edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9402] 
7. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What progress has been made with Project Protector? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 We have now taken delivery of the first of the two offshore patrol vessels the  
Otago.  
The delivery of the second the  
Wellington 
 will take place in April. This completes the delivery of the Project Protector fleet and it will be a substantial addition to the Navy. I might note that the programme has been bedevilled by delay and dispute largely because the Labour Government chose a one-off solution with the  
Canterbury 
 which has led to a very large repair bill. 
Todd McClay 
: What progress is being made with the rectification of the defects of the  
Canterbury 
? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: We have now settled the dispute over the defects of the  
Canterbury  
with BAE Systems by way of mediation. BAE Systems has paid $84.6 million to the Crown based on current exchange rates. I might note that Labour spent years talking about the problems but never actually got around to solving them. In contrast we had to initiate a legal process which has resulted in a very good outcome and it will enable a comprehensive rectification of the defects of the  
Canterbury 
.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9404] 
9. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What reports has he received on the roll-out of new passports? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I have received reports from the Department of Internal Affairs on how successful the transition to new passports has been. The last old-style e-passport was issued yesterday. From today we are issuing the new model solely with new security features and a new black and silver design. Forty-five thousand of these passports have been issued and the new technology is working very well. All production targets were met during the transition to the new-style e-passport and they continue to be met. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: Why was it important to update the New Zealand passport? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The New Zealand passport needs to be updated to keep up with technology and to stay ahead of fraudsters. The new passport has over 50 new security features. This helps to protect the good reputation that our passport enjoys overseas and indeed it secures visa-free access for New Zealanders to over 50 countries. What is more it is value for money; we have kept the price at the same level of $150 as previously.
King Colin: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9420] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. It is very easy to look at the student loan situation in isolation. From listening to Opposition members one would imagine that it was an enormous part of the overall context of things. I think that during this third reading it would be appropriate to give the wider context of the student loan situation as it relates to exemptions and miscellaneous provisions. 
The scheme’s nominal value is $10.3 billion. According to the last financial report the basic value of the student loan scheme is $6.5 billion. If members look at the situation in 1994 when the student loan scheme was put in place they will see that only 252000 people were accessing tertiary education loans. Today that number is approaching half a million. Even though collectively we might have our varying views on the scheme this country has gone from having one of the very lowest rates of entry into tertiary study to having one of the very highest. That is laudable and applaudable. I say that is well done. 
This bill in its context recognises the fact that education is portable and valuable but we do not want to forget that the taxpayer is still picking up 70 percent of the cost of tertiary education. Half a million people have student loans. The desire of the bill is make sure that the student loan scheme functions as it is intended to. 
Principally the bill refines the process for two particular groups. Those two particular groups have been spoken about regularly in the House this afternoon. One group is those countries that are included in the Realm of New Zealand—principally Niue the Cook Islands Tokelau and the Ross Dependency. The second group is affected by an anomaly that the Minister of Revenue has brought to the House for speedy remedy. It relates to people who have gone on to an institution overseas to undertake a course of study above level 7 that is not available in New Zealand. 
I will not go on too much further. I think matters have been well and truly canvassed. This bill will greatly aid the running of the student loan scheme and I am sure that the Minister will feel more comfortable when it is passed in a speedy and responsible way. From that point of view it gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.
Tremain Chris: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9391] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Adams Amy: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Adams Amy: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9371] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I do not intend to take up much of the House’s time on this bill. I want to make a contribution about a point that my colleague Louise Upston touched on which is something I have not heard discussed so far in this debate. I come back to the fact that this bill is a revenue bill; it is in the name of the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne. I just want to make a contribution wearing my Finance and Expenditure Committee hat I guess even though that committee did not consider this bill. 
One of the issues that the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been very much engaged in is the management of tax debt and I think that in looking at student loans we cannot overlook the fact that they are a $10 billion chunk of the Government’s books. They are a serious and significant part of the Government’s accounts and steps such as those in this bill will help manage that tax debt. We know that that debt is spiralling out of all control and Opposition members agree with us on that. We have to get a handle on tax debt. 
