edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Guy Nathan: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:518] 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 This is a new Government now getting on with the job in the first 100 days and rolling through legislation that is vitally important in order to keep our communities safer. The main objective of the Bail Amendment Bill is about making communities safer. It is about protecting the public from defendants who— 
Hon Annette King 
: For goodness’ sake stop reading the research notes. They are just rubbish. 
NATHAN GUY 
: No no; I am not reading the research notes I say to Mrs King. The objectives of this bill are actually very important. They are about making communities safer and about protecting people from defendants who are out on bail and who might be absconding or interfering with witnesses or evidence. That is why this Government is getting on with the job of making communities safer. It is vitally important. That is why members on this side of the House are supporting the bill and it looks like we have a great deal of support from across the whole of Parliament. That is why we are endorsing the second reading of this bill.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:515] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I respect the sentiments of the Labour members. They had 9 years to amend the law yet crime has increased. In those 9 years they did not do anything but National which has been in office for only 1 month has introduced this bill. I respect the sentiments of the Labour members and understand that that is why they are upset. 
There are really big concerns in the Indian community because over the last few years that community has faced three murders. Hard-working people hard-working Kiwis have been lost while working in their shops to earn bread for their families. In the case of Navtej Singh his family does not have a breadwinner right now and is really struggling to make a living. 
I support this bill because it is a great step. Within 1 month of becoming the Government National has introduced this amendment bill and the main objective of it is to protect the public and to give rights to the police and the justice system.
Kaye Nikki: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:513] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 The heart of what we are debating today is public safety. As someone who has returned from London I say that the previous Labour Government has made New Zealand less safe. I say as a young woman who walks the streets of central Auckland that New Zealand is not the place it once was. That is why I stand to speak today and am proud to support this legislation. 
I want to deal with a couple of things. The first is that at the heart of this Bail Amendment Bill we are dealing with risk—the level of risk. Phil Goff stood up before and said that this bill is just window dressing. I make the point that clearly he did not think that in 2007 because why else would he have passed legislation changing the law? So yes he is reversing his position and I think he needs to stand up and explain why he is doing that. 
The second point is that a number of reputable organisations believe that as a result of this law change it has been easier for people to get bail and we need to acknowledge those organisations’ concerns. The New Zealand Law Society the Police Association the Police Prosecution Service and a number of High Court judges have all said that it has been easier to get bail as a result of that law change. I stand here and say that we should be listening to those organisations. They know what they are talking about. The Labour Opposition might not but they do. We should be listening to those organisations that believe that the law passed by Labour in 2007 has meant it is easier for people to get bail. 
The third point I want to make today is to ask those members opposite that if they do not believe this legislation is making any change whatsoever then why are they supporting it? 
Hon Annette King 
: Because it makes no difference. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: Exactly—why are they standing here supporting the legislation if they think it makes no difference? I will tell them why. They know very well that they changed the law and made it easier for people to get bail. New Zealand is a less safe place as a result of 9 years of a Labour Government. 
I am proud to stand here and to be part of a Government that believes in making New Zealand a safer place for all New Zealanders—like my constituents in Auckland Central—so they can walk the streets. New Zealand will be a safer place and I am proud to be part of a National Government that is serious about protecting the public.
Borrows Chester: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:512] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the 1991 so-called “mother of all Budgets” which came 5 months after that lot got the boot in direct response to the state it left the country in. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Wong Pansy: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:508] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 Labour has reverted to its old form. When those members have nothing substantial to say what do they do? They launch a personal attack. 
Is it not strange that the Hon Phil Goff and all his colleagues are attacking this bill as being a showpiece with no substance yet they are voting for it? Why are they voting for it? They should show the true spirit of their position. Suddenly the Hon Phil Goff has come into this House and said that this bail law is not tough enough. Well after 9 long years—9 long years—in Government and after losing the election suddenly those members have woken up and they have come back to the House to say they would have done a lot better. 
I will share some personal observations. My hard-working knowledgable and intelligent new colleague Melissa Lee MP is a lot more in touch with the New Zealand public than the Hon Phil Goff is. At a public meeting during the election campaign the then Minister of Justice was trying to tell people that rising crime was a figment of their imagination. He was telling them that New Zealand is safe when none of the people in the audience were feeling safe. I am not too sure what mandate and what message he has that makes him feel he is in touch. I can assure him that Melissa Lee is really in touch with not just Korean and Asian people but the New Zealand public as well. 
