edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Wagner Nicky: Game Animal Council Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Game Animal Council Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14853. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I am very pleased to talk on the Game Animal Council Bill because it is an important bill. I think that it is all about a sensible and intelligent use of the conservation estate so that more people more New Zealanders can get out there and enjoy our natural environment. As has been discussed today in the House the Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on this bill. We really wanted to deliver for two stakeholders. We walked a fine line to make sure that we delivered for the hunting community which is passionate about this bill but we also wanted to deliver for the environment and for conservation. Hunting and conservation are not mutually exclusive. We all want to see more people out and about and more recreationists out in our great outdoors because recreation is often the pathway to conservation. When you speak to recreationists whether they be hunters shooters fishermen or mountain bikers—the people who are out there—they are the first to extol the beauty of our natural environment and to be very sure that theywant to see it protected. Hunting is a hugely popular recreational activity in New Zealand and many hunters along with other recreationists whether they are fishermen or trampers or mountain bikers or climbers are also passionately committed to looking after our environment and contribute actively to practical on-the-ground conservation.This bill will give hunters a greater say in their sport just like fishermen have through Fish and Game and it will also provide the Minister of Conservation with a valuable stream of advice regarding recreational and guided trophy hunting of tahr chamois deer and wild pigs. Again it is a balance between giving the hunters more say and providing the Minister of Conservation with more abilities to look after the conservation estate. The Game Animal Council Bill provides a framework for collaborative management by stakeholders of this animal resource. It will ensure that the animals are permitted in only identified less sensitive areas and are well managed and that the natural environment is monitored. This of course will be a much better proposition for the environment than the present situation where stakeholders tend to be divided there is no process for shared knowledge or for goals and there is no opportunity to manage these animals in a much more efficient way. So we believe that this bill will provide a win-win. It will provide a better hunting experience for our recreationists but it will also manage and conserve our natural environment more effectively. I commend this bill to the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Points of Order — Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Voting CorrectionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Points of Order — Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Voting Correction[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14853. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes of course you can seek leave. The reality is that the House is the master of its own destiny. The member has sought leave and then it is up to the members to decide what they want to do. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. Thank you. But it is inHansard anyway.
Logie Jan: Points of Order — Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Voting CorrectionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Points of Order — Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Voting Correction[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14853. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): I seek leave for the vote on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill to be taken again.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You want the vote to be taken again?JAN LOGIE: Yes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? [Interruption] Sorry? Do you just want to give your vote again?JAN LOGIE: No I want to take the vote again.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You want to take the whole vote again? I have been advised that as the matter has finished—the bill has had its third reading—that is it.JAN LOGIE: I seek leave to have it recorded inHansard that the Green Party the Mana Party and Independent MP Brendan Horan wish to vote in the negative on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill which the House was previously dealing with.
Ross Jami-Lee: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14841. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): The Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill has been canvassed a lot and was for many many hours last night. I simply want to say that when the Opposition accuses this Government of not recognising the importance of State housing it is absolutely wrong. This bill is all about recognising the importance of State housing. That is why National is committed to ensuring that the State housing stock is fit for purpose that theState housing stock is allocated to those most in need and that there is flexibility around that too.I want to simply point out the huge investment that Housing New Zealand is making. We are making a record investment of $2.9 billion in Housing New Zealand over 3 years. That is National’s commitment to State housing. This bill will absolutely ensure that more services are provided to New Zealanders in this sector.Bill read a third time.Votes for the Noes ordered to be recorded in theJournals of the House of Representatives as follows: New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan 1.
