edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Little Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5141. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she stand by her statement that recent appointments to the board of ACC “underline the Government’s commitment to genuine culture change and will lead to a more balanced and comprehensive approach to the governance and operation of ACC”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. 
Andrew Little 
: What culture change is she expecting from the appointment of Trevor Janes who was a director of Capital and Merchant Finance in August 2006 when the board of that company signed off a prospectus so fraudulent that three other directors were recently sentenced to the harshest jail terms ever in New Zealand for corporate fraud as a result and over which Mr Janes took no action in the form of whistle-blowing or other protection of investors’ interests and merely resigned after the damage was done? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Janes has had nothing to do with the matters that have been before the court as that member well knows. 
Andrew Little 
: In light of the New Zealand Institute of Directors’ practice note No. 4 dated 7 September 2012 entitled “Lessons learned from the ‘hands-off’ approach to governance” and containing the advice “A director must not abdicate responsibility” and the further advice that directors have a high level of responsibility “not only about what they know but about what they ought reasonably to have known.” will she reconsider Mr Janes’ appointment? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Certainly not. 
Andrew Little 
: I seek leave to table practice note No. 4 from the New Zealand Institute of Directors on the matter just referred to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Chauvel Charles: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5194. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the tribute that the Minister of Justice just paid to front-line emergency workers. I think it is certainly one that I would want to associate myself with. The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill as originally drafted as she noted would have expressly provided that an assault on a police officer or corrections officer would have to be taken into account as an expressly aggravating factor by a sentencing judge in the act of sentencing. 
I proposed a Supplementary Order Paper that recognised that just as police and corrections officers do a job where they have no choice about putting themselves on to the front line and into positions of danger and do that job admirably and in a way that society ought to always remember with gratitude emergency front-line responders in the health system are required to go to accidents and firefighters have a similar duty. They are not given the option of saying “Well no I’m not going to go to that call out; I’m not going to attend that fire.” They also serve without choice under the terms of their engagement in difficult situations and they ought to have the same recognition for that as others who in their professional circumstances are in the same position. So I am pleased that the Government is supporting Supplementary Order Paper 14 in my name which will extend that recognition to emergency front-line medical responders and to those in the Fire Service be they volunteers or otherwise. 
This legislation expands on an existing provision in the Sentencing Act. The legislation already provides that the judge is to take into account any aggravating or mitigating factor that the judge thinks fit in addition to the specific factors listed in section 9 already. I see no harm in making express that one of those aggravating factors ought to be an assault on a person whose job gives them no choice as to whether they put themselves into harm’s way. That is the basis upon which the Labour Opposition associates itself with and supports this legislation. In doing so we accept that the evidence is mixed on whether sentencing actually has much of deterrent effect. The jury as it were is still out on that question. But it seems to us that there is no harm associated with a measure that confers the recognition that this legislation does and so I am pleased to commend this bill to the House on its third reading.
Tisch Lindsay: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Patents Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: All right. [ 
Interruption 
] No we know what it is. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] There is objection? [ 
Interruption 
] There is objection.
Horan Brendan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Horan Brendan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5209. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What reports or advice has he received regarding the feasibility of establishing an inter-island ferry terminal at Clifford Bay? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Transport: In July 2011 the Minister’s predecessor received an independent report that found that there may be a financial and economic case for progressing Clifford Bay. The Minister received an interim briefing on 4 May 2012. The Minister received a further interim briefing and a draft business case on 1 June 2012. On 30 August 2012 the Minister received another briefing from the Ministry of Transport together with a detailed business case. These documents are under active consideration and the Minister has asked for further work to be undertaken. 
Brendan Horan 
: Given the potential impact of the Clifford Bay development on the livelihood of people in the Marlborough region and its importance to the national transport infrastructure why is the public not being regularly and fully informed of developments in this project? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well I think the public are being informed with the amount of information that they are getting at this point but there are some commercially sensitive issues that are under consideration. Information will be released unless it is subject to control under the Official Information Act because of that commercial sensitivity and a lot of consultation is taking place. 
