edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Huo Raymond: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Huo Raymond: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19777] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Chairman Robertson. Before I start I acknowledge the great work done by the Hon Rick Barker. I also thank the National Government for carrying on the great work initiated by Labour while in Government. I agree with my colleagues Lynne Pillay and Jacinda Ardern who in their earlier speeches in this Chamber both said that Labour would like to see one overarching agency with the responsibility for fines. But there is no provision for that in the legislation and that is regrettable. 
Part 1 amends the District Courts Act 1947. Under this Act attachment orders are used to allow deductions to be made from wages and benefits in order to pay debts. At present attachment orders can be imposed only after an examination hearing to assess the judgment debtor’s ability to pay the debt. Both parties are required to attend the hearing which can be inconvenient and incur delays and costs. This bill aims to streamline this enforcement process by enabling judgment creditors to file a financial statement or to ask the court to assess the debtor’s financial means in the creditor’s absence. 
The Law and Order Committee received 15 submissions and I acknowledge the great work done by the officials. They have done a tremendously good job. Some of the submitters commented on the changes to attachment orders. Those in favour of the changes commented that the changes would create better outcomes for creditors. The opposing view was that those changes had the potential to create a situation where attachment orders were imposed at a level that was unsustainable and that could be potentially imposed without a debtor’s knowledge. One concern in particular was that an individual could be subject to enforcement action without being aware of that as a result of the removal of these requirements. 
Another issue was the change to the service provision and some submitters commented that the extension of the service provisions to enable creditors to complete a service more efficiently would result in a more expedient enforcement process. Others were concerned about relying on the presumption of service and about the weakening of the current service provisions. Thank you.
Calder Cam: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Calder Cam: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19777] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on Part 1 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. Part 1 as we heard involves amendments to the District Courts Act 1947. The whole purpose of this omnibus bill which amends a number of statutes is to enhance the courts’ powers and processes for the collection of fines and other monetary penalties and civil debt. We realise of course that most New Zealanders if they err do pay their fines but there are a number who do not and this bill is designed to deal with that rather significant problem. 
Part 1 as I said involves amendment to the District Courts Act 1947. The principal amendments are to Part 6 of the Act involving enforcement of judgments and these amendments are designed to improve civil debt enforcement processes. The civil enforcement system can be complex cumbersome and costly for all parties. It generates high levels of tension and frustration among users and attachment orders which entail mandatory deductions from wages and benefits in order to pay debts are the most effective civil debt enforcement option. 
Currently an attachment order can be imposed only after an examination hearing has been held to assess the judgment debtor’s ability to pay the debt and both parties have to attend the hearing. Part 1 amends the District Courts Act to provide greater flexibility in enforcement processes particularly in the establishment of the said attachment order gathering information on a judgment debtor’s means to pay the debt removing geographic restrictions and modernising service provisions. 
I would like to mention briefly the concept of attachment orders and what we are attempting to do here. Clauses 13 to 18 amend a number of provisions in the District Courts Act that deal with attachment orders. These orders will be able to be issued following application for an attachment order and the filing of a financial statement or a financial assessment being undertaken. Unlike other enforcement options attachment orders will be able to be issued immediately after a court judgment or order has been made and this will expedite the process and reduce costs to the parties. 
Another important aspect of this amendment bill is the removal of geographic restrictions. The amendment removes geographic restrictions to allow court processes to be undertaken at any District Court rather than at the specific local court. Clause 10 inserts new section 79A to enable a judgment to be enforced in any District Court and clause 8 repeals section 69 which regulated the removal of a judgment from one court to another. Clauses 5 to 7 make the necessary consequential adjustments to the powers of registrars deputy registrars and bailiffs respectively. This is done once again for the convenience of the parties involved. 
I commend this part to the Committee.
Dean Jacqui: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19775] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. It is a worry that surveys show that about $672 million in fines which includes reparation remains unpaid. I do not think that is a particularly fine figure. Surveys on the public’s perception of the courts have found that over half of respondents believe offenders can avoid paying their reparations or fines. That is not a good situation for those of us who wish to uphold the law so into this Chamber comes the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. 