Sabin Mike: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14839. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am also pleased to take a call on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. That speech from Sue Moroney was a fairly good example albeit a very short one of the approach of the Labour Party which seems to think that it is the only one that can be determinative of a person’s situation in life. For so long in terms of the housing stock we have seen people who have become beholden to the State and have not had the ability and have not had the framework and the legislative impetus to have aspiration and to have the freedoms that we want everyone to be able to have. No one in this House would argue that having a house that is fit for purpose and having people assessed on a needs basis is anything other than reasonable.We are talking about a Labour Government that sat back there and did nothing about the housing stock for 9 years whereas this Government is actually doing something about the housing stock. It is actually doing something about the challenges we are confronted with in some of the centres in terms of housing. We are bothering to insulate the houses and make them happy and warm environments.The Labour Party members can wax lyrical and wring their hands over their chardonnays but ultimately this is about a Minister of Housing who is actually committed to ensuring that the housing stock grows that the flexibility—Dr David Clark: Slash and burn!MIKE SABIN: Well that is the Labour Party approach Mr Clark. That is the Labour Party approach: “What we will do is we will sit over here in Opposition and do nothing more than throw stones at the people—throw rocks within the glass house—because those other people over there are actually doing something.” which is pretty reflective when one looks at the polls. It does not matter how many Labour leaders change it in and out; it is getting nowhere with that. And that member there who seems to come up with the greatest one-liners in 50 years and nothing more should actually take a little bit of time to consider exactly what his party is doing and what it aspires to—not much.This bill is about providing the right mechanisms for the housing stock and ensuring that the community and relevant organisations can participate in providing the right sort of support for those who need it—simple as that.
Moroney Sue: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14839. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): Last night when we were at the midway stages of the debate I was opposing the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill on behalf of Labour and I was proud to do so because we simply do not believe in making some of the most vulnerable people in our society even more vulnerable through this constant pressure and insecurity of reviewable tenancies.During the Committee stage Labour put forward very sensible amendments that were rejected by the Government. They were there to ensure that in legislation no one over the age of 65 no one with a disability and no one with school-age children would be subject to these reviewable tenancies and to the absolute lack of security over the most basic of fundamental needs the right to have a decent roof over one’s head. Labour is not a party that wants to make more insecurity for schoolchildren for those over the age of 65 and for people with disabilities. Those are the people who need protection from the ravages of that Government opposite. We know that the basic problem here is that there is not enough housing to go around.
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Covered Bonds) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeReserve Bank of New Zealand (Covered Bonds) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15008. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Covered Bonds) Amendment BillIn CommitteeDr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): We have made good progress this evening. It is very close to the witching hour and I seek leave and suggest that we end at this point whatever the motion—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are seeking leave for the Committee to be suspended at this time? Leave is sought for the Committee to be suspended at 2 minutes to 12. Is there objection to that course of action? There is none.
Sittings of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSittings of the House[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15008. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Sittings of the HouseDr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): It seems like we have made good progress this evening. It is a late hour for starting a new bill—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to put the House into Committee and then take that point of order or someone else may who is the Chair.
Points of Order — Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Voting CorrectionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Voting Correction[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:14853. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderSocial Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Voting CorrectionJAN LOGIE (Green): I seek leave for the vote on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill to be taken again.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You want the vote to be taken again?JAN LOGIE: Yes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? [Interruption] Sorry? Do you just want to give your vote again?JAN LOGIE: No I want to take the vote again.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You want to take the whole vote again? I have been advised that as the matter has finished—the bill has had its third reading—that is it.JAN LOGIE: I seek leave to have it recorded inHansard that the Green Party the Mana Party and Independent MP Brendan Horan wish to vote in the negative on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill which the House was previously dealing with.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes of course you can seek leave. The reality is that the House is the master of its own destiny. The member has sought leave and then it is up to the members to decide what they want to do. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. Thank you. But it is inHansard anyway.
Roy Eric: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14046. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress reported.Report adopted.
