edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): This bill is a very important piece of legislation for verifying who offenders and potential offenders might be and then sharing that information appropriately. Identifying who someone is is the process of authentication and generally there are two factors to authentication. The first is something that you have—for example a swipe card a passport or a cellphone—and the second is something you know such as a PIN a password or a security question. Both of these factors come with problems. The something you know—a password can be hacked it can be guessed or it can be stolen. The something you have can also be stolen it can be copied it can be falsely created or it can actually be legitimately created—and this feeds into what my colleague was just saying about aliases and identity theft. Name changing can be legitimately done and new identification documents established.This leads me to talk about another Smith. The focus here today has been around Phillip John Smith but I want to give the case of another Smith: Michael Richard Smith who in 2015 was convicted of theft by a person in a special relationship and jailed for 5 years. He changed his name and identification many times. He was also known as Michael Weaver Michael Levertoff and Michael Fresnel. While he was on bail awaiting trial he changed his name set up new companies and continued to defraud innocent New Zealanders. So name changing is definitely a tool that offenders use. To pick up from my colleague from the Greens who also suggested that one case has generated this legislation I would point him to examples of fraudsters and criminals who have recently changed their names. I would point him to Paul James Bennett also known as Paul John Williams—this is all just in 2014—Phillip John Smith whom we know of; Cristian Dario Alcalde; and Glenn Green also known as Dallas Deangeles. So there is actually quite a body of work and case law to substantiate this legislation.In fact in 2012-13 7422 New Zealanders changed their names—of course many did it legitimately but some may have done it for illicit purposes as well. What this bill does then is allow biometric authentication. So we have got what we know and what we have; this adds what we are. That is the third factor which biometric authentication adds. I think it is very important to add to that toolset and I believe it will probably be a combination of all three that will be the most effective. The ultimate effective authentication is DNA and at some time in the future this bill futureproofs that possibility—that DNA actually becomes our biometric assessment. Anyway I think this is very good very important legislation and I commend this bill to the House.
Dean JacquiJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): This bill responds to legislative weaknesses around offenders and special or restricted patient management. These weaknesses were identified in the Government inquiry into matters concerning the escape of Phillip John Smith or Phillip John Traynor. Agencies have since been working hard to implement the inquiry's recommendation to improve operational practices. However we need to keep supporting that work with legislative changes to ensure something like this example cannot happen again.I will go very briefly through the main provisions of the bill in its first reading. The key changes authorise specified agencies to access and to use identification including biometric information to verify the identity of individuals within the justice system as well as at the border. It clarifies the ability of the Customs Service to collect and use and disclose biometric information about persons arriving to or departing from New Zealand. It also authorises the sharing of birth death marriage civil union and name-change information with specified agencies; clarifies that special care recipients and special patients and restricted patients may not leave their secure facility—or New Zealand—unless authorised; provides for the collection of biometric information from offenders to better identify those offenders at New Zealand's borders; enforces the conditions specified for those individuals; authorises the sharing of photographic images of driver's licence holders for law enforcement and identify verification purposes; and strengthens the standard release conditions to stop offenders on sentences or parole conditions from leaving New Zealand without written consent from their probation officers. All these measures require a number of legislative changes and so here we are debating at first reading the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. It is another example of how this Government responds to issues quickly and effectively. Thank you.
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): It is a pleasure to take a short call on the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. I just wanted to start off by saying as my colleagues have said that Labour will be supporting this bill to select committee.I want to express what we do know about the circumstances around this bill. First of all we know that there was an inquiry. We know that there have been a number of failings in the systems including in the Department of Corrections the Ministry of Justice Customs Service and the Department of Internal Affairs. We know of the perpetrator who got himself over to South America but what we do not know is exactly how many other people have managed to do the same thing. This person got himself caught and so maybe there have been others who have not been caught. It just occurred to me that that is something we do not know.As my colleagues Jacinda Ardern and Kelvin Davis have pointed out we will support this bill at first reading because there are clearly some systemic failures within the processes being used at the border and with the sharing—or lack of sharing—of information. But I do want to acknowledge that in this ever-changing world with the technology changes that we have it is appropriate to also ask the question: does the magnitude of the response match or is it appropriate for the size of the issue that exists? I think that is an issue that the select committee ought to look at around all of those issues within this bill.It is a very powerful bill I believe. With anything that changes the Privacy Act there is to me a very high threshold of consideration that needs to be met. I believe that is the appropriate place to make it—at the select committee. Changing the use of information and as I said the technology around that information and biometric information being transferred or shared amongst agencies for that purpose—and I have listened carefully to the concerns that others have around this very issue. I have to say that I have heard some valid issues around the use and potential misuse of this biometric data. We certainly do need to tread very carefully but I also think we need to have every tool that we can have in the tool box to protect our borders—to protect and enforce the laws of our country so that people who are not supposed to leave New Zealand cannot leave New Zealand. I am very happy to support that.I have read in view of my portfolio being internal affairs the specific parts around the changes to the Passports Act and they all seem to me very appropriate to have within the processes of issuing passports. It still comes down to the ability to give effect to these new changes. The only way the Department of Internal Affairs is able to issue a passport—it actually needs the information from those other agencies.I am happy to support this bill. Kia ora.
Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The stated aim of this bill is to amend various statutes to provide for better information flows between agencies in relation to personal information including biometric information. This is to enable better identity verification of individuals for the purpose of preventing offences and when offences have occurred detecting investigating and prosecuting them. The Minister of Justice publicly explained the bill as being in response to the Smith/Traynor inquiry of last year which called for as she put it a step change in the way identity is verified and shared in the justice sector. That entity she said was to be based on unalterable information such as fingerprints and facial recognition rather than paper records. The bill would allow agencies access to the driver's-licence photo database and birth death and marriages information of offenders and mental health patients subject to the criminal justice system. The move towards a single shared record of photographs fingerprints and facial recognition would she said equip New Zealand law and border enforcement agencies with the best tools in identifying offenders and absconders. Our concern is that the bill permits the widespread collection of biometric data on the basis of a single incident involving an escaped prisoner. I pick up on the point made by the previous speaker Mr McKelvie who was lamenting the fact that the Green Party is pinning its opposition purely on that. But in fact that is not an accurate portrayal of our position. The essential opposition we have to the bill is triggered not by one person. The main reason is the fact that what the Minister of Justice calls unalterable information is to us unacceptable information in terms of its intrusive nature into privacy laws. The ability of the Customs Service to collect biometric data is not limited to people suspected of having traveller restrictions though the bill's regulatory impact statement suggests that it would be used sparingly. It is not clear how the information would be shared among agencies given that the Department of Corrections already possesses this information. The scope for further information gathering from patients—for example in mental health care—and sharing with foreign enforcement agencies may pose privacy concerns as Marama Davidson my colleague pointed out in some detail earlier. I will not spell out those details again. But as our Labour colleague Jacinda Ardern said at the beginning—and this is not the first time this issue has come before this House—this issue is a balance between on the one hand national security concerns and domestic security concerns and on the other hand privacy laws and the right to avoid unnecessary intrusion. As Jacinda Ardern put it she searched and could find no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis. For the record the Green Party sought a briefing from the Ministry of Justice on this issue and was refused. For these reasons the Green Party will at the first reading oppose this bill.
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand and speak in support of this bill the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. I appreciate the comments of the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern and I think that there will be some good discussions in the select committee around those issues about where the lines are drawn. I think today we do live in a world where security of course is becoming incredibly important for the safety and the well-being of populations. What this bill does is include safeguards against inappropriate sharing of information by providing clear parameters for the circumstances in which information can be shared. Alongside the existing privacy protections outlined in the Privacy Act these parameters include limiting information that can be shared to identity information and only certain named agencies can share that information in specified circumstances. The occasion of the escape of Phillip John Smith created the necessity for an investigation into how that happened. The Government inquiry into the matters concerning his escape found that there were failings around adequate information-sharing between agencies as well as operational practices. We do see that there were gaps and flaws that needed to be addressed that had been there for many many years. It took that situation that instance to bring to light the questions that enabled us to have this inquiry and come back with recommendations and the Government fully supported 39 of those which were quite significant ones. As I said in my opening comments around the world the necessity for security is increasingly there. It is like a net that is there and if there is a hole in the net then that is where the fish will swim through. So it is important that New Zealand's security measures particularly around border entrance and exit are consistent with other security measures around the world. Otherwise we become the weak link. We become the vulnerable place. We become the place that can become a safe harbour. So let us be aware of that. No doubt we want to have the great Kiwi way of life that we love and appreciate in this place but at the same time have the security that enables that way of life to be enjoyed by our citizens. I am very happy to support this bill. Thank you.