Brendan Horan 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can the Minister claim commercial sensitivity when on 10— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the member but—the member will resume his seat—he cannot by way of a point of order question why the Minister says something. He can certainly raise it with the Speaker if he feels the question has not been answered but the Minister did answer it. He said that there were limits on the amount of consultation because of commercial sensitivity. That cannot be challenged by way of a point of order. 
Brendan Horan 
: Are there any foreign interests involved in the proposed project; if so when will the public be informed? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am not aware of that issue.
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5136. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What progress has been made on the new prison to be built at Wiri? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yesterday a contract was finalised allowing the Secure Future Consortium to design build operate and maintain the new 960-bed public-private partnership prison at Wiri. The new prison will deliver value for taxpayers and support the Government in reaching the target of a 25 percent reduction in reoffending by 2017. The 25-year contract is worth approximately $840 million which is 17 percent less than if the prison was procured through conventional means representing a $170 million saving for taxpayers. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What impact will the construction of the new prison have on the Greater Auckland economy? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The new prison will provide a huge boost to the Auckland economy. This is a very significant infrastructure project that will see up to a thousand workers involved in the construction of the prison over the next 2 years and the ongoing running of the prison will create about 300 permanent jobs. In addition the prison’s ongoing maintenance and management will inject millions of dollars into the Greater Auckland economy every year.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5136. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What consultation took place between her and ACC or between her predecessor and ACC over ACC becoming a member of the consortium that bid successfully to build New Zealand’s first public-private partnership prison at Wiri? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 There was no consultation between me and ACC over this investment decision. I checked with ACC and with my predecessor and I am advised that there was no consultation between Dr Nick Smith and ACC over the decision. However Dr Smith was notified prior to the announcement of the decision by ACC on a no-surprises basis of ACC’s decision. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is she concerned about the risks to ACC’s investment in Wiri given the widespread opposition to the private operation of prisons amongst the public and across at least half the political parties represented in this House? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is she aware specifically or generally of the terms of the contract between the Department of Corrections and the consortium; if so how; and if not how can she be so confident about ACC’s risk position? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No I do not have those details. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does she have a view in light of reports that the contract is worth nearly $1 billion and of a duration of over 30 years on the appropriateness given the extent of public investment in the consortium of keeping most of its terms secret from the New Zealand public? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well I do not think that is really a matter for ACC. But I would say that I thought that that member was actually in favour of Government investment in infrastructure such as prisons and I would have thought that ACC was clearly one of those Government investors.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5135. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Science and Innovation 
: What new investment is the Government making in innovation and high-value manufacturing? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 Today I announced that 31 projects at universities Crown research institutes and private research organisations have been awarded research grants in the high-value manufacturing sector. The 31 projects range from medical technologies like early cancer detection to nanotechnology insulation and cryogenic refrigeration. The $92 million for the projects over 6 years is the second tranche of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s 2012 science investment round and follows the $133 million in science research grants that I announced last month. 
David Bennett 
: What other investment has the Government made to encourage innovation and high-value manufacturing? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The research grant funding announced today is in addition to the $115 million the Government has invested this year in research and development co-funding for business. In addition to that in July the Prime Minister and I announced the establishment of the Advanced Technology Institute which will be named after the late Sir Paul Callaghan. The Advanced Technology Institute will be a one-stop shop to help hi-tech and high-value manufacturing firms become more competitive and get New Zealand’s best ideas out of the lab and into the market place faster. Legislation to establish the Advanced Technology Institute was tabled in the House this week and we are hoping it will receive its first reading shortly.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5122. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Speaking very briefly to that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear very briefly further from the honourable shadow Leader of the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are two points. The first is that it is well established in the Speakers’ rulings that the absence of a Minister is not the reason for the transfer. It is a matter of responsibility not presence and therefore I think part of the response from the Leader of the House fails. But if it was a matter of having a Minister who might be more informed than the person currently acting for the Prime Minister in responding to the question but keeping the question the same it is always an option for the Government to have in the absence of the Prime Minister another Minister actually answer on his behalf. That might have been the logical and fair thing to do.