McKelvie Ian: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14046. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It seems a shame to have to take a call this late in the Committee stage of this bill the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill—Grant Robertson: He’s taking a call?IANMcKELVIE: —yes—but I have sat here and listened to Clare Curran make the same speech four times this afternoon and a number of times yesterday and I cannot believe the absolute nonsense that I have heard. I have heard Mr Goff complain about the fact that the companies have to pay to be part of this. If that is the case why does every other business in New Zealand have to pay for almost everything we do when we transact with the Government? Those members clearly do not get it. The Opposition has talked about putting more checks and balances in place. In one mouthful those members are telling us that the obligations are onerous and in the next they say that they want more checks and balances in place. Yesterday they wanted to insert a technical advisory board. In fact they talked a lot about the technical advisory board. We heard during the submissions—
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14044. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the schedule as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule as amended agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14044. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14044. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14044. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14043. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 366 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 4 be agreed to.
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLotu-Iiga Sam: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14043. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): I moveThat the question be now put.
McKelvie Ian: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14042. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I moveThat the question be now put.
Calder Cam: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCalder Cam: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14040. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr CAM CALDER (National): I moveThat the question be now put.
Dean Jacqui: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14038. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The problem that Labour has in opposing this Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill is that it is dancing on the head of a pin trying to find reasons to oppose it. What it is conveniently forgetting is that it was that Labour Government that brought in the telecommunications bill in the first place in 2004. What you have to ask yourself is well did Labour oppose it then? Labour did not oppose it then because Labour brought it in. Did Labour understand the need for national security back then? Yes I believe Labour did understand the need for national security back then and somehow it has had this amnesia about its former position which is not unusual for Labour because flip-flopping is what it does.Labour has conveniently forgotten the need for national security and so now its members are making up arguments that even they do not believe in. Phil Goff knows from his former role as a Minister in the former Government that national security is critical to the running of New Zealand. He knows full well the roles of the Government Communications Security Bureau the SIS and the New Zealand Police and the roles that they must must have under legislation to keep New Zealanders safe because that is what this Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill is all about. It is about keeping New Zealanders safe. Labour does not get it. But over this side of the Chamber we do.
Tisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Hon John Banks—Ministerial ResignationText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Hon John Banks—Ministerial Resignation[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14024. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a 5-minute call.
Carter David: Urgent Debates — Hon John Banks—Ministerial ResignationText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates — Hon John Banks—Ministerial Resignation[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14015. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Metiria Turei and Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the resignation of the Hon John Banks from his ministerial portfolios. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Not every ministerial resignation will automatically lead to an urgent debate being accepted. Having carefully considered this application I have decided to err on the side of allowing the debate. However I remind members that the particular case that has been accepted is the Minister stepping aside from his ministerial responsibilities. It is not the matters involving the member which are currently before the courts. As Mr Robertson acknowledged in his application the particulars of the case ought not to be referred to. Although I have discretion under Standing Order 112 I have not been asked in writing to exercise this discretion. I therefore intend to be vigilant in ensuring that the House’s rules are followed to the letter.As MsTurei’s letter was received first I had earlier accepted her application. I have therefore allowed her to return to the Chamber at the end of question time and I call on Metiria Turei to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLotu-Iiga Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14011. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to theMinister of Health: What progress is the Government making on its Rheumatic Fever Programme?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The challenge of reducing rheumatic fever rates after years of relentless increases is a real challenge. Working with theMāori Party an important part of the Government’s campaign to reduce rheumatic fever rates is easy access local drop-in clinics. These are very important to local families whose children do not attend schools that have the throat-swabbing services and for out-of-time access for all at-risk kids. We can announce today that eight sore throat drop-in clinics have opened this week as part of the Government’s $45 million campaign to reduce rheumatic fever rates and at least 60 more will open in Greater Auckland and Porirua over the next few months. This is the first time a health system anywhere in the world has sought to reduce rheumatic fever incidence and we are trying numerous innovative ways to achieve this.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What particular steps are being taken in Pacific communities to address unacceptable rheumatic fever rates?Hon TONY RYALL: As the member will know Pacific children are up to 44 times more likely to contract rheumatic fever than their non-Pacific classmates. Several specific strategies are being implemented to turn this round. This afternoon Mrs Turia will announce that the fight against rheumatic fever is now going door-to-door in the high-risk areas ofŌtara Onehunga Manurewa MasseyRānui and Henderson. Eighty-two community health workers have already been trained as part of the Pacific Engagement Strategy with 23 more due shortly. These health workers will visit around 11000 at-risk Pacific families in their own homes and in the community in the GreaterAuckland region. Members will be surprised to know that reducing rheumatic fever rates has been a national priority since 2001 and it has only taken this Government to invest $45 million in this very important programme.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14001. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry that question was very difficult to hear at the start because of the level of interjection. Would the member start again?