The part of this bill that introduces the ability of the Inland Revenue Department to put up compulsory payments from 10 percent to 15 percent when borrowers have been in default in terms of having the correct deductions made is an important part. It is important for managing our tax debt. The other thing it is important for is legislating consequences for borrowers who fail to live up to their obligations and that is something I fundamentally agree with. If borrowers do not ensure that correct deductions are made there should be a legislative consequence for that action. If that means moving to 15 percent until the indebtedness is cleared and if that encourages borrowers to be more compliant to be more aware and to take more responsibility for their obligations then that can be only a good thing. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Garrett David: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Garrett David: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9374] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 The Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill is a good bill but not a great bill and ACT supports it.
Parker David: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9352] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just seek clarification in terms of that consultation because there may be some misunderstanding here. If we gave an undertaking that we would support that legislation I would like that to be clarified before we take the vote if that is possible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My understanding is that the undertaking was for the support of the consideration—not necessarily for support of the amendment—so that the amendment can come back to be debated now. That is my understanding. Is that acceptable? Do you understand the position? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I think I understand the position. I was confused. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9345] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9353] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress and ask to sit again presently.
Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9353] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue that has arisen is in relation to a Supplementary Order Paper on the Judicial Matters Bill. What was proposed was that leave be sought— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker he is talking to a bill— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You have called a bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No I have a point of order— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes you have called a bill Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Please sit down. The member has raised a point of order. He said it was a point of order and I am hearing it. I have not yet determined whether it is a point of order but the member has raised a point of order and I need to hear it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He cannot raise it on a bill that is not before the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will determine that. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am dealing with a procedural matter if the member would listen carefully. Because leave was denied in relation to part of Supplementary Order Paper 108 the House reported progress. Because of the numbers of people standing around here I was not in a position to stand up and move a motion in relation to seeking leave that the Committee deal with that particular part of the Supplementary Order Paper which is the motion that I was seeking to deal with. But you Mr Assistant Speaker then moved on to item No. 5 on the Order Paper.
Mallard Trevor: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9353] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The first point I make is that that is not a point of order because it is not relevant to the bill that is currently before the House which is the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. There was an opportunity for and we were expecting Mr Finlayson to move a motion. We were waiting for him to move a motion; he did not. He missed it. What happened then was that the Clerk called the next bill and you offered the call repeatedly. I tried to get the call; my colleague Maryan Street tried to get the call. I tried to get a Minister to speak on the bill that is currently before the House. Neither of the two Ministers who were in the House the Attorney-General or the Minister for Social Development and Employment rose. You called repeatedly for a Minister; a Minister did not rise. I am not quite sure what happens now. I think possibly we might even move on to the next business. I think it is a matter of getting advice. But it is very very clear that the Minister now—and there has been one call on that bill—has an ability to adjourn the House if he wants to. He can take a call on that bill and adjourn the House or he can wait for another couple of calls and at that point move a motion to get the House back into Committee. But for at least two calls now a Government call and an Opposition call we are on the student loan legislation.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9353] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I call Government order of the day No. 5. Is some member seeking the call? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker! Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Just a minute while I get some advice. It has to be a Minister I think.
Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9352] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 We now come to what is to be Part 1A. I will go through the motions notwithstanding the information of Mr Chauvel and then we will have to take further steps. As required by Standing Order 299 I seek the leave of the Committee to move the amendment to the District Courts Act set out in Supplementary Order Paper 108 which is the new Part 1A amendment to the Judicial Matters Bill. Leave is required because the amendment is a substantive one to an Act not amended by the bill as introduced. All parties represented in the Committee were actually consulted on the amendment and until this morning my understanding was that all parties had indicated they would support this course of action. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action.
