edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5221. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What progress can he report on making fines and reparations a more effective part of our justice system? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Fines and reparations are an important part of how the justice system deals with offenders but if people do not pay them they are not an effective sanction. When National came into Government a record of over $800 million was owed in fines and reparations— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How much? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: —$800 million—with almost 60 percent of that overdue. However I am pleased to report to the House that in a little over 3 years we have turned that round. The amount owed in fines and reparations has fallen 25 percent passing below $600 million for the first time in 8 years. Even better the amount of that debt that is overdue has fallen by 15 percent. This shows that although there is still more work to be done fines and reparations remain an effective sanction. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How is better use of new technology contributing to collecting fines and reparations? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: New technology is an important part of this progress with even small changes paying big dividends. For example from June bailiffs have been issued with mobile eftpos terminals to make it even easier for people to pay their fines. Within the first month these terminals recovered the cost of their hire for an entire year and in the first 3 months they have allowed bailiffs to bring in an extra half a million dollars of fines and reparations. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How are the public responding to these new innovations in the collections system? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: The public are eagerly embracing new ways of working. As an example the ability to challenge a fine online was introduced on 1 August removing the need to apply on paper forms at the courthouse counter. In just the first month of operation a whopping 40 percent of these forms were sent in online. What is more for those applications the average processing time fell dramatically with 99.7 percent of applications dealt with in just 1 day. Previously the same process took a whole month.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5218. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What recent announcements has she made on the Government’s welfare reforms? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 We have announced we are introducing new requirements to ensure children who live in benefit-dependent households get the vital education and health services they need—the services that can make a real difference for each child’s future. These new social obligations support the work that is taking place across the Government to better protect and support our most vulnerable. We know that in this group are those who are not attending early childhood education who are more likely to arrive at school unprepared to learn and more likely to not achieve. We want to break that cycle. 
Melissa Lee 
: What report has she seen that supports the change in policy to ensure children in benefit-dependent homes receive these health and education services? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have seen comments from those who are best placed to know the impact of such a policy such as the Early Childhood Council whose chief executive Peter Reynolds says this is “one of the most important welfare reforms in recent years” and likely to start changing lives the week it is implemented and that “We are not completely comfortable with the idea of compelling parents to put their children into early childhood education but believe the benefits too compelling to resist.” 
Melissa Lee 
: What other reports has she seen to support the new social obligation requirements? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have seen a proposal that says that “Too many of our kids aren’t prepared for school.” and that would allow 4-year-olds in the school classroom. That of course is from the member of the Labour Party Louisa Wall. As this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 editorial wrote: “Instead of condemning the new measures Labour the Greens … should be applauding [this Government] for having the courage to tackle a problem that decades of well-intentioned but ineffective policy-making have failed to remedy.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5217. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5217. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave given the absence of the Minister of Finance to stand this question over until next question time.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Hon John Banks—Compliance with Cabinet Manual Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Hon John Banks—Compliance with Cabinet Manual Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5224. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think the member’s point adds to the merit of the decision just made that the appropriate time to consider such an application would be the next sitting day.
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5209. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I just want to seek an assurance from the acting Leader of the House that the Patents Bill will not be considered under urgency given the problems it has run into.
Finlayson Christopher: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5209. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the Leader of the House: I am not in a position to give that member any assurances about the Patents Bill. I have set out for the member’s benefit what bills are going to be discussed next week. At no time have I mentioned urgency. He is chasing rabbits.
Finlayson Christopher: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5209. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the Leader of the House: When the House resumes on Tuesday 18 September the Government will look to complete a number of Committee stages and first readings on the Order Paper including the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill and the Legislation Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. On Thursday morning with the agreement of the Business Committee the House will sit under extended hours to hold the first readings of the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill and the NgatiWhatua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill and the second readings of the NgatiWhatuaOrakei Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill.
Martin Tracey: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Martin Tracey: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5251. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First would also like to express its concern at this exceptionally shortened period of report back. 
