edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5806] 
8.  
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What recent developments have there been in furthering New Zealand’s international trade agenda? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 The trade Ministers of Australia New Zealand South-east Asia and the giant economies of east Asia—Japan Korea and China—agreed some 10 days ago in Bangkok to recommend to their leaders a study from an essentially academic level up to a formal inter-Government level of a free-trade agreement amongst those countries. If that recommendation is endorsed by East Asia Summit leaders in October it will be a considerable strategic advancement for Australia and New Zealand. 
John Hayes 
: How will those developments improve New Zealand’s standing in the Asia-Pacific region? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: If endorsed by leaders these recommendations or the formal study of the concept of a free-trade agreement will ensure that Australia and New Zealand are now definitively part of the Asian economic regional integration process. Asia accounts for over half of New Zealand’s exports at some $21 billion and offers some very exciting long-term opportunities.
Boscawen John: Points of Order — Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Boscawen John: Points of Order — Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:656;Page:5791] 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill in my name. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories Commonwealth Parliament United Kingdom—Shadow Minister for Home Affairs House of Commons 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories Commonwealth Parliament United Kingdom—Shadow Minister for Home Affairs House of Commons 
[Volume:656;Page:5791] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I further have much pleasure in informing members that Andrew Rosindell MP shadow Minister for Home Affairs of the House of Commons United Kingdom is also present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that he also be welcomed.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories Commonwealth Parliament United Kingdom—Shadow Minister for Home Affairs House of Commons 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Australia—Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories Commonwealth Parliament United Kingdom—Shadow Minister for Home Affairs House of Commons 
[Volume:656;Page:5791] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia led by Senator Kate Lundy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Dr Anthony Trevelyan (Rufus) Rogers QSO 
Smith Lockwood: Obituaries — Dr Anthony Trevelyan (Rufus) Rogers QSO 
[Volume:656;Page:5791] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 18 August 2009 of Dr Anthony Trevelyan (Rufus) Rogers QSO who represented the electorate of Hamilton East from 1972 to 1975. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Points of Order — Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:656;Page:5791] 
Points of Order 
Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill in my name. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Visitors — Australia—Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories Commonwealth Parliament United Kingdom—Shadow Minister for Home Affairs House of Commons 
Visitors — Australia—Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories Commonwealth Parliament United Kingdom—Shadow Minister for Home Affairs House of Commons 
[Volume:656;Page:5791] 
Visitors 
Australia—Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories Commonwealth Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia led by Senator Kate Lundy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
United Kingdom—Shadow Minister for Home Affairs House of Commons 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I further have much pleasure in informing members that Andrew Rosindell MP shadow Minister for Home Affairs of the House of Commons United Kingdom is also present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that he also be welcomed.
Obituaries — Dr Anthony Trevelyan (Rufus) Rogers QSO 
Obituaries — Dr Anthony Trevelyan (Rufus) Rogers QSO 
[Volume:656;Page:5791] 
Tuesday 25 August 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Dr Anthony Trevelyan (Rufus) Rogers QSO 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 18 August 2009 of Dr Anthony Trevelyan (Rufus) Rogers QSO who represented the electorate of Hamilton East from 1972 to 1975. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Upston Louise: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Upston Louise: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5952] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand this evening to support the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill in its first reading and the strong Minister Anne Tolley who demands excellence. One of the reasons New Zealanders voted for National in November last year was our stand for excellence in education. We will not hold back. We are unwilling to tolerate mediocrity. One of the things we want to ensure is that New Zealand has a great future because of education. We will not sit back and tolerate anything else so I applaud the Minister for her leadership in taking hold of the polytechnic sector and being willing to shake it up. 
In terms of the polytechs we will not listen to the Opposition’s scaremongering or its use of its socialist adhocracy to try to scare New Zealanders into believing that we are up to something different. All we want to do is make sure that the leadership and governance of the polytechs are strong that the polytechs are future-focused and that they are leading New Zealand in the direction we want it to go in. We need strong institutions that are financially sound and responsive to the needs of their communities and economies. That includes meeting the changing needs of employers the voluntary sector communities iwi and others who need high-quality vocational education. 
The bill proposes that polytech councils are reduced in members from 20 to eight. Let us have a conversation about quality. It is not about the number of council members; it is about the quality of those who are on the council and who are leading their institutions forward to ensure that the young people in their communities get the education they deserve. That is what this Government is about. 
The bill will also allow the Crown to respond more effectively when institutions are possibly at risk of not delivering the educational outcomes they need or are financially in trouble. It allows for more flexible interventions so that those institutions can be better supported. 