Graham Kennedy: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Graham Kennedy: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9348] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I have already expressed in the second reading of the Judicial Matters Bill the Green Party’s support for this important but not urgent bill especially in regard to Part 1. But in this intervention I will address just one matter. In a sense it is a procedural matter not unlike that which has just been articulated. It has to do with Supplementary Order Paper 108 submitted by the Attorney-General. That Supplementary Order Paper would among other things insert a new section 16A as I understand it in the Judicial Matters Bill which in turn would amend section 9 of the District Courts Act 1947. That amendment would specify that higher duties allowances— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is actually speaking on new Part 1A. We are on Part 1 so I ask the member to concentrate on Part 1. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: Thank you. I will wait until the next part comes up.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9398] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 In order to assist the Minister of Education with her answer to question No. 8 I seek leave to table an email invitation to Andrew Oh of the board of trustees of the now abolished Aorangi School inviting him to a “web-inar” to be held on 8 March. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is an invitation to— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is an invitation to someone who has been tossed off the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The source of this document is— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Andrew Oh. It is an email that was sent to him on her behalf. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Can we have more explanation? Mrs Tolley’s email to this guy is being tabled by Trevor? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to raise a point of order he is more than welcome to do so if he wants clarification. I see that the House is confused. Could the member clarify exactly what this document is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was sent on behalf of the Minister it is about one of the ministerial-approved training sessions and it is to Andrew Oh who used to be a member of the board of trustees at Aorangi School. She is sending it to a trustee of an abolished school. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member saying this document was sent by the Ministry of Education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document from the Ministry of Education. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9345] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Perhaps I should make a few preliminary comments before Mr Chauvel makes a contribution. The main changes in Part 1 deal with the creation of the position of deputy commissioner. This person as with the commissioner will be appointed on the nomination of the House. The Attorney-General is required to consult the Chief Justice about the proposed appointment and the deputy commissioner will act when the commissioner has a conflict of interest or is otherwise unavailable to examine complaints. 
The provisions as reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee are unchanged from the bill as introduced. There are however a couple of changes which are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108. They relate to disposal of complaints and they are designed to give the commissioner a greater ability or a greater discretion to deal with complaints in a particular way. There are minor amendments to section 15 and consequential amendments to sections 16 and 17.
Hughes Darren: Business of the House 
Hughes Darren: Business of the House 
[Volume:660;Page:9341] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time today at 2 p.m. with questions being lodged by parties at the Office of the Clerk by 10.30 a.m. this morning. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9374] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:660;Page:9341] 
Tuesday 23 February 2010 
( 
continued on Thursday 25 February 2010 
) 
Business of the House 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time today at 2 p.m. with questions being lodged by parties at the Office of the Clerk by 10.30 a.m. this morning. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Goodhew Jo: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9382] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9374] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Question agreed to.
Douglas Roger: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Douglas Roger: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9416] 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 The Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill is a relatively— 
Hon Member 
: Was it a good book? 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: Do not get me sidetracked! This bill is a relatively simple one. I think it is fair to say that the title of the bill reflects the purpose and intent of the bill. I think it is time that members stop wasting the time of this House.
Chauvel Charles: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9352] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I should clarify just one matter. After having consulted colleagues and having heard the Attorney-General’s explanation of the new changes proposed in Part 1 the Labour Party finds itself in the position of being compelled to vote against Supplementary Order Paper 108 in its entirety. This is a procedural point; it is about the undesirability of bringing this matter before the Committee both under urgency and by way of Supplementary Order Paper rather than through the select committee process. Obviously Supplementary Order Paper 109 the measure simply to divide the bill will not be opposed. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 1 be agreed to.
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9400] 
5. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What steps are being taken to reduce the risk of assaults on prison staff? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 This Government is serious about reducing the risk faced by front-line staff. Corrections officers are managing some of the most difficult and dangerous individuals in our country. I am pleased to report that the Department of Corrections is currently providing all of its 3000 prison staff with tactical communication training and de-escalation training. It has already trained more than a third of its staff. Staff have provided examples of situations where as a result of this training highly tense situations have been safely defused. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What else is she doing to ensure that prison staff are safe at work? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Tomorrow at Spring Hill Corrections Facility I will officially launch the roll-out of stab-resistant body armour spit hoods and batons. The department will also begin a 12-month trial of pepper spray. This equipment will help prison staff to manage hostile situations. The spit hoods will protect staff from saliva and blood and the batons will be used by specially trained staff as a last resort. The last administration had 9 years to make prison staff safer and did nothing.
Hughes Darren: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9354] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I was watching events on television—this is a high-rating programme—and saw what happened. I clearly heard you call Government order of the day No. 5. I saw the Clerk stand and read out the name of that bill. I then heard although the microphone was not live the unmistakable sound of the call of Mr Mallard saying: “Mr Speaker! Mr Speaker—” and I heard you say that you were seeking advice. 