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5124. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 In light of your decision regarding that question Mr Speaker I am now faced with a question that is very very different from the one I actually began with. My feeling therefore is that if I am not able to ask the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister the question I originally intended and to hold him to account I respectfully withdraw my question.
Banks John: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Banks John: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5124. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Minister for Regulatory Reform) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I can make an observation about these matters because I was here and Phil Goff was here in 1981 and I know that over recent years these Standing Orders and procedural matters around question time have been changed—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It is a point of order. 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: But the point I make is this: question time in this House is now for interested observers like myself and the public that sit here every day listening a shambles. It does the Parliament no good— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: —and I suggest— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Order! It is not a point of order. It is not a point of order to go down that track.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5123. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member is saying but the obvious problem in the argument being put forward is that one assumes that members are actually interested in the substance of the issues—one assumes that. As soon as the questioner gets into the substance of the issue the Prime Minister is absolutely at liberty to say that the member should put down a question to the relevant Minister. That has happened and it has caused points of order to be raised in recent weeks on that very issue because it was alleged that the Prime Minister had not answered the question. The Prime Minister is absolutely at liberty to make the point that if members want detailed information on a particular issue the question should be referred to that Minister. The Government is absolutely entitled to transfer questions unless the Prime Minister or the Minister to whom the question is addressed is the only person who could possibly have information of significance. Opinions about whether people stand by certain statements are hardly matters that reach that test in my view. It is only in recent years that questions have been allowed to cover opinions and I am not about to see the bar raised on opinions to a situation where questions that seek opinions cannot be transferred. Disallowing the transferral of a question must be restricted only to issues of real significance where the Prime Minister or the Minister to whom the question is being addressed is the only person who could possibly have that information.
Hipkins Chris: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5123. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you just two issues. The first is just to touch on the last point you made which is that I think it is unreasonable for the Government to transfer a question based on where it thinks the Opposition is likely to be going with the question rather than on where the primary question itself goes. The primary question in this case was quite specific to the Prime Minister’s comments on a particular issue. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: And all his Ministers. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well it is a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Chris Hipkins. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: So the issue we have is that I think the public quite rightly expect the Leader of the Opposition to be asking the Prime Minister questions about his comments on a whole range of issues. And where the Prime Minister refuses to answer the question by transferring it to another member the public rightly will think that Parliament is becoming a farce. It is not unreasonable to expect that the Prime Minister will be answering questions from the Leader of the Opposition about comments he has made in public.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Transfer of Questions 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5122. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think two things are relevant here. Firstly the question was to do with Reading Recovery and with comments by other Ministers as well. Secondly we do not abuse the process and I reject completely the suggestion by the shadow Leader of the House that we do. Transferring the question to the Minister of Education particularly on a day when it is plain and evident to everybody that the Prime Minister himself is not in the country let alone in the House would have given a better opportunity for the information that the Opposition clearly wanted around Reading Recovery to be properly discussed. The questions never stop with just the question: “Do you stand by all your statements? Yes I do; end of the question.” They do not. They carry on through the supplementary question process where further information is sought presumably and usually about the issue that is identified as part of that question. In transferring the question to the Minister we were simply wanting to create an opportunity for more information to be more authoritatively given to the House. 
But what I would say also is that the question that now appears on the Order Paper is I think a little on the tough side. I can see now how we got to this because both parties would appear to be somewhat unhappy about the question. But I think rather than going into the merits of the question and how we got there I would like to just leave my contribution strongly at the fact that we are not trying to frustrate the process at all. 
