edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:987] 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by her answer to Written Question No 00916 (2012) that “the Government is focused on building a more competitive economy which will lead to more jobs and higher wages”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes I do actually. 
Darien Fenton 
: Actually! Will the Government’s plans to remove collective bargaining rights help rest home workers on $13.16 an hour get higher wages or will they instead help international businesses like Macquarie Group which owns the Oceania Group rest homes increase their million dollar profit margins? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Our collective bargaining policies are not about removing rights; they are about improving the processes around collective bargaining reducing the likelihood of protracted disputes and ensuring that the bargaining process is fair to both parties. 
Darien Fenton 
: How will the Government’s public sector job cuts and wage freezes make New Zealand’s economy more competitive if they result in thousands of lost work hours in the form of proposed widespread public sector industrial action? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The Government is committed to actually building our economy and having an effective and efficient Public Service. It is tough times but can I say that if that member’s party was in Government it would be repealing our 90-day trial period provisions which would put in jeopardy 13000 jobs; it would be increasing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister has no responsibility for what the Labour Party might do. 
Darien Fenton 
: If her Government is committed to higher wages why is it refusing to pay an increase to front-line firefighters who have been in negotiations since August last year or do front-line workers not feature in her idea of a more competitive economy and higher wages? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The pay for firefighters is not within my responsibility. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the Government’s focus on building a more competitive economy include shedding front-line workers such as police and nurses doubling its spending on consultants and telling public servants to take a bath pray or get a pet? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Our priority is to build a stronger economy.
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1016] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I seek leave that we have one debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought that there be one debate on Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 to 6 and clauses 1 and 2. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. There will be one debate.
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Upston Louise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:983] 
7. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What commitment is the Government willing to make to increase the number of women on State sector boards? 
Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 Today on International Women’s Day I can remind members of the Government’s campaign commitment at the last election to increase the percentage of women on State sector boards to 45 percent by 2014. International evidence shows a positive correlation between women in leadership and corporate performance so there are sound reasons to strive for this. More women in governance will help build a better future for women their families and New Zealand. 
Louise Upston 
: Why has the Government chosen this target for State sector boards? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: The number of women on State sector boards has remained around 41 to 42 percent for the last 7 years. The Government wants a challenging but achievable target. This is just that but it will be challenging. In order to achieve 45 percent nearly 50 percent of all new appointments over the next years will need to be women. This is not an easy target but with the commitment of this Government and the help of my colleagues it is a realistic and achievable goal. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Why has she dropped the target for women on State sector boards down to 45 percent from the previous target of 50 percent and why is she promoting just 10 percent as being the target for private sector boards? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: Our Government has not had a stated objective of 50 percent. We believe that 45 percent is realistic and achievable. I would say to that member that if simply setting a target of 50 percent meant that it would happen then the previous Labour Government may well have tried to do that but it did not achieve it. It sat between 41 and 42 percent for the last 7 years.
Woodhouse Michael: Sittings of the House 
Woodhouse Michael: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:678;Page:1029] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise for the dinner adjournment so that we can start the next Government order of the day more tidily. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for an early dinner adjournment. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Barry Maggie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barry Maggie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:975] 
1. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Reserve Bank today issued its Monetary Policy Statement for March 2012. The bank notes the domestic economy is showing signs of recovery household spending appears to have picked up over the past few months and a recovery of building activity is under way. The Reserve Bank expects growth in the near-term to remain reasonably modest but this is projected to gather pace as the Canterbury rebuild accelerates and underlying investment recovers. The Monetary Policy Statement projects annual real production GDP growth of 1.8 percent 3.1 percent 3.7 percent and 2.4 percent for the March years of 2012 2013 2014 and 2015 respectively. This is slightly stronger than the bank predicted in its December Monetary Policy Statement. 
Maggie Barry 
: What is the Reserve Bank’s assessment of the global economic situation and how might that impact on New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Reserve Bank says the risk of a significant near-term deterioration in global economic conditions has moderated since its December Monetary Policy Statement. However risks remain. It is projecting reasonable growth by our main trading partners and that is broadly consistent with its December Monetary Policy Statement and Treasury’s recent forecasts. Australia and China are expected grow at around 3.3 percent and 8.5 percent a year respectively over the next 3 years. This will help underpin growth in this country with our trade and investment moving towards these fast-growing parts of the world. 
