edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6279] 
9. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 on behalf of  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What announcements has she made to better protect New Zealand’s vulnerable children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Sadly there are no easy solutions to New Zealand’s child abuse problem. Last week I announced that the Government will be focusing its efforts on our most vulnerable under-2-year-olds. As part of an evolving body of work we want to ensure the protection of our most vulnerable infants. We announced a nationwide campaign that has a pretty simple message: never ever shake a baby. More than 23 babies a year are hospitalised because of shaken baby syndrome. We will do everything that we can to bring that number down. 
Todd McClay 
: What further detail can the Minister give about the Government’s commitment to vulnerable children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We are beginning to put in place a number of initiatives. As I said this is the start of an evolving body of work. One initiative in particular is the first response pilot. This programme will follow up on some of the 40000 domestic violence police notifications that are not currently investigated by Child Youth and Family. No matter how low-level those cases are categorised as being it is a priority for this Government that those are followed up. We have to ensure that these incidents are not precursors to further domestic violence or child abuse. A pilot will be launched in November through a non-governmental organisation called Shine an Auckland-based family violence prevention group. We anticipate that this will assist about 700 children in the three pilot areas. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement last week that increases in spending on Working for Families under a Labour Government were a reason for an improvement in child welfare statistics; if so how can John Key’s view that Working for Families was “a massive expansion of the welfare state” and “communism by stealth” be true? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: When we looked at the OECD report that came out last week we saw that some of the families that are struggling are getting a bit more money under Working for Families. That is simply what that statement from me was about.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6276] 
7.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What announcements have been made in relation to rural broadband? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Today I announced coverage targets to deliver fast broadband to rural communities around the country. Within the next 6 years 93 percent of rural schools will receive fibre enabling speeds of at least 100 megabits per second with the remaining 7 percent to achieve speeds of at least 10 megabits per second. Over 80 percent of rural households will have access to broadband with speeds of at least 5 to 10 megabits per second with the remainder to achieve speeds of at least 1 megabit per second. Delivering fast broadband to rural New Zealanders is an important priority for the Government alongside our $1.5 billion urban broadband initiative. It is crucial to ensure we capture the economic growth and productivity opportunities available in the rural sector. 
David Bennett 
: How will fast broadband for rural communities be achieved? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Fibre backhaul is currently the primary limiting factor in the delivery of rural broadband. Providing fibre connections to the vast majority of rural schools will also deliver the capacity to provide faster broadband to the communities those schools serve. The Government’s focus will be on those areas that will not benefit from Telecom’s current fibre-to-the-node upgrade programme. My expectation is that the total cost of this policy will be around $300 million and it will be delivered through a mix of public and private funding. 
Clare Curran 
: If the $300 million estimated cost of the rural broadband package is on top of the $1.5 billion already promised what proportion of it will be Government funded and where will that money come from? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government will be making announcements on the funding of the $300 million and the mix of public and private funding in the next 1 or 2 weeks. 
Clare Curran 
: Which potential private investors have been approached about the rural broadband scheme? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No private investors have been approached in regard to the rural broadband scheme. 
David Bennett 
: What benefits will fast broadband have for rural communities? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Around half of all rural households are currently coping with dial-up speeds which frankly is not good enough in the 21st century. Our rural initiative will ensure that rural households have access to modern fast broadband speeds. Also most rural schools will join urban schools in having ultra-fast fibre broadband connections delivering speeds of 100 megabits per second or more. Altogether 97 percent of New Zealand schools and 99.7 percent of New Zealand students will have fibre-based connections while the remaining schools will have connections of at least 10 megabits per second. This will ensure that New Zealand schoolchildren are full participants in the digital age.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6271] 
3.  
