adding them to schedule 1 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. It also validates the proceedings that have occurred without jurisdiction because of the misclassification. 
The misclassification was identified in a recent District Court case. An amendment to the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 that came into force in June 2008 had intended to make some minor property offences purely summary offences which are heard by a judge alone. The 2008 amendments aimed to do this by excluding them from schedule 1 of the Act. In fact it had the opposite effect making them purely indictable offences that should be tried before a jury. This misclassification should be rectified as quickly as possible to minimise its impact on our court system. It is not desirable to leave it to be dealt with by the courts as a matter of statutory interpretation. Leaving the question to be resolved by way of appeals would be a lengthy and costly process that would create uncertainty for the other 46000 cases. Further if it was ultimately found that these cases should be tried before a jury the costs associated with holding jury hearings for those minor offences would be a significant strain on our courts’ limited resources. 
This technical error does not undermine the fairness or the appropriateness of any convictions. It is appropriate that low-level offences of this nature be dealt with summarily. There are two steps involved in rectifying this issue. Firstly this bill will stop any more proceedings occurring without jurisdiction by adding the relevant sections of the Crimes Act to schedule 1 of the Summary Proceedings Act. Secondly this bill will validate any proceedings that have already occurred. 
In the longer term the proposed Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill will abolish the terms “summary” and “indictable” along with the overly complex system of offence classification. The Summary Proceedings Act 1957 will largely be replaced to make court processes clearer and more efficient improving access to justice for court users and promoting public confidence in the system. That bill is due to be introduced before the end of the year. 
I close by acknowledging the cooperation we have had from members of the House in dealing with this matter expeditiously. I commend this bill to the House.
Hughes Darren: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15063] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I have made a mistake. I seek leave to correct that mistake. I should have cast a lower number than I did for Labour. So I seek leave to correct the vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought to correct the vote. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: It should have been 30 Labour votes in favour of the first and second readings and during the Committee stage. I incorrectly cast a higher number and for that I offer a fulsome apology this hour. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The apology is accepted and the record will be corrected.
Vote: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15063] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 94 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 30; ACT New Zealand 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 7 
Green Party 7. 
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 99 Abstentions 7.
Vote: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15063] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 94 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 30; ACT New Zealand 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 7 
Green Party 7. 
Bill read a second time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 99 Abstentions 7.
Wilkinson Kate: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15062] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
.
Vote: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15062] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 94 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 30; ACT New Zealand 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 7 
Green Party 7. 
Bill read a first time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 99 Abstentions 7.
Roy Heather: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Heather: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15062] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2). The ACT Party will be supporting this bill as I think most other parties are except for the Greens who have just announced their abstention. It makes good sense of course to proceed with this rectification of a mistake that was made. Without wanting to apportion blame I think the best thing we can do is learn a lesson from this. The ACT Party puts a lot of store on regulatory responsibility. In fact we have measures in the confidence and supply agreement with National in that regard. Regulatory responsibility is something that each and every one of us in this House should take very seriously. There are some very basic questions that we should always ask ourselves I believe when we write legislation. They are questions such as what the intent is of this legislation what exactly it is set to achieve; what the costs will be both financial costs and societal costs; and most important some thought should certainly be given to what the unintended consequences could be looking forward. There are some lessons for us particularly in light of this legislation. We should be mindful of that when we put things forward in this House when we do our work at select committees and when we debate in this Chamber. We are happy to pass this bill under urgency today. It certainly is an issue that I think warrants urgency. It is not often that we in the ACT Party say that. 
The previous National speaker Simon Bridges also talked about the rights and wrongs of retrospective legislation. As a rule we in the ACT Party are opposed to retrospective legislation. Since I have been in this House since 2002 there have been a number of occasions when we have very vigorously opposed retrospective legislation. But in this case I agree with Simon Bridges when he says that occasionally there is an issue that warrants retrospective legislation being put in place. I agree with him that this is one such case. With those things in mind the ACT Party supports this legislation but we remind each and every one of our colleagues sitting in this House that regulatory responsibility certainly is something we should take very seriously. Thank you.