Maggie Barry 
: What is the Reserve Bank’s outlook for New Zealand’s current account position and how does this compare with the position in the 3 years to 2008? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Reserve Bank projects the current account deficit to widen moderately over the next 4 years as imports and inward investment pick up and the Canterbury rebuild gathers momentum. The Reserve Bank forecasts the deficit to be 4.3 percent 4.1 percent 4.8 percent and 5.1 percent of GDP for the March years 2012 2013 2014 and 2015 respectively. The good news is that these deficits are significantly smaller than the average of more than 8 percent of GDP in each of the 3 years to 2008. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Monetary Policy Statement show a lower growth forecast compared with Treasury’s lowered Budget Policy Statement last week? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes the Reserve Bank Monetary Policy Statement predicts a slightly lower nominal GDP increase because of the expected lower inflation that the Reserve Bank is predicting over the next few years.
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1020] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I seek leave for all provisions of the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill including the schedules to be taken as one debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1019] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I seek leave for all provisions of this bill to be treated as one for the purposes of debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. There will be one debate.
Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:678;Page:1029] 
Sittings of the House 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise for the dinner adjournment so that we can start the next Government order of the day more tidily. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for an early dinner adjournment. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business Statement 
[Volume:678;Page:975] 
Thursday 8 March 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House is in a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 20 March the Government will look to progress a number of bills on the Order Paper including the Committee stages of the Search and Surveillance Bill the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill and the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.
Parker David: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:972] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to come to production orders but one of the great benefits of these sorts of debates is that Parliament sometimes actually comes up with issues that officials have not thought of. Charles Chauvel raises a very important point in respect of the declaratory orders in respect of new technology. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Search and Surveillance Bill and no progress on the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:969] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to.
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:968] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to replace the heading to Part 2 with “Police and Serious Fraud Office Powers”; 
to insert after clause 31(1): 
(1A)The SFO director may apply to a Judge for an examination order against a person in a business context if the SFO Director is satisfied that the conditions specified in section 32 are met in respect of the person.; 
to insert in clause 33(1) before “A constable” “The SFO Director or”; 
to insert in clause 33(1)(a) before “the constable” “the SFO Director or”; 
to insert after clause 33(1)(b)(iii): 
(iv) the SFO Director. 
to insert in clause 37(1)(a) after “or a delegate of the Commissioner”’ “or the SFO Director” 
to insert in clause 37(2)(d) after “a delegate of the Commissioner” “or the SFO Director”; 
to insert in clause 38 after “the Commissioner’s delegate” “or the SFO Director”; and 
to insert in clause 40A(1) “the delegate of the Commissioner” “or the SFO Director”.
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:967] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2 be agreed to.
Macindoe Tim: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Macindoe Tim: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:967] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bridges Simon: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:966] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:953] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:952] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert the following definition after the definition of  
rub-down search 
: 
SFO Director  
means the Director of the Serious Fraud Office as defined in section 2 of the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990.
Macindoe Tim: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Macindoe Tim: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:951] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Browning Steffan: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Browning Steffan: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:950] 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 The Search and Surveillance Bill is effectively an “anyone anywhere anyhow” bill. Privacy is actually cheated in a major cut in civil liberties and later as we get into the parts regarding production and examination provisions that will be shown more fully. Many people whom I know are very concerned about this bill because of its very wide-ranging powers. These powers are an increase on anything that has been in legislation before and I notice even through Supplementary Order Paper 12 just little bits more sneaking in. There have been some improvements but I notice that even on evidential material there in the definition of it we now add in “or a suspected offence”. I have mentioned before that I have been involved in some activities that would theoretically possibly trigger this under the purposes—positive societally helpful environmentally helpful activities that are actually beneficial to this country. The purpose in fact as stated in Part 1 is actually a contradiction when you look through the rest of the bill. It says it “is consistent with human rights values” and we will see clearly where it is not. 
I will give just a little example of something that happened today of how actual people might feel if they are not actually involved in an offence but get hooked up in this. I noted in question time today when that dear subject the teapot tapes was mentioned that the Prime Minister in response to the other side of the House around illegal taping said: “How would you feel about it?”. Well that was in terms of being recorded against his theoretical will so that is just a hint of what numerous people engaged in far more positive activities could get caught up with. 
So the Green Party will be opposing this bill particularly on the basis of human rights and civil liberties.
