edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Macindoe Tim: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Macindoe Tim: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9025] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9031] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 107 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9032] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Vote: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:9001] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this House express its confidence in the National-led Government and commend its programme for 2010 as set out in the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Ardern Jacinda: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Ardern Jacinda: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:9000] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Questions might be raised by anyone who is watching the House today as to why so many National members have descended on this debating chamber at 5 to 6 just before the dinner hour to listen to this national debate. I think they have come down to find out what national standards are all about because anyone who watched question time today would be left none the wiser as to what they are all about. I think there are two questions in this debate. Viewers may ask today whether New Zealand prior to now was in a situation where parents were absolutely devoid of information about how their children were performing in schools. Was there not an ounce of information? If listeners were to believe the Government they would think that not an inch of information was being provided. That is absolutely not the case but that is what this Government has claimed national standards are all about. We know that schools were providing that information. We only need ask some of our excellent principals including one on our own side of the House Kelvin Davis who will tell members that the provision is already there for that information to be provided to parents. If there were situations where schools were not providing that information to parents that problem did not have to be rectified via national standards. 
So what is the real agenda? The Government tells us that the real agenda is to assist vulnerable children and children who are not performing— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time for this debate has expired.
Hughes Darren: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hughes Darren: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8998] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Speaker. The previous speaker Mrs Tolley started her speech at 5.39 p.m. My understanding was that valedictories were normally 15 minutes in length. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
Hughes Darren: Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
[Volume:660;Page:8964] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of question time because we have spent a lot of time on select committee business at the front of the hour. I want to pick up on the invitation the Leader of the House made earlier—that perhaps one way of resolving what is normally a pretty bipartisan process of minority reports would be if I sought leave to move a motion without debate to instruct the report to be referred back to the Law and Order Committee so that it can resolve the minority report issue and report back to the House by tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:660;Page:8964] 
3. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee 
: When does she expect the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will be reported back to the House? 
SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee) 
: 
 The bill is scheduled to be reported to the House by 30 March 2010. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is it the case that a minority report was presented that highlighted that the Government and ACT members had blocked Ministry of Justice officials from becoming advisers to the committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that that question meets the requirements of the Standing Orders.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:660;Page:8964] 
2. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee 
: What is the timeline for submissions on the revised Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill? 
SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee) 
: 
 The committee is inviting submissions from those who previously submitted on issues directly related to the current proposed amendments with a deadline on Friday 5 March 2010. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How many hours of oral hearings have been set aside for those submitters? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Decisions in relation to legislation before a select committee are decisions of the select committee and in committee.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:660;Page:8963] 
1. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee 
: When did the committee last meet to consider the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill? 
SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee) 
: 
 As the member should well know being the deputy chair of the select committee we met today—Wednesday 17 February 2010—from 10 o’clock until 1 p.m. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Have any requests been made to the chair to make Ministry of Justice officials available to provide advice on the bill; if so what decision was made? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that the member can ask about decisions of the committee because they are not within the responsibility of the chair.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:660;Page:8958] 
8. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Has she received the report entitled  
Step Change: Success the Only Option 
; if so which recommendations does she agree with? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes; I am yet to make a decision as to whether I agree with the central recommendation which is to appoint a task force. I will make that decision after further consideration and advice. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Are her national standards with their inter-school moderation able to be used to assess which students fall into the top 5 percent or the bottom 20 percent of their cohort which are the key figures in that report? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I have said to the member I am considering the report and I believe that any further comments on the report would be premature. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was actually a very simple question about whether her national standards would identify the top 5 percent and the bottom 20 percent. It would not require any thought from a Minister on top of her portfolio. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The essence of the question implies that I have accepted the report and that I agree with what is in the report. The point I made was that I had only received the report and I was still considering it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want this debate by way of point of order to go on. I understand what the member who asked the question is getting at but in fairness I have to say that as I understand it the report was received only in the last 24 hours or so. I think it is reasonable for the Minister to answer that she needs time to consider the report. I realise the member’s question is about how the report interacts with national standards proposals but it is reasonable that the Minister may need time to reflect on that and I think that is a reasonable answer.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:660;Page:8957] 
7. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What is the proposed question format for the upcoming referendum on MMP? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The first question at this stage is to ask voters whether they wish to retain MMP or change to a different system. The second question will ask voters irrespective of how they voted on the first question what their preferred alternative system is from four options those being first past the post preferential voting the supplementary-member representation system or the single transferable vote system. 