Education is vital to our success as a country and we will not sit back and ignore that fact. The bill is about improving growing extending and more important delivering. That is what this Government is doing. We stand for excellence and we will not tolerate mediocrity. I am delighted to support the first reading of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5882] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 3 Kevin Hague. [ 
Interruption 
] I have called Kevin Hague. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Labour front bench—because no one else was interjecting then—that I have called Kevin Hague and they should show him some courtesy.
Dunne Peter: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5961] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call at this point to acknowledge the work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in particular in dealing with what I think is the second-largest tax bill to come to this Parliament the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill. This is an 842-page job. It does not beat my previous effort of 3500 pages with the rewrite of the Income Tax Act— 
Hon Members 
: Don’t try it! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: —but I am not attempting to do so. I acknowledge the fact that the select committee had a monstrous job in working through some very important complex legislation in order to get it to this stage. I note that Supplementary Order Paper 34 which I have tabled is 50-odd pages so it is nearly a bill in itself. All those things really go to point out how complicated our tax law is even when we seek to simplify it. 
I will pick up on the comments of the member who has just resumed her seat Amy Adams when she spoke about the international tax changes. The genesis of this legislation goes back some time. We began during the life of the previous Parliament with the release of the  
Business Tax Review 
 which initially recommended changes to the corporate tax rate but which then initiated the wider review of our international tax regime. I am sure members will forgive me a moment of levity if I quote what the previous Minister of Finance used to say to describe our international tax regime. He said New Zealand went where no one dared to follow. I think that that is a very accurate description. We made changes in the 1980s to move to the “grey list” as the member made reference to but in fact we were out of step with most of our trading partners. 
We have been running a very unitary system for a long period of time and the changes that see their completion if you like in terms of stage 1 in this bill arise from the fact that we needed to recognise that active/passive exemption. We needed to create the opportunity for a number of New Zealand - based businesses to try to stay located in this country even if their manufacturing was going to take place offshore; and we needed as part of introducing a competitive international tax regime to streamline our processes and bring them into line with international practice. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5959] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Tolley Anne: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tolley Anne: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5959] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education and Science Committee 
 consider the bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 13 November 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).
Vote: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5958] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Peachey Allan: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peachey Allan: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5958] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring to a close the first reading debate on the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. I have only one comment to make and it is that once again the Labour Party does not get it. Once again the Labour Party does not get it. Its speakers have demonstrated tonight in this debate that they do not begin to understand the genuine nature of governance and the role that governance will play in ensuring that our polytechs meet the needs of the communities in which they are located the needs of the local economies and the needs of the national economy. That is what the Labour Party does not understand. 
Currently the emphasis for representation on the councils is literally that—representation. This bill shifts the emphasis away from straight representation to effective governance and governance skills. It will do that by significantly cutting and streamlining the size of the councils. It is well known that it has been found difficult to identify suitably qualified candidates who are willing to sit on councils. Why? Because the perception is out there and it is a correct one that in too many cases the councils are considered unyielding inefficient and underskilled. 
This is a very good bill. It will bring very much needed change to the sharp edge of polytech governance. I commend it to the House.
Macindoe Tim: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5954] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 The Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill will empower the “chief executive of the Tertiary Education Commission to require a polytechnic council to prepare and give to him or her a draft performance improvement plan …”. The chief executive will be using this provision only if “he or she believes on reasonable grounds that a polytechnic or the educational performance of the students at a polytechnic may be at risk.” I suggest to members opposite that that is a pretty important provision and that it is sound management practice. It is worrying to say the least that Opposition members do not recognise the need for improvements in existing governance arrangements for a significant number of polytechnics. 
I listened carefully earlier as the Hon Maryan Street drew attention to the outstanding Waikato Institute of Technology which has two campuses in my electorate. I am very proud to be the parliamentary representative for Wintec’s electorate. 
Ms Street quoted very selectively from some reported comments of Gordon Chesterman the Wintec chairman and a Hamilton City councillor. He has some concerns but he has also expressed many constructive thoughts on the issue of polytechnic governance. Let me fill in some gaps in respect of the press report the member referred to. Mr Chesterman noted that “Here at Wintec we recognised the need for change about four years ago. … It’s worked incredibly well for us and we now have a highly skilled and successful council.” As a result Wintec which previously had 20 councillors is now down to 13 in a “lean mean organisation.” Mr Chesterman’s main concern is with the funding structure. He says it is clearly wrong. The Wintec council inherited the situation from the previous Labour Government. 