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14001. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): What progress is the Government making with its multi-billion dollar—
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13997. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that Hon John Banks is a “credible” and “trustworthy” individual?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of thePrime Minister: Yes.Grant Robertson: If he believes that John Banks is a credible and trustworthy individual why did he accept his resignation as a Minister given that Mr Banks continues to insist he has done nothing wrong and has nothing to fear nothing to hide?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because Mr Banks indicated to the office of the Prime Minister late last week that in the event the judge ruled against him he would tender his resignation as a Minister. The judge ruled against him he kept his word and tendered his resignation as a Minister.Grant Robertson: Given his statement yesterday that he would reinstate Mr Banks as a Minister if he managed to avoid a trial can he confirm that he regards Mr Banks’ conduct as acceptable for Ministers who are part of his Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member has misrepresented what the Prime Minister said yesterday.Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that Mr Banks’ actions make him acceptable to be a Minister in his Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the member may have noticed that Mr Banks is not a Minister in the current Government.Grant Robertson: Is it not the case that the Prime Minister is the last person left in New Zealand who thinks that John Banks is credible and trustworthy and that he is saying that only because he desperately needs to cling to that political corpse to prop up his Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the benefit of the member if he looks at the confidence and supply agreements which are publicly available the Prime Minister commands a majority of 64 votes to 57 in this Parliament. No single vote is critical to the Government. Secondly if legal proceedings continue as indicated yesterday and Mr Banks does go to trial he will benefit as every other New Zealand citizen does fromthe presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Labour Party may know the result already. Fortunately the legal system is more even handed.Grant Robertson: Does he now regret refusing to read the police report into John Banks filing a false electoral return given that he had all the information he needed to know that Mr Banks should resign as a Minister last September but he failed to act on it?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The correct way of handling allegations that someone has not complied with the law is through the legal process.
Tolley Anne: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTolley Anne: Business Statement[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13997. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 22 October the Government intends to progress the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill and the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. With the agreement of the Business Committee the sitting on Tuesday 22 October will be extended on the morning of 23 October and the House will consider the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill theNgātiHauā Claims Settlement Bill theNgātiKorokiKahukura Claims Settlement Bill and theMokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill. Wednesday 23 October is a members’ day.
Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBusiness Statement[Sitting date: 17 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13997. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 17 October 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 22 October the Government intends to progress the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill and the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. With the agreement of the Business Committee the sitting on Tuesday 22 October will be extended on the morning of 23 October and the House will consider the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill theNgātiHauā Claims Settlement Bill theNgātiKorokiKahukura Claims Settlement Bill and theMokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill. Wednesday 23 October is a members’ day.
Robertson H V Ross: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14261. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Dr Paul Hutchison.