Carter DavidMr SPEAKER: As I have said to both members I will look into the matter and will come back to the House tomorrow.
Points of Order — Parliamentary Service—Email Security Facility
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I agree with the shadow Leader of the House. This was actually very similar to the issue that was considered by the Privileges Committee in respect of the complaint by Andrea Vance and others where it was very clearly found by the Privileges Committee that information belonging to members is actually the members' information. It does not belong to Parliamentary Service it does not belong to the Government and it is for members to do what they think they should pursuant to our rights of freedom of expression that are guaranteed in this House.
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to be misconstrued. It does not matter how a member of Parliament comes to obtain the information; what a member of Parliament does with that information is then a matter for them and for the Parliament. It is not Government information and Government security classifications do not and should not apply to any information held by members of Parliament who are outside the executive.
Carter DavidMr SPEAKER: I will certainly look at the matter and come back to the House tomorrow. It is a matter of whether there is some encryption on that email perhaps because it is used between Government members. Until I know more detail as to the source of the Official Information Act document which I will obtain from the member when I catch up with him at the Business Committee later—certainly once any information is released under the Official Information Act it clearly is then free and available for distribution.
Hipkins ChrisPOINTS OF ORDERParliamentary ICT System—Email Security SystemCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you a very serious matter with regard to members of Parliament being able to conduct their business and it does relate to the order of the House. It has come to my attention in the last 24 hours that the Parliamentary Service is using an email security facility that monitors the content of and in some cases blocks emails to and from members of Parliament on the basis of Government security classification. I had an email exchange last night with a journalist—a member of the press gallery—that was blocked and I was not able to send it because the document that I was attaching which I had obtained under the Official Information Act had previously had a Government security classification on it. This is a very serious matter because it does not actually matter how I came to hold the document; the fact that the Parliamentary Service is monitoring the emails coming to and from the email addresses of members of Parliament is completely unacceptable. It is clearly a breach of privilege and I ask that you investigate that matter with some urgency and ensure that that situation is immediately dealt with.
Motions — Fiji—Detention of Opposition Party Leaders Academics and Union Representatives
Davidson MaramaFiji—Detention of Opposition Party Leaders Academics and Union RepresentativesMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate expressing concern at the detention of Opposition party leaders academics and union representatives in Fiji.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.MARAMA DAVIDSON: I move That this House express its concern at the detention of Opposition party leaders academics and union representatives in Fiji over the weekend noting that their alleged offence was to have held a public meeting about Fiji's constitution without a police permit and express support for the efforts of Fijian citizens to exercise their right to freedom of expression and assembly.Motion agreed to.
Motions — North Korea—Nuclear Testing
Reti ShaneMOTIONSNorth Korea—Nuclear TestingDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate regarding the recent nuclear tests conducted by North Korea.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Dr SHANE RETI: I move That this House condemn the recent nuclear tests conducted by North Korea in clear defiance of the United Nations Security Council and that all efforts be made to bring North Korea back to the disarmament table.Motion agreed to.
Obituaries — Edward Gale Latter
Carter DavidTUESDAY 13 SEPTEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.OBITUARIESEdward Gale LatterMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I regret to inform the House of the death on 29 August 2016 of Edward Gale Latter MBE ED who represented the Marlborough electorate from 1975 to 1978. 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 that members 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.
Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): It will be tonight.EUGENIE SAGE: Yes. The Green Party as my colleague Steffan Browning explained does not support this bill and that is largely because we think the Government through the bill is interfering in the market to actually benefit the big multinational companies. We think that the balance is weighted too heavily in their favour and too far against the public's interest in what is in these agricultural compounds what the active ingredients are and what their impacts are on crops on animals and on human health.The Primary Production Committee in terms of the changes that it has made has actually worsened the bill by increasing the period for which the information must be maintained in confidence by the Ministry for Primary Industries. We have got some information that has come through in terms of the Covec report but there is not the solid information that actually justifies—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret interrupting the member. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption on the next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 20 September 2016.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a great committee to work on the Primary Production Committee. Having a bill like the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill we really got our teeth into it—no pun intended—and we had a lot of good evidence that came before the committee. It was fantastic.I think the heart of this bill is about protection of data and I guess the only crunch point that came—particularly with the Green member of the committee—was around the length of the data protection. I think that that is obvious in the report back to the House. I think certainly from my own practical point of view that where you have a chemical which I have seen like a fungicide that is commonly used in cereal production and was registered in New Zealand for that use to be able to use that in horticulture and viticulture a company needs to do the work behind the scenes—do all the research get all the data—around making a label claim. You cannot use it until it has a label claim for a particular crop and that costs a lot of money.I have seen the trial work in the field. It is a lot of work out there it is hard work and all of that data and the costs associated with that—companies simply will not do the work if they will not get a return on that investment. As it stood in the past if they did not have an adequate period of time as has already been alluded to the size of the market dictates that they just will not make enough money to recoup that investment so they simply will not do it. The same thing goes for veterinary medicines. So a medicine or compound that could be used for a particular ailment or condition in an animal—they may not necessarily want to claim for another animal but they would need to have trial work done for it using either a slightly different formulation or for a different condition which would need different doses and so on. All that work costs a lot of money.I think the bill has covered all of that but during our select committee work we expanded what was in the bill. We have gone back and recommended an extension on periods due to the evidence that came back to that select committee and it was really quite heartening to hear from the industry. As I say it was not unanimous on those particular points—the length of time—but very important none the less.I also want to talk about reassessments for data protection. There was no existing protection for data when products were being reassessed and that can happen from time to time so we recommended extending that to be covered in section 29(3) amended by clause 4A and section 30 amended by clause 4B. We are taking that out to 5 years—once again the evidence was that that data costs a lot of money to be collected and it deserves some protection under the Act. We also amended section 74A(1)(a) in clause 6 to clarify confidential information because as it stood under the Act there was some room for doubt that the director-general could disclose confidential data to Ministry of Primary Industries officials. I think this is a fantastic bill and I really commend it to the House.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): It has been an interesting debate this afternoon as I have been listening to members on the other side of the House coming up with all the reasons why this bill should not go forward. Actually a couple of them might have had a small point but in singling out organisations that they think would not benefit from this they very conveniently forget that just about all the ones they have mentioned I think are ones that the Minister has already said will likely be exempt from this. Those members have conveniently left out those organisations that absolutely are commercial operations. They are private businesses that at the moment have free access to get police vetting done and there is only a private benefit and yet the taxpayers are in effect subsidising those private companies to get information that they have chosen to use for their employees.For that reason I believe that this legislation is appropriate. It is not about a carte blanche approach where we are going to charge for all police services as the previous speaker Su'a William Sio alluded to and did some scaremongering on. This is a sensible approach to ensure that the taxpayers of New Zealand are not subsidising or cross-subsidising private business in this way and therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am not on the Law and Order Committee so it is a real privilege for me to be able to take this call to support the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill in its second reading. Sitting here I have heard contributions from various parties—the Green Party the New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party. I have to say that it is really appalling to see that they are not supporting this bill that is to support our police force.Our police officers work really hard. They do a lot more than they are required to do for law and order maintenance. We know that there are various work fields that require police clearance for their people to be employed in that industry—for example people working with young children people working with the elderly and people carrying passengers and there are so many other industries that require a police clearance for people before they are employed in that industry. These kinds of requests for a police clearance can be made on an individual basis and this is above and beyond the role that we want our police force to focus on which is law and order. When I say law and order I mean preventing reducing and resolving crime. It also of course involves investigations and prosecutions.This bill is the right move because it will provide the ability for our police force to recover the cost of such services. This will also shift the cost from a taxpayer-funded service to an individually paid service because as we have heard it is the individual who requests a police clearance who is actually going to benefit from that police clearance. This is about making our police force more effective. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House.
Young Jonathan; Tisch LindsayJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am pleased to stand in support of this Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill. It is notable that every jurisdiction in Australia has this same provision. They face similar situations to those that we do and yet we do not have this provision. We hear all the time the criticisms across the House that police need further resources; this is one measure in which those resources can be increased. We are requiring greater levels of service from the New Zealand Police and every dollar that is spent on fulfilling these requirements is taken away from front-line spending. What we are doing in this quite complex age when we have to place all sorts of measures and requirement upon safety and security and requirements for vetting is putting this measure into place.There have been concerns right through our committee hearings from charitable organisations that they do not have the capacity to absorb these costs. It is good to hear that the Minister of Police has responded to those concerns and has signalled her intention to progress a waiver through regulations for registered charities. I would say that that was the greatest objection we heard from submitters—around the cost absorption that they were required to do so there is the response that has come through on that.It is also worthy of note that there are many commercial activities and events in our communities that request the services of police. Why is it that a commercial activity that in terms of the success of its event can request the police and by and large they are always very very willing to assist those organisations and those events that make a profit—why can the police not recover some of their costs? I think that is a reasonable proposition. What this bill does is enable some of that to be done. So it is very good to see that we are having a robust debate and I am very happy to support this bill at this stage. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Marama Davidson—5 minutes.
