edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Yang Jian: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYang Jian: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18363. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr JIAN YANG (National): Nihao. I am happy to rise to take a short call on the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill at their third readings. This is comprehensive legislation. It reforms the entire suite of legislation that governsconsumer credit contracts from before their inception until their termination or enforcement. The legislation covers different areas including responsible lending disclosure fees repossession enforcement etc. This legislation is the biggest overhaul of all consumer law in a decade and it encompasses wide-ranging changes to consumer credit and repossession laws.Under this legislation lenders must act responsibly and consumers must have the information they need to make informed decisions and there are serious consequences for those who breach the law. Some lenders have irresponsible lending practices and some consumers make poor decisions. This contributes to cases of spiralling debt and financial hardship among vulnerable consumers. We are fully aware of that. That is why the Government is going to pilot a microfinance scheme to help low-income people avoid debt traps.This legislation is part of the Business Growth Agenda and will contribute to aligning business law between New Zealand and Australia. I commend the legislation to the House. Thank you.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18361. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Satsriakaal Mr Assistant Speaker. Talofa lava. This is Samoan Language Week so I want to greet you in the Samoan language.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): O a maioe? That’s got you!KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Never mind—next time I will learn a little bit more and come back with a reply. It is my privilege to stand and speak in the third reading of this legislation the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill. It is crucial reform legislation to keep up with the times. The Government is well aware of the hardship that the public is undergoing having to deal with unscrupulous moneylenders. Some lenders are irresponsible in their lending practices and some consumers make mistakes and poor decisions. This contributes to cases of spiralling debt and financial hardship among vulnerable consumers.This legislation protects borrowers from dubious finance companies and dealers. It is important that members of the public are well informed before they make critical financial decisions that will impact upon their lives. This legislation seeks to do just that. The legislation is the biggest overhaul of consumer law in a decade and encompasses wide-ranging changes to the consumer credit and repossession laws.I would like to acknowledge the Hon Craig Foss for introducing this bill and would also like to acknowledge the chair of the Commerce Committee Jonathan Young and the hard-working member of Parliament for Rodney Mark Mitchell for his contribution. I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga who is very passionate about this legislation. With these words I commend this legislation to the House.
Young Jonathan: Food Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Food Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18352. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand in support of the Food Bill. Indeed it was an issue back in the 2011 election. It is something that is very important to New Zealanders. Our food and beverages industry is a key part of our economy and the work that has been undertaken on this Food Bill over 10 years has brought about a very effective piece of legislation that will do our country good in the years to come. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: Food Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Food Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18352. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Tisch Lindsay: Food Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Food Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18351. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call—Meka Whaitiri 5 minutes.
Mitchell Mark: Food Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Food Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18351. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I commend this bill the Food Bill to the House.
McKelvie Ian: Food Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Food Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18348. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): The Food Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be passed by this Parliament. It underpins what we are what we do and what we eat although listening to the last two speakers from the other side of the House you would wonder whether the chairman is going to retire from the House at the end of this term. He obviously was quite confused by the different opinions we have heard from down there. This bill has been in the incubator for some 10 years now and has emerged in the last weeks of the 50th Parliament after much serious scrutiny by at least three Ministers for Food Safety a couple of select committees and many hundreds of submitters.I was involved in the local government sector at the time this bill was first mooted. I would have to say there was significant fear in the local government sector. I would not say “fear” is the right word but there was definitely nervousness in the small foods sector and in many of our voluntary organisations that contribute to our community in such a strong way and that use food as a mode of fund-raising. There was also significant fear—or unrest I guess would be a better term—in the Māori community around what this bill might mean for the country. So I think it is a great tribute to Minister Kaye the previous Minister for Food Safety Kate Wilkinson the select committees and all those submitters that we now have what I think is a world-leading piece of legislation that will provide us with great security as we move forward. It also gives confidence to our communities that the food they buy and consume is safe.Food safety is all about safe and suitable food. It is about ensuring that our food is affordable that the regime we have put in place has integrity and that that regime is enforceable. This is primarily why the bill could not include things such as country-of-origin labelling. They are complex and could well be expensive.Another matter that impacted on the bill’s progress was the whey protein concentrate incident. Consequently some changes were recommended as a result of that primarily around recall processes although on the whole that inquiry gave the bill even more credence as it found that further changes were not necessary and that the bill would in fact complete its objectives and achieve what we in New Zealand wanted it to achieve. This bill is very important to New Zealand and I look forward to its passing into law in a few minutes’ time. Thank you.
