edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Barker Rick: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Trevor Mallard 
Barker Rick: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Trevor Mallard 
[Volume:675;Page:20620] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you the issue of Mr Mallard’s being asked to leave the Chamber. I have no difficulty or problem with your decision. You asked him to leave. I accept that he transgressed the rules and that for that there should be an appropriate punishment. But what I would ask is for you Mr Speaker to think about the time for which Mr Mallard has to be out of the Chamber. There are things that some people know and others do not and it will be a difficult week. The point I would like to raise Mr Speaker is that you contemplate setting a specific time for Mr Mallard’s return. It is not unreasonable for the Speaker to do so; it has been done on a number of occasions. Standing Order 85 says that the member can be excluded for a period “up to the remainder of that day’s sitting”. It does not mean that you are obliged to have the member excluded for the whole of the day’s sitting; you can impose a time at your will and at your discretion. 
I would suggest to you Mr Speaker that it would be appropriate for Mr Mallard to be excluded until say 4 p.m. today after which he would be free and able to return. I do so because I believe that there could be some unintended consequences and unforeseen consequences if he was left out of the Chamber for the whole day. To support this I say the House has an agenda for this week which I am sure everybody wants to get through. I would suggest to you the words of a former President of the United States Lyndon Baines Johnson who made reference to the fact that it was better to have people inside the tent than outside the tent because that made life a bit easier. So I would just suggest to you Mr Speaker that it would be very helpful if you were to set a particular time. I am sure that Mr Mallard is contrite is remorseful and would be sufficiently well punished if you said that he could come back to the House at say 4 p.m. today.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:20618] 
11. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How have the Government’s amendments to the Resource Management Act assisted in upgrading New Zealand’s infrastructure and how have they supported economic growth? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 A major change was made with the introduction of national consenting which enabled major projects to be considered by a single time-limited robust process. The new process has worked successfully for the $1 billion Tauhara stage two geothermal power station the $2 billion Waterview Connection project and the $420 million Wiri Prison. I contrast this with projects like the Northern Gateway Toll Road project which took 10 years and the Wellington inner city bypass which took 15 years. The Environmental Protection Authority yesterday received two further significant applications. The first is from New Zealand King Salmon for a plan to double its production in the Marlborough Sounds which would generate over $100 million extra in export earnings. The second application received yesterday by the Environmental Protection Authority was for the $1 billion Transmission Gully motorway north of Wellington. 
Jonathan Young 
: Has the Minister received any feedback from submitters or objectors on the robustness of the new national consenting process? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. A letter to the Environmental Protection Authority from the Auckland Volcanic Cones Society was very complimentary of the process saying that the Environmental Protection Authority had done a thorough and fair job and “a fairer hearing has been achieved than under the old system”. I also note that both cycle advocacy groups and local residents affected by the Waterview project were also quite complimentary saying that the board listened fairly and understood their concerns and that although they had preferred that the project not proceed they accepted the decision. These comments are a tribute to the two respective boards. These positive comments also reinforce how the new process is fair and is delivering timely results for infrastructure and economic development.
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:20617] 
10. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all of his answers to Oral Question No 12 on 9 August 2011? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will the Prime Minister rule out funding cuts of up to 80 percent for home-based early childhood education proposed by the Government-appointed Taskforce on Early Childhood Education as he did for Playcentre recently; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government is in the process of digesting all of the information from the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education but it is fair to say we will not be accepting all of it. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Will the Prime Minister rule out funding cuts of up to 78 percent for kohanga reo as proposed by the Government-appointed Taskforce on Early Childhood Education as he did for Playcentre recently; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said the Government is in the process of digesting all of the recommendations of the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education but I would not read anything into that report. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has been asked two very specific questions now about whether he could rule out funding cuts from the recommendations made by the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education. He has failed to rule out those funding cuts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have had this issue raised before and the member will recollect that it is difficult for me to insist that a Minister gives a different answer if in fact the Government has not made decisions in relation to a task force report. If I heard the Prime Minister correctly I think he said the Government was digesting the recommendations and had not made any final decisions. I think he went on to add some views about some things being unlikely. I cannot insist on anything more precise than that at this stage. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will the Prime Minister give a commitment then to the existing rate of subsidy for 20 free hours’ early childhood education for all the children to whom it currently applies in light of the proposal of the Government-appointed Taskforce on Early Childhood Education to cut funding by up to $50 per child per week? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes as I said last week we support having the 20 free hours. We are just considering the recommendations of the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education. I am not actually expecting major changes. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just a point of clarification with the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no such thing. It is a point of order if the member wishes to raise a matter to do with the order of the House but there is no such thing as a point of clarification. The member can ask a further supplementary question if she wishes though.