I have to say that the bill was considered by the Law and Order Committee before I was a member of the committee but on reading this bill I find there are several very good aspects to it. I confine my comments to Part 1 which seeks to amend the District Courts Act 1947. The amendments are intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of both attachment orders and examination hearings. Attachment orders require mandatory deduction from wages and benefits in order to pay debts and alongside examination hearings they are the most common and effective civil debt enforcement processes. However to date they have been somewhat cumbersome and have put a bit of a burden on those creditors who are required to attend hearings. 
This bill includes provisions for judgment creditors to file a financial statement which is a much simpler process to undertake than an attachment order or indeed to ask the court to assess the debtor’s financial means in the creditor’s absence. My reading of this clause is that if someone is a creditor they will not necessarily be required to go to a court hearing. I know that at the courthouses in my electorate on court days there are large numbers regrettably of people sitting out in the sunshine or whatever waiting for their turn in court. Arguably it is a waste of time if someone is a creditor to have to take time off work or their normal daily activities. 
Part 1 is commendable and when it is implemented I am pretty sure it will find favour with those creditors who find themselves unwittingly and unwillingly caught up in the court process. This whole bill represents the most comprehensive legislative improvements for the recovery of unpaid fines and civil debt in 12 years. I commend Part 1 to the Committee.
Vote: Regulatory Standards Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Regulatory Standards Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19772] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Regulatory Standards Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19730] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is just so that we are clear about this from this point on. What I am concerned about is that although the matter described by the Leader of the Opposition may have occurred in public as to the transcript recording that matter it is for the committee to determine its accuracy as to what occurred when that matter was heard in public. The Leader of the Opposition sought to table that unapproved and draft transcript regardless of whether or not in fact that matter had been heard in public. It is a transcript that belongs to the committee regardless of how the information came to be in the hands of the committee—whether it was public or not. It has not been confirmed by the committee and now we have a situation where a member is seeking to table a transcript uncertified if you like or not agreed to by that committee. That is quite different from a version of what occurred in public being made available to the House. This is a matter that belongs to the committee regardless of how that evidence was heard.
Ardern Jacinda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ardern Jacinda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19737] 
12. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “Our strategy for job creation is to build the economic conditions that will give businesses the confidence they need to hire new workers”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does he believe that his Government is doing everything it can to create and keep Kiwi jobs when last month 40 workers at Hillside railway workshops were told they were being laid off because KiwiRail chose a Chinese bidder for a significant contract? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are certainly endeavouring to do everything we can. To put that particular business in perspective in the average 3-month period something like 120000 jobs disappear and about 130000 jobs appear so there is a very high turnover in the New Zealand labour market. We want to make sure in particular that people enter the labour market with good skills out of the education system and that businesses can see that it will be profitable for them to employ more people in New Zealand. The good news is that confidence is rising and employment is rising. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Is he confident his Budget’s job creation policies are working given that since 19 May over 1000 New Zealand workers have been made redundant and a record 3300 Kiwis have left for Australia and better opportunities? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We do have confidence in the measures laid out in the Budget. The Budget forecasts for the next 4 years 170000 new jobs which will be a return to the rate of job creation that this economy enjoyed from 1990 to 2005 when about 35000 new jobs on average were created every year. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What role did economic conditions play in the loss of 304 jobs at Ovation New Zealand’s boning facility in Waipukurau and are these the same economic conditions that he believes will create 170000 jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Regardless of the economic cycle industries go through change. The sheep industry has gone through a fairly significant contraction and around that industry we would expect that because of reduced lamb numbers there will be reduced processing capacity. Our challenge is to make sure that for those skilled workers there are good opportunities in growing industries for them to pick up jobs where they can get good pay and a prospect that their incomes will increase. So we are focusing on helping to create the new jobs.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19737] 
11. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting the arts in New Plymouth? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I recently announced a grant of $4 million over 2 years toward the construction of a Len Lye Centre to be built adjacent to the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery. It will provide a permanent and accessible home for the Len Lye collection and archive which the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery has held since 1980. It will make the works of one of our most important artists accessible all year round to New Zealanders and foreign visitors. I acknowledge the outstanding work of New Plymouth MP Jonathan Young in advocating for the city’s interests. 
Jonathan Young 
: How will the grant support the people and community of New Plymouth? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The centre’s design by award-winning firm Pattersons will provide the city with new built heritage to further enhance it as a tourism destination. 