Clearly Mr Mallard cannot be the first speaker on a Government bill because a Minister is required to move a motion with regard to the second reading. Mr Mallard points out that neither Minister present in the Chamber did move so so we are in a quandary. There is no question that we have moved on from the Judicial Matters Bill; I think that is clear. We have called Government order of the day No. 5 and we are on to that. However I see that the Minister of Revenue Mr Dunne has arrived. The bill is in his name. I think that for the best sense of order the most appropriate thing would be for Mr Dunne now to move the second reading of this bill so that we can proceed. Otherwise I think we are at an impasse that cannot otherwise be resolved. I cannot seek leave on behalf of another member but we would have no objection if Mr Dunne sought leave to take a call at this time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I do not need any further assistance. I think the only thing we are very clear of is that the House is in a somewhat confused state. Even in the report of the proceedings in the Committee there was some question about how that was summed up and presented. I can understand there being some element of confusion about that. Consequently the Hon Christopher Finlayson may not have had quite the opportunity to make the point he was going to make. In any case I have called Government order of the day No. 5. Only a Minister can respond to that and that is why I could not give the call to the members who were both seeking it. I think they understand that. I am prepared to take a call from a Minister on Government order of the day No. 5.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9352] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9352] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Parker David: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9349] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Judicial Matters Bill and also to record my support for the submissions that have been made by earlier speakers as to process. I think it would have been desirable if this bill had not been considered under urgency and I think it would have been desirable that the changes proposed by a Supplementary Order Paper were made in some other way. The points have been well made by earlier speakers and I will not add to them. Thank you.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9417] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Calder Cam: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Calder Cam: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9440] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It gives me enormous pleasure to rise and speak briefly on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I compliment my colleague across the House Carol Beaumont for an extremely well-considered and succinct address covering off most of the key points in this debate. I also at this stage acknowledge Simon Bridges who not only is the second-sexiest male politician in New Zealand but also had the wit and concern to address himself to a very serious issue in New Zealand—namely cruelty to animals. As we know the Government has adopted Simon Bridges’ bill and tweaked it in a number of areas. Many speakers have gone to great pains to outline the details of the bill which is a comprehensive and significant improvement upon the current legislation. 
This bill sends a strong message. Miss Beaumont indicated that it makes it very clear that violence is not OK. We know it is not OK against children we know it is not OK between adults and it is certainly not OK against animals. This Government is all about creating a brighter future for New Zealand and improving our performance in all sectors. This bill is our attempt and our initiative to address an area where we see a great need. I take this opportunity to commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9391] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9171] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Committee’s attention now moves to Part 2 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. There are many many facts that the Opposition looks forward to regaling National with as we move into this debate because this is an important part of the legislation. It sets out four or five separate areas that the Opposition looks forward to pursuing with the Government and the Minister in the chair in the morning and we will not resile from the defence that Labour is making of the importance of making sure there is a 24-hour 7-day-a-week no-fault accident compensation scheme for the people of this country. That is what is at stake in this debate. It is what is at stake in Part 2. It is what will be at stake when we get to the debate on the title and commencement clauses where it will become clear that the Government is changing the title of this law because it has no commitment to accident compensation in this country. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9170] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Peachey Allan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9145] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on Part 1 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. This bill has been introduced into the House it has had its first reading and it has been to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The work of the select committee was pretty onerous and time demanding but we got through it. The bill has had its second reading and now even at the Committee stage on Part 1 Labour members are failing to recognise their responsibilities in this matter. I waited through the first reading debate the deliberations in the select committee the second reading debate and this debate on Part 1 and the word “responsibility” has not fronted. 
There are levels of responsibility and before this debate is finished I hope that Labour will start to show some respect for what the Government is trying to do and what the people of New Zealand need the Government to do. That responsibility is on two levels. Firstly Labour should accept responsibility for the damage done to the scheme over the last 9 years. Part 1 tries to salvage what was a world-class accident insurance scheme introduced by a National Government. I suspect that that is what Labour members hate most about it; it was a National Government that brought this scheme to New Zealand. I ask them to take responsibility for the damage they caused to that scheme by trying to turn it into a social welfare measure. Secondly in this Part 1 debate I am looking to Labour to join with the Government to take some shared responsibility for saving the scheme. If we continue to go down the path that Labour wishes to follow in this Part 1 debate and we carry on and go their way the accident compensation scheme will be destroyed as a viable 24/7 service available to the people of New Zealand. Maybe that is what those Labour members want. 