Before I sit down I congratulate my hard-working and stick-to-his-promise colleague the new Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power. What did he do? He went out and campaigned on a promise to bring in a raft of legislation to fulfil the promise of our leader the Prime Minister to make safe communities a priority. I am so glad that today I have had the opportunity to take a short call to support this great start to the National Government’s promise to return safety to our community.
Borrows Chester: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:505] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to make two or three points in respect of comments made especially by the last speaker. I think it was a real shame to witness what happened when a new member of the House was making some very salient points in respect of this matter. Ms Lee was referring to an incident she had referred to in her maiden speech which was about a home invasion. In her speech just before lunch she came to a point where she was referring to her own experience. She caught herself and it appeared to be from an emotive point of view. Straight away those three in the front row over there jumped in and tried to turn the knife and she was dissuaded from what she was about to say. They were saying: “Oh you have the market cornered on victims.” and all the rest of it. She was about to amplify that but they turned her away from doing so. 
We all bring something to this House. We all bring experience to this House so she intended to bring before this House her experience in relation to this matter. The lack of respect shown to a new member by members from that side of the House is completely indicative of where they are and it shows the shallowness of their understanding around these issues. 
At lunchtime I wandered across the road to the High Court and I listened to the returned verdict in the Jhia Te Tua case—a case that got right to the heart of provincial New Zealand of gang activity and of offending in this country. That particular case turned the former Government’s mind round in relation to gangs. Its gang strategy that had been abandoned at the end of 2004 was all of a sudden picked up again. Legislation was introduced to the House in a rush because those members wanted to be seen to be dealing with it. 
Today Labour members want to be seen to be supporting the Bail Amendment Bill but they have done nothing but scoff about it since it was introduced this morning. They have given every reason in the world as to why no one should support it but they will vote for this bill for political purposes. It is not for any other reason whatsoever. They know that if they do not support this legislation there is no way they can stand on a stump or in a public hall or speak to a policeman a defence counsel or anybody else and try to explain to them that they have their heads around criminal offending in this country. 
I look forward to seeing them support this legislation. I would love for them to support this bill for the right reasons but they will not do so because they do not know what the right reasons are.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:501] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a first time.
Bridges Simon: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:495] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is my great pleasure to rise in this House to speak in favour of the Bail Amendment Bill. It was good to hear the Hon Annette King say the Labour Party will support this bill. It shows quite clearly that Labour admits that it got the bail law absolutely wrong in 2007 when it voted to change it. Labour did not know what it was doing then and now it will not be opposing this bill which will change the law. I commend the Hon Simon Power for his courage in bringing before this House our first piece of legislation to toughen up the criminal law in this country and to bring it more in line with what the people want to see. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: This member’s easily pleased! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I tell the Hon Darren Hughes that I come to this House with a lot of experience in the bail laws. I have prosecuted and been involved in hundreds of bail hearings both before Labour’s law change and after and I have learnt a bit about this law and what it means with the life experience that I have. 
All I would say about the Labour Government’s amendments to the bail law in 2006 and 2007 is that they made it easier for crims. I say to the Hon Annette King when she talks about 10 cases affected that I have prosecuted at least 10 cases that were fine calls—where the judges made it very clear that because of this change made to the law in 2007 they were letting the people out on bail. I say also to this House that the measure by Labour when it amended the law was entirely fiscally driven. It was not about justice or about criminal law; it was entirely fiscally driven. 
I say to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that I am glad he is still a member of the House. He shows that a little bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing with his comment on Justice Heath in the Kahui case. Yes he was right; the learned judge did say the law made no difference. But what cumulatively the law is and what the various judges in this country have said is in fact expressed in the most influential commentary on criminal law in this country  
Adams on Criminal Law: 
 “Judges have expressed different views of the effect of the statutory amendment;”. It cites many cases that were in favour of the no-change position; but then goes on to say: “Others consider the amendment has set a higher threshold for refusal of bail.” That is actually what it did do in the District Court. The High Court judges did not know what the Labour 2007 amendment Act meant. This Government is changing the law back. I commend this bill to the House.