Chester Borrows 
: Will the public have any input into the proposed approach for the referendum? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes. I will be introducing a bill in the next month or so that provides for a referendum to be held. I am pleased to say that agreement has been reached that a special all-party select committee will be established to consider this legislation as well as the reforms that are being proposed in the electoral finance rules area. Both bills if it is the wish of Parliament will receive the normal 6-month consideration by the committee which I hope will allow the public and political parties to make submissions on these important matters.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:660;Page:8963] 
12. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on the transport stimulus projects announced last February? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that all five medium to large transport stimulus projects announced last year plus the Victoria Park project are now under construction. They are well on their way to improving transport efficiency and boosting growth. They are together employing around 500 New Zealanders in construction jobs not to mention the additional jobs created downstream in the supply of services and materials. These 500 jobs are all in addition to the significant construction activity already under way across New Zealand. 
David Bennett 
: How is this injection of funding being received by the road-building industry? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Both the Contractors Federation and Roading New Zealand have indicated that they are pleased with the responsiveness of both the Government and the New Zealand Transport Agency. The New Zealand Transport Agency has brought forward a further $10 million worth of work this construction season further helping contractors through the tail end of the recession. With work on roads of national significance now also developing quickly the sector has a substantial pipeline of Government projects to look forward to. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What areas of New Zealand received the money in last February’s announcement by the Minister for road maintenance and road renewal given that so many regional mayors around New Zealand have voiced concern about the safety of New Zealand roads the budgets for which they say have been effectively cut? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not want to take up the House’s time reading out every single one of the 87 different local authorities that were allocated funds in the last round; they are of course available on the New Zealand Transport Agency website. I point out to the member that the funding increased by around 17 percent across the country for the next 3 years over the last 3 years. That 17 percent increase is shared across a range of territorial local authorities.
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:660;Page:8950] 
2. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the Government doing to ensure value for money in its expenditure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 After years of reckless spending the Government needs to correct New Zealand’s habit of spending more than it earns. There are many opportunities for gaining better value for money in particular where there are multiple agencies offering a range of social services to the same people in the same area. Whanau Ora is part of a suite of initiatives that will contribute to the Government’s aspirational agenda for New Zealand by eliminating the continued waste of overlapping programmes so that we can increase our social capital improve the welfare of families and achieve better value for the money that the taxpayer is spending. 
Amy Adams 
: What are some of the value-for-money initiatives that the Government is or will be implementing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are two in particular. One is the high-trust contracts where the Government has a new type of contract with non-governmental organisations whereby it operates on the basis of outcomes rather than by ticking boxes and secondly there is Whanau Ora which is a philosophy and an approach to working with families that builds on their strengths and helps us to sort out the money that is wasted in overlapping social programmes. 