Hon Annette King 
: Marginal seat retention scheme. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well Harry was very happy. An independent study projected that the economic benefits to New Plymouth will be an extra $6.8 million a year and the creation of the equivalent of 138 full-time jobs. It is a fantastic development and it may perhaps provide an incentive for Andrew Little to spend a few nights in New Plymouth one day.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19736] 
10. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does he believe all New Zealanders should have access to appropriate and affordable housing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes and the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders are able to source and sustain their own housing arrangements. For those who need additional support we are committed to helping them. Budget 2011 contained $1.85 billion for 350000 households who are provided with the income-related rent subsidy in State houses or the accommodation supplement for those in private rentals and those with mortgages. This is an increase of $444 million or 32 percent above the Labour Government’s 2008 Budget. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is he confident that there is enough appropriate and affordable accommodation available for the 5000 people who have been told they are no longer eligible for a Housing New Zealand Corporation home and for the many thousands more who will have their tenancies terminated if National wins the election? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: All people who were on the waiting list from A through to D on 1 July are still eligible for a State house—we gave them that certainty. It is those who come on to the housing needs register from 1 July and who are C and D applicants who will not be eligible for a State house. I think the member should get her facts right before promoting such scaremongering. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why is he taking a one-size-fits-all punitive approach that will achieve nothing other than cause major uncertainty for every family in State housing instead of letting Housing New Zealand Corporation continue to work with tenants on a case by case basis and move people on when appropriate given that the actual problem is a lack of affordable housing options and not fictitious millionaire Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The problem is that historically no Government has moved anyone on from State houses. That is why we have cases where one person is living in a four-bedroom house where five or six people in a family are living in a garage—particularly during the previous Labour Government—and where some people in State houses earn $80000 $90000 or $100000 a year while others struggle on the waiting list. We will address that problem. We will be housing the people most in need. 
Moana Mackey 
: When will his Government reveal any kind of plan to deal with the actual reasons that families cannot access appropriate and affordable housing which are a stagnant economy rising unemployment massive cost of living increases and a desperate ever-worsening shortage of housing supply which has driven up rents in the private sector instead of scapegoating poor and struggling families and blaming them for the fact that they cannot find somewhere to live? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have publicly and clearly laid out National’s plan in housing. I have not heard a thing from the Labour Party. Where is its plan?
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19734] 
7. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on the Western Ring Route Road of National Significance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am pleased to report to the House that a giant step towards a fully functioning western ring route was taken today as the board of inquiry assessing the Waterview Connection project released its final decision granting resource consents for the approximately $1.4 billion project. The Waterview Connection is crucial to completing the western ring route road of national significance. Other components are well under way or complete. The Hobsonville deviation and Brigham Creek extension project will be opened in the next few months well ahead of schedule. Once completed the western ring route will provide a 48-kilometre alternative to State Highway 1 around Auckland. It will help to ease congestion across the city and it will improve travel times for both freight and people. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What are the benefits of the new consenting process for local communities and the Government? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: This is the first roading project to use the new national consenting process and the board of inquiry took just over 9 months to reach a final decision. During this process local concerns have been heard and mitigation measures included such as moving the location of the vent stacks and providing additional open space. Now that the consent and the mitigation measures have been finalised I understand that the New Zealand Transport Agency will be in a position to appoint a lead contractor with construction starting later this year. This quick progress has saved up to a year in construction time as well as offering significant cost savings. 