Power Simon: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:489] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Following the Leader of the Opposition’s speech I point out that he has once again failed to tell the House and the public of New Zealand how Labour will be voting on this legislation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a debating point.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:483] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Hughes Darren: Tabling of Documents — Urgency Motions—Labour Governments 
Hughes Darren: Tabling of Documents — Urgency Motions—Labour Governments 
[Volume:651;Page:482] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a list of urgency motions under the Labour Government where the bills were only released to the Opposition at a quarter to midnight on the night before the bills were to be debated. This is the list here. It is actually a blank piece of paper; it never happened. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Guy Nathan: Tabling of Documents — Urgency Motions—Labour Governments 
Guy Nathan: Tabling of Documents — Urgency Motions—Labour Governments 
[Volume:651;Page:482] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a schedule showing the number of urgency motions over the last three Labour Governments. There were 47 urgency motions and three— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
King Colin: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
King Colin: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:479] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 After listening to the speeches from members on the other side of the House we can understand why New Zealanders voted on 8 November for a brighter future. The dirges from the members on the other side have indicated the controlling nature of the Government of the last 9 years and the effect that it had on New Zealand. When we look at the performance of New Zealand in the last 9 years during the best economic times in the last 30 years we see that that lot over there squandered that opportunity. We are talking about creating a brighter future and that is what we intend to do. The most important step in a journey of a thousand miles is the first step. Labour when in Government dug a big hole for New Zealand. It tried to bury New Zealand’s aspirations goals and visions in it. This John Key - led Government is determined to lead New Zealand into a brighter future. 
It has been an insult to sit on this side of the House and have to tolerate the dirges and pointless discussion that have occurred from last night onwards. Fortunately the other night I had the privilege to go to a very upbeat prize-giving at Queen Charlotte College and I can tell members that people there were over the moon that they were being presented with an opportunity. In simple terms this bill has been well and truly canvassed. 
I would like to finish with a little comment from a blog site because I do not think this bill deserves to be ridiculed in the way it has been by members on the other side. It is a visionary bill and it is something that has been long overdue. This comment is from a blog site and I would like those members to listen: “This is an interesting announcement from National. I think it is one of those policies which people will be ashamed to support in public due to the ‘left’ interpretation of it but which most people in the privacy of the polling booth will support because it is an actual common sense policy from National.” The second point is “This debate may be cast as a evil-capitalist’s charter by the left. It could also be cast as an ‘anti-deadbeats’ charter by the right.” Finally: “I think National will do well on voting day with this policy. It appeals to the kiwi sense of fair play. Let the people decide.” 
And they did on 8 November. Let this bill stand. I congratulate Kate Wilkinson; she has done a fine job. I take great pleasure in supporting this bill.
Smith Lockwood: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:466] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members—[ 
Interruption 
] When I am on my feet members will cease their interjections. Before I call the next member I want to refer to an issue raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard. When he suggested that there had been improper behaviour in a member seeking to influence another member he inappropriately suggested that that was a matter of privilege. I will not have members raising in the Chamber issues of privilege and I just alert the member to that. In fact if members look at Speaker’s ruling 174/5 they will see that Speaker Harrison made it very clear that there is nothing improper in members seeking to influence other members as long as no implication of bribery or improper practice is involved. I just mention that to members. I also say that this is a debate where members feel very strongly about the issues—and that is very important; it will be a robust debate—but the Hon Trevor Mallard walked down a very fine line within the Standing Orders. I do not like interrupting members so I urge members to be careful not to breach the Standing Orders.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:463] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:462] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be recommitted to reconsider clause 2.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:462] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:462] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:462] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to have to intervene but can I just be clear that the National Party is aware of what this amendment is—to bring the implementation date forward to 1 March—and that it is voting for it. The reason I raise this of course is that the vote result is not declared at this point and it is possible for a party to correct its vote. The National Party at no stage has indicated that it is supporting an amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Government has the opportunity to clarify the matter but as there is no call to clarify it I must accept that it understands exactly what the amendment is. I will therefore continue the vote.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:462] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1 in the name of David Garrett to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to.