One thing has come out of the Part 1 debate today. We had a very very passionate speech from Mr Parker full of feeling and full of condescension towards the Minister. That member did one thing that will not be lost on the people of New Zealand: he clearly aligned Labour with the criminal class in New Zealand. There was not one mention of the victims of crime and that will not have gone unobserved. The list member Mr Parker made a very interesting point. He tried to draw attention in the Part 1 debate to the differences between Labour members and the National Government. The difference was clear: they care more about the criminal class of New Zealand than they care about good basic decent New Zealanders. That will be the message that the people of New Zealand take from the contribution that Labour members have made to this debate on Part 1. 
I repeat my invitation to the next Labour speaker who gets on his or her feet to do the decent thing take responsibility and admit that Part 1 fixes up a system that Labour almost destroyed.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9170] 
A party vote was called for on the question That 
Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9135] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Before I call the next member the comments made by Miss Pillay related to Part 2. Hearing loss comes under Part 2. I just remind members that we are on Part 1. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Is that not under clause 6 in Part 1? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: OK but certainly hearing loss is mentioned in detail in clause 52. I call the Hon Ruth Dyson.
Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9130] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I challenge the previous speaker Darien Fenton over the proposed change of the name for the Act. Opposition members are very offended that the Supplementary Order Paper I have tabled states that we should call the legislation when passed the Accident Compensation Act. Actually that was the name of the Act from 1974 until 2001. Are they saying— 
Hon Members 
: Back to the future. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I am simply saying that we should call it what it is. Darien Fenton is concerned to point out that the legislation is about injury prevention but let me tell members the record: in the time during which the name of the Act was changed to the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act the number of injuries was 1.34 million. In the 8 years that the Act has been called the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act the number of injuries has actually gone up by 300000. So my question for the member is whether by changing the name of the Act and calling it the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act we have prevented any injuries. The record is awful. If I look through the 1990s I see that in the last 5 years when the Act was still called the Accident Compensation Act—which I think most New Zealanders would call it—the rate of injury increase was a whole lot less. So that shows that changing the name of an Act actually does not change much at all. It is an exercise in politically correct nonsense. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Then why change it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me tell the member exactly why we should change it. If the average New Zealander out there wanted to know what his or her rights were under the accident compensation scheme and looked up the Act on the web what would the person look for? I would look for the Accident Compensation Act but how many people would know that the Act is called the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act? I say that very very few would. So in answer to the member I ask: why not call it what it is? Why do we have an Act that is principally about accidents but that does not mention the word “accident”? Why is the word not— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It won’t change anything. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well this is simply about rejecting the politically correct nonsense that drove the previous Labour Government for 9 years when it believed that if it changed the name of the Act suddenly that would fix things. The truth is that over the last 9 years when Labour was in Government rehabilitation rates got worse every single year. When Labour changed the name of the Act injury prevention failed and the number of injuries increased in each and every year. This Government is a pragmatic and common-sense Government that says we should call the Act what most New Zealanders would look for—that is the Accident Compensation Act.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:660;Page:9113] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:660;Page:9112] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill the Judicial Matters Bill and the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill the interrupted first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill the second reading of the Inquiries Bill and the first readings of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill and the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. 
This is quite a large body of work. I know that the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill will be vigorously debated in the House. It is the Government’s wish to see this bill passed. We believe we have support for that and that must be tested in Parliament. But the reason for advancing it this week is that Parliament is about to go into a 2-week adjournment. That would mean that if we do not pass the bill in this block of time those who are responsible for its enactment would be under far too great a pressure for it to be effective on 1 April. Although ensuring there is such pressure might be the objective of the Opposition it is certainly not the objective of the Government. 
The Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill essentially brings in new corrective arrangements for young people. It is highly popular among the population in New Zealand and people are eagerly expecting it to be enacted as quickly as possible. 
The Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill needs to go through all of its stages so that those responsible for administering student loans at this very important time of the year have a degree of clarity about how that should occur. 