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:20617] 
9. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does the Government’s policy announcement on Sunday regarding youth unemployment include plans to create large-scale quality employment for youth in Aotearoa; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This policy focuses on two main groups of young people as we have discussed. Firstly it focuses on those 16 and 17-year-olds who are completely disengaged 90 percent of whom are at risk of ending up in the benefit system. These 16 and 17-year-olds by virtue of the fact that they have left school early are unlikely to be work-ready. The focus is clearly on getting them into education and training so that they are able to get good jobs that will sustain them long term. Forty-three thousand new jobs were created last year. More are coming so let us make sure that these young people are ready to take them up. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Minister agree with the comment that policies that concentrate the wealth of the nation in the hands of the few driving people into poverty and then penalising them for being poor are the reasons behind the riots in London; and how long does the Minister think it will be before disillusioned youth in this country take to the streets like their mates in England have done? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What we are doing is spending more money on those young people because we see them as being valuable. We see them as having potential and we want to realise that potential. That is actually putting the focus on them and making sure that we see that there are those kinds of employment and training opportunities. In fact we are kind of making those young people valuable because we are saying to a non-governmental organisation that we will pay it to actually take a special interest in them and connect them into that training and education. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Minister agree with the comment that the Government does not have a policy on full employment because wide-scale unemployment enables it to push for greater cuts in the rights of unemployed youth; and how does she think that forcing young mothers off the benefit and into work will solve the problem of unemployment when there are no jobs and no plans to create them? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No I do not—not at all. I do believe that what we are currently doing with them is actually abandonment. We are saying to 16 and 17-year-olds and 18-year-old teen mums: “Here is a few hundred dollars a week and good luck out there.” I think we can do better than that. I take responsibility for them and as such I will step up put a focus on them and make sure that we wrap the right kind of support around them.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:20610] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for question No. 4 to be set down for questioning after question No. 10 today so the Prime Minister can answer it when he returns from his urgent public business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Simon Power 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can anticipate the member’s point of order. The Hon Trevor Mallard will leave the House. We will not tolerate that kind of accusation in the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:20609] 
3. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on what financial markets are signalling about New Zealand’s economic position? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Financial markets are signalling a growing aversion to continuing to lend to borrowers who have accumulated excess debt. Indebted countries are increasingly being sorted into the strong and the weak with the weak facing significantly higher interest rates. In New Zealand our longer-term interest rates have declined steadily over the past 2 years indicating that we are regarded by the markets as being in a relatively strong position as one of the more creditworthy countries with a sound fiscal plan. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How much have interest rates declined over the past 3 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are any number of measures one could use but interest rates have declined by large amounts across the board. Since August 2008 5-year Government yields—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. The Hon Trevor Mallard will get to his feet and withdraw and apologise for that kind of interjection which he knows is totally out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does not make the job very easy for the Speaker when I deal with one situation and another one almost as bad crops up. I ask members to be a little more reasonable please. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Interest rates have declined significantly across the board. The overnight cash rate has declined from 8 percent in August 2008 to 2.5 percent today and floating mortgage rates have almost halved down from 10.9 percent in 2008 to 5.9 percent today. It looks as if the trend towards lower interest rates for longer will be maintained as long as we stick with our sensible plans. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What benefits have lower interest rates brought to New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Lower interest rates encourage investment and therefore help to sustain growth which will give us higher incomes and more jobs but they also bring direct benefits to borrowers. A family with a floating $200000 mortgage now pays about $10000 a year or $200 a week less in interest than it did just 3 years ago. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What are the policies that put New Zealanders’ financial stability most at risk? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What is becoming clear is that financial markets are becoming increasingly sensitive to both the debt levels countries have and whether they have control over those debt levels. The biggest danger is getting into a spiral of borrowing more money which helps drive up interest rates which makes it harder to service that debt and requires borrowing more money. So we would not expect that the world that has lent us so far $170 billion would welcome any economic plans that propose more debt.