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Vote: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:462] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Bennett David: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Bennett David: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:461] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:461] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of a DVD showing Anne Tolley promising that teachers would be excluded from this legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Kaye Nikki: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:460] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:458] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:482] 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Tabling of Documents — Urgency Motions—Labour Governments 
Tabling of Documents — Urgency Motions—Labour Governments 
[Volume:651;Page:482] 
Tabling of Documents 
Urgency Motions—Labour Governments 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a schedule showing the number of urgency motions over the last three Labour Governments. There were 47 urgency motions and three— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a list of urgency motions under the Labour Government where the bills were only released to the Opposition at a quarter to midnight on the night before the bills were to be debated. This is the list here. It is actually a blank piece of paper; it never happened. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:658;Page:7621] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication. Given that one-third of the time since the election that the Parliament has sat has been under urgency I wonder whether he could confirm that we can look forward to week 7 in a row of urgency when we return. Finally noting that this is a 2-week adjournment and members will be travelling around the country I wonder whether he has any recommendations about restaurants in Auckland that he could make to the country. We would be very grateful if he could give us some advice on that particular matter. I understand he has quite an announcement to make in that regard.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:658;Page:7621] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will adjourn today for a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 November it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Ngati Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill the Biosecurity Amendment Bill and other bills on the Order Paper.
Urgent Debates Declined — National Health Board—Appointment of Chair to Advisory Board 
Urgent Debates Declined — National Health Board—Appointment of Chair to Advisory Board 
[Volume:658;Page:7638] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
National Health Board—Appointment of Chair to Advisory Board 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the appointment of Dr Murray Horn as the establishment chair of the new National Health Board advisory board. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and does involve ministerial responsibility. However the appointment of individuals by Ministers to positions even important ones such as this will not usually give grounds for a debate. To justify a matter taking precedence over other business there must be an element of urgency or substantive policy change. 
An appointment has been made as part of new supervision arrangements being put in place within the Ministry of Health—at least that is why the appointment has been made. However the existing district health board governance structure still remains in place. There are other parliamentary opportunities to consider the leadership and operation of the supervision arrangements for district health boards—in particular the financial review of the Ministry of Health which is now before the Health Committee. I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to this particular issue over other business of the House today. 
The application is therefore declined.
Huo Raymond: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Huo Raymond: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7665] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Case study 2 involves a young couple with three kids under 8 years old. They had credit contracts on their cars and television and rented their home. They were encouraged by the bank to consolidate their finances which they did with a personal loan. They got into further debt and the bank refinanced them by putting all their debt on to a credit card. The couple subsequently separated. The credit card was in the male’s name only as he was the income earner. He was unable to cope and was accepted into the no-asset procedure. 
From those two cases we can tell that there are good solid reasons why the no-asset procedure had been designed in the first place—to help financially distressed individuals to reboot their lives. As I said earlier any form of legislation will inevitably have a catch-all effect. Therefore it is important for us to strike the right balance and take into consideration all possible factors. On this point it is a balance between the purpose of the no-asset procedure and the legitimate interests of credit providers. It is the view of the Privacy Commissioner that a total of 3 years on the public register for a no-asset procedure debtor would be more consistent with the purposes of the procedure and more proportionate to the period for which individuals are publicly listed following bankruptcy. 
Further there is no international consensus on this in overseas jurisdictions. Therefore I say that the issue would be better dealt with separately and not necessarily in this bill and that given that the Commerce Committee was unable to reach consensus further consideration and consultation are necessary. To conclude this is generally a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7665] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of the Hon Simon Power be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 to 5 and schedules 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill the Securities Markets Amendment Bill the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill and the Securities Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper81. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Tremain Chris: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7665] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7659] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. Unlike my colleagues opposite I will not traverse what was said in this House yesterday during the bill’s second reading but I will acknowledge the officials who are here in the Chamber for the good work they did during the course of the select committee process. 
I think it is apt that a member who attended the Commerce Committee and heard the submissions should stand and speak on this bill rather than speak on another bill that is currently going through another select committee. 
This bill is being supported by all parties in the House. As we have already stated it is part of the economic package that this Government has put in place during its first year of government. 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s a Labour bill. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Dare I remind my colleagues opposite of the sort of damage they did in 9 years in Government in this country. Dare I remind them of their failure in respect of economic growth; we had 0.2 percent annual growth in GDP in the year ended December 2008. Dare I remind those members of the high inflation rates that the previous Labour Government oversaw during its period in office. Dare I remind members opposite of the contraction in exports that occurred over the last 5 years. According to my colleagues opposite it is all National’s fault. 