King Colin: Food Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Colin: Food Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18345. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak during the third reading of the Food Bill. It is a piece of work that the Primary Production Committee worked long and hard over. When we as a Parliament think about what our dining habits were 40 years ago—the old meat and three vegetables—certainly today our consumption of food is a lot more complex than it was. Also from the point of view of the modern world around aligning the various Acts it became very evident that the Animal Products Act needed to align with the Food Act. That was duly done.As a nation we export 85 percent of what we produce. However in saying all that this particular bill covers all food sold in New Zealand including exported food and imported food. There has been a lot of commentary around country-of-origin labelling. It would be a mistake to confuse that with food safety. However that is a discussion for another day.The mechanism in the bill as it is written has various levels of risk-based assessment. From that point of view those who are producing high-risk foods will have to have a written food control plan and they will be audited against that. Those who produce medium to low risk foods will operate under a national food plan effectively. There are three levels of those food plans but again the verifiers will in actual fact audit under the national plan depending on the activities of the person who is operating that business. That is quite important because it gets away from the one-size-fits-allapproach that was in the old Act and is far more appropriate. There is a lot of complexity. When I think of my community in Marlborough it will be pretty straightforward but when you think of a massive city like Auckland it is going to be incredibly complex to work through.One point that needs to be made is that this is a very good piece of legislation. The Primary Production Committee applied itself to it very very well and worked very very collegially. However we do have to watch the cost that this could potentially add to business. That is going to be a responsibility no doubt of this Parliament going forward. It gives me great pleasure to see this bill get to this stage. I must give full commendation to the Minister for Food Safety Nikki Kaye for ushering it through Parliament. Thank you very much.
Tisch Lindsay: Food Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Food Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18345. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well you went for 10 minutes and I motioned at the time for you to wind up. It is not a requirement to ring a bell but the member had a 10-minute speech and I did motion 20 seconds out for the member to wind it up. You went for a good 10 minutes.
Browning Steffan: Food Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: Food Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18345. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was exactly what I was talking about as I sat down but I never heard a bell being rung.
Tisch Lindsay: Food Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Food Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18345. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.Steffan Browning: I did not hear the bell.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! Just before I call the next speaker can I just remind the member that the box that you have on your desk which talks about genetic engineering is not acceptable. It is not a visual aid in terms of promoting the speech and I would ask the member to remove it. I did not interrupt while the member was speaking. I did not want to interrupt his speech but we cannot have advertising of any sort other than visual aids that help in the presentation of your speech. That certainly was outside the realms of that.
Dean Jacqui: Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18336. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am happy to take a call on the second reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill and I commend the bill to the House.
Roy Eric: Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18334. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is actually a debating point; it is not something you raise as a point of order. If the member misheard or misunderstood that is not an occasion for a point of order. The next call is a split call—Darien Fenton.
Prosser Richard: Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18334. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the previous member Jami-Lee Ross in the full flow of his speech but at the beginning he made reference to Andrew Williams. I wonder whether he might like to correct that because I think that Mr Williams has spoken in support of the bill and was not muckraking. Mr Ross may well have got his Andrews mixed up.
Bennett David: Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18330. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is good to see that last party New Zealand First supporting the Taxation (Annual Rates Employee Allowances and Remedial Matters) Bill.Andrew Williams: We’re such a sensible party.DAVID BENNETT: Well not really. When we come and have a look at the speech of David Parker it is interesting that one thing he was talking about was the capital gains tax. I asked him a question about what the treatment of capital gains would be under his tax policy for those people who are now paying capital gains tax as investors in property. He dismissed the Prime Minister’s arguments that there already is a capital gains tax on those who buy and sell property generally within that 10-year period. They would be seen as a trader and therefore they would generally pay tax. Mr Parker wasdeliberately silent in this House and would not answer that question. I ask Labour members who will be speaking later on this bill to actually answer the questions so that the New Zealand public can know what will happen to those traders. Will they be paying tax under the capital gains tax rate? Or will they be paying tax as they do now on a revenue-based amount? Because all capital gains taxes around the world generally are at a lower rate than an income tax rate.If you look at the Australian rate for example they take off a value for the incremental increase in inflation. Under the Labour policy those people trading in properties would actually potentially be paying less tax. They would be paying less tax than those people pay who are investing in properties and reselling for the sake of that. That goes against what they are saying they want a capital gains tax for. I want someone from the Labour Party to actually answer their tax policy and tell us what rate people will be paying if under a capital gains tax they were buying or selling property. At the moment they will be paying more than under a Labour approach. Thank you.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18319. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time.Ayes95New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes25Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Bill read a second time.