Barker Rick: Obituaries — Sir Paul Reeves ONZ GCMG GCVO QSO 
Barker Rick: Obituaries — Sir Paul Reeves ONZ GCMG GCVO QSO 
[Volume:675;Page:20601] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a contribution to this debate by the Hon Jim Anderton leader of Jim Anderton’s Progressive party and for the contribution to be included in the parliamentary record given that Mr Anderton is currently delayed in Christchurch by the weather. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
I join with the House in expressing our sadness at the passing of Paul Reeves and in expressing condolences to his family. 
As our Governor-General he helped to bring New Zealand into a new era because he was so obviously different to those before him. 
He was the first Maori to hold the position and the first to come to the job from outside the customary establishment diplomatic and legal circles.  
And more than that he had a highly developed sense of social awareness and he was not afraid to express his thoughts.  
He was our first Governor-General to have grown up after the Depression of the thirties and like so many others who came of age in that time he was influenced by the change it made to New Zealand and the way we think about ourselves.  
Throughout his life he identified with the cause of social and economic justice. He came from a modest family background and never allowed himself to forget that.  
He knew from simply growing up and looking around that economic adversity and social exclusion can wound deeply and that we owe it to everyone born into our communities to give them as equal as possible a start in life the sort of fair go society that most New Zealanders want to live in and which is one of our most admirable achievements.  
He spoke out against division—between rich and poor and against racial divisiveness.  
He was not afraid to push the limits of his constitutional position and its conventions and to make himself felt in political areas where his predecessors would have been reluctant to tread.  
I’m sure too that often his words would have irritated politicians and yet he spoke always with such charm and good humour that they couldn’t possibly take public issue with him even if he was subtly but effectively chiding them.  
He was always able to make his point effectively and to cause those he was addressing to pause and to take stock without giving offence.  
But above all he wore his talents lightly because Paul Reeves had that one thing above all else which marks out those who serve us best—his modesty.  
Truly with his passing a mighty totara has fallen.
Boscawen John: Obituaries — Sir Paul Reeves ONZ GCMG GCVO QSO 
Boscawen John: Obituaries — Sir Paul Reeves ONZ GCMG GCVO QSO 
[Volume:675;Page:20599] 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I stand today along with all my colleagues in the ACT Party and in this House to pay tribute to one of our great statesmen. Sir Paul Reeves was a great New Zealander who served his country with distinction throughout his life. He served as Governor-General from 1985 to 1990 and was the first Maori and the first cleric to fill that position. Sir Paul lived a life of service to his congregation and to this nation. He was a deeply faithful man who took humble pride in his position within the Anglican Church. Sir Paul is remembered as an inspirational leader with a great sense of humour and wit—a man who was respectful compassionate and inclusive of others. 
In 1990 as Governor-General he hosted the first open day at Government House—a tradition that continues to this day—paving the way for greater transparency and inclusiveness in the role of the Governor-General. Following retirement as Governor-General Sir Paul continued to serve his country at the highest level for over two decades. He served his church as well as his country as the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in New Zealand and as assistant Bishop of New York. 