Although I have no doubt that the Wintec council will be making submissions on the bill—and I encourage it to do so in order to contribute to the Act achieving its purpose and to secure the support and confidence of quality providers throughout the country—nevertheless there is much in the bill that we can be positive about and that will be good for the polytechnics of this country. 
We should all want quality; we all need quality management. I encourage members to look constructively at the bill and work towards that end.
King Colin: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
King Colin: Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5947] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in support of the Education (Polytechnics) Amendment Bill. I think the Minister has articulated very clearly what needs to be done and it is a pleasure to speak in support of the bill. The tone is set at the top of any organisation and it was obvious as the previous speaker sat down that members opposite are in total denial of just how poorly polytechnics have performed under the Labour Government of the past 9 years. Close to half a billion dollars have gone down the gurgler and there is now a big disparity between polytechs achieving well and poorly achieving polytechs. 
It is essential that we give some certainty to those people who are prepared to invest in education. Opposition to this bill is nothing more than socialistic adhockery— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: There go the international students. You are damaging our reputation here. 
COLIN KING 
: That member should reflect on what she is saying. Obviously she has been in the House for only 5 minutes. She is a very lightweight member who has been here a very short time. 
I draw the Opposition’s attention to the wonderful part in the bill that enables young students to attend a tertiary high school at the Manukau Institute of Technology. What a wonderful opportunity! I believe that this bill will start us onward and upward and that we will see a truly robust high-quality First World - economy education system. Thank you.
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5943] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/2010) Bill be now read a third time. 
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. 
Bill read a third time.
Collins Judith: Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill — Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5943] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill be now read a third time 
.
Vote: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:656;Page:5943] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2009/2010 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/2010) Bill be now read a second time. 
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. 
Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill read a third time.Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill read a second time.
Vote: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:656;Page:5943] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all words after “and” be omitted and the following substituted: “that this House condemns the decision of the Government to pre-empt the democratic process through the select committee on Auckland governance regarding Maori representation and in doing so ignored the views of submitters and members of the public on this issue.” 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Goff Phil: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Goff Phil: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:656;Page:5906] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That all words after “and” be omitted and the following substituted: “that this House condemns the decision of the Government to pre-empt the democratic process through the select committee on Auckland governance regarding Maori representation and in doing so ignored the views of submitters and members of the public on this issue.”
English Bill: Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill — First Reading 
English Bill: Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5904] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
[Volume:656;Page:5892] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Hon Chris Finlayson I apologise to the Hon Shane Jones for the noise going on in the House. I was most unhappy with what was going on but I did not want to interrupt the flow of his speech it being only a 5-minute speech. I say to Government Ministers who are holding discussions right now including the Prime Minister that if members want to have discussions during the debate they will go out into the lobby to do so. The noise was totally unacceptable. Half a dozen loud discussions were going on and it is just so discourteous to the House. I have no problem with interjections and interest being taken in the member’s speech but I do have a problem with a babble of discussions. It is longstanding practice that if members want to have discussions with each other they go out into the lobby to do so. I apologise to the Hon Shane Jones.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5890] 
12.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has ACC abandoned all changes relevant to sexual abuse victims since question time yesterday? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 No. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is consulting providers on the clinical guidelines for sensitive claims. No final decisions have yet been made. I assure the member that the needs of sexual abuse survivors will be paramount. Decisions on the clinical guidelines will be made by clinicians not by politicians. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Given the Minister’s assurance in the Chamber yesterday that the proposals were in the best interests of victims followed by ACC’s back-down a few hours later because the proposals would not work can the Minister guarantee victims of sexual abuse that they will not be subjected to more cost-cutting strategies at their expense? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can assure the member opposite that in dealing with sensitive claims what is paramount in respect of ACC’s policy is ensuring the very best quality of service. 
Sue Moroney 
: Can the Minister provide any evidence of representations or submissions made by the Minister of Women’s Affairs to the Minister for ACC on behalf of victims of sexual abuse? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No and I will tell the member why. We on this side of the House believe that clinical decisions should be made by clinicians not by politicians. I am disappointed that members opposite think we want ACC’s clinical decisions to be made on a political whim. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What was the origin of the new clinical guidelines and when did the process being? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am surprised that Labour members are today criticising the clinical guidelines. In June 2008 the official launch of the guidelines was praised by none other than the Hon Steve Maharey. The origins of the guidelines go back to 2004 when concerns were raised about the effectiveness of sexual abuse counselling. That resulted in an $800000 comprehensive research programme which led to new guidelines being produced last year. Those guidelines are now being consulted on for implementation. 