McKelvie IanPOLICING (COST RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 13 September.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I am happy to just pick up for a couple of minutes where I left off earlier in the week and to add a little bit more on this topic. Firstly the bill sets out clearly—and some significant discussion was had—what these charges in the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill apply to. The charges apply to demand services and a demand service is described as a service that is provided only on the request to an individual or organisation … and is of direct benefit to that individual or organisation …".During the course of the select committee discussion on this bill there was a lot of discussion on this very topic and I think some nervousness initially as to what that might extend to. I think as we progressed the discussion on that we got to a position where most members on the select committee were comfortable with what that would apply to. For the purposes of this debate the discussion related to what is known as police vetting. There was a lot of discussion as to who might use that and as I said earlier in my contribution on this the Minister of Police has now signalled strongly that our charitable organisations will not be subject to those charges which I think was also quite a significant relief to the select committee and to many of those charitable organisations. The fact that in overseas jurisdictions this service is almost always paid for—and I accept that that is no reason for us to implement this in New Zealand—did give us some satisfaction that at least we were in territory that was justifiable.It also proposed that the charge be a charge of about $7 per police vet check. When you compare that with the charge in Australia which is some $52 it is significantly different. This charge will bring in about $2 million to the police which will enable them to supply a significantly better police vetting service and I think again that is a pretty important factor for many organisations that use that service. They need to have confidence that the service is sound and will provide them with the information and the surety they require when they are getting those police vetting checks.The discussion then moved to how broad an application these charges may be allowed to have. I said earlier that there was some discussion of what a demand service was. Again the select committee moved to tighten the primary definition of a demand service as concern was again expressed both by members of the committee and the submitters as to what these may pertain to. So I think having got through those two or three pretty important points the select committee was comfortable enough with where this bill had got to. As I said I was pleased with the decision to waive the charge on charitable organisations and so after some early concerns I am pleased to be able to support this bill as it moves through the House and becomes law. Thank you."
Land Transport Amendment Bill — First Reading
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for this opportunity to take this call to support the Land Transport Amendment Bill in its first reading. I have to say that it is good to see the support to take this bill to the next step which is the select committee process. I want to clarify to the Opposition that this bill is not about police numbers. This bill is about enhancing passenger safety. This bill is about allowing flexibility in the small passenger service industry to adopt technology and this bill is also about fairness in competition. In the small passenger service industry we know that the traditional taxi industry has been advocating for a level playing field and this bill addresses that issue. Currently our rules for different operating models across the small passenger service industry are not consistent. The compliance requirements and restrictions on them vary a lot. This bill addresses that issue. This bill also brings in a requirement for small passenger service licences. So if commercial operators operate without that licence it will be an offence. We have heard about mandatory alcohol interlocks and yes the evidence shows that these interlocks work as an effective tool to reduce drink-driving. When people are drunk they cannot make sensible decisions so we want to use technology to reduce drink-driving and that will definitely help us reduce the road toll. Fare evasion is becoming a big problem and we need to address it so this bill addresses that problem by giving more powers to enforcement officers. We have also heard about people who flee the police. This bill sends a strong signal to people that not stopping when asked to stop by a police officer or an enforcement officer is going to be a serious offence. For that I want to acknowledge my colleague Stuart Smith for his contribution to this bill. Finally this bill is about updating heavy vehicle regulations and that is about fairness in that field. As I said before this is about bringing fairness into the competition that is in the transport industry. This is about bringing fairness into the small passenger service industry. This is also about allowing the flexibility to adopt technology as we know that some small passenger service industries are adopting technology faster than others. I am looking forward to working on this bill in the select committee process. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.
