edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Carter David: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3701. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and no progress on the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. 
Report adopted.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3623. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by all her statements on class-size increases? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is it correct that the aide-mémoire dated 15 May entitled “Budget 2012: distribution of the impacts of staffing changes across schools” which she received the day before she announced the policy was in fact the first time she had seen a breakdown of how many schools would lose teachers under her class size policy? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can she confirm her statement in the Education and Science Committee in public session today that she did not receive any information about a change in student-teacher ratios prior to her becoming the Minister of Education and the first time she worked on this issue was in December 2011? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is she satisfied that she had properly considered the impacts of scrapping the technology teacher staffing; if so why did ministry officials advise her a week after her announcement and the day before the actual Budget that she may want to consider options to improve the implementation of this policy change? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes; and to the second part of the question they were operational refinements.
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: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3629. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
King Annette: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3646. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept that it may have been a standard way a certificate has been provided for a financial veto but I am asking you to look as to whether in fact we have been doing it appropriately in this House. Maybe it has never been brought to attention before but I do not believe it meets any of the Standing Orders including the ones you have just quoted Mr Chairman. It does not provide what the Standing Order asks it to provide. If it has been done like this in the past then in my view it has not been done correctly.
Yang Jian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Yang Jian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3620. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received the latest OECD report on public health spending trends over the past decade and how does New Zealand compare with the other 27 countries surveyed? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have seen the latest OECD report which shows that from 2000 to 2009 before the impact of the world economic crisis the OECD real average growth in health spending was nearly 5 percent and New Zealand’s was 6 percent. With the financial crisis hitting the world in the 2009-10 year the average increase in health spending for the OECD countries fell to zero with many including Norway Ireland Greece and Denmark actually cutting their public health spending. Despite the tight times this Government has been determined to protect and grow our public health service and as a result in the 2009-10 year the latest year for which comparative data is available I am pleased to advise that in total contrast to this dramatic reduction in average OECD spending New Zealand had a 3.4 percent increase in real health spending—the third-highest of the 27 countries. 
Dr Jian Yang 
: What does the OECD say about improved services New Zealand patients have got from the increased funding even though the funding increases are lower than during the boom times? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Across the OECD reductions in health spending have often translated into reductions in services for patients. Despite the tough economic times and the slowing of the rate of increase in health spending according to the latest OECD data New Zealand has had one of the largest increases in the number of patients being cared for or getting operations in our public hospitals. This stands in contrast to the position under the previous Government which doubled the health budget and in real terms fewer people got operations.
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3121. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Report adopted.
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3121. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the report be adopted. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. Party vote? The Clerk will conduct a party vote. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was no Aye vote for that at all. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well I heard an Aye and I am a little bit closer than you. I will conduct a party vote thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3120. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
.
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3103. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We move now to Part 2 which is the debate on clauses 12 to 18 and schedules 1 and 2.
Smith Lockwood: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3102. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. I was listening to the debate with some care actually because I was aware of the potential for concern in this matter. As I looked at the amendments myself—and I had not had the chance to see these because they were brought into the Committee reasonably late—I opened one in the middle of the bundle an amendment in the name of Andrew Little and it says “Subclause 7(1): Subclause 7(1) is amended by inserting the words ‘will amend’ after ‘This Section’ and omitting the word ‘amends’ ”. That is clearly not in keeping with the Speakers’ rulings of the House. That is trifling with words. It is not altering the meaning of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill at all. It is not an alternative form of words that actually have significance in relation to the bill. 
I have not had the time or the chance to go through all of these but I opened up another one and it related to omitting the word “its”. Amendments must propose a serious alternative form of words. As I say the first one I opened would replace “amends” with “will amend” and I think that is not a serious alterative form of words. Proposing amendments that simply seek to change the order of words in a particular clause or to substitute words with the same or very similar meaning—amendments that do not offer any significant change in the meaning of the provision—is simply not in order. That is why I feel that the Chair and the Clerk’s Office officials at the Table who have had the chance to go through all of these have not been unreasonable in coming to a conclusion that they do not offer any significant change to the meaning of the provisions. That is why it has been ruled as I understand it by the Chair that they are not in order and I would have to support that ruling. 