I seek leave to table a photo of the Hon Steve Maharey at the launch of the clinical guidelines where he said what an important step forward— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McClay Todd: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5889] 
11.  
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What progress is being made on the State housing economic stimulus package announced earlier this year? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Good progress is being made: $20 million has been committed to the new build part of the package. That was for the delivery of 87 new homes making up to 1550 new State houses that are being added to the stock over 4 years. Although a handful of properties are yet to be finished due to the usual winter weather conditions these houses should be finished within the next few weeks. This is 18 more houses over and above what we first announced because of the new efficiencies in the Housing New Zealand Corporation under this Government. 
Todd McClay 
: What other good news can the Minister tell us about this project? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am delighted with that question because under the Healthy Housing component $3 million worth of work has been done on over 200 properties. Also the corporation has finished or is completing upgrades on over 1600 other State houses. But members should wait; there is more. On average over 1000 people each month have been employed since March and we are now working on the next phase in which we will upgrade the disgraceful and derelict housing stock that we inherited when we first came into Government. 
Moana Mackey 
: How can anyone take the Minister seriously when he gets up and brags about the number of State houses he is building given that he has personally stopped the building of 500 State houses in Hobsonville because the Prime Minister does not like them; and how many State houses could be built or renovated for the $1.2 million that is being spent by the Housing New Zealand Corporation every year in Hobsonville in order to be the master developer for what is essentially now a private development? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I think I have previously outlined to the House that the previous Government started the process of Housing New Zealand Corporation being involved in Hobsonville in 2002. There were three elections between that time and now when no houses were built no consents were issued there were no earthworks and the promise of the 500 houses never came to fruition in 7 years. 
Moana Mackey 
: How does he think his housing stimulus package compares with the Australian Government’s nearly $8 billion social housing stimulus package which is saving 15000 jobs and does he believe that this has had anything to do with the Australian unemployment rate now holding steady while New Zealand’s continues to rise? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Australian housing package and John Key’s National Government package are stimulating the economies of both countries which is a lot more than what the hot air stimulated under the previous Government did.
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5889] 
10.  
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: Has he received any reports on the increasing risk to the biosecurity of New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What is his response to the 2006 AgResearch report that identified that 77 percent of shoes inspected at the border contained fungi bacteria and plant material and how will he ensure proper biosecurity protection for New Zealand after the Prime Minister has just announced that the vast majority of travellers from Australia will not be inspected at all just to save an estimated 8 minutes in processing time when those travellers enter New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Prime Minister has not announced that the vast majority of people will not be screened at the border. This change is about delivering the most effective biosecurity that we can at the border and it would be irresponsible not to actively examine the system we have to see whether we can do it better. 
Shane Ardern 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to strengthen New Zealand’s biosecurity system? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Just last week the Government moved to double the instant biosecurity infringement fine. This toughening up on those who put our country at risk combined with Biosecurity New Zealand’s more targeted approach of focusing on travellers who pose the greatest risk will significantly strengthen and enhance our biosecurity system. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: How can the Minister protect New Zealand from unwanted pests and diseases when the report from his ministry investigated and identified 106 living species in storage containers of palm kernel destined for New Zealand farms; and considering his view that “there is no evidence to suggest that the current requirements have failed” in what circumstances will he start showing some concern and will he review the importation of palm kernel into this country? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Over recent days I have seen a number of reports around palm kernel and the risk it poses to biosecurity in New Zealand. Most of them are totally inaccurate. All shipments of palm kernel are fumigated before they arrive in this country.
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5887] 
8.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “for all intents and purposes” the decision on the northern boundary of the super-city has been made? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 It is my observation that the Prime Minister is invariably right although sometimes not as centre-right as I myself would prefer. Cabinet has decided the governance position on the northern boundary of Auckland but the final decision on the northern boundary will be made by the House when it considers the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. 
Phil Twyford 
: What other issues have been decided by Cabinet in advance of the select committee recommendations given that Maori representation and the boundaries have been predetermined? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Let me inform the member that it is a standard part of the legislative process that when a department is preparing its report for a select committee it ensures that its departmental report reflects the Government’s position. Cabinet is the forum where the Government confirms or decides its position. I am sure that the select committee which the member is a part of will consider the departmental advice along with all other submissions that have been put to it and in the end the committee will decide on the form of the bill to be reported back to the House. That is the process that the Government and the House will follow and I look forward to the member studying it and getting the hang of it eventually. 