His life of dedication service and compassion holds lessons for us all. The thoughts and prayers of the ACT Party this House and indeed all New Zealanders are with his wife Lady Beverley Reeves his three daughters and his six grandchildren. Our nation is the poorer for his loss.
Goff Phil: Obituaries — Sir Paul Reeves ONZ GCMG GCVO QSO 
Goff Phil: Obituaries — Sir Paul Reeves ONZ GCMG GCVO QSO 
[Volume:675;Page:20597] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Today in this House we mourn the loss of a great New Zealander Sir Paul Reeves. In his 78 years he contributed hugely to his people to the community and to his country and he still had so much to give. To Lady Beverley and their children Sarah Bridget and Jane we extend our sympathies for your loss. But we also celebrate today a life of remarkable achievements. He was a boy of humble beginnings who rose to lead his church to be the Governor-General and to represent his country and the Commonwealth with distinction. He was the youngest-ever priest to become an Anglican bishop. He was the first church leader and the first Maori to become Governor-General. Later he served internationally with the United Nations and the Commonwealth. He headed the Nelson Mandela Foundation and he was the Commonwealth Secretary-General’s envoy to Guyana and Fiji. 
Sir Paul mixed easily with world leaders but he was equally at home with New Zealanders from all walks of life. He was a man of considerable principle and integrity. Sir Paul always expressed himself in a calm and measured way but underlying that was a real passion about the things that he believed in. He was not afraid to take a stand on issues that were important to him. He was one of the Citizens for Rowling in 1975 and in 1981 he openly and strongly opposed the Springbok Tour. That led some including the then Leader of the Opposition to express doubts about him and to oppose his appointment as Governor-General. But the way that Sir Paul carried out his role as Governor-General was in fact exemplary. He was a man of decency and strength of character. He spoke quietly but with deep conviction. As a Minister in the fourth Labour Government throughout his term as Governor-General and later as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the next Government I had many discussions with Sir Paul. He always expressed his views in a considered manner but he expressed them forthrightly. He had enormous compassion and an unwavering commitment to social justice. When his viceregal role came to an end he continued to contribute in education as the chancellor of AUT Auckland University of Technology in the diplomatic and international arena and as an advocate for his Te Atiawa people. 
With Sir Paul’s passing we have lost a very special New Zealander a man who gave so much to his community and a man whom we will remember as being true to his principles. We will miss him greatly. Ta Paora haere haere haere.
Key John: Obituaries — Sir Paul Reeves ONZ GCMG GCVO QSO 
Key John: Obituaries — Sir Paul Reeves ONZ GCMG GCVO QSO 
[Volume:675;Page:20597] 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the passing of former Governor-General of New Zealand Sir Paul Reeves. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there are objection to that course being followed? There is none. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That the House express its sympathy and condolences to the family of Sir Paul Reeves and pay tribute to the outstanding contribution Sir Paul made to this country 
. The Rt Rev. and the Hon Sir Paul Alfred Reeves passed away in Auckland on Sunday 14 August at the age of 78. It is with great sadness that I heard of Sir Paul’s passing for he was one of the country’s greatest statesmen and admired by so many. I had the privilege of meeting Sir Paul on a number of occasions and he was a fine man. 
Sir Paul trained for the Anglican priesthood and in 1980 became Primate and Archbishop of New Zealand. In 1985 he became New Zealand’s first Maori Governor-General. His tenure as Governor-General was one of inclusiveness and compassion. He modelled his governorship on the life of a bishop saying: “A bishop travels. A bishop stands alongside his people and searches for common ground.” 
Sir Paul’s contribution to New Zealand did not end when he left Government House. He spent another two decades serving at the highest level and for this the people of New Zealand are forever indebted to him. He was Anglican Observer at the United Nations he observed elections in Ghana and South Africa he helped write constitutions for Fiji and Ghana and he chaired the Nelson Mandela Trust. He was awarded New Zealand’s highest honour the Order of New Zealand in 2007. This was New Zealand’s chance to formally recognise his outstanding dedication to this country. 