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:968] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Charles Chauvel to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to replace clause 32(a) with: 
(a)there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more has been committed or is being committed or will be committed; and 
to replace clause 34(a)(i) with: 
(i)involves serious or complex fraud that is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more; or.
Calder Cam: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Calder Cam: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:950] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Blue Jackie: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:952] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Collins Judith: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:933] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The first part of this bill contains the preliminary and interpretation provisions and provides that the Act will bind the Crown. One of the most important aspects of lawmaking is to ensure that any bill is consistent with human rights values particularly when there is some concern about the powers that a bill may grant. 
The purpose clause was inserted in the bill by the Justice and Electoral Committee which acknowledged that the bill required clarification as to how it interacted with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and other Acts that conferred rights. The insertion of the purpose clause ensures that the rights affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 the Privacy Act 1993 and the Evidence Act 2006 are recognised in conjunction with the law enforcement powers granted under the bill. The inclusion of this purpose clause highlights the importance of human rights values in the context of search and surveillance powers. 
The purpose of the bill also makes the necessity of this bill clear by recognising that investigative tools must be effective and adequate for law enforcement needs and the need for modernisation. Search and surveillance powers were spread across the statute book in 69 different statutes and the powers these statutes authorised did not take into account technological developments in methods for the high-tech environment within which criminals now operate. 
Law enforcement must be able to combat offenders by using methods that are able to overcome evasive techniques that criminals use. The bill allows the police and regulators to do this provided that the techniques used are reasonable and regulated. In the light of the Supreme Court decision in the  
Hamed 
 case last year which questioned the lawfulness of covert surveillance Parliament passed the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act 2011. I appreciate the way in which members from the other side of the House worked with the Government to pass that Act. 
The expiry of the temporary legislation on 17 April this year means that the Search and Surveillance Bill must be enacted by then to prevent a number of ongoing investigations from being jeopardised. To that end I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper to provide for the relevant parts of the bill to commence on 18 April 2012 as well as a number of other amendments. 
I would just like to take the opportunity to thank those members of the House who worked on this bill in the select committee. Also since then I have been working with Charles Chauvel from the Labour Party and I thank him for his cooperative manner. I have also been able to send to each party a copy of the major Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled. I would like to hope that people now feel far more at ease with some of the amendments that have been made. So thank you and I will enjoy hearing everyone else’s contributions.
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:969] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Dean Jacqui: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:924] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 It is a matter of great pleasure for me to be able to stand and speak to the third reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 3). I will tell you why. It is because I applaud a Minister and a Government that provide for clearer accountability for building practitioners building consent authorities and consumers—the ones who seem to have been forgotten in much of the debate—in making sure that building work complies with the building code. I applaud a Minister and a Government that put in the building code a new regime with a new building consent system that is risk based. This means that the amount of checking and inspection is related to the risk and the complexity of the work and to the skills and capability of the people doing the work. I do not believe that that is at all acknowledged by any members of the Opposition. 
I applaud a Minister and I applaud a Government that will bring to the House a bill that contains a code of ethics for licensed building practitioners to encourage professional behaviour. After all is that not what this is all about? Finally I applaud a Minister and I applaud a Government that have the foresight and the courage to bring in provisions in a building amendment bill that acknowledge that we are a nation of do-it-yourselfers but that at the same time we need to protect the rights of consumers. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Financial Markets Conduct Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Financial Markets Conduct Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:915] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Financial Markets Conduct Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.
Hughes Gareth: Financial Markets Conduct Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Gareth: Financial Markets Conduct Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:915] 
GARETH HUGHES (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does the member not have to seek leave to have a vote changed? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member misheard the bill being called. It is not unreasonable for the vote to be recorded as the party intended.
Williams Andrew: Financial Markets Conduct Bill — First Reading 
Williams Andrew: Financial Markets Conduct Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:914] 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry I heard the wrong name for the bill being called. I was under the impression it was a different bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the member wish to change— 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Yes could I change the vote? It should be eight votes in favour. I am sorry; I misheard what was being called. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The bill being called is the Financial Markets Conduct Bill. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Yes. Sorry I was listening to the general debate and I did not realise that this bill had been called. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The record will be changed.