Vote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18318. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes110New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes10New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3.Question agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18317. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a split call?Eugenie Sage: It is.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Eugenie Sage.
O'Connor Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18314. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to theMinister of Immigration: What steps has the Government taken to encourage better outcomes for migrants?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Last week I announced an extra $7.6 million in Budget 2014 to help combat migrant exploitation in Canterbury. This weekend I announced an extra $5.6 million over 4 years to help newly arrived quota refugees settle into New Zealand life and get into work. One in four New Zealanders was born overseas and although the National-led Government is focused on putting New Zealanders at the front of the job queue we recognise the value of migration and the huge contribution that migrants make to our economy to rebuilding Christchurch and to our communities.Simon O’Connor: What recent trends have we seen in migration?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Breaking down the recent trends in net migration the story is one of more New Zealanders coming home from abroad and fewer New Zealanders leaving which this side of the House believes is a very good thing. Estimates for this year put net migration at around 30000 which is largely due to 15000 fewer New Zealanders leaving than was the case 5 years ago. Another concerning migration trend is the increased risk of an attempt by asylum seekers to travel by boat to New Zealand. That is a trend about which I am very concerned.Simon O’Connor: What other reports has he seen on the increased risk of a maritime arrival?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have seen a report that showed that not only did Labour and the Greens oppose the legislation passed to deter and manage a mass arrival should one occur but one speaker trivialising the risk stated that “There is no protection from alien landings and that is exactly the same probability of an alien invasion from Mars as there is of boat people from Indonesia or ‘Wogistan’—exactly the same probability.” That came from the present leader of the Labour Party David Cunliffe. That is not something I suspect that the public would expect to come from someone who aspires to be the Prime Minister.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18307. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to theMinister of Health: What investment is the Government making in Budget 2014 to improve cancer services?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Budget 2014 builds on the John Key - led Government’s strong record of providing better and faster cancer treatment services and improving the early detection of cancer. A $33 million funding boost over 4 years will further improve cancer services including further funding for breast and cervical screening and reduced waiting times for colonoscopies. Every year more than 20000 New Zealanders are diagnosed with cancer and this Government is committed to providing them with better faster cancer diagnostic and treatment services.Shane Ardern: What difference will this funding make for patients with cancer and their families?Hon TONY RYALL: As the member will appreciate being diagnosed with cancer can be an incredibly anxious time not only for the patient but also for their family as they deal with not only the emotional anxiety but also the financial strain. That is why Budget 2014 picks up on the recommendations of a large number of cancer groups and they are to improve the psychological support that we are providing cancer patients and their families. Part of this money will go to establishing six psychologists across the six cancer centres in New Zealand who will provide dedicated assessments and advice on how these people can be further supported. We expect also to fund up to 20 cancer care workers across the nation based out of the major hospitals who will provide further psychological support and counselling for patients and their families.
Event: Members SwornText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEvent: Members Sworn[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18299. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Members Sworn12Mr Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to Kelvin Davis who then took his seat in the House.
Carter David: List Member VacancyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: List Member Vacancy[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18299. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have been advised by the Electoral Commissioner that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Kelvin Glen Davis has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Shane Geoffrey Jones. I understand that Kelvin Davis is present and wishes to take the oath. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right.
Carter David: Resignations — Hon Shane Jones New Zealand LabourText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Resignations — Hon Shane Jones New Zealand Labour[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18299. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Shane Jones resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight on 22 May 2014.
Members SwornText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMembers Sworn[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18299. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Members SwornMr Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to Kelvin Davis who then took his seat in the House.
List Member VacancyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeList Member Vacancy[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18299. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]List Member VacancyMr SPEAKER: I have been advised by the Electoral Commissioner that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Kelvin Glen Davis has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Shane Geoffrey Jones. I understand that Kelvin Davis is present and wishes to take the oath. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right.
Resignations — Hon Shane Jones New Zealand LabourText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeResignations — Hon Shane Jones New Zealand Labour[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18299. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 27 May 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ResignationsHon Shane Jones New Zealand LabourMr SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Shane Jones resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight on 22 May 2014.