I sit on the Education and Science Committee. Although I may or may not accept the statements that the committee is not busy it is a very collaborative committee that takes its work very seriously. It is working currently on a digital literacy inquiry; there are well over 30 or 40 submissions and 2 days of oral submissions that must be considered as we come to a report for this House. It has also just yesterday started an inquiry on Pasifika languages and their place inside early childhood education. This is a serious matter. We had at least 20 submitters submit to us orally yesterday. We have another day of oral submissions. Unless the Government is suggesting that we rubber-stamp this bill the Advanced Technology Institute Bill—considering that it has already formed an establishment board unfortunately that is where my mind is going to. I do not believe that the Education and Science Committee is a group of people who choose to rubber-stamp legislation for the benefit of a Government that wants to rush things through. 
New Zealand First has also already stated today that we are not confident that this bill achieves what the Government says it is trying to do. Therefore we would welcome the opportunity for the people of New Zealand and for the scientists of New Zealand to have the appropriate amount of time to gather their thoughts about this bill—there is wishy-washy information available about how things are actually going to work in it—to put them into the appropriate written submission form to send to the committee to have the opportunity to take leave from their places of employment and to book in to see and speak to the committee in the usual time line. I do not understand. We strongly object. 
This committee does good work. I do not want and I am sure the other members of my committee do not want to be seen as rushing through legislation because it is convenient to us or anybody else. I ask that the Government reconsider and give us the appropriate amount of time to let the people of New Zealand participate in what is an internationally recognised process where the people can speak to their politicians about legislation. I seek that from this Government.
Urgent Debates Declined — Hon John Banks—Compliance with Cabinet Manual Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgent Debates Declined — Hon John Banks—Compliance with Cabinet Manual Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5224. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Hon John Banks—Compliance with  
Cabinet Manual 
Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the retention of the Hon John Banks as a Minister of the Crown despite Mr Banks’ failure to tell the truth about electoral donations from Kim Dotcom. Documents from a police file of the John Banks investigation have been released. The accumulation of information in regard to an issue is not of itself a particular case of recent occurrence. A case of recent occurrence occurs when a decision is publicly announced by the Government. An urgent debate cannot be granted on the basis of newspaper speculation. The application is therefore declined. 
I have also received a letter from Catherine Delahunty seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the closure and merging of schools in Canterbury. The application for an urgent debate should be received by the Speaker at least 1 hour before the House meets. The member’s application was received at 1.36 p.m. Under Standing Order 386(1) the Speaker does have the authority to consider an application lodged after 1 p.m. where the event on which the application is based occurs within 1 hour of the House sitting. In deciding whether or not to consider this application today the matters that I have taken into consideration include when the announcement was made. It was made at 1 p.m. in Christchurch by the responsible Ministers I think—the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the Hon Hekia Parata—but neither of the Ministers is currently in the House right now. On the basis that the announcement was not made by the Government until 1 p.m. and also the fact that neither responsible Minister is in the House today I am prepared to consider such an application at the House’s next sitting. Therefore I am declining the application for today but making it clear that that does not mean that in fact I would not consider it not to be a matter of recent occurrence were it to be raised at the next House sitting. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not going to affect the decision you have made but we are pointing out that the decisions are embargoed until 4 p.m. this afternoon and have not been publicly announced. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think the member’s point adds to the merit of the decision just made that the appropriate time to consider such an application would be the next sitting day. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for your ruling. I would just like to make the point that the embargo was breached at least— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a point of order.
Woodhouse Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Hon John Banks—Compliance with Cabinet Manual Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Hon John Banks—Compliance with Cabinet Manual Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5224. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not going to affect the decision you have made but we are pointing out that the decisions are embargoed until 4 p.m. this afternoon and have not been publicly announced. [ 
Interruption 
]
Vote: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5260. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5209. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 13 September 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the Leader of the House: When the House resumes on Tuesday 18 September the Government will look to complete a number of Committee stages and first readings on the Order Paper including the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill and the Legislation Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. On Thursday morning with the agreement of the Business Committee the House will sit under extended hours to hold the first readings of the Waitaha Claims Settlement Bill and the NgatiWhatua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Bill and the second readings of the NgatiWhatuaOrakei Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I just want to seek an assurance from the acting Leader of the House that the Patents Bill will not be considered under urgency given the problems it has run into. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the Leader of the House: I am not in a position to give that member any assurances about the Patents Bill. I have set out for the member’s benefit what bills are going to be discussed next week. At no time have I mentioned urgency. He is chasing rabbits.