Motions — Battle of the Somme—Centennial
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on this Land Transport Amendment Bill. I particularly want to focus on the provisions around fleeing police. I must actually acknowledge the thanks that the Associate Minister of Transport gave for my strong advocacy which actually took the form of a member's bill. I am not the person really who deserves the credit for that because I have a really strong policy group in the Kaikōura National Party branch. It was fantastic to have particularly Joe Sim who is a former policeman who comes up with some fantastic policy ideas. He came along and said: Do you know what? One thing police would really like would be stronger provisions around fleeing police." So we did a lot of work on that. We developed a member's bill and lo and behold it ended up as part of a Government bill.I think that is a fantastic result. It could have languished as one of my colleagues said in the biscuit tin for quite some time but it is actually going through the House now. I think that is a great result for everyone.I think actually it really speaks to what is the essence of politics which is getting into the grassroots which is something that is just really in the DNA of the National Party. It is part of the actual fabric of society particularly because we are made up I guess of so many electorate MPs—my fine colleagues. We are right in amongst the people talking to them all the time and finding out what it is that actually matters and fleeing police matters. It matters to the enforcement which we heard a lot of rhetoric just before about—in fact we would never let the facts get in the way of a good story in that particular speech. It was really a ramble about making a difference in enforcement and this will make a big difference in enforcement but not a word about it from the other side.So I think this is a great provision in the bill. I really take my hat off to the Minister of Transport for including this in the bill. I think it is a great step forward. I think our members' bills are really focusing on the things that matter. I am really pleased. I have got more in the pipeline. Some of them will probably end up as part of other Ministers' bills as well and I think that is fantastic. So it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Mark RonMOTIONSBattle of the Somme—CentenaryRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on the centennial of the New Zealand Division's arrival on the Somme which falls today.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection for that course of action being followed? There is no objection.RON MARK: I move That this House marks with reverence the centennial today of the New Zealand Division going over the top during the Battle of the Somme.Motion agreed to.
Finlayson ChristopherTHURSDAY 15 SEPTEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Leader of the House: When the House resumes on Tuesday 20 September the Government will look to complete the first reading of the Statutes Repeal Bill the third reading of the Evidence Amendment Bill and progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday will be a members' day.
Mallard Trevor: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Mark Ron: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Wall Louisa: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Dean Jacqui: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Sio William: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Tabuteau Fletcher: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Collins Judith: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Davidson Marama: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Finlayson Christopher: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Twyford Phil: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Carter David: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Brownlee Gerry: General DebateDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — New Zealand Defence—Release of White PaperDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Urgent Debates Declined — Defence Force—Defence White Paper 2016Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — Defence Force—Defence White Paper 2016[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11789. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedDefence Force—Defence White Paper 2016Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the release of the New Zealand defence white paper today. The release of the paper is a particular case of recent occurrence and involving ministerial responsibility. The more difficult test is whether the release of the white paper requires the urgent attention of the House and whether there are other parliamentary means of debating the subject. The white paper sets out a 15-year spending plan. Select committees are currently carrying out the examination of estimates and they will subsequently be debated in this House. This provides an opportunity to debate the Government spending in relation to defence. Given the duration of the plan set out in the white paper there will also be ample ongoing opportunities to scrutinise it. I am not convinced that the release of the white paper has such an element of urgency that it warrants the setting aside of the normal business of the House. The application is therefore declined.
Bayly Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Nash Stuart: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Hudson Brett: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Twyford Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Hague Kevin: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Dean Jacqui: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Robertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Mark Ron: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Mitchell Mark: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Little Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Bishop Chris: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8900. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129 and the following amendment in the name of Michael Woodhouse to clause 2 be agreed to:in clause 2(30) replace “ 263” with “and”; anddelete “ and 265”.Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14;New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129 in the name of the Hon Todd McClay and the following tabled amendment in his name to Part 4 be agreed to:in clause 260B(2) replace “After section HH 4(7) insert:” with “Replace section HH 4(7B) and (7C) with:”.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 4 be agreed to:insert the following new clause:254B New Section 60C inserted (Unit title bodies corporate)After section 60B insert:60C Unit title bodies corporateTo the extent to which a supply of goods or services made to a unit title body corporate is used in the course of making a supply under a power or duty of the unit title body corporate as set out in section 84 of the Unit Titles Act 2010 the supply is treated as made—to the persons who are owners of the units and common property administered by the body corporate; andin proportion to each unit owner’s ownership interest in the unit title body corporate.For the purposes of this section common property owner ownership interest and unit have the meanings given in section 5 of the Unit Titles Act 2010.Subsection (1) applies for supplies made on or after 1 October 2011 and before April 2016.