Tisch Lindsay: Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15457. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.WaiataKarakia
Flavell Te Ururoa: Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFlavell Te Ururoa: Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15457. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kei te īnoi atu. E te whānau: kua whakaaetia mai e te Whare kia waiata koutou i tētahi waiata ēngari i te mea kia ea tonu tēnei āhuatanga ka waiho ake pea ka tono atu ki te Whare kia waiho ake mā koutou tētahi paku karakia hei whakakōpani i te āhuatanga o ngā mahi nei. Mā koutou tērā whakarite i mua o te wā ka whakakōpanihia i te rā nei. Nō reira he tono tēnei ki te Whare kia waiho ake mā ngā tamariki mā ngā mokopuna mā ngā uri o Mokomoko e tuku i tētahi karakia ā te wā ā e tika ana ki a rātau.[I seek leave. I say to the family: the House has given its approval for you to sing your song of embellishment and after that I will seek leave for the House to allow you to conduct a closing prayer to end these proceedings. You can decide that amongst yourselves before proceedings are closed off for today. And so I seek leave for the House to allow the children grandchildren and descendants of Mokomoko to conduct a prayer at the appropriate time that suits them.]
Hauiti Claudette: Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHauiti Claudette: Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15451. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Ki te whānau o Mokomoko ngā mihi maioha ki a koutou katoa.[To the Mokomoko family affectionate salutations to you all.]“Take the rope from my throat so I may be able to sing my song. Violent shaking will not rouse me from my sleep. They treat me like a common thief. It is true that I embrace eternal sleep …Tangohia te taura i ō taku kakī kia waiata au i taku waiata. Have the strength to speak up and the truth will not be silenced.”On 15 June 1992 the Governor-General issued a free pardon to Mokomoko. The wording of the free pardon was prepared without consultation with te whānau of Mokomoko. The Crown acknowledges that it should have consulted the Mokomoko whānau about the wording of the free pardon. It also acknowledges that the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill does not prevent the Mokomoko whānau from seeking the settlement of their historical Treaty of Waitangi claims through the Treaty settlement process.We need to resolve these historical issues so we can move forward together as a nation. For what is mana? It is honour. And so today we honour our tupuna Mokomoko and today we honour the descendants of Mokomoko. Ka whakatuku ahau i tēnei pire ki tēnei Whare. Kia ora.[I commend this bill to this House. Thank you.]
Vote: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15442. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a third time.Ayes97New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.
Ross Jami-Lee: Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15442. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts of the Mokomoko (Restoration of Character Mana and Reputation) Bill to be taken as one debatable question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that the preamble Parts 1 and 2 the schedule clauses 1 and 2 and their translation into Māori be agreed to.
Vote: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15442. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to.Ayes104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Vote: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15437. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a second time.Ayes104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Abstentions16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a second time.
Collins Judith: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCollins Judith: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15442. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Royal Succession Bill be now read a third time.
Martin Tracey: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15439. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. I was not going to take a call. I will take just a very short one. I rise as the New Zealand First spokesperson on women’s affairs to acknowledge the single clause of the three provisions that has the most importance for me which is the removal of the discrimination against women gaining the throne. I wish to make a comment about the fact that if we look at history we see that the two strongest rulers in history—in modern history anyway—were women: Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II. If you have a look at the tumultuous times—Hon Maurice Williamson: What about Victoria?TRACEY MARTIN: Victoria was wonderful too but let me just talk about Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II. Have a look at history at the tumultuous times that those young women—young women—lived through in an era when people thought that they could not do it and look at the amazing difference that they made to the world. Nobody should be afraid to have a woman in a leadership role whether it be as a monarch or as a Prime Minister. It is wonderful to see this House along with 16 other nations endorse the fact that a woman can stand there and rule equally as well as—if not better than—any man in history. I needed to stand and just say that. New Zealand First supports the Royal Succession Bill and I personally strongly support that particular clause.
Ross Jami-Lee: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15437. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts of the Royal Succession Bill to be taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Wilkinson Kate: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilkinson Kate: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15435. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I am proud to be part of this Parliament and to have the privilege of voting not abstaining on the Royal Succession Bill. I am proud to be a member of the Commonwealth I am proud to be a royalist and I am proud to support this bill.