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received about how New Zealand is emerging from the recession? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Reserve Bank this morning issued its Monetary Policy Statement for September. The governor noted evidence that the decline in economic activity is coming to an end and a patchy recovery is under way. He attributed this to a recovery in our trading-partner economies and he noted that domestic retail spending appears to have stopped falling following a rise in net immigration and a pick-up in the housing market over recent months. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What medium-term economic challenges did the Reserve Bank identify? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Reserve Bank identified the same economic challenges as the Government does but unlike the Government it is too polite to blame them on the previous Government which really caused those problems. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What steps is the Government taking to address these medium-term economic challenges? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has set out a programme firstly to protect people from the sharp edges of recession. That process is not yet over because unemployment is likely to continue rising through until next year. Secondly we have set up a range of programmes to undo the damage caused by the previous Government particularly in the area of business regulation lack of public sector productivity and lack of enthusiasm and energy in respect of infrastructure investment. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the recent World Bank assessment that concluded New Zealand is already the second-best country in the world for doing business in why does the Minister consider it desirable to further deregulate foreign investment protections so as to facilitate the sale of New Zealand assets overseas to fund our increasing current account deficit rather than introducing effective policies to reduce our current account deficit? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are in the process of introducing effective policies and the intent of the Overseas Investment Act review is not to facilitate investment; it is to reduce the time and the cost of making decisions about that foreign investment.
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6270] 
2.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy for parents giving their children a light smack for the purpose of correction to be breaking the law; if not what is the Government’s policy? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No; the Government’s policy is that responsible parents should not be criminalised for a light smack. If there is compelling evidence that the current legislation is not working as intended the Government will work to correct it. I am advised that to date such evidence has not been forthcoming. Last year there were 33 complaints about smacking and one prosecution which was later withdrawn. To put it into perspective over the same period there were 83000 complaints about domestic violence. To further reassure parents that they will not be criminalised for a light smack the Prime Minister has announced three measures to ensure that the law is working as intended: a review of police and Child Youth and Family policies and procedures in cases where smacking is involved; bringing forward a report from the Ministry of Social Development on the effect of the law change; and inviting police to continue to report on the operation of the law for the next 3 years. 
John Boscawen 
: Given that the Minister says it is not the Government’s policy for smacking for the purposes of correction to be against the law does he agree with the Prime Minister who said: “The law basically says broadly you can’t smack your kids.”? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I always agree with the Prime Minister. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Minister accept that parents are not concerned so much about whether they are being prosecuted but more concerned about the fact that they are breaking the law by smacking their children for the purpose of correction? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: That is why the three-pronged programme I have just outlined has been indicated to the New Zealand public as a process that the Government will follow. My understanding is that the review I mentioned is the first of those three prongs and will be completed around December. At that point we will have information to hand.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6269] 
1. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement: “It’s essential that we build our road to recovery on investment and exports”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can New Zealanders take seriously his talk of an export-led recovery when the Reserve Bank projections forecast that the return to economic growth will see the current account deficit increase to 7 percent per annum as a result of the very consumption pressures he has so often decried? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think along with that member we would share the Reserve Bank’s concerns. There are signs that the economy will recover. In order for that recovery to be sustainable we need improved competitiveness among our exporters and continued recovery in household savings and there is some doubt about whether either of those things will happen quickly. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can he defend New Zealand getting poorer to the tune of more than $15 billion per annum over the medium to longer term and why does he not accept that it is his responsibility to reverse that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is taking seriously its responsibility to reverse 10 years of misdirected economic policy which has left this country with two large imbalances: an export sector that has been in recession for 5 years and Government books that show that it will be 10 years until we have a surplus. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What reports has he seen that the Government’s economic programme is helping businesses emerge from the recession and create jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The National Bank’s business outlook survey for August showed that 34 percent of firms expect general business conditions to improve—up from 18 percent the previous month. Any increase in business confidence is welcome but of course those businesses need a policy environment where the Government is encouraging investment and not dragging resources from businesses to put them into ineffective Government spending. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the Reserve Bank governor’s statement today that rather than the current account deficit getting better it will get worse going to 7 percent per annum at an annual cost to the country of more than $15 billion does the Minister accept that his economic prescription for the country is not working? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I agree with the concern the Reserve Bank governor demonstrates about that kind of track for the current account deficit. We have to work on turning round a decade-long build up of imbalances. The current account deficit reached a peak of about 9 percent under the previous Government. It has come back some way. That member might like to explain why it got so big when over the last 5 or 6 years there were record high commodity prices.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:657;Page:6269] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could rule as to whether that reply was consistent with the public interest.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:657;Page:6269] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That interesting question has been phrased by the shadow Leader of the House in a way that makes it very difficult for me to answer. I point out though that in a normal week the House sits for some 17 hours. If we take out question time and the general debate that gets it down to 13 hours. I can tell the nation that the Labour Party may well consider 13 hours a week to be a week’s work; the National Government does not.