This bill is part of a package that will transform this country. It will transform our economy. That is the reason why members opposite as well as Government members support this bill. I commend this bill to the Committee.
Guy Nathan: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7657] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution on the Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill. It was good to hear that Labour is supporting the bill but then I just heard the previous speaker say it is an embarrassing bill which somewhat confused me. I want to get back to the facts of the parts of the bill which we are debating as a whole. 
Part 1 provides that trades securities and other products can be cleared and settled through designation systems that meet expectations of international and domestic participants in the New Zealand financial sector. Part 2 contains a savings provision that ensures that two payment systems already designated under existing Part 5C of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act are not affected by the amendments in this bill. Part 3 of the bill is to do with the Securities Markets Act 1988 and it amends the Act to align the regulatory environment for exchanges seeking to operate in both securities and futures markets. Registered securities exchanges and authorised futures exchanges are regulated slightly differently from each other under the Securities Markets Act. Currently a securities exchange registers under Part 2B of the Securities Markets Act while a futures exchange is authorised under Part 3 of the Act. Part 4 of the bill which addresses the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 claims to clarify the regulatory treatment of emissions units to support the development of the market for emissions units. We have just heard a fair bit about that from the previous speaker. Emissions units are a relatively new product in our market. Some members of the financial sector submitted that in order to trade emissions units the treatment of those units under our securities legislation needed to be clarified. Part 4 of the bill supports that objective by defining what an emissions unit is for the purposes of the Personal Property Securities Act. Part 5 addresses issues to do with the Securities Act 1978. It defines what an emissions unit is and it amends the definition of “chattel” in the Securities Act to include an emissions unit. It also inserts new definitions of “emissions units” and “greenhouse gas”. 
There are two Supplementary Order Papers on the table. The first Supplementary Order Paper 81 divides the bill into four bills. That will enable Part 1 and Part 2 to become the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill; Part 3 and schedules 1 and 2 to become the Securities Markets Amendment Bill; Part 4 to become the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill; and Part 5 to become the Securities Amendment Bill. Supplementary Order Paper 80 makes very technical amendments to the bill.
Guy Nathan: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Settlement Systems Futures and Emissions Units Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7656] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee to take this bill as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That would include the debate I presume. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Vote: Immigration Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7655] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Bill be now read a third time.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Bill — Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7655] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I will take just a short call in support of the Immigration Bill. It has been discussed at length not only today but also on previous days and I do not want to unduly delay the passage into law of this very important piece of legislation. But I add my congratulations to all those who have been involved in what has been a quite long gestation—several years—in getting the bill into its form and now into law and those people have all been named. 
What I do want to do is to add a message of best wishes to the staff of the Immigration Service the New Zealand Customs Service the new Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the very many other departments that will be involved in the implementation of this Act. 
There are some very challenging aspects to the new law particularly in relation to the streamlining of the immigration processes. There are things like simplified passenger travel between Australia and New Zealand and the bill allows for that to go further afield in the future; the collection of biometric information; and the information-matching and information-sharing processes that the Act will allow. There are many other initiatives that are very beneficial and how successful the law will be will in large part relate to the ability of those departments to deliver on the technologies and processes in an efficient and timely manner. 
The last couple of years have been a challenging time for Immigration New Zealand and I am sure we all want to wish it to be strong and confident in the discharge of its responsibilities under the law that is about to be passed. It may even be the case that those challenges energise it and refocus it. I wish the immigration officials very well in that regard. I commend the bill to the House.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — National Health Board—Appointment of Chair to Advisory Board 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — National Health Board—Appointment of Chair to Advisory Board 
[Volume:658;Page:7638] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the appointment of Dr Murray Horn as the establishment chair of the new National Health Board advisory board. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and does involve ministerial responsibility. However the appointment of individuals by Ministers to positions even important ones such as this will not usually give grounds for a debate. To justify a matter taking precedence over other business there must be an element of urgency or substantive policy change. 
An appointment has been made as part of new supervision arrangements being put in place within the Ministry of Health—at least that is why the appointment has been made. However the existing district health board governance structure still remains in place. There are other parliamentary opportunities to consider the leadership and operation of the supervision arrangements for district health boards—in particular the financial review of the Ministry of Health which is now before the Health Committee. I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to this particular issue over other business of the House today. 
The application is therefore declined.
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7634] 
11.  