The thoughts of the Government are with Sir Paul’s wife Beverley Lady Reeves; his three daughters Sarah Bridget and Jane; his six mokopuna; and his whole family at this time. A State funeral for Sir Paul will be held this Thursday 18 August in Auckland and I will be attending alongside a number of members of this House. I am sure we will be joined by many New Zealanders wishing to pay tribute to Sir Paul’s life. Sir Paul’s life was a life spent giving. His contribution to this country was simply enormous and New Zealand is a poorer place for his passing.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:675;Page:20652] 
Business of the House 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 17 August and Thursday 18 August and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:675;Page:20652] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House or if in Committee of the whole House for the Committee to suspend at 11.45 a.m. and for the House or Committee to sit again on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 17 August to enable members to attend the State farewell luncheon for His Excellency the Governor-General. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Trevor Mallard 
Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Trevor Mallard 
[Volume:675;Page:20620] 
Points of Order 
Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Trevor Mallard 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you the issue of Mr Mallard’s being asked to leave the Chamber. I have no difficulty or problem with your decision. You asked him to leave. I accept that he transgressed the rules and that for that there should be an appropriate punishment. But what I would ask is for you Mr Speaker to think about the time for which Mr Mallard has to be out of the Chamber. There are things that some people know and others do not and it will be a difficult week. The point I would like to raise Mr Speaker is that you contemplate setting a specific time for Mr Mallard’s return. It is not unreasonable for the Speaker to do so; it has been done on a number of occasions. Standing Order 85 says that the member can be excluded for a period “up to the remainder of that day’s sitting”. It does not mean that you are obliged to have the member excluded for the whole of the day’s sitting; you can impose a time at your will and at your discretion. 
I would suggest to you Mr Speaker that it would be appropriate for Mr Mallard to be excluded until say 4 p.m. today after which he would be free and able to return. I do so because I believe that there could be some unintended consequences and unforeseen consequences if he was left out of the Chamber for the whole day. To support this I say the House has an agenda for this week which I am sure everybody wants to get through. I would suggest to you the words of a former President of the United States Lyndon Baines Johnson who made reference to the fact that it was better to have people inside the tent than outside the tent because that made life a bit easier. So I would just suggest to you Mr Speaker that it would be very helpful if you were to set a particular time. I am sure that Mr Mallard is contrite is remorseful and would be sufficiently well punished if you said that he could come back to the House at say 4 p.m. today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the goodwill in which the member the Hon Rick Barker raises the point of order. Let me make it clear that up until now I have not asked many members to leave this Chamber—only three in fact—and they have been out for the day. That is why the period is a sitting day of the House. I do not muck around. I tolerate a lot of what I consider to be unacceptable behaviour but when the limit has been reached so far every member whom I have asked to leave has been out for the day. That is why I warned members that the day may be a little longer—may—than they might have anticipated. I will reflect on the matter because that possibility may have escaped the member’s attention. I will reflect on the matter but I will not make any decision right now. At the moment the member is excluded for the day. But I will reflect on the matter and advise of any change to my decision in due course.
Wagner Nicky: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Wagner Nicky: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20665] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20665] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Amendment agreed to.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:675;Page:20651] 
Urgency 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Freedom Camping Bill the Student Loan Scheme Bill the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill the Maori Purposes Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and of any bills into which those bills may be divided and the introduction and passing of a Government bill 
. 
As noted in the business statement last Thursday the Government has moved that urgency be accorded to items of business that require timely implementation. As members will know the supply of House time has been reduced this year from the normal 30 weeks or so to just 23 weeks due to factors such as the Rugby World Cup and the general election. Including this week there are just 5 sitting weeks remaining before the dissolution of the House for the general election. On the demand side some of the bills in today’s motion require immediate action due to the impending Rugby World Cup such as the Freedom Camping Bill and the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
Other bills require passage as soon as possible to enable implementation to commence in advance of looming deadlines such as the Student Loan Scheme Bill which is due to come into force on 1 April 2012 and the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill which is due to commence on 1 October this year. Similarly the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) formalises the restructuring of three agencies one of which is due to be defunct by 1 September 2011. 
The Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill is a slightly different case. The Government made the decision earlier this year that the census scheduled for 2011 would not be held due to the disruption caused by the Canterbury earthquakes. By law the Government must hold a census this year so amending legislation is required to reflect the decision to defer the census. Cabinet subsequently decided that the census should be held in 2013 instead. 
The swift passage of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) is desirable to provide much-needed certainty to the industry. 
Motion agreed to.
Voting — Correction—Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill 
Voting — Correction—Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:675;Page:20651] 
Voting 
Correction—Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Earlier today when the House was considering the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a second time was incorrectly announced as Ayes 63 and Noes 57. The correct result is Ayes 62 and Noes 58.
Shanks Katrina: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Shanks Katrina: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20649] 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 This has been a good debate in the House today on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. It is a good bill. I commend it to the House.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21395] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 As we approach the closing of Parliament the heat and speed increases as the Government rushes to push particular priorities through. This is one area: proposals to further protect children from assault neglect and ill-treatment have been put on a faster track than I think was originally intended. Although the Maori Party has not supported much of the justice-driven agenda of this Government we do support the concept of creating a new offence to deal with the failure to protect a child or vulnerable adult from the risks of death grievous bodily harm or sexual assault as a consequence of an unlawful act by a third party. This is about failure of legal duty—taking reasonable steps to protect a child or vulnerable adult knowing that they were at risk. It is good that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) is not just about those in the household but more broadly covers a staff member of a hospital an institution or residence where the victim lives. The thing we should all realise is that violence is not colour-blind or class-specific in any way or confined to any suburbs or any particular population. We must be broad in our thinking and we must universally condemn any attacks made on our most precious tamariki our children. 
The Maori Party supports the prevention of ill-treatment neglect and violence against our tamariki and those who are vulnerable including those who are in care because of mental incapacity and those sorts of things. In one of my earlier speeches I raised the importance of recognising the need for a defence when the adult accused of failing to protect is a battered woman and also our concern that criminalisation and increased penalties are used as a means of addressing serious social ills. These are expensive responses with no evidence to show they work but we are in a no-win situation with this particular bill when the health and safety of our tamariki is at stake. In that regard the Maori Party supports absolutely this bill.
Beaumont Carol: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21397] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Of course Labour supports any measures to prevent and mitigate the harm of abuse against children. We therefore support the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). 
We do have some reservations—in particular about the link between poverty and violence which is one that is being ignored by this Government. Thank you.
Hutchison Paul: Natural Health Products Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Natural Health Products Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21388] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a very short call on this important and timely Natural Health Products Bill. It is great that National has been able to work with the Greens to finally get this bill into the Parliament. 
I must say that this is a very important area. The natural health products registry estimated that in 2011 there will be a billion dollars worth of exports—$150 million worth of manuka honey. It is important that these products are safe and that any regime makes sure there is no harm. I think it is important that people understand the regulatory impact statement and also are aware that there will be a 5-yearly review. 
Finally there are some challenges that will be important for the select committee to grapple with. Firstly there is the definition of what natural health products are. They are defined in the bill among other things as bringing a health benefit and that implies that there will need to be some degree of proof. Other challenges include the Wai 262 claims and also of course how we fit in with the trans-Tasman arrangements. 
There will be some very interesting challenges for the select committee to grapple with. I believe that this is a timely and highly worthwhile bill. It has had its genesis over 20 years according to the regulatory impact statement and I commend it to the House.