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
Hughes Darren: Business Statement 
[Volume:657;Page:6269] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give the House an assurance that urgency will not be used once again for legislation relating to Auckland’s governance?
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:657;Page:6269] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 15 September it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill and other bills on the Order Paper.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Viet Nam—Delegation Central Committee Communist Party United States of America—State Congressional Delegation 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Viet Nam—Delegation Central Committee Communist Party United States of America—State Congressional Delegation 
[Volume:657;Page:6269] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that a state congressional delegation from the United States of America is present in the gallery and I am sure members would wish that that delegation also be welcomed.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Viet Nam—Delegation Central Committee Communist Party United States of America—State Congressional Delegation 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Viet Nam—Delegation Central Committee Communist Party United States of America—State Congressional Delegation 
[Volume:657;Page:6269] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam led by His Excellency Mr Nong Duc Manh General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:657;Page:6269] 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 15 September it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill and other bills on the Order Paper. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give the House an assurance that urgency will not be used once again for legislation relating to Auckland’s governance? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That interesting question has been phrased by the shadow Leader of the House in a way that makes it very difficult for me to answer. I point out though that in a normal week the House sits for some 17 hours. If we take out question time and the general debate that gets it down to 13 hours. I can tell the nation that the Labour Party may well consider 13 hours a week to be a week’s work; the National Government does not. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could rule as to whether that reply was consistent with the public interest.
Visitors — Viet Nam—Delegation Central Committee Communist Party United States of America—State Congressional Delegation 
Visitors — Viet Nam—Delegation Central Committee Communist Party United States of America—State Congressional Delegation 
[Volume:657;Page:6269] 
Thursday 10 September 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Viet Nam—Delegation Central Committee Communist Party 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam led by His Excellency Mr Nong Duc Manh General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
United States of America—State Congressional Delegation 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in informing members that a state congressional delegation from the United States of America is present in the gallery and I am sure members would wish that that delegation also be welcomed.
Barker Rick: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:533] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now move on to clauses 2 3 and 4. As these debates are not part by part debates but clause by clause debates they will be narrow debates. Members are to confine themselves to the words of the particular clause and issues contained therein. These are not wide-ranging debates and if members do stray I will call them to order.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:533] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 5.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:533] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 48.
Worth Richard: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:486] 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition can scarcely be surprised by the Bail Amendment Bill coming as it does in the context of clear policies announced by National whilst in Opposition. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. It may have overlooked your attention but the previous speaker in his contribution in the House failed to tell Parliament or the people of New Zealand whether Labour would be voting for or against this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. There was no point of order in that. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Perhaps if I may I will start again. The Opposition can scarcely be surprised by the passage of this legislation in the context of urgency today because the National Party whilst in Opposition clearly telegraphed its position on a number of significant law and order issues and this was assuredly one. I am a bit surprised by the comments of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove when he suggested that somehow because this bill is short it might lack some element of merit. This legislation is a significant substantive change and that is to be so clearly seen by the apparent opposition of Opposition members. It is a reality in the criminal justice system that it is necessary to balance a whole lot of interests and they are the interests of justice in that broad sense and in the interests of victims offenders and issues relating to court process. It is scarcely surprising that this trial which the Opposition embarked on when it was in Government has lamentably failed. It lamentably failed because it was for an improper purpose and that purpose which was unsuccessful in the outcome was to reduce the prison muster. That is clearly not what this legislation is about. 