Amy Adams 
: How will Whanau Ora deliver better value for money? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As we have explained there are any number of areas in New Zealand where there are many overlapping contracts with overlapping requirements for auditing and monitoring. This problem has been around for a number of years. But it appears that Whanau Ora which focuses on positive benefits for families will be a very useful tool in bringing together these contracts and in ensuring we can deliver focused services that achieve outcomes rather than ticks in boxes and make progress for many New Zealand families.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
[Volume:660;Page:8949] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the minority report on the interim report written in respect of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which was blocked by National and ACT members today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
[Volume:660;Page:8948] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe I need to hear more on this matter because this is not a matter of order in this House although I accept the point made by the honourable member that it is a matter that is serious in respect of the Standing Orders of the House. It is my understanding—and if I am wrong in this matter I stand corrected—that it is within the power of a committee to decide by resolution whether a minority view is to be included in its report. It is my understanding that the particular committee to which the member is referring resolved that way. As far as I am concerned that must be the end of the matter. If the member wants me to consider further matters he is most welcome to come and see me about them.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
[Volume:660;Page:8948] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I refer you Mr Speaker to the second bullet point of Speaker’s ruling 91/4. It says: “A minority contribution like every contribution must be relevant to the subject before the committee. A chairperson rules on relevancy.” The same Speaker ruled that “A majority can refuse to admit differing views altogether. If a minority’s views are objectionable or too long there may be a trade-off whereby the minority agrees to cull its contribution. But this must be done consensually; the majority cannot just rewrite a minority’s view.” In other words the minority view from the minority itself has to be considerate of the wider committee report. There is specific reference elsewhere in this ruling to unparliamentary language so I doubt that that is what Speaker Hunt was referring to in 2000 when he said that if “views are objectionable or too long there may be a trade-off”. 
I am suggesting that there has clearly been a discussion at a select committee and there has clearly been a disagreement. Throughout Speakers’ rulings there are references to the chairperson’s ability to rule in these matters. If there was any doubt about that the only course of action would be for the party that feels a little aggrieved to seek to have the report sent back to the committee. That would require a vote in Parliament.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
[Volume:660;Page:8947] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a serious point of order on which I would be grateful for your considered ruling. It concerns a serious procedural matter of constitutional import. The issue relates directly to a ruling delivered in this House by one of your predecessors Speaker Hunt in response to a point of order. I refer you to the  
New Zealand Parliamentary Debates 
 Volume 589 at page 6893. In that ruling Speaker Hunt addressed the obligation of majorities on select committees to allow minorities to express their views in the reports of committees. Speaker Hunt was quite clear that a majority cannot adopt a report that misrepresents the diverging views on a select committee. 
I acknowledge that it is not your normal practice to deal on the floor of the House with matters relating to select committees. However as the ruling by Speaker Hunt in 2000 clearly shows it is not without precedent for a Speaker to rule on a particularly serious matter relating to select committees that goes to the heart of the democratic process in respect of this House. This being the case I feel obliged to bring to your attention and seek your considered ruling on the troubling events at the Law and Order Committee this morning. Those events are public given the tabling of the interim report and we have had advice from the Clerk that we can discuss them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. It is important that the matters the member will be raising are not still before the committee. Can I just check that an interim report has been tabled? It has been tabled. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: This morning the chairperson Ms Goudie insisted that a minority report drafted by Labour members could not be included in the committee’s interim report to the House on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. This is an unprecedented act that came as a great shock to Labour members. We sought advice—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —from the Clerk of the House who advised the committee that she had no recollection of such decisions taking place in the past except perhaps where there was unparliamentary language or something completely out of order. It is clear that Ms Goudie is attempting by her actions in the committee this morning to prevent Labour members from raising our very serious concerns about the process relating to this bill. 
Finally I seek your considered ruling on whether it should be within the power of Ms Goudie to prevent members from including their genuine views in a report of the House. If it is what options are open to members to inform the House of concerns they have?
Brownlee Gerry: Standing Orders Sessional 
Brownlee Gerry: Standing Orders Sessional 
[Volume:660;Page:8947] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the following sessional orders to be adopted: that following the coming into force of this sessional order where the member in whose name a member’s bill stands postpones the order of the day for its first reading for a second or subsequent time on the members’ day on which the bill next becomes available for debate it is set down for first reading after all other orders of the day for the first reading of members’ bills with Standing Order 71 to be read accordingly; and that the number of orders of the day for the first readings of members’ bills that may be before the House at any one time be increased from four to six with Standing Order 272(1) and (4) to be read accordingly. 