You have been very very strong over the past few years—the last 4 years—in requiring Ministers to answer questions and to provide information to the House. You have pulled many of us up including me for not giving enough information. That is a consideration that we always have in mind when we look at whether or not a question should be transferred. In this circumstance with Mr Mallard’s own comments that no other Minister could know what was on the mind of the Prime Minister it seems somewhat ridiculous to be suggesting that the transfer was inappropriate when in fact the information itself could never be directly solicited.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5124. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is entitled to do that. Question No. 2 Dr Russel Norman. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I have called Dr Russel Norman. [ 
Interruption 
] Now look. This nonsense will stop. I have acknowledged that we have an issue here and I think it is worth giving further attention to this issue. I have suggested a way forward on this issue. But I have now called Dr Russel Norman for question No. 2.
Tisch Lindsay: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5206. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Members this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Party vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well OK a party vote is called for. I will ask the Clerk to do a party vote. The member must vote against it at the time. There was no one who voted against it at the time. That is why I said that the Ayes had it. Is the member wishing to cast a party vote? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: And the member is voting against this bill? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Mr Speaker I am exercising a proxy vote on behalf of the Mana Party which is voting against it.
O'Connor Simon: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Simon: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5119. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Look the heart of this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is about efficiency in transport and I can think of no better way to honour that than by supporting the bill and asking that it go to a vote.
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5117. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.
Simpson Scott: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Simpson Scott: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5116. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In electorates like mine in the Coromandel we like roads. Unlike the Greens we like roads because we need roads. Roads are what provide us with the wealth and the productivity efficiency that we need in our provincial and rural electorates around the countryside. The National Government is committed to making a brighter future for all New Zealanders and we do that partly by building a strong bold big bright infrastructural network around the country that involves roads. 
I want to commend my colleague David Bennett who happens to be chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which will shortly consider this very good bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill for his passionate advocacy on behalf of the Waikato Expressway. What a good local MP he is. What a good local MP he is that David Bennett. He spoke so vigorously so passionately about the benefits that the Waikato Expressway will bring unlike the Green member Julie Anne Genter who seemed to want to create for us a nirvana of a Green-inspired vision of the world that sounded to me something akin to the Amish state of the South Seas. It was going to be an Amish society without the Bibles however but one where we were on horses and carts with those red safety triangles on the back of the little buggies. That is what we would be driving around on on our unsealed pathways around New Zealand if Julie Anne Genter and the Greens have their way. 
So this is a wonderful piece of legislation and the second good piece of legislation that has been introduced tonight under the name of Gerry Brownlee. It is about growing a better future a better infrastructure for New Zealand. I rise to support the bill. I commend this bill to the House and I am looking forward to participating in the debate at the select committee.
Ross Jami-Lee: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ross Jami-Lee: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document from the International Maritime Organization showing the bunker oil convention was adopted on 23 March 2001.
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a split call? [ 
Interruption 
] Split call—a 5-minute call.
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none. It shall be tabled. 






Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. That is not a point of order. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Don’t yell. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well I need to make myself heard. If members do not sit immediately they are at dire risk of getting some further action against them. The next call I think is a split call is it?
Horan Brendan: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Horan Brendan: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought he was supposed to be speaking—
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Are you seeking a call? Denise Roche. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member should proceed. [ 
Interruption 
] Order!
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5119. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
Dyson Ruth: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5094. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I want to begin by praising the Hon Gerry Brownlee the Minister responsible for this legislation the Marine Legislation Bill. I say that it is an absolute pleasure for me to be standing in this House and supporting it.
Mallard Trevor: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5080. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am getting to my feet only to check with my colleague who is the chair of the Regulations Review Committee whether the restricted date is one that has been the subject of discussion and agreement. If he nods then I will sit down. I am sure the debate at that stage will be concluded otherwise I will keep going. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Having paid close attention to my speech you obviously— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I apologise to the member. I was drawn away to the Speaker’s office at the Business Committee. It is clear therefore from either the nodding or the shaking that we are going to vote one way or the other on this. 
Motion agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5080. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Williamson Maurice: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williamson Maurice: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5080. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be reported to the House on or before 5 November 2012.