This is legislation that is substantially concerned with process and substantially concerned with public safety. If we look at the original provisions of the Bail Act 2000 it can be seen that if a person is not bailable as of right then there has to be just cause for continued detention. And what should that just cause for continued detention be? That is not a very difficult question at all; it is whether a defendant may fail to appear at court on the date to which he or she has been remanded whether there is the prospect of witness interference and whether a defendant may offend whilst on bail. We have seen this trial which the Opposition when in Government embarked upon fail. We have seen it fail I think for substantially the reason that it was based on improper purpose. It is important in the context of law and order policies having an effectiveness and substance that we have legislation of this type. That is why the Government has introduced it. That is why the Government is determined to see its speedy passage and its effective implementation.
Hipkins Chris: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:612] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 It is very very clear that this is a punitive measure rather than a constructive one. This is not about making schools a place where students want to go; it is about punishing them when they do not make it through the gate. What is wrong with making schools places where kids want to go rather than places where they are forced to go? That is a much more constructive approach. 
Mr Flavell talked before about truancy being particularly high amongst Maori students so surely a big part of that and a big part of solving it is making school a place where Maori students feel comfortable and a place where they actually want to be rather than trying to make schools into one-size-fits-all places which is exactly what the rest of this bill does. National will impose these standards and tests and make school a one-size-fits-all place and if one does not conform one will just get shoved out the door. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Nanny State! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. I have a number of questions as well and I hope the Minister will take the time to write these down. She has not written down any of the other questions—she will lose track I am sure—but I am certain she will give us a good explanation. I am sure she will not listen to Simon Power who put his finger to his lips to stop her standing up and taking the last call.
Smith Nick: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Smith Nick: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:611] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I noticed twice during the member’s speech that he talked about “his Government”. I hate to remind him but there was an event on 8 November in which Labour lost the election. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:606] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3. 
Bill read a second time.
King Colin: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
King Colin: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:601] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill is very interesting. It is an enabling bill because it gives the Minister the ability to establish national standards. We can look at the explanatory note of the bill. For the benefit of members on the other side of the Chamber I will try to talk quite calmly so that we do not excite them and waken them from their numbing sleep. 
If we rely on regulation we will stay where we are. We find when we look at the Education Review Office reports that there is considerable inconsistency. We have heard from the fine member sitting in the back corner what a good school is doing. We know that that is just so incredible. That school is made up of a relationship between teacher pupil and parents and that is the way all schools should work. There are thousands of schools in this country and we want to see them all succeed. But relying on a regulation that is implicit is not good enough. I agree with what Dr Smith said: if we cannot measure it we cannot manage it. That is why the National Government will put it into law the standard that will have to be achieved. It is not appropriate that we are not all as a nation on a crusade to improve our children’s education. If we want to give people the opportunity of being able to put a foot on the ladder and go up and inspire we have to succeed and we have to do better. 
We could have a very very long conversation about this legislation but I believe that the weight of the argument is very much in favour of it. I must acknowledge what Te Ururoa Flavell said. I was also on that 2-year select committee review of making schools work for all our children. It was very very enlightening. There are some wonderful teachers around. One person who came to the select committee said that he trained teachers for another year. I have tried to remember his name but it escapes now. He had a private training establishment that was limited to taking only 100 full-time equivalents a year. He was limited because of the funding. Those teachers graduated and were all picked up by schools and they have all done remarkably well. 
I am just so convinced as a parent and now as a grandparent that we can do better and that what we must do is lay a solid foundation for that to happen and get on with it. That is what this bill does. It is an enabling and empowering bill and I support it wholeheartedly. I commend Anne Tolley for having the courage to bring it forward. I think we have to keep away from the rhetoric of the negativeness and on that basis I am very proud to be backing this bill. I recommend it to the House.
Roy Eric: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Roy Eric: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:584] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the next speaker let me just caution members—firstly about interjections. Members know that they should be rare and reasonable. At times it got close to a barrage of interjections and I do not believe that is appropriate. Rare and reasonable interjections are fine. 