These provisions have been agreed to after considerable discussion by the members of the Business Committee representing the whole of Parliament. Last year we faced a situation where members exercised their right to withdraw bills on a members’ day which left us with a relatively short amount of work to do and the loss of considerable parliamentary time. This is a compromise between the need for some members to postpone bills because various facets of their support are not in place and ensuring that the time the House sets aside for the hearing of members’ bills and the opportunity for members to advance bills is not unduly affected. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Smith Lockwood: Wanganui District Council (Port and Harbour) Bill — Discharge 
Smith Lockwood: Wanganui District Council (Port and Harbour) Bill — Discharge 
[Volume:660;Page:8947] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I inform the House that I have received advice from the Wanganui District Council the promoter of the bill withdrawing the Wanganui District Council (Port and Harbour) Bill pursuant to Standing Order 269. The bill is consequently discharged from further consideration by the House.
Dalziel Lianne: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9001] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to complete my call because when we were last debating this matter I had a series of questions for the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett. These were essentially focused around the primary issue of why the Government when it is so close to announcing the Whanau Ora programme which we are awaiting with bated breath has brought forward this bill. We heard the Deputy Prime Minister talk in the House today about what Whanau Ora is intended to bring about so why are we bringing down the age of criminal responsibility for offences beyond murder and manslaughter which are already covered by the existing legislation? It makes no sense to attach youth liability—young person liability—to a child when we are in the midst of changing the way we approach early intervention. That is the issue I am concerned about. We are essentially saying that someone who is too young to be a babysitter is not too young to appear in a Youth Court. That is fundamentally wrong. 
In the second reading I asked a question around the names of certain individuals. I asked who Alexander Tokorua Peihopa Whatarangi Rawiri Phillip Kaukasi Rika Rapira and Joe Kaukasi were. Nobody in the House knew the answer to that question. I took a long time to find the answer to the question when I went looking for it. Eventually I found it. The only consistent report on the case these people relate to read: “Michael Choy was brutally murdered nearly 4 years ago by six thugs including this country’s youngest killer Bailey Junior Kurariki.” Bailey Junior Kurariki is the only one we ever hear about in the media. Why is that? It is because he was so young. He was this baby-faced killer. But although Bailey Junior Kurariki did wrong in terms of the group he was involved with and the phone call he made to entice a pizza deliverer to the house so that an attack could be made it is not clear whether he knew when he made that phone call that the pizza deliverer would end up being killed. No one will ever know the truth of that. The bottom line is that he did not physically kill Michael Choy. Two people were convicted of murder and four others were convicted of manslaughter. 
Why does the Minister want 12 and 13-year-olds put in the position of Bailey Junior Kurariki for offences less serious than murder and manslaughter? How on earth will we ever start talking about rehabilitation of the very young? We are talking about children. Why would we want to make them liable to appear in a Youth Court and expose them to the kind of coverage that Bailey Junior Kurariki was exposed to? Look at the consequence of that coverage on that young man’s life—it is almost irreparable.
Ardern Jacinda: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9033] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak to Part 2 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill. I think that this part demonstrates as my colleague has already touched on what the overwhelming ripple effect of what we are doing today on the age bands within our youth justice system will have beyond just which court a young child or young offender will appear in and beyond just what powers may apply to that particular given court. It has a knock-on effect. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Court Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Judicial Matters Bill. 
Report adopted.
Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
Points of Order — Select Committees—Minority Reports 
[Volume:660;Page:8964] 
Points of Order 
Select Committees—Minority Reports 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of question time because we have spent a lot of time on select committee business at the front of the hour. I want to pick up on the invitation the Leader of the House made earlier—that perhaps one way of resolving what is normally a pretty bipartisan process of minority reports would be if I sought leave to move a motion without debate to instruct the report to be referred back to the Law and Order Committee so that it can resolve the minority report issue and report back to the House by tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Standing Orders Sessional 
Standing Orders Sessional 
[Volume:660;Page:8947] 
Standing Orders 
Sessional 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the following sessional orders to be adopted: that following the coming into force of this sessional order where the member in whose name a member’s bill stands postpones the order of the day for its first reading for a second or subsequent time on the members’ day on which the bill next becomes available for debate it is set down for first reading after all other orders of the day for the first reading of members’ bills with Standing Order 71 to be read accordingly; and that the number of orders of the day for the first readings of members’ bills that may be before the House at any one time be increased from four to six with Standing Order 272(1) and (4) to be read accordingly. 