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5050. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
However there can be only one such debate on any one day. The Standing Orders provide that in these circumstances the Speaker must determine which is the most urgent and important. I have concluded given the more immediate significance of the Government’s decision to delay the sale of shares in Mighty River Power that it should have priority.
Genter Julie Anne: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5076. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I rise to take a very very short call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill because I would really like to acknowledge the contributions made by Mr Chauvel and the Hon Lianne Dalziel and even Mike Sabin who all rightly pointed out that there are some real issues around the process and whether or not it is really the best use of taxpayers’ money that Parliament spend a considerable amount of time debating what are just technical amendments. 
As the Green Party has looked in depth at the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill and found nothing particularly controversial about it we are happy to support its referral to the Regulations Review Committee. We would be happy to see an improved process by which the House does not need to debate every single time there needs to be a CPI increase in various things whether that is the duties on alcohol or tobacco or whether it is New Zealand superannuation payments. I do think it would be a much better use of our time to talk about some of the substantive policy issues that unfortunately do not come before this House for scrutiny—like for example the decision to spend billions of dollars on uneconomic motorways or the funding freeze on Radio New Zealand whose budget has not been updated to take into account increases to the CPI and is thus actually effectively a cut to something that is a fundamental and substantive issue that is important to New Zealanders. 
I think that I do not need to restate all the excellent points already raised by the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel so I will not take up the time of the House any further. I am looking forward to the debates on other legislation that is coming up today. Thank you. We commend this bill to the House.
Roy Eric: Urgent Debates — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Delay of Mighty River Power Sale 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Urgent Debates — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Delay of Mighty River Power Sale 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5062. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member cannot move an extension of time.
Roy Eric: Urgent Debates — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Delay of Mighty River Power Sale 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Urgent Debates — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Delay of Mighty River Power Sale 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5061. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The next four calls are 5-minute calls.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Delay of Mighty River Power Sale 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Delay of Mighty River Power Sale 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5050. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I therefore call on the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5050. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Legislation has now been introduced to implement the Government’s decision to extend the Canterbury Regional Council’s governance arrangement and special water management decision-making powers. Consideration of this bill will provide an opportunity to debate the timing of the next election for Environment Canterbury.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Environment Canterbury—Regional Council Elections 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Environment Canterbury—Regional Council Elections 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5050. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate the announcement made by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government that the election for Environment Canterbury will not occur until 2016 with a review occurring in 2014. These are both particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. I would have been inclined to accept either one of them.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Delay of Mighty River Power Sale 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Delay of Mighty River Power Sale 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5049. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate the Government’s decision to delay the initial public offering of up to 49 percent of Mighty River Power until March-June 2013.
Dyson Ruth: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I did not want to interrupt either of the following speakers. I seek leave to table the sheet from the website of the International Maritime Organization showing that the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage came into force on 21 November 2008.
McKelvie Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McKelvie Ian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5047. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What progress has been made in preparing for the 2013 Census? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 There is very good news for the House on this front. Following the cancellation of the census last year because of the earthquake I am happy to tell the House that we are now less than 6 months away from the next census which will be held on 5 March 2013. Statistics New Zealand has begun recruiting 440 district supervisors across the country and in total around 7500 census staff will be recruited across New Zealand—about 7500 census staff will be recruited. They will be gathering information from the estimated 4.6 million people in approximately 1.8 million households. The good news—and this is fantastic news—is that this time we are expecting a very very large percentage of all census forms to be filled out online using the internet. 