Borrows Chester: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15061] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of this administrative procedure to undo a mistake that was made just a few years ago. It is the sort of thing that can happen in any parliamentary system where we as parliamentarians receive advice and act accordingly in wanting to simplify processes and sometimes the reverse occurs. So we are here today in urgency to put that matter right with the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2). When that occurs in other contexts in respect of other bills that may have been brought to the House by esteemed members like Mr Paul Quinn legislation can get bashed around by members on the other side of the House but it is good to be here on an occasion when both sides of the House are able to understand that mistakes happen even in the most perfect of systems under the most ideal of Governments—little glitches and things occur that sometimes have to be fixed up. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: How can a perfect system throw up that though? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Let us face it. It threw up a number of unusual beings on the other side of the House so we will be— 
Hon Member 
: Steady on! 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Slap for slap. We are all here of one accord today. I am sure those listening and those watching from the gallery will be very pleased to see it happen. Thank you.
Chauvel Charles: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15060] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to associate Labour members with what the Minister Kate Wilkinson said in her first reading speech on the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2). It is the case at the moment that the way in which a criminal charge proceeds in New Zealand depends on how information is laid. There are two choices. As we heard from the Minister there is the summary jurisdiction where the case is heard by a judge alone or the indictable jurisdiction where a jury trial is required. As the Minister said that distinction which has long been maintained in New Zealand law is due to end when the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill comes before the House. In principle the idea of ending the distinction is one that I understand has the support of a number of parties; certainly Labour supports the idea of ending what is essentially now an archaic distinction. 
In respect of the mistake that Parliament will correct by passing this legislation as we heard the Minister explain there was an attempt to amend the Summary Proceedings Act—an attempt that came into force in June 2008—to exclude three offences from schedule 1 of the Act. The intention of Parliament was that that would result in those offences being able to be proceeded against summarily. But in fact it is quite apparent from a case decided by the District Court in Hamilton in June that the opposite effect was achieved to that which Parliament intended. As we have been reminded that does not mean in respect of the 46000 potentially ultra vires proceedings since 2008 that some unfair substantive result has occurred; it is simply an issue of having adopted the wrong procedure by which those offences had been tried. 
It is important to point out that there are two parts to the bill. First of all Parliament intends to remedy the problem and stop any more ultra vires proceedings occurring. Obviously that is appropriate given the error that has been identified here. Secondly all proceedings that have already occurred will be validated. There is an important aspect to that. If there has been a challenge to the way in which a prosecution has been brought then this bill will also preserve the right of a person to continue to bring that challenge. So no rule-of-law principles are offended. This is a classic example of how Parliament ought to rectify a mistake. It will have the support of members on this side of the House and I commend the amending legislation to the House.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15058] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Film Production) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15065] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my privilege to contribute to the third reading of the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill fixes an anomaly in a 2008 amendment to the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and ensures that only offences that are punishable by more than 3 months’ imprisonment are eligible for jury trial. 
I agree with Charles Chauvel that there are many mistakes in legislation that need be fixed. In the debate on my first member’s bill the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill I mentioned that many statutory bills are not used for many years. I had a few meetings with the Attorney-General and hopefully he will look into those bills that have not been used for many years and we will fix that in the coming time. I commend this bill to the House.
Cunliffe David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15052] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 106 “Misrepresentation” although it is not possible to interrupt another member’s speech to explain a misunderstanding or misrepresentation following the conclusion of the speech a member may clarify a point. Certainly it is a complete misrepresentation to say that Labour did not want to see  
The Hobbit 
 filmed in New Zealand. Labour speakers have successively made that point patently clear and it would have been Labour’s policy to have the films made here. However we not have used the craven means used by the Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member may raise that as a point of order but if he wants to make a point then it should be succinct and pithy; the member was starting to expand on it to make it a speech. But the point was well made.