Sepuloni Carmel: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21395] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). Over the course of the time that we have debated this bill it has been a rigorous debate and we have debated the merits of the bill. Labour of course supports any measure to prevent and mitigate harm or abuse against children. However we have reservations about certain provisions and their ability to be effective in combating the actual problem. I will not go on for too long; I will point them out just very briefly. I feel that my colleague Rajen has done a good job of discussing them and we discussed them fully yesterday when we were debating the bill. 
Firstly the lack of urgency demonstrated by the National Government with regard to child abuse and family violence is of concern to this side of the House. National members put up legislation like this and act as though they are taking it seriously but we know that they are not. The bill is not being pushed through under urgency like some of the other legislation that really should not have been urgent at all. I refer to legislation like the fire-at-will bill. I will say it over and over again: the Domestic Violence Reform Bill continues to languish at the bottom of the Order Paper despite the fact that it was widely consulted upon and the sector is waiting for this Government to implement it. The lack of urgency demonstrated by the National Government with regard to child abuse and family violence is of concern to us. 
Second is the National Government’s continual emphasis on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach. Although Labour is supporting this bill that is what it is. It comes after the fact; it will not stop a child getting abused. This bill is about what happens after abuse has occurred. We have heard many speakers on this side of the House talk about the correlation between poverty and abuse and we have seen nothing from the National Government that responds to the poverty that we as a country are facing. If that problem is not addressed how can we possibly pretend that we will be addressing the issue of abuse at all? 
Thirdly the issue that was raised by my colleague Charles Chauvel last week was the proposed modification of the defence of claim of right. He discussed that proposal in full last night. Those are the reservations that we have. Although Labour supports this bill I think it is very important that we note those concerns. Thank you very much.
Power Simon: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Power Simon: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21393] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This bill reflects the Government’s and I hope Parliament’s determination to prevent the abuse of the most vulnerable in New Zealand’s society: our children and vulnerable adults. In addition to work in other portfolios such as the recent Green Paper for Vulnerable Children one of the goals of the Government when it came to office was to develop an appropriate response from the criminal justice system to violence against children. Consequently in 2008 in the course of carrying out a review of Part 8 of the Crimes Act which is about offences against the person I invited the Law Commission to give specific regard to how the provisions of Part 8 could better protect children. In response the Law Commission recommended that the scope of the offences and duties relating to care of children be broadened that an objective standard of care be imposed and that penalty levels be adjusted to better reflect the gravity of offending. As it eventuated the Government has decided to give priority to these specific measures over and above the wider reforms that sought to tidy up Part 8 of the Crimes Act. 
This bill will strengthen the ability of agencies to hold individuals to account for harming the most vulnerable in our community. It will ensure that not only will the perpetrators of these acts be held accountable but also significantly and importantly those members of households who witness those incidents and turn a blind eye to the abuse or fail to take measures to stop ongoing incidents will be held accountable. The changes to the Crimes Act will also mean that those who have responsibility for children and who ill-treat or neglect a child can no longer use ignorance or thoughtlessness as a defence. They will be held accountable according to more objective standards of conduct that are to be expected of parents and caregivers. 
The bill also makes other important changes to the criminal law. The scope of the sexual grooming offence is clarified in order to support active policing and the protection of children from the predatory behaviour of those using the internet as a medium. A property right criterion is added to the definition of “claim of right” to ensure that use of this defence conforms to common law and comparable overseas jurisdictions. The bill also increases the penalty for the offence of possession of an offensive weapon. But it is my hope that the biggest impact of this bill will be to help to encourage those in day-to-day contact with endangered children to come forward if they know that abuse or neglect is taking place. We all know that the price of silence in such cases may be the perpetuation of abuse and neglect over an entire childhood or in some cases the savage loss of a young blameless life. I commend this bill to the House.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21382] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I will take just a short call to say that I support the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. It is about making the student loan scheme sustainable into the future. It reduces the need for the Government to borrow against the scheme whilst still allowing students to prepare for their future. 