Ian McKelvie 
: What is being done to ensure that census information is available for decisions on electoral boundaries before the 2014 election? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well again I know there will be huge interest across the House on this. Statistics New Zealand has been working very closely with the Electoral Commission and Land Information New Zealand and as a result we have an agreed detailed time line for the 2013 year covering the Representation Commission process. I am pleased to inform the House that this work means that the Government Statistician will be in a position to announce the number of general and Maori electorates for the 2014 and 2017 elections in early October 2013.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5044. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 To the Minister for Economic Development—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have just in one breath admonished members of the Labour Party for making unnecessary interjection before a Minister had opened her mouth. Now I have called a member to ask a question and the National Party is interjecting before he has even started to ask his question. That is not courteous.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5044. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What progress has been made to deter smuggling of our threatened species? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Given that this week is Conservation Week I am very pleased to inform the House that Cabinet has agreed to tough new penalties for those who are caught poaching or smuggling our native wildlife. The changes will increase the maximum penalty for smuggling native animals such as tuatara parrots and geckos from 6 months’ imprisonment or a $100000 fine to 5 years’ imprisonment and a $300000 fine. These new penalties will send a clear message to smugglers that taking our precious wildlife will not be tolerated. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other steps will be taken to help protect our threatened species from poachers and smugglers? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Before I call the Minister it is absolutely unreasonable to start interjecting before the Minister has even opened her mouth to answer. It is totally unreasonable and discourteous. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: On top of increasing the fines and prison terms Department of Conservation rangers will be provided with additional enforcement powers to ensure that smugglers can be more successfully caught and prosecuted. All of these changes will take effect through an amendment to the Wildlife Act and I look forward to support from across the House for this bill once introduced.
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5038. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: What reports has he received regarding the performance of the tertiary education sector? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 On Thursday last week I released the 2011 tertiary education performance data. The information shows that the universities polytechnics wananga and private training establishments have once again improved their course and qualification completion rates as well as their student retention rates. Course completion rates across the tertiary sector have risen from 77 percent in 2009 to 82 percent in 2011 with qualification rates over the same period increasing from 62 percent to 71 percent. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What has the Government done to help the sector achieve these results? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has incentivised better performance by providers by introducing performance-linked funding based on educational performance indicators including course completions qualification completions progression to higher levels and retention. We have also published on the Tertiary Education Commission website the performance information for all providers for the benefit of students their families and other stakeholders. The Tertiary Education Commission has supported the focus on performance by taking a more active investment approach and withdrawing funding from poor-performing courses and also from short award courses that do not result in formal qualifications. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What information has he seen regarding the performance of Maori and Pasifika students in the tertiary education sector? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: A recent report by the Tertiary Education Commission highlighted that the results for Maori and Pasifika students have greatly improved. Particularly pleasing is the strong increase in Maori and Pasifika course and qualification completion rates which have increased more than the overall sector average. Maori course completion rates are up 9 percent from 2009 to 2011 and qualification rates are up 7 percent. Pasifika course completion rates are up 9 percent from 2009 to 2011 and qualification rates are also up 7 percent. There is still more work to do but this is very good progress.
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Marine Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none. 






Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Dunne Peter: Motions — 2012 Paralympic Games—Success of New Zealand Team 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Motions — 2012 Paralympic Games—Success of New Zealand Team 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5033. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I want to associate myself with the comments that others have made to congratulate our Paralympic team on its remarkable success at the London Paralympic Games. I imagine that many people felt that coming on the back of the successful Olympic Games it would be very difficult to firstly mount a level of interest in what would happen at the Paralympic Games and secondly to match what we thought was an extraordinary level of achievement by our able-bodied athletes in London. But in many senses our paralympians have surpassed them—not only Sophie Pascoe who must be probably our most successful Olympic athlete ever in terms of her medal success both here and in Beijing but also the team as a whole. This was a proud achievement by a committed and dedicated group of New Zealanders. 
I share the concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and others that it was just a pity we did not get to see very much of it on television. I sincerely hope that television bosses will take that lesson on board when it comes to covering the next Paralympic Games because these are athletes of high quality high dedication high commitment and high skills. It was comforting and I think almost flying in the face of the lack of coverage that New Zealanders as a whole embraced the team over the last couple of weeks. Despite the anonymity of what we were seeing we got to know about these athletes and their successes and encouraged them in their ongoing endeavours. 
My warmest congratulations to them. They have done their cause and our cause as a country extremely proud. I doubt there will ever be a team anywhere that will go away with such small numbers and come back with such a high proportion of medal success as our paralympians. 
Motion agreed to.