Simpson Scott: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Royal Succession Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15431. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise and take a short call in support of this Royal Succession Bill notwithstanding Andrew Little’s papist republican rant. It is something that is important to us. It is a small bill. It is a small bill and it is an important bill. It is easy to make light of things that sometimes on the face of it seem a little trivial and of little consequence. However this bill is something that makes a small but very significant and important change to our basic constitutional arrangements. For many people it would seem unusual that our Parliament and parliaments in the other 15 Commonwealth realms have to pass special legislation to ensure that in future royal succession will be gender-neutral. These days it seems by our standards of society that anything other than a gender-neutral royal succession would be something completely unacceptable in a modern society.This bill is not long. It is not complicated. It does not seek to change anything in terms of our constitutional monarchy other than to modernise the rules surrounding succession by removing aspects of gender and religious discrimination. With the birth last year of Prince George it is going to be many years before the practical implications of this bill will have any impact at all. That in itself is not important. What is important is that the change has been made and will have effect in due course. Now when necessary no matter how far into the future it is the succession will be a succession that is appropriate and fitting by modern current societal standards.It was a pleasure to chair the Justice and Electoral Committee as we considered submissions on the bill. We received seven submissions. We heard from four and we made just one minor technical amendment to do with the time in order to relate to Greenwich Mean Time summer time and those sorts of things so it was a very minor change. But it is a narrow bill. It did not have any scope to consider the republican issues that Andrew Little raised. It is important that our constitutional institutions maintain their history and traditions and I support those but it is also important that the rules that govern those institutions evolve and sometimes change with the expectations of a changing society. This bill is a classic example of how our system can and does work to accommodate natural evolution.New Zealand is a young nation. We have a proud tradition of progressive history and of progressive social change within our history. This is a good bill. It is a small but simple bill. It is a bill with a simple and obvious intention. It is a bill that helps keep our constitutional monarchy relevant and in step with modern thinking. It is a bill I support and I commend to the House.
Moroney Sue: Standing Orders — SessionalText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Standing Orders — Sessional[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15428. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party and also support Government motion No. 2. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee said Parliament is a workplace a little unlike any other. If I was in another workplace—say my previous workplace working for the New Zealand Nurses Organisation—and I left my office to go and have a meeting with union members I would still be at work. I would not need to seek leave from my employer to go and do my job outside of my office. But in this work environment—and many members of the public may not know this and why should they; it is a little unusual—if as a member of Parliament I need to go back to Hamilton to attend a meeting of importance in my area then I need to have specific leave from Parliament to go and do my job in another location to leave my office here in Parliament to go and do that. Even if I was to go down the road here in Wellington and meet with some people from the social development sector in my role as our spokesperson on social development I would also need leave to be off the premises to go and do my job somewhere else.So the application of leave in a parliamentary environment is a little odd. It is not necessarily—although sometimes it is—leave to attend to a personal matter. It does cover that as well but more often than not it is actually leave to not be here in the parliamentary precincts in order to do our job in another location. I think it is right and proper that we have a very robust process in the way in which that is monitored and I note that Government motion No. 2 certainly gives a lot more structure around that. I guess the changing feature this brings in is a systematic approach to recording unauthorised unpermitted absences from Parliament. It is right and proper that the New Zealand public should have confidence in our systems.This is designed to operationalise I guess a piece of legislation recently passed by this Parliament whereby if a member of Parliament was to be absent in an unauthorised manner for 4 or more days throughout the year there would be a financial penalty to their salary for that. That is right and proper because I think that does reflect the practices of workplaces up and down New Zealand—that there is a penalty if people have unexplained unauthorised absences from their employment. So without further ado I do rise on behalf of the Labour Party to recommend and support Government motion No. 2. It will be a new systems approach for us and I am sure that members of Parliament will treat it with the dignity and respect it deserves.Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Standing Orders — SessionalText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Standing Orders — Sessional[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15427. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I moveThat the recommended amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on Members’ attendance absence and suspension be adopted as a sessional order with effect from 1 January 2014 the sessional order relating to compassionate leave that was adopted by the House on 26 September 2013 be revoked with effect from 1 January 2014 and compassionate leave under the sessional order of 26 September 2013 granted by the Speaker for a period after 1 January 2014 be treated as permission to be absent granted under new Standing Order 37B(1). This motion recommends the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on members’ attendance absence and suspension. It requires that it be adopted as a sessional order with effect from 1 January 2014. Previously the House passed a sessional order relating to compassionate leave which was adopted on 26 September of this year 2013. That will now be revoked with effect from 1 January 2014 as these new provisions apply. Compassionate leave under the previous sessional order was to be granted by the Speaker and that arrangement will continue but will be given effect under the motion we are passing today.Parliament is somewhat unique in that members are elected to be free to come and speak in this place on behalf of those whom they represent but there is a requirement that they do in fact attend. Parties as they are structured under our system do have some leeway to allow people to do the things that the community expects them to do—to turn up to events and to offer the various points of leadership that people expect from this place—and that means that a party is restricted in the number of people whom it can have out of Parliament on any day. That means that there will be occasions when there will be personal circumstances when in any other workplace the member wouldbe able to take leave to go and attend to that business but because of the structures we have here he or she is unable to. There is also somewhat of an anomaly that exists around paid parental leave for those who have partners in the workforce. MPs are restricted from some of that access at the present time.Although this Standing Order does not deal with that it is a challenge for Parliament at some point. But what this will mean is that the Speaker upon representation from the various party whips and then having reported it to the Business Committee will be able to step outside of the requirements to have only a certain number away each day and to grant leave on a compassionate basis. I think this is just the sort of thing that exists in most workplaces. It lines this place up with what would be expected in a modern workplace and I do commend it to the House.