Cunliffe David: General Debate 
Cunliffe David: General Debate 
[Volume:678;Page:914] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was reluctant to interrupt the member’s most excellent speech but I have to record for  
Hansard 
 that it is inappropriate for the member to refer to the presence or absence of another member from the Chamber as you well know. The reason that I was momentarily absent was to deal with an urgent matter with his colleague the Hon Kate Wilkinson. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is quite correct. I missed that but members should not refer to the absence of a member from the Chamber. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:953] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
[Volume:678;Page:905] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member I am serious about asking members please not to read general debate speeches unless it is a highly technical matter and that was not. There is nothing wrong with quoting and reading out quotes. The only saving grace I can say is that at least it was handwritten so at least I guess it was written by the member and not by someone else.
Hipkins Chris: Financial Markets Conduct Bill — First Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Financial Markets Conduct Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:915] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been the practice in this House—and we had this issue come up last night—that until the result is given any party can change its vote. It is only once the result is announced that you would have to have leave to change the way somebody voted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the junior Labour whip for his— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Senior Labour whip! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Senior whip. 
Hon Annette King 
: Chief whip. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Chief whip—my apologies.
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:900] 
12. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What initiatives are underway to help raise awareness about falls in the home? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Recently ACC announced Idea Nation a competition encouraging people to contribute ideas to help make New Zealand homes safer and reduce the physical social and financial costs of falls in the home. Half of all falls happen in the home and falls make up over 40 percent of home injuries. They can cause significant disruption to people’s lives and lead to lost productivity for thousands of businesses. The competition will be open for 1 month from 12 March until 13 April 2012 and all New Zealanders are invited to send in their ideas. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Why is ACC focusing on falls in the home? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Good question! Falls are the leading cause of injuries in the home among working-age New Zealanders. Each year more than 100000 working-age New Zealanders fall in their homes. The social and economic cost of these falls is around $1.8 billion a year. Most falls occur when people are doing everyday things such as walking up or down steps carrying the washing or getting in or out of the shower. Idea Nation calls on New Zealanders to apply their No. 8 fencing wire mentality in helping to reduce the physical social and economic costs of these falls.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:898] 
9. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf in answer to Oral Question No 1 on 1 March 2012 that “I do know what is in the coalition agreement” and if so does he agree that the United Future-National confidence and supply agreement does not require United Future to vote for the Government’s asset sales legislation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes and no. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does he agree with the Hon Peter Dunne that it would be “unacceptable” for privatised power companies to be able to hock off their assets to foreign buyers and if so why is his Government not including any provisions in its legislation to prevent that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That issue has been discussed. The Government has made a number of statements about how these companies would behave under mixed ownership and we do not think they need a legislative barrier. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Government intend to even consider or possibly act on the findings of the citizens committee that has been established by concerned citizens in the seat of Ohariu to assess the case for asset sales? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well we get the benefit of the Labour Party’s advice in the House every day. Some of it we consider; a lot of it we dismiss just because it is wrong-headed or it comes straight out of the 1970s. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has he been approached by the United Future party or Mr Dunne himself with a request to postpone the asset sales programme in light of the announcement of a launch of a petition for a citizens initiated referendum on that issue? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not think I have been approached on that particular issue by Mr Dunne but we have regular discussions about the policies around mixed ownership. Mr Dunne has taken a close interest in those. We also discuss the progress on both legislation and the commercial processes that go with it and Mr Dunne is doing a good job of representing his party’s point of view.
Ross Jami-Lee: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Ross Jami-Lee: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:949] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Calder Cam: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Calder Cam: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:936] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call in this Committee stage of the Search and Surveillance Bill. I would like to compliment the Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins on the work she has done and her collaborative approach to this very important legislation. I have in my hand a 93-page Supplementary Order Paper that has been created to update the amendments necessary in the numerous statutes covered by this bill. The amendments take into account the developments since 2010 when the bill was reported back to the House. 
I was speaking briefly earlier on protecting human rights. It has been a concern in respect of the discussion around this bill. The Search and Surveillance Bill explicitly states that its purpose is to balance law enforcement and investigation powers with human rights and there are a number of safeguards in the bill to achieve this. First of all we all realise that the bill adheres to the basic concept that independent authorisation is needed before exercising search warrants—independent authorisation is needed before exercising search warrants and search powers. Enforcement officers must justify the exercise of the search powers to neutral issuing officers. They must justify these powers to neutral issuing officers which is an important safeguard. There are detailed reporting requirements to the issuing officer the chief executive of the relevant agency and to Parliament on the exercise of the search and surveillance powers and these thus allow the search powers to be monitored to ensure that they are used properly and not being abused. The Act of course as is noted will be reviewed in 2016 to ensure that it is operating properly. Thirdly and also very importantly this bill does not affect New Zealanders’ right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. 