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
Goodhew Jo: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:668;Page:15059] 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Now that we have made such good progress and have finished that bill I wonder whether it might be in order that I seek leave of the House for us to go to the lunch break and to resume after that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to go to the lunch break now and resume at 2 o’clock. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Delahunty Catherine: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Delahunty Catherine: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15062] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party did not support the 2008 Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill the flaws of which this current bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) is intended to rectify. We believe in taking care. The relevant Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill was part of the omnibus Criminal Procedure Bill which the Green Party opposed as deeply problematic and flawed legislation. As we opposed the primary legislation that this bill amends the Green Party will be abstaining from voting on the current bill.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15025] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Chauvel Charles: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15063] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 For all the reasons that I referred to in my speech on the previous reading of the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) I commend the bill to the House.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:15041] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No and that is right. The urgency motion allows for the introduction of Government bills as they come up. My understanding is that the bill has been with Opposition parties since the middle of the week. Copies are available. When we are procedurally able to do so they will be tabled.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:15041] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It does not relate to the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I want to check with the Government that it is still its intention to proceed with another bill after this legislation. I note that that bill is not yet on the Table. I wonder whether that situation will be rectified by the Government.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15041] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15041] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15039] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Following some discussions with the Leader of the House I seek the leave of the House for us to consider new clauses 5 to 9 as one question with one vote. The reason for doing that is they are a logical group and they stand or fall together. It is likely that if clause 5 fails they will all be knocked over anyway. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15038] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15038] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit “an” from new subsection (1A) in subclause (2) and substitute “a written”; and 
to omit from paragraph (a)(v) of the definition of  
film production work 
 in subclause (3) “subparagraph (i)” and substitute “subparagraphs (i) to (iv)”.
Tremain Chris: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15017] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15038] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(5)This section expires on the close of 8 November 2010.
Quinn Paul: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Quinn Paul: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15063] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I will take only a short call I promise. I just wanted to make a few remarks. The first is that I was always taught a little saying: “What goes around comes around”. The second little ditty was “Good things come to those who wait”. 
We have heard a lot about bad drafting of legislation of recent times. So let this be a salutary lesson to all of us that we can all make mistakes. In the spirit of cooperation and camaraderie and in friendship I have great pleasure in supporting the second reading of the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2).
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15025] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I will make a couple of comments and I will draw the Committee’s attention to a couple of minor tidying-up amendments in my name. The first amendment clarifies that the employment agreement is to be in writing. I thank the honourable member Mr Chauvel for pointing that out. Although it is not really necessary I am happy to move that amendment to make it crystal clear and to appease his concerns that employment agreements have to be in writing. The second amendment is technical and minor. It provides for example for producers and directors who may also be involved in promotional and advertising work. 
I have just a couple of comments on clause 4 because this is the substance of the bill. I will make a couple of comments on some of the questions that have been proposed in previous debates. There has been a suggestion that Warner Bros was consulted on labour laws. To clarify if there is a law that needs clarity if there is a law that needs certainty or if there is a law that needs fixing then I do not really mind who talks to me about it. I do not think that is a loss of sovereignty; I think that is called listening. But what I do think is a threat to our sovereignty is international foreign unions attempting to dictate to us what happens in our country. At the end of the day New Zealanders do not want international unions jeopardising our jobs and they do not want international foreign unions threatening our economy. 
This bill and clause 4 in particular is very simple. If someone involved in the film industry wants to be an independent contractor then he or she can be. If that person wants to be an employee then he or she can be. It is as straightforward as that.
Calder Cam: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Calder Cam: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15025] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15052] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 We are coming to the end of the debate on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. During the debate on this bill there has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing especially from Opposition members in trying to put a slant a different approach and a definition on the history of the matters and events that took place in regard to this bill and to  
The Hobbit 
 being filmed in New Zealand. 
In the context of what happened it was a situation whereby the union—in this case an Australian union—went too far. Things got to a situation where the union jeopardised the production of the film which was going to be lost to the country and lost to the New Zealand film industry. At the end of the day the Government came forward and found a solution. John Key and his team negotiated and delivered a binding deal which will mean that  
The Hobbit 
 is filmed in New Zealand and that our position as a film maker will be retained in an international perspective. If we had lost this film the whole industry would have been put in a very delicate position. Throughout this debate Labour members have attempted to rewrite history to say that the matter is a matter of sovereignty and that we are selling out to overseas interests and to say all of those things which are simply not true. 
Hon Annette King 
: It’s not just Labour. Read the  
New Zealand Herald 
. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: OK it is Labour and the Green Party but it is simply not true. 