These provisions have been agreed to after considerable discussion by the members of the Business Committee representing the whole of Parliament. Last year we faced a situation where members exercised their right to withdraw bills on a members’ day which left us with a relatively short amount of work to do and the loss of considerable parliamentary time. This is a compromise between the need for some members to postpone bills because various facets of their support are not in place and ensuring that the time the House sets aside for the hearing of members’ bills and the opportunity for members to advance bills is not unduly affected. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Wanganui District Council (Port and Harbour) Bill — Discharge 
Wanganui District Council (Port and Harbour) Bill — Discharge 
[Volume:660;Page:8947] 
Wednesday 17 February 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Wanganui District Council (Port and Harbour) Bill 
Discharge 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I inform the House that I have received advice from the Wanganui District Council the promoter of the bill withdrawing the Wanganui District Council (Port and Harbour) Bill pursuant to Standing Order 269. The bill is consequently discharged from further consideration by the House.
Shanks Katrina: Unit Titles Bill — Second Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Unit Titles Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8942] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Unit Titles Bill tonight. I thank the officials for all the hard work they have put into the bill. It is quite complex and a lot of submitters raised some very valid points. We made significant changes to the bill in the select committee process. I thank the officials for their work. They articulated to us on paper how we could implement those changes so I thank them for their hard work. 
National went into the election on a platform to streamline and simplify regulations. This Government keeps its word and delivers on its promise. We are doing things differently. This bill represents how well we are doing things differently. Labour first looked at this legislation in November 2004 which was 6 years ago. We have been in Government for just over a year and we have already progressed this bill to its second reading. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: We did all the prep work for you. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Labour might have done all the preparation but it took Labour 4 years to do it. It should not have taken 4 years and even Moana Mackey the former MP for Gisborne got up and said that this bill was well overdue. The previous Labour Government was in slow mode and this National Government is in fast mode. We deliver. That is what we are here to do and that is what members see when legislation goes through the House. 
The Unit Titles Act 1972 was designed for small flats and townhouses. As New Zealand society has developed complexes have become much bigger and there has been much more staged development and multi-level development. It has become very very complex. In fact in 2007 there were 16500 developments and 95000 units. So this legislation affects a lot of unit owners in New Zealand. Not only that; it is estimated that 50 years from now 500000 people—half a million people—will live in units in New Zealand and that is a quite significant number. It is important that we address this matter now. This bill will provide a broader and more adaptable way of setting up and managing multi-unit living. 
I am taking only a short call on this matter today. It has been my pleasure to stand here to support this bill and I look forward to the Committee stage. Thank you.
Power Simon: Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8933] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Commerce Committee consider the Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 May 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during questions for oral answer) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c) 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8875] 
9. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received on the effectiveness of current supervision orders for young offenders? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 A report released yesterday by the Ministry of Social Development shows that the current sentencing orders available lack effectiveness in dealing with our worst young offenders. This report is the first of its kind despite the fact that judges have been asking for an evaluation for more than 10 years. The report shows that 80 percent of young people reoffended after sentencing and over half of those who reoffended committed two or more offences. That is exactly what we said when we were in Opposition: the youth justice system is working for the bulk of our young people but for the 1000 worst offenders things have to be done differently. 