O'Rourke Denis: Appointments — Electoral CommissionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Appointments — Electoral Commission[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15425. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First recognises that the Electoral Commission plays a critical role in our democracy. The commission must of course be seen as totally impartial and objective in relation to its functions that support our democracy. We have no objection at all to the appointment of the Hon Sir John Hugh Williams as Chair of the Electoral Commission for a term of 3 years. We consider that he is a suited person to be nominated under this Government motion No. 1 and so New Zealand First will vote for the motion.However as we have said in the past we do have concerns with the process by which the commission is selected. In our view the process still does not fully take into account the nature of New Zealand’s MMP democracy. We are not fully satisfied that the current arrangements are valid as an expression of that democracy. This is no reflection on Sir Hugh but the public must have confidence that the procedures by which the commission is put together are fully representative and we do not believe they are. For that reason we repeat our previous calls that there needs to be a thorough and critical review of the way the composition of the commission is determined.We are also concerned about the way the commission currently makes some of its decisions. Our problem in this respect is with election funding for broadcasting which is on a party-by-party basis and appears to use as its factual basis opinion polls rather than the past voting record of a party. As New Zealand First has proved many many times opinion polls are utterly worthless as an expression of genuine public opinion and should not be used in processes of this kind. In 2011 for example two much more minor parties than New Zealand First were given considerably more funding than New Zealand First was. That was as I have said on the basis of the use of opinion polls to somehow gauge the public support for minor parties. That is an entirely unsatisfactory way of going about that sort of decision making. We think at least past voting records should be used in its place. All we are asking for after all is genuine fairness if not equality as far as these issues are concerned.So we think the commission needs to have a good look at itself and the way it goes about making decisions. We think the process by which it is appointed needs to be reviewed. So all is not well with the Electoral Commission and change needs to happen. New Zealand First again calls for that change to happen. In the meantime however we will support and vote for the current appointment as proposed by this Government motion No. 1.
Browning Steffan: Appointments — Electoral CommissionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: Appointments — Electoral Commission[Sitting date: 10 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15424. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to the motion to reappoint Sir John Hugh Williams as Chair of the Electoral Commission. As chair of the commission Justice Sir John Hugh Williams will again offer the commission strong leadership. He has had longstanding involvement in the administration of justice and has significant governance experience as a highly engaged university chancellor.Sir Hugh was appointed as a judge of the High Court in 1997. He retired from the bench in 2009 but still holds an acting warrant. He previously served as Master of the High Court for 6 years and for many years as I said earlier he was the chancellor of Massey University. As the president of the existing Electoral Commission since 2009 Justice Williams is well informed on the issues and complexities associated with preparations for the next general election and his appointment will provide valuable continuity. Justice Williams brings a depth of experience to the role.I would like to acknowledge the MMP review also undertaken this term by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission conducted a robust public consultation—the process that a clear set of recommendations emerged from. The review was carried out in a timely manner with a robust public submission process a high degree of engagement and a clear steer from the public on what they would like to see changed. Unfortunately the National Government undermined the process by ignoring the wishes of the New Zealand public in particular to abolish the one electorate seat threshold.Justice Williams does bring a depth of experience to the role. He has longstanding involvement in the administration of justice and significant governance experience as a highly engaged university chancellor. The Green Party will be supporting the motion to reappoint Sir John Hugh Williams as Chair of the Electoral Commission. Thank you.