David Shearer 
: Given that the Waterview Connection generates benefits of up to $2 for every $1 spent on its construction will the Minister now review plans for the “Holiday Highway” north of Auckland which will deliver only 80c for every $1 spent on its construction particularly in light of rebuilding demands in Christchurch? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member’s numbers are incorrect. I think that project has a 1.1 benefit-cost ratio at 8 percent and better at 6 percent. Certainly the Puhoi to Wellsford road is acknowledged as crucial for the development of the whole Northland region. Of course if the member wants to play benefit-cost ratios I look forward to his view on the central business district rail tunnel which currently has a benefit-cost ratio on the same measurement of 0.3 or 0.4.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19731] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not mean to delay the House but Standing Order 236 may assist. Paragraph (1) states: “A report or a draft of the report of a select committee or a subcommittee is strictly confidential to the committee until it reports to the House.” Standing Order 236(2) goes on to state: “Paragraph (1) does not prevent—(a) the disclosure by the committee or by a member of the committee of a report or a draft report to a member of Parliament or to the Clerk or another officer of the House in the course of their duties:”. I urge you to consider that Standing Order as part of your deliberations Mr Speaker. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not think I need further help and I am not going to take up further time right now. All I will say to the honourable member is that a transcript is not a report. I think that Standing Order is intended to cover actual reports of committees and a transcript I would argue is not a report. But I think it is an interesting issue that has arisen and I will take some time to look at it. Should there be any difficulties around the Standing Order around this issue the Standing Orders Committee is meeting at the moment and the matter can be considered there as well. I do not wish to impede the opportunity of the House to deal with these matters in a way that the House sees appropriate. Today I put the leave as a member had sought leave and it was declined. I think today no harm has been done but I will certainly look at the matter further.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19730] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think that as all members are aware these transcripts are verbatim transcripts but it could just as easily be a recording made by any member of the committee or any other person there; there could have been a request for those to be tabled as well. I think people need to look at the history of this. There was an assertion made in question time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. This is not relevant to the point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think that members on this side have been looking for ways to correct misrepresentations in supplementary answers— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. We are starting to get away from the point of order. It is an interesting issue that I will seek further advice on because the honourable Acting Leader of the House has put forward an interesting argument. In my view there is nothing that prevents leave being sought to table this particular document. The House has made a decision not to grant that leave on the basis that it believes that it is the committee’s right to deal with a transcript. I think that was the basis— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The House doesn’t believe; one member does. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the House made the decision under our Standing Orders because leave was denied. But because of the interesting situation in relation to transcripts—and I know that it is normal practice for select committees to approve the release of a transcript—I want to have a look at that before I make any definitive ruling about whether this should be an acceptable practice. I think that no harm has been done today because leave was not granted and I will certainly seek further advice on the appropriateness of leave being sought. It is an interesting issue. I hear what the Hon Trevor Mallard the shadow Leader of the House said—that it is in public and what would be wrong with leave being sought for an electronic record that had been taken to be tabled in the House. Yet the honourable Acting Leader of the House makes the point that transcripts normally are dealt with by a committee prior to their release. I want to have a look at how those issues can be properly resolved. I will hear the honourable Acting Leader of the House further.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19729] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the next question but I seek leave of the House to table the uncorrected transcript of the 2011-12 estimates for Vote Finance (State Owned Enterprises) where Mr Ryall said one could not guarantee on issues of sale that the shares would not be onsold to foreign investors. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard and it will be dealt with in silence. I am just receiving a little advice on this matter; it is somewhat unusual. Leave is sought for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Do those members want their colleague to be able to ask his question? The Hon David Cunliffe question No. 6.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19729] 
5. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent milestones have been reached in connecting rural schools to ultra-fast broadband? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Last week I visited Te Kura o Omaio which is on the east coast of the Bay of Plenty as part of an event to mark the first three rural schools in New Zealand being connected to ultra-fast broadband. Here we connected via the internet with my colleagues the Hon Steven Joyce at Henderson Valley School west of Auckland and Chris Auchinvole who was at Granity School on the West Coast. It was a fantastic opportunity for these children to meet with other students around the country and to ensure that they have the same opportunities as those who live in urban areas. This is the first step in connecting our rural schools to ultra-fast broadband; 748 rural schools will be connected directly to fibre. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How did the schools use the ultra-fast broadband in the classroom? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: When I visited Te Kura o Omaio the children connected live with the other two schools. They started with an astronomy lesson and then went on to learn and talk about Matariki. It was absolutely great to watch the students from all three of those schools interacting with one another and talking and learning from each other. They were also identifying huge opportunities. In fact the students at Omaio told me they want to learn Spanish and they are investigating linking up with some schools in Spain to help them with that. This is a huge leap forward for these schools and provides the tools for much-improved learning in the 21st century.
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19727] 
3. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: What progress is the Government making with its multi-billion dollar infrastructure programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister for Infrastructure) 
: 
 More good news. Yesterday we issued— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I invite the Minister to continue I say to the National backbench that that kind of pathetic behaviour will not continue or someone will be leaving the House. I am deadly serious about it. It is pathetic in this House to cheer when a Minister starts an answer like that. A good answer can be applauded but that was just pathetic. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: More good news. Yesterday we issued the second National Infrastructure Plan which shows the Government will invest over $17 billion in building productive infrastructure over the next 4 years and that is excluding the $5.5 billion set aside for Canterbury. It will see the Government investing $7.6 billion in social assets like schools hospitals State houses and prisons; $6.5 billion in roads; and $1.5 billion each in broadband and rail and doing it all with no new taxes. 