Chester Borrows 
: How is the Government addressing the issues raised in this report? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The report makes it clear that longer sentences and greater supervision are needed if we are to make a lasting impact on the behaviour of our worst youth offenders. Under our Fresh Start legislation we are doubling the Youth Court orders increasing supervision periods increasing mentoring increasing drug and alcohol rehabilitation plus introducing parenting education programmes to ensure that these young people have every chance to change their lives. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she agree with the report’s finding that 84 percent of reoffenders went on to commit offences as early adults although proportionally fewer young people who had been in a youth justice residence did so; if so why has her Government closed Te Hurihanga a residential programme that led to an 82 percent reduction in reoffending? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We will be taking the learnings and the best from the Te Hurihanga programme and delivering a Fresh Start programme that will reach more young people. I think that that is important. There will be more mentoring and there will be more rehabilitation. As Mr Goff would say—although I never thought I would quote him—it’s “the many not the few.”
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8877] 
11. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What steps is the Government taking to get the best out of State housing for those most in need? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce the formation of an independent group that will advise on how we can get the best out of 69000 State houses worth $14 billion for those most in need to address the mismatch of housing size and location to demand and all within the current income-related rents environment. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Who are the members of the group and what skills do they bring to the table? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Ministers were keen to bring together individuals with strong business and property backgrounds like Dr Alan Jackson from Fletcher Building as well as those from the social housing sector such as Major Campbell Roberts from the Salvation Army and Diane Robertson from the Auckland City Mission. We are confident that this team can help us make sure that the Government’s investment in social housing is getting to the right people. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has he made it clear to the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group that any privatisation of the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s State housing stock is categorically out of the question? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We are yet to brief the shareholders’ group; it has only just been set up today. Ministers will make it clear to the group that income-related rents will stay. We will be increasing the number of State houses but as we do that we want to make sure that the 69000 State houses we currently have are being used to the best effect—for the most needy. That is what we will be doing. We are not privatising State housing.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8868] 
3. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: How many New Zealand homes have been retrofitted through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart scheme and is he satisfied with the quality of that retrofit work? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am advised by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority that 30003 homes have been insulated in the 7 months since the scheme began. That is 30000 homes that are warmer and drier for thousands of New Zealand families. All retrofits have been subject to a 100-point audit. The checkpoints range from safety issues to the removal of debris. I am assured by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority that all installations have been checked and rechecked to ensure that all safety requirements have been met. The audit is rigorous and New Zealand families can be assured that the Government wants and expects high-quality work from installers. I am satisfied that they are making every effort to comply with that. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Has the Minister seen reports regarding faults in the Australian home insulation scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and I can assure New Zealand families that we do not use either macerated paper or foil installation in the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart scheme. We use fibreglass batts and wool installation both of which have a much higher fire-retardant capacity. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware that according to the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning 359 of the 570 houses initially audited or fully 63 percent were found to have insulation problems half of which were described as serious; if so what will he do to find out whether 63 percent of the entire 30003 homes retrofitted so far that he has just mentioned—some 19000 Kiwi homes—have received shoddy insulation jobs and to help those householders get a remedy? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the report this morning although factual does not take account of the fact that we are working off a 100-point audit document. We have right from the start made sure that there was high quality in the system; for example debris left on a site would mean that on a quality issue the audit failed. We are doubling the number of audits. We have made it very clear to installers that if they fail an audit on more than three occasions then they will be out of the scheme. We hold back payments until audits are sent in. The check-audit system as I said before is being doubled. Some firms will be required to pay a $300 fee for a further audit. I say to New Zealanders who have had insulation installed under the scheme that firstly we have checked to ensure that there are no safety issues and secondly if they have concerns they should phone their installer. If after that they are still unsatisfied they should phone the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8870] 
5. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What steps is the Government taking to secure the long-term future of ACC and why are these necessary? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The Government has strengthened the financial governance skills on the Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC’s) board and reversed the decisions of the previous Government in costly areas like physiotherapy and suicide coverage extensions. We have taken steps to improve rehabilitation rates and we have extended the full-funding date for the scheme to 2019. These steps are necessary to address the steep rise in the accident compensation scheme’s claim costs large losses and the huge increase in the scheme’s unfunded liabilities. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister received on the claims made today by former ACC Minister Maryan Street that the corporation was in financial good health at the change of Government? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The audited accounts of ACC for the year 2007-08 signed by Ms Street and ex - Council of Trade Unions chair Ross Wilson declared a loss of $2.4 billion—the largest in ACC’s 35-year history. Those reports also showed that the scheme’s unfunded liability during the previous Government’s term ballooned by $9 billion and that claim costs were growing at five times the rate of inflation. Labour is clearly in denial on the scheme’s mismanagement. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What message does he take from today’s protest on Parliament’s steps of about 150 people over accident compensation when it is compared with the 6000 who protested last year? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable Minister but I could not hear that question. I ask Michael Woodhouse to repeat it. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Thank you Mr Speaker; I would be delighted to. What message does he take from today’s protest on Parliament’s steps of about 150 people over accident compensation when it is compared with the 6000 who protested last year? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The message I take is that the public now well understands the reasons for the changes the Government is making to the scheme. The bikers today were taken for a bit of a ride by the unions. It was an ideological protest led by those responsible for the scheme’s financial woes against a pragmatic Government determined to make the scheme affordable and fair and to secure it for the future.