Tisch Lindsay: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5207. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5206. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Chauvel Charles: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5207. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 This bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill was originally not accompanied by a regulatory impact statement or any regulatory impact analysis on the basis that the proposals set out in it were not expected to have any major impacts on businesses individuals and not-for-profit entities. But the Cabinet papers do reveal the fact that “Last year there was”—and I am quoting from the papers—“an incident where a self-represented accused corresponded with persons whose names and addresses were on the jury panel for his trial. This raised concerns about the safety of jurors”—
Collins Judith: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5206. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill aims to improve the administration and integrity of the jury system and also contains provisions that improve jurors’ safety and security. 
To improve the administration and integrity of the jury system a number of miscellaneous provisions were proposed in the bill including allowing for permanent excusals from jury service in certain circumstances requiring those sentenced to less than 3 months’ home detention to be excused or deferred from serving on a jury while subject to their sentence disqualifying those sentenced to home detention of 3 months or more within the previous 5 years from serving on a jury and removing references to corrective training as the sentence had been abolished. 
I would like to take a moment to go through the criteria for permanent excusals from jury service as the pivotal change has caused some comment. Clause 10 of the bill sets out when a permanent excusal from jury service is available. The registrar has discretion to grant permanent excusal from jury service if the person is so disabled or has such bad health that the person would never be able to discharge his or her duties as a juror. The registrar is obliged however to grant a permanent excusal if the person requesting it is aged 65 years or over. Much of the discussion on this bill has centred on the impact of permanent excusals for those aged 65 or over. In particular it has been alleged that this has negative impacts on the rights of older people or is ageism. Let me make this very clear: the Ministry of Justice receives thousands of requests a year from people aged 65 and over who want to be permanently excused from jury service. The bill explicitly responds to those requests and recognises that people aged 65 and over want the ability to be permanently excused. This is not something that happens unless they specifically ask for it. I do not accept that permanent excusal at the request of the person called for jury service is an erosion of their rights. It is quite the contrary. Just like the SuperGold card or universal superannuation it is not ageist it is not derogatory and it is not against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
This bill has had a long process going through the House and through the Law and Order Committee. There are in fact many changes to the bill that have been undertaken. I would like to commend the bill to the House.
McKelvie Ian: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McKelvie Ian: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5200. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Throughout my time in public life the No. 1 priority for our communities has been law and order and the public safety and security of our communities. So I guess finding myself on the Law and Order Committee when I came to Parliament has become a new challenge for me. I think it is something that is well worth looking after and doing as much work as we can to improve the lot of people working in the sector. 
The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill certainly does that. For those men and women working in our emergency services our law enforcement services in the rural sector it is quite an intimidating place to be out on a dark night on a lonely road attending road accidents and whatever else. So I think that although this bill aims to give added protection to all of those people it hopefully gives new confidence to those people who serve in rural New Zealand because they certainly have a lonely time and an intimidating time at times. 
I have no problem supporting the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I think it is a good piece of legislation. I think it is hopefully going to give new confidence to those people who serve in the sector and it is hopefully going to act as some form of deterrent. I know we have had that discussion tonight. With those few words I have great pleasure in supporting this bill.
Collins Judith: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill signals the Government’s support for police officers and corrections officers who are the community’s first line of defence against dangerous offenders. It will ensure that the courts regard an offence against these law enforcement officers as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Although the current law includes a number of offences specific to police and corrections officers the most serious assaults are dealt with as generic offences such as attempted murder or wounding with intent to injure. There is no requirement on the court to take special notice of the fact that the victim was a law enforcement officer. This bill will mean that every judge must consider the fact that an offence has been committed against a police or corrections officer as an aggravating factor when sentencing the offender. 