The second thing I ask members to desist from is engaging in barrages that go backwards and forwards across the Chamber. They were quite apart from the exchanges with the member who was on her feet. I was reluctant to interrupt her speech but members need to desist from doing that as well.
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:582] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3. 
Bill read a first time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68 Noes 46.
King Colin: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
King Colin: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:578] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The speaker on the other side of the Chamber who has just sat down Sue Moroney spoke for 10 minutes and she will be remembered only for saying that education was potentially dangerous. I would have to say that this is a general reflection on the achievements of the Labour Government over the last 9 years. It has escaped Labour’s notice that at the moment we have inherited some major problems. We have nearly a million working-age adults who do not have the literacy and numeracy to be able to partake in a first-class economy and on that basis Labour wants to destine the coming generations into that same situation. 
The parents of our children today want their children to have a brighter future and that is why on 8 November the parents voted a John Key - led Government in because they wanted a brighter future. They could see when they observed the other side of the Chamber here that Labour was devoid of vision and devoid of any aspiration. Labour dug a big hole through New Zealand and it wanted to keep New Zealanders in it. So we want to see our sons and daughters aspire and on that basis I think the Minister of Education Anne Tolley is to be commended for bringing this bill into the House. She is a wonderful Minister who has done a lot of work over the last year. She has pulled together the visions the aspirations and the experience that is on this side of the House. 
When I hear Heather Roy Pita Sharples Allan Peachey and Anne Tolley speak I see that the combined wisdom on this side of the House is overwhelming. I am so pleased that I represent Kaikoura as a parent and a grandparent. I come from a background where my mum and dad never went to school and on that basis I made a bit of a promise to myself that when I had children I would sit them on my knee read to them go to school with them and be part of them. 
One thing that has really been a privilege for me in the last 3 years has been to sit on the Education and Science Committee. I learnt there that nearly 50 percent of schools do not report adequately to the parents. One of the designs of this bill is that teachers and schools report to mums and dads in understandable language. That is incredible. 
I support this bill wholeheartedly. I would like to speak for a lot longer on it but I have been allotted only 3 minutes. I think that time is appropriate because the wisdom that has been expressed on this side of the Chamber has been overwhelming. But I can say shame shame shame on the Labour Party for even considering voting against this bill especially those two members over there who are former Ministers. Shame on the Labour Party. I support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:563] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.
Power Simon: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:549] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This Government was elected on a law and order policy that promised to put the safety of the public first. This bill is one of the steps in making that promise a reality. 
Labour Party members knew they could not afford to vote against this bill particularly because their leader has admitted publicly that Labour was beaten in the law and order debate during the election campaign. That left those members with no choice in effect because had they decided to oppose this bill it would have immediately laid the platform in this subject area for the next general election. 
In respect of this bill all too often we hear about serious offences being committed by people on bail. That does not mean of course that bail is a failure or that it should be abandoned. There are thousands of people on bail at any one time and only a small proportion commit serious offences. But what it does mean is that we must be vigilant about who is released on bail. 
Last year as part of a package in the Criminal Justice Reform Bill to reduce the prison population the Labour Government restricted the courts’ ability to remand in custody people charged with criminal offending. Under those changes defendants could be remanded in custody only if the court considered they posed a real and significant threat of absconding interfering with witnesses or evidence or offending whilst on bail. In addition the courts were restricted in the way that they could take breach of bail conditions into account in bail decisions. In a change the Labour Government inserted a provision that provided that the courts could take a breach of conditions into account only to the extent that it was relevant to the defendant’s risk. In effect that meant the courts could no longer use remand as a sanction for non-compliance. 
This Government recognises that the court is in the best position to determine a defendant’s risk and whether he or she should be bailed or remanded in custody. We will not let the courts be unduly constrained in those decisions. This bill restores the courts’ discretion to decide when a defendant’s risk is such that he or she should be remanded in custody and to take appropriate action when a defendant is not complying with bail conditions. 