The interrupted debate on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is one that should be completed in order that the bill gets to a select committee before we go into that long adjournment. This bill was taken over by the Government from Mr Simon Bridges and it deals with dreadful instances of extreme animal cruelty like those that have occurred in recent times. 
The other bills need to be progressed in order for them to make sufficient progress on the Order Paper for their passing in due time. 
For those reasons the Government seeks urgency in this case.
Brownlee Gerry: Appointments — Chief Ombudsman and Ombudsman 
Brownlee Gerry: Appointments — Chief Ombudsman and Ombudsman 
[Volume:660;Page:9109] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to sections 3 and 5(2) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General reappoint Ms Beverley Anne Wakem CBE of Wellington as an Ombudsman and as Chief Ombudsman with effect from 1 March 2010 
. Ms Wakem is a very distinguished servant of the New Zealand public. She has been an Ombudsman since 2005 having previously been a chief executive of Radio New Zealand from the early 1980s until 1991 and then embarking on an equally distinguished career in the private sector. She has been Chief Ombudsman since 2005 when she was appointed to that position by this House. 
The Office of the Ombudsmen is a very important organ of State and also an important advocate for the protections that New Zealanders expect inside our democracy. It is an organisation that is able to conduct free of charge examinations into all manner of requests from the public that relate to the activities of governance in this country. It is also the organisation that has the greatest influence on the application of the Official Information Act. It is therefore an organisation that does have to have people of the highest calibre and highest integrity working within its office. 
Ms Wakem has now fulfilled that role for a period with some distinction and I understand that today there will be a unanimous decision by the House to reappoint her. That I think indicates the level of confidence that we have not only in Ms Wakem herself but also in the Office of the Ombudsmen. 
The Government is very pleased to move this motion. We look forward to its smooth passage this afternoon and we take this opportunity to offer Ms Wakem and her fellow Ombudsmen our best wishes as they go about their important work.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Environment Canterbury Report on Performance—Establishment of Ministerial Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Environment Canterbury Report on Performance—Establishment of Ministerial Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9109] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Shane Jones seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision to establish a committee of Ministers to consider the recommendations to the Government in the report entitled  
Investigation of the Performance of Environment Canterbury under the Resource Management Act and Local Government Act 
. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and involves the administrative responsibility of the Government. The report has been received and a committee of Ministers has been established to consider the report’s recommendations. However the Government has not yet formed a view on the major changes proposed in the report. Although on occasions the release of a report may warrant an urgent debate the circumstances must be exceptional. Although the issue is an important one the time to consider this report’s recommendations will be when decisions on them are made and any necessary legislation comes before the House. In these circumstances I do not believe that setting aside the House’s business for an urgent debate today can be justified. The application is therefore declined.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9108] 
12. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What is the Government doing to assist New Zealanders to build quality homes and buildings? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Better building safety and quality is the focus of a series of initiatives collectively known as the Better Building Blueprint. In August last year I announced a comprehensive review of the Building Act. I made it clear that without compromising safety and quality the Government was looking to reduce both the cost and the complexity of the consenting process and to ensure that responsibility sits with the person who does the job. The misery that the weathertightness problem has caused for many New Zealand homeowners is an ongoing reminder to us all of the need to ensure that our buildings are dependable and of good quality. On Friday I will be releasing a discussion document that proposes how to achieve just that. The Government wants to discuss these ideas with New Zealanders. The public must be able to have confidence in the system which is why I want their input into the proposals. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What are the other Better Building Blueprint initiatives? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am delighted to say that so far this year we have introduced a streamlined licensing system for builders. Becoming a licensed practitioner will be much easier for builders and tradespeople who are qualified and have a good track record. A robust licensing scheme with a critical mass of licensed builders will give us and give consumers extra confidence that homes and buildings are built right first time. We have also introduced a streamlined national multiple-use approval service for volume builders so that without compromising safety or quality multi-proof fast-tracked building consents for standard multiple-use building designs are issued just the once saving a lot of time and money for consumers who do not have to get multiple consents. On 5 March 2010 we will be launching a new simple house compliance system for the first time which brings together in one place all the information needed to design a simple house including compliance requirements and building standards. It offers an efficient practical path to build affordable homes of good quality in New Zealand.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9106] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the statement from the DorchesterLife website that has the quote that I mentioned in my question which the Minister said he had not heard. 
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.