As I confirmed at the Committee of the whole House stage the Government is supporting Charles Chauvel’s Supplementary Order Paper 14 providing an additional aggravating factor for emergency services providers. This will include doctors nurses paramedics ambulance officers and firefighters attending emergencies. The Government recognises that front-line emergency workers attending emergency situations deserve special protection in a similar way to police and corrections officers acting in the course of their duties. 
All of these front-line staff have to work in highly dangerous situations in the course of their everyday duties. Police officers and corrections officers are exposed to danger because they deal with the most dangerous people in our society. When we as ordinary people encounter dangerous situations we call the police to deal with them. When offenders are removed from our community to prison corrections officers have the responsibility for the safe custody of these individuals. When our friends relatives or community members are in an accident or their house catches fire it is the other first responders whom we expect to save them. These front-line officers and emergency workers cannot leave when a situation gets too dangerous or risky because their jobs require them to protect and to save the lives of others. These workers are the first and last port of call and for that reason we are making sure that the law recognises the importance of the contribution they make to society. I commend this bill to the House.
Ross Jami-Lee: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ross Jami-Lee: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5198. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 This bill the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill makes some very welcome changes to the Sentencing Act. I note that it has got pretty much cross-party support amongst the members of this House and it will be good to see this bill passed into legislation. 
Police officers play an important role in the community; so do prison officers in keeping those behind bars still there. Emergency services and Fire Service officers play an important public role in helping us in times of need. It is important that the sentencing factors taken into account by the judiciary recognise their public role and recognise the important nature of their jobs and if offences are committed against them then it certainly should be an aggravating factor. 
I was not intending on saying very much on this bill but I do wish to pick up on some of the comments of the last speaker Julie Anne Genter. I find myself following her again and wishing to disagree with some of her comments. I do not think this bill is unnecessary. She asked whether or not there was evidence that this was necessary. I have not had a long time to pull out a huge number of statistics in the few minutes I have had but let me give the House just a few. In the 5 years to the end of the last decade total assaults on police increased by a third from 1869 to 2481 while serious assaults increased by 38 percent from 298 to 412. Also attacks on corrections officers have increased. In the same period the number of assaults increased from 151 to 304—that is a doubling of attacks on corrections officers. 
 Certainly there will be a number of judges out there who already quietly take these points into account and treat them as an aggravating factor but I think it is important in order to do justice to the police officers the prison officers and the emergency services personnel that we do enshrine this in legislation and do put in the Sentencing Act the fact that assaults against these people and any crimes against these individuals who are there to serve and protect us are wrong. Certainly I look forward to this House hopefully unanimously passing the bill.
Dean Jacqui: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5194. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge and thank the members of the Law and Order Committee who worked in a collegial fashion on this bill which was a relatively simple bill to consider with a relatively narrow scope. The committee received 11 submissions on this bill from interested groups and we heard I think something like four submitters. 
I am pleased also to endorse the comments of the Minister of Justice Judith Collins who said that it is this Government’s intention to recognise the work of the police and corrections staff and also doctors nurses Fire Service and emergency services people whose job it is—and this was expressed to us quite clearly through one of the submissions—to walk towards trouble. 
The rest of us have the luxury of seeing an event happening and being able to stand aside. Most of us would not of course—we would do what we could to help—but we do have the option of stepping away and leaving the way clear for the emergency services to step in and deal with whatever it is that they have to deal with. Of course those police corrections and emergency services people do not have that option. They do not have that option because they do not want that option. They do not want that option because that is why they are in there doing the jobs that they do. 
Charles Chauvel mentioned whether or not this bill provided a deterrent to assaults upon those people who are named in this bill. I hope that the provisions of this bill will provide a deterrent but more important than that it sends the signal that the New Zealand Parliament supports the work values the work and recognises the work that these people do on all our behalf in New Zealand. 