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How many schools were due to lose their Fruit in Schools funding by the end of term 2 this year and why was this? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that 113 schools were due to lose their Fruit in Schools funding by the end of term 2 this year with a further 152 by Christmas. This was because under the previous Government’s Fruit in Schools programme schools would receive fruit only for a maximum of 3 years. I am advised that after 3 years in the Fruit in Schools programme these low-decile schools were expected to become self-sustaining in the provision of fruit. That approach was never going to work. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What decisions has the Government made in relation to Fruit in Schools? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In June this year the Government announced it would continue funding the Fruit in Schools programme until the end of 2009 while we looked at ways to reduce the high administration costs of the programme. Of the total cost of around $12 million a year only around half was actually spent on fruit. I am pleased to advise today that the Government has decided to continue the Fruit in Schools programme but it is reducing the administrative overheads. This will free up more than $4 million a year which will be put towards helping more young New Zealanders access cheaper doctors’ visits under the Very Low Cost Access programme. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Can he confirm that he actually took part in the select committee inquiry into type 2 diabetes and obesity that recommended that the funding for Fruit in Schools be extended which the Labour-led Government then did; extending it for the second time since it was launched by the then Minister of Health Pete Hodgson? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I was on a select committee that looked at type 2 diabetes. We were unaware at the time that the previous Government would move to cut significant amounts of money out of public health programmes including a reduction of $3.3 million in the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7633] 
9.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received about recent legislative changes to superannuation? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have received correspondence from many who welcome the changes. There is one letter in particular that I want to highlight a passage from: “Thank you thank you thank you for the changes. We have children and grandchildren living overseas and want to be part of their lives and the littlies while having adventures ourselves. This change in legislation opens new doors for us and we are both extremely grateful.” I wish them all the best on their golden age OE. 
Chester Borrows 
: How will these changes make it easier for senior citizens to travel and still access superannuation entitlements? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The new law changes the general portability payment policy that has been in place since 1990 making it fairer. It was not changed under Labour; it was changed under this Government. Older New Zealanders are celebrating the changes this National Government has introduced. We are committed to ensuring that older New Zealanders get the freedom they deserve in their retirement. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What impact will this Government’s decade of deferrals have on the entitlements of superannuitants and veterans pensioners who travel or retire overseas? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: None. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Did the Minister consult the Minister of Finance regarding the analysis from Treasury released a day after the Budget showing that the Minister’s plan to defer payments guts the Superannuation Fund by 50 percent and advising that it will never be able to catch up; and can she give an assurance to superannuitants and veterans who travel or retire overseas that their entitlements will not be affected as a result of this shortfall? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes.
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7631] 
7.  
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What recent announcements has the Government made about the Youth Guarantee? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Recently I announced the allocation of the first Youth Guarantee places for next year. They have been split amongst 28 providers across the country and will see 2000 sixteen and seventeen-year-olds who are not currently in education training or work participate in a range of vocational programmes free of charge at private training establishments institutes of technology and polytechs. 
Simon Bridges 
: Why was a decision made to start the Youth Guarantee next year? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: A decision was made at the Prime Minister’s Job Summit earlier this year to jump-start the Youth Guarantee in order to meet the needs of young people who are some of the most vulnerable people during an economic downturn. The places have been allocated to regions with the highest need based on the number of young unemployed people in the population and the high-quality proposals. This has seen for example 810 places go to Auckland 244 places go to Canterbury 175 places go to the Waikato and 164 places go to Otago-Southland. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: How does she reconcile her statement that “the decision to speed up the Youth Guarantee is reflective of the Government’s commitment to providing education and training opportunities to younger New Zealanders who may find it difficult to find employment in these tough times” with her decision to cap the number of places available in tertiary education which means that around 6000 young people are being turned away from training at polytechs and institutes of technology alone? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say two things to that member in answer to that question. First of all it was that member’s own Government that instituted the cap on tertiary institutions. Second the figure of 6000 students is mere speculation based on mid-year projections that in actual fact have not come true.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7629] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two documents in relation to question No. 3. The first one is an extract from the proceedings of the House of Commons which discusses the conditions of the UK water privatisation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: The second one is an advisory document by Lobina and Hall from the University of Greenwich which gives a very detailed analysis of the economic social and environmental cost to the UK taxpayer of the privatisation of water. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. The document may be tabled.  
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.