Other safeguards are also important. Enforcement officers who make false search warrant or surveillance warrant applications will be penalised. More serious powers like examination orders may be authorised only by judges and that is an important thing— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting Mr Calder. I wonder whether he might be giving the speech that he intended to give about the short title and commencement rather than about the provisions that are under debate at the moment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I just remind members we are on Part 1 and to concentrate on Part 1. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: I just make the final point that issuing officers may be removed from office for neglect or misconduct. Thank you.
O'Connor Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
O'Connor Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:892] 
4. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: What progress has been made in expanding the Youth Guarantee Scheme to provide more 16 and 17 year-olds with fees-free tertiary training this year? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 The year 2012 will be the biggest year yet for the very successful Youth Guarantee scheme. A total of 9616 places will be available in 2012 for 16 and 17-year-olds as a result of the Government’s more than $100 million investment in Youth Guarantee in 2012. That encompasses fees-free tertiary places at levels 1 to 3 for 16 and 17-year-olds and the trades academies. The Youth Guarantee scheme gives young people the opportunity to gain practical skills and a career particularly those at risk of dropping out of school. 
Simon O’Connor 
: What are the priority areas for Youth Guarantee places for 16 and 17-year-olds? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Youth Guarantee places available through institutes of technology polytechnics wananga and private training establishments will give priority to trades areas such as carpentry engineering horticulture plumbing gasfitting and brick- and block-laying. In addition enrolments have trebled this year with 1936 learners studying at 16 trades academies which is well up on the 625 who participated last year. Numbers are set to increase further when another five trades academies are opened later this year by my colleague the Minister of Education Hekia Parata. I am delighted that different parts of the education community are pulling together to offer more choices for our young people. Over a third of all secondary schools are now part of a trades academy partnership for example.
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:887] 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Does he stand by the statement that “I need to be able to look New Zealanders in the eye and assure them that the money they spend in tax is being spent wisely and as much as possible is going to front-line services.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Does he think it is a front-line service for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to pay $340000 to a change management adviser to manage the axing of 305 jobs? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Governments do take advice from external consultants and when the spend is in the order of magnitude that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s is it may well be absolutely in its interests to have sought that advice so that it can make appropriate changes. 
David Shearer 
: In light of his answer does he agree with the change management adviser’s helpful suggestions to staff facing the loss of their jobs that they take a hot bath pray do yoga or get a pet because “a pet’s love is unconditional”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not seen the report nor have I seen the context it was made in. But when it comes to Moonbeam yes her love is unconditional to me. 
David Shearer 
: Does he consider it a wise use of taxpayers’ money when at the same time as he is axing jobs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s spend on consultants has more than doubled from $4.5 million to nearly $10 million since he became Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly it is important to understand when the Leader of the Opposition makes the claim about the axing of jobs that we are going through a consultation process at this stage and that decision has not been made. That decision may though lead to savings in the order of $20 million to $25 million—maybe more. We will see that in the fullness of time. In terms of consultants’ fees again there is always a wide variety of reasons. But when it came to spending money on consultants the Olympic gold medal used to go to the previous Labour Government. 
David Shearer 
: Is it wise use of New Zealanders’ money to have three police officers investigating his so-called teapot tapes complaint when police are being told to make savings of around $300 million and burglary clearance rates are around 20 percent? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is my expectation that the police will investigate complaints when they are made by members of the public. I stand by the principle that principles are very important and I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he was in the position where he was illegally taped we would see how he felt about it.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Korea—Minister of Government Legislation 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Korea—Minister of Government Legislation 
[Volume:678;Page:887] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that Mr Jeong Sun-Tae the Minister of Government Legislation of the Republic of Korea is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the Minister be welcomed.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Vote: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:933] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Building Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time.
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:898] 
10. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Conservation 
: What benefits will the Game Animal Council Bill bring for recreational hunters? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 The Game Animal Council Bill will bring two main benefits for recreational hunters. Firstly the establishment of the council will improve the management of game animals—namely deer tahr chamois and wild pigs—and will include improvements in hunting opportunities and the quality of the game trophy resource. The second main benefit will be to provide an independent hunting-focused advice stream to the Minister of Conservation on issues that affect that sector. 