I am very pleased to support this bill. Once again I want to thank the officials who worked well with the select committee. Once again I want to thank the New Zealand Parliament and the parliamentarians on the Law and Order Committee who supported this bill and I commend it to the House.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Hon John Banks—Compliance with Cabinet Manual Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Hon John Banks—Compliance with Cabinet Manual Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5224. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a point of order.
Delahunty Catherine: Urgent Debates Declined — Hon John Banks—Compliance with Cabinet Manual Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Delahunty Catherine: Urgent Debates Declined — Hon John Banks—Compliance with Cabinet Manual Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5224. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for your ruling. I would just like to make the point that the embargo was breached at least—
Vote: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 95 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 26 
Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Woodhouse Michael: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 It is my great pleasure to take what I think is the last call in this third reading debate on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I want to firstly thank Mr Mallard for reminding me before the dinner hour that every call slot is precious. This bill has been well canvassed on its third reading and I commend it to the House.
Roy Eric: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5191. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a split call? 
Rino Tirikatene 
: Yes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is; right. A 5-minute call Rino Tirikatene.
Simpson Scott: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Simpson Scott: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5190. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to support the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill in its third reading. In doing so I want to remind the House that I am a new member to this House and I am not going to therefore dignify the contribution of the member who has preceded me with a response other than to say that as a new member I know that that is the kind of speech that makes the public who are listening to and watching this presentation on TV tonight roll their eyes and wonder what it is that we do in this House. 
Here we are debating important legislation—important legislation that goes to the very root of supporting our primary industries and the very basis of our economy and prosperity for the future. So because we live in challenging global times and a challenging global environment and because we have been so reliant over so many years—in fact our entire history—on the virtue of our distance and our position on the globe as the main preventer and barrier to our biosecurity lapses it comes now as being very appropriate that this piece of legislation should come before the House and be passed this evening. I am delighted and thrilled that it seems to have bipartisan support across the House. That is a good thing—a very good thing. 
I have the pleasure of representing a rural electorate—the very fine electorate of Coromandel. In that electorate of course horticulture agriculture—and all the cultures for that matter—and aquaculture as well are all primary industries that are the backbone of the Coromandel electorate. I know that in my electorate the communities in Katikati and in Waihi and most recently in the area of Whenuakite on the northern end of the peninsula have been plagued by the Psa drama that is confronting our kiwifruit industry. So biosecurity is important in my electorate and will continue to be so. 
I am very pleased that this Government is taking the appropriate action and prevention measures that are required to ensure that our primary industries are protected in a way that is effective going forward. I remember—it was only a few months ago—the example that we had of the single Queensland fruit fly that was found in the urban electorate of Mt Roskill. For me that proved that the system does work. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: It was Phil Goff. 
SCOTT SIMPSON 
: It was Phil Goff’s electorate that is right. But it was not Phil Goff who was the fruit fly. So the system worked. It worked well and for me it gives me great confidence as a rural constituent member to support this bill. So I do so with vigour and commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Auchinvole Chris: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5187. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 After 23 years in the dairy industry and 15 years as a fish exporter I am very very aware of our dependence on effective biosecurity measures. But I would like to speak in relation to this Biosecurity Law Reform Bill on pest control—pest control. This bill is worthy of support and I am very glad to hear it is getting cross-party support particularly from our friends in the Labour Party. I am sorry that New Zealand First although praising the bill cannot see fit to support it and it is a disappointment that the Greens although they support it do not actually come up to the bar and get in behind it. 
However in terms of the pest control aspect my interest in this particular bill is concentrated on the way it affects other enactments and one in particular is Part 3 clause 79 “Amendment to Ombudsmen Act 1975”. Just to quote: “Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 is amended by inserting ‘Management agencies under Biosecurity Act 1993 if they are corporate bodies in their role under pest management plans or pathway management plans’ …” will be affected. 
I am advised that the effect of this will be to ensure that the Animal Health Board will be subject to the Official Information Act. This has long been a request of the people of the West Coast and Tasman and I am very pleased to be able to announce it to them this evening—as long as the bill passes. I am grateful to the Minister for the inclusion in this particular bill. Thank you.