Phil Twyford 
: What does he say to the mayors of Kaipara and Rodney and the Auckland Regional Council chairman all of whom are opposed to Cabinet’s decision to override the select committee and the Local Government Commission and set the northern boundary itself? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: It would be helpful if the member would listen to the answers he seeks. It is the practice for departmental reports to reflect the Government’s position. Rodney and Kaipara people along with other Aucklanders have had the opportunity to make submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee about all aspects of the legislation. I have been informed that a number of submissions on the northern boundary were received and those submissions have been carefully considered by the select committee along with all the other submissions. I am also aware that members of the committee have been listening to the people and indeed I have had very good reports from the people of Kaipara and Rodney that the local member John Carter is doing a great job. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he agree with former royal commissioner David Shand that the Cabinet decision on the northern boundary will lead to substantial coastal development and who does he believe stands to benefit from turning our northern beaches into a mini - Surfers Paradise? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I do not agree with him.
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Borrows Chester: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5884] 
5.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to support young people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Today we announced our Fresh Start programme for youth offenders and our school holidays Break Away programme for young people. These two programmes together will support New Zealanders aged between 11 and 17 years with both preventive programmes and programmes to help them when they are in trouble. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister give more detail on what activities will be offered in the school holiday Break Away programme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The Break Away package will provide activities and programmes for young people who normally do not have access to such activities. In excess of 30000 young people will benefit from the package through holiday programmes for 11 to 17-year-olds whose families cannot afford holidays; the Prime Minister’s Youth Programme which will reward 100 young people who have made positive life changes; and a personal favourite of mine residential respite camps which will give 500 places to children and young people who are cared for by foster parents or by grandparents raising grandchildren to give the parents a break. Those camps will be run by children’s health camps to start with. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Why is the Minister trialling the first military-style activity camps as early as next month well before the public and the select committee have the opportunity to report back on her youth justice proposals; is this yet another example of a Government that refuses to listen to submitters especially when the vast majority of them are opposed to its ideas? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: These young people are ticking time bombs that are about to go off. They deserve our attention. They deserve our putting everything we can behind them to try to turn their lives round. Quite frankly all that happened under the previous Government was that they ended up in adult prisons really quickly and really easily. We are going to do something about it. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister give the House more details on the Fresh Start programme for young offenders? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I know that members opposite do not like to hear about the action that is going on under this Government and the difference that we are making but Fresh Start will target New Zealand’s most serious youth offenders. It also has a focus on turning round the lives of young people before they get into the youth justice system. We are bolstering the court orders available to judges and investing more in supervision programmes. We are combining those measures with police and community-based diversion mentoring and drug and alcohol programmes amongst many other programmes. This is a $59 million investment and it means that nearly 3000 Fresh Start places will be available.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5879] 
1. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What advice has he received on extending the retail deposit guarantee scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received advice that the extension of the scheme until 31 December 2011 provides certainty for investors and institutions. The alternative was to allow the scheme to lapse on 12 October 2010 which would have created a high degree of uncertainty and could in turn have resulted in a loss of confidence in some parts of the finance sector thereby undermining financial stability. 
David Bennett 
: How is the extended scheme consistent with new Reserve Bank requirements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the commentary on the scheme there has been some confusion about the distinction between the Reserve Bank requirements and the deposit guarantee scheme. Last year this Parliament passed amendments to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that require all non-bank institutions with deposits of over $20 million to obtain a credit rating from a recognised agency by 1 March 2010. That is currently the law regardless of the deposit guarantee scheme. The deposit guarantee scheme extension will simply pick up the credit ratings that institutions already have. If they have a minimum of a BB rating they will be eligible for the scheme. If they cannot get a credit rating by March 2010 then that is a matter they will have to deal with with the Reserve Bank regardless of the Government guarantee. 
David Bennett 
: How is the extended scheme fairer to participants and taxpayers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The original scheme was put in place under duress at the beginning of the financial crisis. We have had the opportunity to refine the scheme when it is extended by introducing a new pricing system based on the institutions’ risk profiles. It will be fairer to participants because it is designed to avoid a situation where low-risk institutions are essentially subsidising the activities of higher-risk institutions. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister agree with sharebroker Chris Lee that there will be “no chance of many of the little finance companies getting a BB credit rating in the next 12 months” and with KPMG partner Godfrey Boyce that “Very small financial institutions are going to struggle to achieve that credit rating.”; if so does he still feel he has struck the right balance by limiting their eligibility while giving the larger banks an opt-out? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I explained earlier already on the books there is a requirement for financial institutions to get a credit rating by 1 March. I understand that if they do not get a credit rating then they will either be prosecuted or have to negotiate an exemption with the Reserve Bank if they have deposits of over $20 million. That is a requirement that this Parliament passed last year independent of the deposit guarantee.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill — Third Reading 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5943] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/2010) Bill be now read a third time. 