Todd McClay 
: What feedback has he seen regarding the introduction and first reading of the Game Animal Council Bill? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The feedback has been extremely positive including support from the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association the Game and Forest Foundation the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation the Game Council New South Wales hunting guides the hunting media many non-affiliated hunters and even non-sector interests such as Fish and Game New Zealand and people in the recreational fishing sector as well. In fact many people have told me that this council is the thing they have been waiting 60 years to see established. 
Kevin Hague 
: Can the Minister confirm that all of the advice received from the Department of Conservation has been that the proposed Game Animal Council is likely to be harmful to conservation and to our native plants and animals? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No I cannot confirm that. But what I can tell the member is that the bill was developed out of a long period of consultation. It began during the term of the previous Labour Government it actually had over 4000 public submissions presented to the game animal panel and the result of that was that panel’s recommendation that a big-game hunting council be established which is given effect in this legislation. 
Todd McClay 
: I am interested to know: what is the background to the Game Animal Council Bill and how did it reach this stage? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: This bill is the culmination of work that began as part of United Future’s 2005 confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-led Government to develop a national pest-management strategy. That saw the establishment of a game animal panel chaired by the Hon Margaret Austin and 4000 submissions to it. Its recommendation was that a big-game hunting council be established. During the last term of Parliament under the current Government we have been able to bring that to the point where the bill was introduced last week. So there is widespread support on both sides of the House for this development.
Goldsmith Paul: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Goldsmith Paul: Building Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:929] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I speak in support of the Building Amendment Bill (No 3). I think this is another piece of good legislation and it is a small part of the overall package into getting more productive affordable and better-quality housing stock in New Zealand. I just want to touch on those three areas. 
Productivity I think is one of the biggest issues facing New Zealand generally. How we grow wealth is we become more productive. The construction area is a very large part of the economy and productivity has actually fallen since 1996. When you are dealing with about one in 12 workers working in the construction industry that is a very significant drag on the country. This bill will go some small way to improving productivity in our building area mainly through the risk-based consents system that is being employed which means that the amount of checking and inspection is related to the risk and complexity of the work. That makes absolute sense. If you are just doing a relatively small piece of work on the house it is probably not necessary to have quite so many visits by the inspector. 
The second area is affordability and we hear no end of concerns from people on all sides of the House and throughout the country about housing affordability. It always strikes me as strange that particularly members on the other side worry about housing affordability but when it comes to local councils there is a tendency to do everything they can to drive up the cost of land which is an important part of housing affordability through restrictive district plans. We see that at the moment in Auckland where it is a very large part of the problem. Rates are also an important part of housing affordability and again in Auckland we are looking at potentially more than 30 percent rate increases in some parts of the city over the next 3 years. So affordability is a broad issue. When it comes to the housing construction side of that this bill again makes a small improvement in that area around reducing the costs of housing through this risk-based system. 
 Finally in quality we all know the horrors of the leaky building systemic failure that we had over a long time. This bill again is a part of the response to that particularly in giving clearer accountability for building practitioners and giving a clearer description of where accountability lies between building practitioners building consent authorities and consumers in making sure that a new house complies with the building code. I think that clearer accountability will lead to a better result in the long term. 
So I commend this bill to the House and that it be read a third time. Thank you.
Visitors — Korea—Minister of Government Legislation 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Visitors — Korea—Minister of Government Legislation 
[Volume:678;Page:887] 
Wednesday 7 March 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Korea—Minister of Government Legislation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that Mr Jeong Sun-Tae the Minister of Government Legislation of the Republic of Korea is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the Minister be welcomed.
Financial Markets Conduct Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Financial Markets Conduct Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:914] 
Financial Markets Conduct Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 6 March. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Financial Markets Conduct Bill be now read a first time. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry I heard the wrong name for the bill being called. I was under the impression it was a different bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the member wish to change— 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Yes could I change the vote? It should be eight votes in favour. I am sorry; I misheard what was being called. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The bill being called is the Financial Markets Conduct Bill. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Yes. Sorry I was listening to the general debate and I did not realise that this bill had been called. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The record will be changed. 
GARETH HUGHES (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does the member not have to seek leave to have a vote changed? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member misheard the bill being called. It is not unreasonable for the vote to be recorded as the party intended. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been the practice in this House—and we had this issue come up last night—that until the result is given any party can change its vote. It is only once the result is announced that you would have to have leave to change the way somebody voted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the junior Labour whip for his— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Senior Labour whip! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Senior whip. 
Hon Annette King 
: Chief whip. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Chief whip—my apologies. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Financial Markets Conduct Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.