Amy Adams 
: What are the main challenges identified by the National Infrastructure Plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The plan shows that our infrastructure is generally improving with less red tape and more investment in roading rail telecommunications electricity networks and specific projects for the Rugby World Cup. The challenges include the rebuilding of Canterbury managing the taxpayers’ large asset base—currently $220 billion—better and ensuring that future investment goes into areas that deliver the greatest benefits to the economy. 
Amy Adams 
: What are the Government’s infrastructure priorities for the next 3 years as set out in the National Infrastructure Plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will say that this is the first time that the Government has set out clear priorities covering the period of the next 5 to 10 years: firstly building Canterbury infrastructure; secondly a comprehensive approach to investment in Auckland; thirdly improving the management of the Government’s social infrastructure such as schools hospitals and State housing; fourthly focusing transport investment on supporting export-led growth; and finally improving the Government’s ability to monitor the performance of all infrastructure. 
Amy Adams 
: What has been the focus of the Government’s infrastructure programme since the election in 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government moved immediately with a multibillion-dollar programme to unclog our economic arteries by boosting investment in productive infrastructure. We have invested in the last three Budgets heavily in schools—the biggest ever education capital programme—and in ultra-fast broadband which sits alongside record investment in the electricity and State highway networks. As well as that we have worked on improving the consenting process so that large projects can get through in a matter of months rather than several years.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19736] 
9. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many foster children now have a “Home for Life”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Since I launched the Home for Life programme in October last year a total of 329 children have found permanent stable homes with New Zealand families. In fact permanency is the best thing we can give those children. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What support is available for families under the Home for Life programme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Every caregiver who offers a child a home for life is entitled to reasonable legal costs; a $2500 upfront payment paid after the Home for Life orders are granted; a baby starter pack for children under 2; and access to a national foster care training programme. They get to determine how much a social worker is involved in their lives and in their family and I think that has been really well received. 
Rahui Katene 
: What responsibility does the Government take to ensure that kin care families and whanau with a direct genealogical link to the child are promoted as the first option in any care arrangements concerning children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Child Youth and Family takes the responsibility to try to find suitable family and whanau first and utmost as its main priority for these children. As at the end of June 75 percent of those homes were with family or whanau—that is 248 children since October. For Maori that figure is even higher with 85 percent going into permanent placements with whanau.
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Power Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19729] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the Hon David Cunliffe but I want to be clear about what just occurred. I understood that the Leader of the Opposition was seeking to table an uncorrected transcript of a select committee which presumably belongs to the select committee until such time as the details of that transcript have been confirmed by the select committee at which point that transcript would become available for the more public matter that has just occurred. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need help. I will come back to the member if I get this wrong. It is my understanding that the transcript related to hearings in public and therefore the information is public anyway. What was said is actually in the public domain anyway. Were it a report of the committee were it a transcript of a hearing when the committee was in session not in public that would be a totally different situation. That was why I sought advice on the matter before seeking leave of the House—to make sure that it was appropriate to seek the leave of the House. In the event the House chose not to give leave and that is absolutely the House’s prerogative. But in my understanding there was nothing wrong in leave being sought because it was a transcript of a public hearing and what was said was already in the public domain. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Speaking briefly to that point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Acting Leader of the House briefly indeed.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19737] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave for this question to be set down for tomorrow as the Prime Minister has clearly stepped out. The Prime Minister was here and it is a question on employment— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —which we regard as very important. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should not have added that bit. He is seeking leave to have this question deferred. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Calder Cam: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Calder Cam: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19797] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Calder Cam: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
Calder Cam: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19789] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill Crimes Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Vote: New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill Crimes Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:673;Page:19751] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill and the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Bills read a third time.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19585] 
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 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19584] 
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 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
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 Clare Curran to clause 24 be agreed to: 
to add the following paragraph to section 156AD(3): 
“(c)specify that the Crown alone bear the costs (including but not limited to any additional deferred repayments to the Crown) of any significant changes made to prices or other key features UFB initiative.
Gilmore Aaron: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Gilmore Aaron: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19581] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19568] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19567] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a third time.