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. 
Bill read a third time.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill — First Reading 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5904] 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2009/10) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:6991] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure 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 8 
Green Party 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Woodhouse Michael: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — Second Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:6990] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 If there was an example of the confusion that Opposition members have around the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill that speech was it. How sad it is that it came from Brendon Burns the member for the electorate that has the greatest problem. Members opposite say they will support the bill then they say they do not support it. They think it will work then they do not think it will work. That is about as confused as anyone can get. 
I say congratulations to the Minister of Police because I recall that in January following a terrible incident the young men interviewed were absolutely dismissive. They just said to bring it on as we could not touch them. Well the Minister is bringing it on. She is introducing legislation that by the previous Minister’s own admission closes loopholes and will make stronger legislation. For that reason there will be a much stronger deterrent effect. 
I support the bill and I look forward to discussing in the Committee of the whole House some of the details that members opposite have raised because I think they warrant a response. Otherwise I support this bill.
Blue Jackie: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — Second Reading 
Blue Jackie: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:6985] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise and speak to the second reading of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. This bill along with its companion bill the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill is designed to tackle illegal street racing. The bill will give the courts the power to order the confiscation and destruction of vehicles driven by persistent street racers as well as wider powers to enforce the collection of unpaid fines and reparation. 
We know that illegal street racers frequently avoid being penalised for breaking the law. They do this by switching vehicles with one another or registering their vehicles to another person. They can sell their vehicles to friends for a nominal fee before a court appearance. But illegal street racers will no longer be able to commit an offence in another person’s car and avoid being penalised. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received and considered 58 submissions on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. Thirty submissions were heard at its hearings which included hearings in Christchurch. We heard from ordinary citizens. The public are simply fed up with hoons running riot and with cars doing skids churning up grass verges and scattering rubbish. It is not just about dangerous driving and putting the public at risk; it is also about what these hoons leave in their wake—rubbish such as soggy beer cartons broken bottles and flattened cans that litter pavements and roads and spray-painted start and finish lines on the roads. It is also about property damage. Fences are destroyed and grass areas are ripped up. 
These idiots have gone on far too long and have got away with it. Well they will not get away with it any more under this legislation. I commend this bill to the House.
Bennett David: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:6981] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 When we are speaking on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill I think it is important that we have a sense of reality about what happens on the streets and what the law and what this Parliament can actually do. It is a bit sad when we see the Labour Opposition not wanting to be supportive of this legislation. It knows that its attempts in the past have not worked—it has said that. It said that it could not solve the problem and now when we put a solution up it will not accept it. It will not fully back it. Labour members go out there and try to find an alternative so they can say that that is the way it should be done. The Labour Opposition had a chance to do it the way it should have been done and it did not do it. It did not go out there and make confiscation mandatory as the last member who spoke Clayton Cosgrove said. He had a member’s bill on the subject that this legislation covers. Why did he not do it then? It appears that now it is all right for him to say that that is how it works and that is how it should be but the reality is he knows that is not the case. He knows that this is the best solution on the table. 
When we look at the kind of mandatory solution that Labour is talking about we have to ask where we see that in our law. Where do we see mandatory penalties being proposed? We do not see them. We see penalties that go up to a maximum. The reason is that we have a disincentive basis in our law. In law we basically know what the full sanction can be and the actual penalty leads up that sanction. For example if a person is convicted of an offence does that mean that he or she will always get for example the 10-year sentence that might be the maximum sanction as the penalty in that case? No. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s graduated. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is graduated as the fine doctor beside me said. That is the case in law. But what we need in law are some examples of what can be the full sanction because that is the deterrent. We are giving that deterrent. That crushing of vehicles will be the deterrent. We are also giving ourselves the ability to have a graduated process leading to that. It is a simple and effective process— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Tell that to your constituents in Hamilton! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Our constituents in Hamilton are very happy with this legislation and they are happy with this Minister of Police Judith Collins who has shown some leadership. She has done something when she had the chance and she has done something that is practical reasonable and will be successful. Thank you.