McKelvie Ian: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14259. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Firstly I might take a moment to congratulate Sue Moroney on drawing yet another lucky number. She has been busy on members’ day ever since I have been in this House.Sue Moroney: Come to the races with me.IAN McKELVIE: Yes we might get a bit of luck there too Sue might we not? We are not far out from the Melbourne Cup now. This bill the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill does touch on some areas that are of great importance and interest to all New Zealanders. Like in many countries worldwide the new age of technology has led to some issues with security breaches that were not previously experienced and are certainly not desirable. Some of the discussion of course has taken place during the recent discussions on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill introduced to enable our law enforcement agencies to operate in the new era which is an increasingly complex and testing area to understand as members opposite have demonstrated in the past few weeks. Mr Scott Simpson has spoken at length on the reasons we are not able to offer support for this bill so I will merely agree with everything he has said and get on with matters of interest to us all.Andrew Little then said “Show us what you’ve got.” Well I went and got a copy of this bill and if that is all we have got we ain’t got much—it is a page. It is a page. He then went on to talk about some other nefarious stuff with respect to “Show us what you’ve got.” I did not believe any of it. He then got muddled to some extent and started talking about the Minister of Justice and in fact what a wonderful job she has done with that portfolio in her time with it. So I thought really that Andrew Little did a great job.Trevor Mallard’s performance tonight on the other hand has me wishing that the America’s Cup was still running. We certainly got a lot more done during the running of those cup finals and I did quite enjoy the House in that couple of weeks. Mr Auchinvole then got up made an outstanding speech about this bill and then started talking about the black gold. I really thought for a minute that he had joined the Greens but we were saved from that because they then got up and started talking about the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation. They told us that the Privacy Commissioner is underfunded. Well I understand that the Government raised another$1.8 billion today. That should alleviate some of the problem with our funding of issues throughout New Zealand.So with those few words I am afraid that I cannot support this bill and I will resume my seat.
Robertson H V Ross: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14253. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Scott Wilson.Scott Simpson: Simpson.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Simpson. It escaped me for a minute Mr Simpson.
Vote: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14251. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Care of Children Law Reform Bill be now read a first time.Ayes42New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent Horan.Noes78New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well can I just say to the member that my declaration was challenged and so on that basis I instructed a party vote to be taken. That is the reason why I asked the Clerk to please conduct a party vote. I would appreciate it if the Clerk would now do that. Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you might be confusing a challenge with people voting different ways. There have got to be two things. First of all people have the right to vote—Ayes and Noes—but there is a division only if your declaration is challenged as I have tried to indicate to the House. I can give you the case of the immigration legislation of I think 1983 where there was a group of seven or eight Labour members who voted No. This was the Samoan legislation of 1983 which ended up going to the Privy Council. Rosenberg I think took it to the Privy Council. But the point that I am trying to make is that it is always the right of the members to vote with their voices but not to call a division. And they can call for a division—they can challenge your result—only when you have declared it. The point that I am making to you is that you had not declared the result before Mr Macindoe was calling for a party vote. He has got to wait for you to call for a party vote before he can challenge your ruling because you cannot challenge a ruling that has not been made.
Robertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well can I just say that the thing was challenged and because it was challenged I instructed a party vote to be called. So I now call the Clerk to conduct a party vote.
Mallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That cannot possibly be right because you called “The Ayes have it.” Why would people on this side of the House who supported it call for a division on a vote when you had already declared that we had won? That cannot be right.
Robertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just instruct the House that the declaration of the result was challenged and I took it from this side that there was a party vote called for so I instructed a party vote to be taken. I now instruct the Clerk to please take the party vote.
Mallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think that the member has absolutely proved my case because what he has to do is to call for the vote after you have declared the result. So you quite properly said “Those in favour say Aye those opposed say No.” But you went then from saying “The Ayes have it.”; you declared the result but then immediately called for a party vote rather than wait until after the member had himself called for a party vote which he can do only after you have declared the result. He cannot call for a party vote against a result until he knows what the result is. That is the way things work. You have got to declare a result and then that is the point when he calls for a party vote.
Macindoe Tim: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): As is your custom you called for the Ayes. Members opposite said “Aye.” You called for the Noes and members on this side said “No.” I immediately said “The Noes have it.” and I was joined in that by several of my colleagues. Immediately after that I said “Party vote.” as you were saying “The Noes have it.” The member’s point is totally wrong.
Mallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14249. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a requirement for someone to call for a party vote after—[Interruption] Well no—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Can you hear the point of order first? With all due respect I did hear someone call for a party vote but it was after you said you would ask the Clerk for a party vote. My understanding of the way that these things are meant to be ordered is that you declare a result and if the people do not like it then there is a requirement for a party vote. Although it is probably reasonable given the debate for you to anticipate that there might be a division on this particular question the point I would like to put to you is that you should wait to make sure that they are actually voting with their votes as opposed to just on their voices. As you will know Mr Assistant Speaker although there is a tradition in this House of having votes after voicevotes there is a long-term tradition of members being able to vote on the voices but not force a division. My view is that it is up to you to wait and make sure that members do want a division before you decide that there should be one.
Robertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14249. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it. [Interruption] The Ayes have it. [Interruption] Right. In that case the Clerk is instructed to carry out a party vote. Thank you.
Shanks Katrina: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShanks Katrina: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14242. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KATRINA SHANKS (National): I was going to say that it is my pleasure to take a call on this Care of Children Law Reform Bill. It is actually a very very unique bill. I have never seen one actually drafted like this in the House before. Normally when you look at a bill especially a member’s bill you see the person’s passion coming through that bill their principles what they believe in how they want it to go and what they want to achieve. But in this bill you do not see any of that. All you see in this bill is the member saying that she directs the Minister of Justice to direct the Law Commission to write a report to draft a bit of legislation to come back into the House and for it to be tabled. Nowhere in this bill does it actually talk about adoption in between clauses 6 and 9 where all the information should be about what you want to achieve in this bill.Between clauses 6 and 9 adoption does not come up once. You do not mention the word “adoption” once between clauses 6 and 9 where all the action actually happens—where the Law Commission has been directed. There is no reference to that word.So when we have it in the select committee and we have submitters come forward what are they going to submit on? Are they going to submit on those clauses and say: “We do not want it referred to the Law Commission.” or “We do not want the Law Commission writing legislation that has to be tabled in the House.”? Is that what they are going to say? There is no clear direction in this bill about what you actually want to achieve.We all agree that adoption is very important for many many families in New Zealand. It is a very emotive topic for many many people in New Zealand. So let us have a piece of legislation that actually talks about what you want to do with adoption what your vision is where we should be going with adoption in New Zealand and what people in New Zealand actually want. The bill does not give us that. It does not give us direction. It does not give us clarity about what that member wants. What really concerns me is that if the Law Commission does a report reports back to the House and there is a piece of legislation attached to that and the member does not like those recommendations then she has put forward a bill that will have recommendations that she does not even agree with. I cannot support this bill.
Lee Melissa: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLee Melissa: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14227. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MELISSA LEE (National): I would indeed like to continue a little bit because as we draw closer to the dinner break I was wondering whether I was once again going to have to break up my speech. If I remember correctly I was speaking in support of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I wanted to bring a little bit of the ethnic perspective into it and I talked specifically about my mother who is raising my child.As members of Parliament we often leave our homes and given that I am a single woman my son who has just turned 15 is often at home with my mother. My mother I sometimes joke has become my wife. It is so in many ethnic communities and I think people have often talked about the goose parents the goose mums who migrate to New Zealand and often their husbands go back to their home countries because they cannot get a job. The wives then try to find a job here while looking after their children and when a wife does in fact find a job often the young children are looked after by grandparents.The Government recognises this incredible work being done by family members who are raising children who have lost their parents or who are unable to live with their parents. At the moment kin carers are entitled to assistance to help with the cost of raising orphaned or unsupported children and in 2009 National ensured that kin carers would get the same weekly amount as foster carers which I think is excellent.You know traditionally in ethnic communities grandparents played a very big role in teaching young children about their culture about their language about their tradition and about their family history. They play a significant role. But the thing is that when they are lumbered with the care of children whom they do not necessarily have responsibility for after they have raised their own children they have to relearn how to be parents. I think it is a wonderful job that they are doing and we need to support them.More than 12000 children are being cared for by wider family members for one reason or another and I know that we have agreed with New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin who has introduced this bill to look at further options within that $10 million capped fund that we have already committed to in the Vulnerable Children Bill. I look forward to the submission process in the select committee and I look forward to building on the good work that is already under way. I commend this bill.