The reality is that this bill is to save the industry to save jobs to promote New Zealand and to deliver the brighter future for New Zealand that people want instead of what Labour would have done to the film industry. Labour had no intention of letting this film go ahead. It would rather see the film not go ahead and New Zealanders suffer for the prospect of making political capital. That is how Labour works. National does not work that way. We go out there and deliver solutions. We have provided a solution in this case. That is what has happened here and no matter what kind of slant Labour members try to put on the facts those are the facts of the case. 
The New Zealand public have judged that and said that they are very very happy to see this movie being filmed in New Zealand. The public are very supportive of what the Government has done. They think it is important that this bill is passed so that we can make that a reality and deliver this film to New Zealanders and not let the Labour Party put its slant on it.
Roy Eric: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15031] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before the next member speaks I draw the Committee’s attention to a matter that occurred while Nick Smith was speaking; I did not want to interrupt him. The Standing Orders and Speaker’s rulings are quite clear on visual aids. During the speech of a member of the Government visual aids were displayed from the other side of the Chamber. They are to be displayed only when members on that side of the Chamber are speaking. We will not have a repeat of that.
Barker Rick: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15019] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next member I say to members that they will be challenged on their debating skills in the Committee stage. I draw members’ attention to a very fine chairperson of the Committee whom some will remember very fondly the Hon Marian Hobbs. She said that members must “focus on the wording of the bill on the intention in this bill and not to focus on alternatives that are not part of this bill.” This is about the detail of the bill. 
I say to members just before they get up—I see Mr Grant Robertson is very keen—that we are discussing clause 3 “Principal Act amended”. It simply states: “This Act amends the Employment Relations Act 2000.” That is it. Members need to focus on the detail of the bill. As I said members will be challenged but I am sure members are creative. I want to hear speeches that conform to the requirements that Marian Hobbs has placed on the Committee stage.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15017] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15017] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 2: 
2AThis Act expires on the close of 8 November 2010.
Roy Eric: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15020] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have been listening to this debate on television before I came here and I am mindful of the ruling that the Chair whom I relieved the Hon Rick Barker made in quoting Marian Hobbs in Speaker’s ruling 10/5. This is not a debate about the objects as the member has just been relaying; it is specifically about clause 3 which states that this bill amends the Employment Relations Act. It is about amending and we shall keep a tighter rein on subject material in relation to this.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15025] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15016] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will take one more and hope we get something new. I say to members that this is a narrow part of the bill. It is about 8 November being the expiry date.
Calvert Hilary Jane: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Calvert Hilary Jane: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15050] 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I think the Opposition might have been missing the whole point of what is going on here. Businesses do not need to operate in New Zealand. They can choose to go some place else. The further we push them the more likely they are to go some place else. 
This bill is about allowing working arrangements between businesses that do want to work here which we all want them to do in this particular case and allowing them to have some certainty. This encourages the chances that they will work here. We all agree that we want them to work here and they do have choices. People seem to be behaving as if for some reason people are obliged to do things here. They are not. 
Thank God the Government has managed to produce something that will allow a business to operate here that otherwise was in serious danger of leaving. We can only hope that we can extend those sorts of things to other companies and other businesses that may want to leave in the future.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15039] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15041] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
.
Vote: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15066] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 94 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 30; ACT New Zealand 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a third time.
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15008] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have now left me somewhat confused and concerned. First although I have seen my birth certificate I most certainly have not seen my death certificate. Second if anybody else has I would appreciate knowing the hour and the moment.
Barker Rick: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15008] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank members for their contributions. I say that the Leader of the House has raised indirectly the issue of substantiality which is that amendments need to be significantly different from each other. I say to him that this amendment does not fall into that category because commencement and expiry are two significantly different things. We only have to look at our birth certificates and death certificates to realise that they are radically different. The time of this might be somewhat closer but I think the order is not that it is substantially the same; it is significantly different. 
The issue then is its proximity. It is not for me to make a judgment about whether it is so proximate to the commencement to make it substantially the same; that is for the Committee to decide. It has a starting date and I accept that. It is now proposed to have an expiry date and it is for the Committee to determine whether that is so close as to make the bill a nonsense. That is for the Committee to decide. I cannot see any grounds for the Committee ruling it out; it is therefore a matter for the Committee itself to decide. There are no procedural grounds that I can see for ruling out the amendment.