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5165. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand and speak to the second reading of this the Patents Bill and may I commend the Minister of Commerce the Hon Craig Foss for continuing on the fine work of the last Minister. Also what has been mentioned here tonight has been the work of the Commerce Committee under the last Parliament in terms of bringing together the quite difficult issues around patents. The bill actually updates a statute that is 59 years old. With such an archaic statute the bill really is about bringing the reform process to bear on some of the important statutes on our book. It complements the economic growth agenda that this Government is running in terms of promoting science and innovation and in terms of promoting economic growth and jobs and opportunities. Intellectual property is an important part of it because as we have already heard today it is balancing research and development and innovation and the rights of those who put an investment of resources and funds into those things and also with the rights of those who want to get on and do business. So this is about making a balanced approach to what are important issues around intellectual property rights. 
It is about removing some of the impediments that were in the old legislation. How that works is that we considered what patents are so the bill looks at novelty and inventive step. All countries consider information made available anywhere in the world when they look at patents and applicants are not generally given the benefit of the doubt in any dispute. But under the old statute novelty is determined on the basis of what is known in New Zealand. So from that you can get quite distorted outcomes around how patent rights are granted in New Zealand. Those rights can often be broader than what would be available in other countries— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was this speech written in New Zealand? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: —and Mr Mallard knows that. So it has the potential to disadvantage New Zealand businesses and consumers as technology that is covered by these patents is freely available elsewhere. 
Much of our innovation as has already been stated—and I see a lot of this in my own electorate of Maungakiekie—is incremental and it builds on what has gone on before. We certainly grappled with a number of issues around computer software and computer programs but on this side of the House we are committed and determined to focus on boosting growth and jobs so this bill in its entirety is about updating our patent laws and providing incentives for innovation. We have got to balance that with those who are taking on new inventions and adding to them. So I commend this bill to the House. I certainly support the recommendations that were made by the Commerce Committee; I sat on that select committee in the last Parliament. I certainly commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5172. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.
Dalziel Lianne: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5172. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation about one of the comments I made during my speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It has been drawn to my attention that I made a mistake in relation to where Brett O’Reilly was employed. He was employed in the business and innovation and investment section of the Ministry of Science and Innovation. That was prior to its merger with the Ministry for Business Innovation and— 
Hon Member 
: “Mobie”. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: “Mobie”—yes.
Tisch Lindsay: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5171. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5173. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you.
Mitchell Mark: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mitchell Mark: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this the second reading of the Patents Bill. I would just like to acknowledge the hard work that was put into this bill by the previous Commerce Committee. Some of its members are sitting on the present Commerce Committee and I look forward to getting their input on this bill. This is an important bill that modernises New Zealand’s patents law. The bill reflects the Government’s commitment to aiding economic growth through innovation. As we have heard previously our system was established under the Patents Act back in 1953 and based around the United Kingdom Patents Act 1949. The UK went on and replaced its statute in 1977 but we have made no substantial changes since 1953. It is time to bring this Act into the 21st century. Intellectual property is critically important to the future of many countries including New Zealand. This bill ensures that New Zealand intellectual property legislation takes into account international changes and developments. It is important that as a country we do not get in our own way by relying on old legislation that dates back to 1953. 
One of the changes that I feel is critical is that the bill strengthens the criteria for granting a patent to ensure that patents are granted only for genuine innovations defined as a manner of manufacture and that they are novel non-obvious and useful. This change brings us into line with international best practice. It will simplify the procedures for granting a patent including removing the current requirement for local applicants to seek permission to file a foreign patent application if they have not filed an application in New Zealand. It will also streamline the procedures for challenging the granting of a patent. This is a very good bill. I congratulate the Minister of Commerce Craig Foss and am pleased to be able to commend this bill to the House.
Roy Eric: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 






Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Curran Clare: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Curran Clare: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the petition “No Software Patents in NZ” signed by 1078 New Zealand software companies and sole operators including Xero Jade and Orion Health.
Curran Clare: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Curran Clare: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the petition No Software Patents in NZ signed by 1078 New Zealand software companies and sole operators including Xero—