Event: Members Sworn 
Event: Members Sworn 
[Volume:660;Page:8863] 
Members Sworn 
Gareth Hughes was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took his seat in the House.
Smith Lockwood: List Member Vacancy 
Smith Lockwood: List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:660;Page:8863] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Gareth Thomas Llewelyn Hughes has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representative in place of Jeanette Mary Fitzsimons. I understand that Gareth Hughes is present and wishes to affirm. Would he please come forward to the Chair on my right.
Tisch Lindsay: Resignations — Jeanette Fitzsimons Green Party 
Tisch Lindsay: Resignations — Jeanette Fitzsimons Green Party 
[Volume:660;Page:8863] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Jeanette Fitzsimons resigning her seat in the House with effect at midnight on Thursday 11 February 2010.
Visitors — India—Sir Edmund Hillary Fellow Lok Sabha / House of the People 
Visitors — India—Sir Edmund Hillary Fellow Lok Sabha / House of the People 
[Volume:660;Page:8863] 
Visitors 
India—Sir Edmund Hillary Fellow Lok Sabha / House of the People 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that Mr Rahul Gandhi MP—the inaugural Sir Edmund Hillary Fellow from the House of the People the Lok Sabha of India—is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.
Joyce Steven: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Joyce Steven: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:660;Page:8916] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Members Sworn 
Members Sworn 
[Volume:660;Page:8863] 
Members Sworn 
Gareth Hughes was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took his seat in the House.
List Member Vacancy 
List Member Vacancy 
[Volume:660;Page:8863] 
List Member Vacancy 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Gareth Thomas Llewelyn Hughes has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representative in place of Jeanette Mary Fitzsimons. I understand that Gareth Hughes is present and wishes to affirm. Would he please come forward to the Chair on my right.
Resignations — Jeanette Fitzsimons Green Party 
Resignations — Jeanette Fitzsimons Green Party 
[Volume:660;Page:8863] 
Tuesday 16 February 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
Jeanette Fitzsimons Green Party 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Jeanette Fitzsimons resigning her seat in the House with effect at midnight on Thursday 11 February 2010.
Mackey Moana: Unit Titles Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Moana: Unit Titles Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8861] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Surely the Minister of Housing could have kept speaking for another 30 seconds. Labour is pleased to support the Unit Titles Bill because of course this is Labour legislation. Fifteen months into the term of this National-led Government the Minister of Housing is still passing Labour legislation. If people want this bill to be passed quickly why when it was reported back at the beginning of September have we had to wait until February in order to get any action on it? I also ask the Minister where the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is. That is another good piece of Labour legislation that the Minister said he would act on right away because people wanted it passed. The bill came back from the Social Services Committee in the middle of last year and disappeared into a black hole. The Minister of Housing has not done anything else in the last year so the least he could have done was progress the two very good pieces of Labour legislation he had inherited from the previous Government. All the work on them had been done. All the consultation on them had been done. All the drafting had been done. All he had to do is pass them. 
Debate interrupted.