Despite the lengthy debate that the House has had on this bill—and in fact the lead Opposition party ultimately voted with the Government after we had tried to pry that position out of it after its third speaker took to her feet—it is one of the shortest bills that the House will see. It has one operative clause of two lines. However those two lines are indicative of a new focus for New Zealand’s criminal justice system—one that puts public safety first. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:548] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:548] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:548] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Without in any way wishing to challenge your ruling— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No you cannot challenge my ruling. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am not; I am not challenging it. As a point of information for you I say that we on this side of the Chamber strongly object because there have been only two calls from this side. There are only four clauses in this bill and there has been substantial debate on each of the first three of those clauses. Now we have come to the critical one and there have been only two calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are challenging the ruling. It is at my discretion that a closure motion is accepted.
Tisch Lindsay: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:548] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that the question be now put. Those who—
Auchinvole Chris: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:548] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Turei Metiria: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Turei Metiria: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:546] 
METIRIA TUREI (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Having miscalculated how many votes the Green Party is entitled to overall I seek leave to change the votes made this afternoon where they are recorded as “2” votes to “3” votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member needs to be more specific. Does this mean all votes cast since 2 o’clock? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There being no objection we will correct that.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:546] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:545] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 3; Green Party 2. 
Motion agreed to.
Parata Hekia: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parata Hekia: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:545] 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:544] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will give Dr Cullen the call in a second but can I refer those who are moving closure motions to Standing Order 132. It is spelt out there what the words are. It is very clear what actually has to be said for the Chair to accept a closure motion.
Bridges Simon: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:544] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move that the question now be put.
Gilmore Aaron: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Gilmore Aaron: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:543] 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bennett David: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:542] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:540] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee to amend the vote of the Maori Party on the closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave has been sought for the Maori Party to change its vote on the closure motion from 2 to 3. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I apologise. I thought I did say 3 but we have been 3 consistently pretty much this afternoon. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The corrected vote for the closure is 63 for and 48 against.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:540] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 106 Noes 5.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:540] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 3; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 47.
Ryall Tony: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Ryall Tony: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:540] 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hughes Darren: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:538] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to be very clear that I am not challenging your ruling at all—I am not going to do that—but the member did not put the closure motion correctly; she did not use the correct sequence of words. You cannot accept a closure motion that has not been put correctly. That is a longstanding ruling. She did not get the words right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Moana Mackey.
Kaye Nikki: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:538] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move that the question now be put.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that the question be now put. Those of that—
Tremain Chris: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:537] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Barker Rick: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:536] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Just before I take the next call I remind members that the debate is about the words. To simply mention the words and then go off on this that or any other peripheral subject is taking the debate beyond what it is. The debate is a narrow one about the actual words themselves. If members do not address the words then that simply invites the Chair to accept a closure motion earlier than he might otherwise have done.
Tremain Chris: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:532] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:527] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Lee Melissa: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Lee Melissa: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:521] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to thank Opposition members for recognising me. My name is indeed Melissa Lee. I thank them for the lessons they have decided to bestow upon me in respect of my inexperience in this Chamber. However I remind those members that I have the right to comment on the issue and I was neither delusional nor arrogant in pointing out that we have a problem with criminals in this country. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You didn’t say that. 
MELISSA LEE 
: If members listened very carefully they would know that I did not say the bill would stop murderers. I said I would support the bill if it stopped another senseless killing—like the killing of Navtej Singh Joanne Wang and Madam Yang. Madam Yang was an 80-year-old woman who was murdered in her home. 
I also talked about my experience of home invasion. Yes Chester Borrows was right: I became rather emotional. This is the first day I have spoken in the Chamber since my maiden speech and I became rather flustered by members opposite—great! I thank members for making me nervous—I have subsequently been shoulder-tapped. I was the victim of a home invasion. When I spoke earlier I was not arrogant enough to think that I represented everybody in New Zealand; I was speaking from my experience. Two guys wearing black balaclavas came to my house and followed me into my garage. Those people were on bail when they committed that crime. If this bill can stop them from committing another crime then I will support it.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:518] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 4; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a second time.