It builds on a statute we have already passed this year which allowed for defaulters of loans to be recalled in full. Essentially we are cleaning up an area of defaulting student loans and addressing the overall size of student loan debt which as we know grows year on year. 
Our Government has maintained interest-free student loans. We are really about getting value for money from the scheme as it goes into the future so we have introduced performance criteria. We have focused lending on those who really need the money who are prepared to pay it back and who are succeeding in their studies. I support this bill.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21397] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Mana 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a third time.
Adams Amy: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Amy: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21377] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call in the first reading debate of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. I think it is worth putting on the record that our interest-free student loan scheme is one of the most generous in the world. But as previous speakers have said we all have a very firm expectation that those who are lucky enough to avail themselves of it should meet their obligations to repay that loan. As members have heard the Minister of Revenue say the loan book sits now at over $12 billion and it should be a concern to every New Zealander that the impairment of that loan book is currently well over 40 percent. This bill has a raft of measures which the Minister has outlined to support and enhance repayment obligations. I think they are very worthy steps that we must look at and I look forward to a full debate on them at the select committee. I am very pleased to commend the bill to the House.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Natural Health Products Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Natural Health Products Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21391] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Kia ora ano tatou katoa. I will take a brief call to voice the support of the Maori Party for the exclusion of natural health products and rongoa from the new trans-Tasman agency to regulate medicines medical devices and new medical interventions. We are pleased that the traditional practices of healers and the natural products they rely on for rongoa will not be included in the requirements of the joint regulatory scheme for therapeutic products. We say it is pretty good news for Maori that the plants used in rakau rongoa do not come under the jurisdiction of the new controls. To be clear: this Natural Health Products Bill does not impact on rongoa Maori except when it is mass produced and sold. That means that as Sue Kedgley said the framework for rongoa is not being dictated by Government. Basically if rongoa was being put on the commercial market then we would want exactly the same standards applied to it as for any other commercial product. 
A strong and sensible regulatory scheme will ensure quality and safety again as Sue Kedgley alluded to for both consumers and manufacturers alike. The public should be and can be confident that products are safe and are true to what has been stated on the label. I did not realise this but there are about 450 companies that supply natural products to the New Zealand market. We noted a positive comment from a group called Natural Products New Zealand. It stated: “Regulation that allows the industry to inform and protect New Zealand customers and at the same time facilitates innovation and export growth is desperately needed.” That is a good line to at least start on in advancing the debate. It is a positive line that opens up the door to discussion as many speakers have said this afternoon. 
Finally Dr Paul Hutchison mentioned Wai 262. That is an important kaupapa for us. We are mindful of the importance of settling the Wai 262 claims before proceeding to the final stages of this bill. We hope the select committee process will enable sufficient time for the representatives of the Wai 262 claimants and rongoa practitioners providers and consumers to put forward their submissions on this issue in order to address issues to do with indigenous flora and fauna. That includes obviously intellectual and cultural property rights. We look forward to the debate as this bill moves forward in particular in respect of the Wai 262 claim—obviously the report was released only a month or 6 weeks ago. Thank you very much. Ka nui te mihi.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Extension to Queens Wharf Fanzone 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Extension to Queens Wharf Fanzone 
[Volume:675;Page:21356] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from the Hon Trevor Mallard and Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s application to the Rugby World Cup Authority for an extension to the Queens Wharf Fanzone Festival and Showcase Event area. 
This is an event of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Government’s application was made yesterday. Ordinarily such an application might not justify an urgent debate on the grounds that the urgent debate procedure is a means of holding the Government to account where decisions have been made. However as I indicated yesterday this is an important and controversial matter. There is a significant element of urgency. Where there is no other parliamentary means for debating an urgent matter in the reasonably foreseeable future this is a relevant consideration for the Speaker in considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House. 
Given the element of urgency I consider that the matter does now require the immediate attention of the House. I therefore give priority to the first application I received—that from the Hon Trevor Mallard. I call upon him to move that the House take note of a particular case of recent occurrence.