English Bill: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
English Bill: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19567] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Vote: Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19517] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
English Bill: Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — First Reading 
English Bill: Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19517] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill be now read a first time.
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19512] 
9. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent announcement has he made about successful 2010/11 Housing Innovation Fund applications? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Last week I announced a further five projects in Kaiapoi Wellington Auckland and Queenstown delivering 34 new homes which will receive $5 million from the fund for this financial year. These include $354000 for Habitat for Humanity who will build three 4-bedroom homes in Kaiapoi for affordable homeownership; $1.65 million for the Salvation Army to purchase 10 new two-bedroom units for older people in Auckland; and $790000 for the Wellington Housing Trust to build four new houses for affordable rental and homeownership. 
Todd McClay 
: Could he tell the House what the aim of the Housing Innovation Fund is? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The fund encourages partnerships with community housing organisations. It is about making the taxpayer’s dollar go much further. So far this year the Government’s $11 million contribution has been met by $25.6 million from community organisations delivering a total of 70 new houses across New Zealand. As part of this Government’s commitment to increasing the quantum of social housing in total I recently announced the creation of a social housing unit from 1 July as well as increased funding of $40 million for the year 2011-12 to help to grow the community housing sector.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19511] 
8. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he believe that a trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency will be “costly restrictive and unnecessary for New Zealand”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No if it was the agency that was announced yesterday by the New Zealand and Australia Prime Ministers which is not dependent on natural health products being part of that regulatory regime. This is what National has always sought and it is an outcome of the Prime Minister’s outstandingly successful visit to Australia and I congratulate our Prime Minister. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister confirm that in fact it was he who described the agency as being “costly restrictive and unnecessary” despite it achieving the same things that the agency announced yesterday including an opt-in for natural products that his leader agreed to at the time? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That quote was with regard to Labour’s proposed scheme which included natural health products. Our Prime Minister has gone to Australia and delivered a scheme that does not include natural health products. He was the first New Zealand Prime Minister to speak to the Australian Parliament and how proud we are as a nation of that. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he recall Michelle Beckett Executive Director of Natural Products New Zealand saying that the National Party see the natural products sector only as “a political football to be leveraged to any political advantage” and why will he not accept that National’s flip-flop on the trans-Tasman agency only reinforces Ms Beckett’s view? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Mrs Beckett was a supporter of the Labour Party’s plan to include natural health products in the joint trans-Tasman agency. The agreement between the Prime Ministers is that that does not need to be the case. This is a successful win-win for New Zealand which has been delivered by our Prime Minister because of the close improving and strong relationship with Australia. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why on earth would we join up to an Australian agency to regulate our medicines and medical devices when it is located in Canberra staffed by Australians and has a reputation for being a heavy-handed regulator with a costly bureaucracy? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Those details are yet to be determined. The work is about to begin very soon but I would expect that we would see a move to centres of excellence whereas the various parts of the two systems were able to concentrate on those parts that they do best. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will he guarantee that natural products will not be part of the trans-Tasman joint regulatory arrangements in the future? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I cannot guarantee that there might not be a Labour Government that wants to force them in. The agreement that has been designed between the two Prime Ministers is that that is a choice for New Zealand and the scheme does not have to happen with natural health products. It is a real win-win for New Zealand. Labour was never able to achieve it.
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goodhew Jo: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19511] 
7. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What support was provided for alternative education in Budget 2011? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to inform the House that from July of this year this Government has committed an extra $6.1 million over 4 years for alternative education. This will provide for an extra 68 places and will provide specialist professional learning and development for staff. Alternative education aims to provide a constructive alternative delivery of education for students aged 13 to 15 years for whom traditional methods have not worked. This is done while maintaining high expectations of student potential. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What other changes has she made to alternative education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: In addition to giving the very first funding increase in 10 years—the first in 10 years—in September last year of $1.5 million a year I have also ensured that there have been a number of changes to alternative education. They include ensuring that registered teachers are supported to increase the capability of providers. I have allowed for national professional development for alternative education providers. We have raised the overall funding to help providers respond to increasing costs. That is on top of increasing the number of alternative education places available for at-risk students from July. This Government is committed to supporting all students in ways that work for them. We believe that every young person should have the opportunity to reach their full potential.
Robertson H V Ross: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:673;Page:19555] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are to consider at this stage two amendments only set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246. The question is that the amendment to clause 5(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 be agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19585] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.