I just flick through the amendments to see what is here I open another one and it simply amends by inserting the word “rightful” after the words “insert in its” omitting the word “appropriate”. They are simply really playing with words and do not alter the meaning of the provisions and they are not in order because of that. That is why I think I have to support the ruling of the Chair. If I could find among them amendments that had significant impact I would look at it much more but I am unable to find any that have such meaning and that is why I think the Chair’s ruling has not been unreasonable. He allowed time. Believing he would be prepared to accept a closure motion shortly after the dinner break he allowed another 40 minutes and he and the officials went through each of these amendments. So his ruling was made after a period of some consideration. That is why I feel that the Chair’s decision is not an unreasonable one and I have to therefore rule accordingly. So I therefore declare the House in Committee for further consideration of the bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3102. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the previous ruling which is correctly relied on talks about the specificity of the amendments. Mr Mallard has made a case that they were very specifically put together as has Mr Hipkins but in reality where they do not actually lead you to simply understand what the intention is they cannot be precisely prescribed even if you went to Speaker’s ruling 115/4 which talks there about amendments or parts of amendments that are too vague being also out of order. Throughout this bundle of amendments there are references that can only be described as vague. There are also I think amendments that do what is proscribed here in the Speakers’ rulings and merely attempt to criticise the bill and therefore in fact start to deconstruct the bill. It is supposed to be a process that allows amendments to a bill for the betterment of the bill. I do not think that case can be made for some of the many many amendments that are here in front of us. I think the difficulty that this presents is that if we were to get into this sort of situation every Committee stage of every bill in the House would be an opportunity for the deconstruction of a bill and that was never the intention for the Committee stage of any bill’s consideration.
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I think the Chair has summarised the factual situation relatively well. The point that I would like to put in front of you and the difference I think the Opposition has with the Chair goes to whether or not the Opposition has the right to move amendments to bring a bill into line with the Legislation Advisory Committee’s recommendations for plain English drafting. It is my view that the Legislation Advisory Committee made—probably 5 or 6 years ago now; it might have even been longer ago—some excellent recommendations many of which have been taken on by parliamentary counsel but they all go in the end towards plain English drafting. If you would like to look at the amendment of Mr Little to clause 7(1) the amendment of Mr Chauvel to clause 8(1) or the amendment of Mr Twyford to clause 10 I think that what you will find in each of those cases—and I have pulled out just a sample from the amendments; members have been working on identifying this marginal drafting over quite a period now and have identified a large number of those—using those as examples I am not going to pretend that they change the direction of the bill but they could well make a significant difference in having a plain English interpretation which would be useful for the public at large and for the courts in the interpretation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Do other members of the House wish to draw any matters to my attention?
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Speaker the Committee has elected to call you to return to the Chamber to give some consideration to a ruling that I have given in regard to a number of amendments that were tabled in the Committee. Let me give some context to that event. You will recall that immediately after question time the House went into Committee. It has for the whole time been debating Part 1. When we returned after the dinner suspension we commenced to again debate Part 1. There had been some 48 calls at that point on the Mixed Ownership Model Bill. At 7.33 p.m. I received a bundle of amendments which I will table for you for your consideration. I was at that time of the mind to take a closure given the nature of the debate that had occurred and all of the considerations that one does take. However I delayed for about another 40 minutes while the Clerk at the Table and I gave consideration to these amendments. I also had the Table Office clerk considering the amendments that had been tabled. It is my view that these amendments are not serious amendments in that they have marginal changes to wording in my view or alter the structure of words or the phraseology—if that is a word—around the way in which the construction of the various clauses of the bill are laid out. Accordingly under Speaker’s ruling 115/5 I ruled that they do not substantially make a change to any portion of the bill and in that regard I ruled them out of order. The Committee has expressed some concern about that and has asked you to give a ruling.
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling on the admissibility of amendments that do not offer a serious alternative proposition. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3701. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Sittings of the House 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to be suspended a few minutes early in order that the next Government order of the day may commence tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. 
Sitting suspended from 9.54 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is my ruling that they do not offer a serious alternative to the words contained in the bill. Therefore I shall put Part 1.
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are you saying they are out of order or they are to be grouped? Are you saying that the Opposition cannot even offer a drafting amendment to a bill and get a vote on it? That would just be an absolute outrage. If you are ruling that—that where there is a realistic change a significant change albeit minor this Committee is not allowed to vote on it—that would be the first time that I have ever heard anything like that in the Committee. And doing it on this legislation makes it worse still.
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have made a ruling and I am standing by that ruling. The amendments that were tabled at 7.33 p.m. are out of order. The question is—
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. These amendments have been very carefully drafted. A lot of them make a lot more sense and in fact are better drafting. I do not think it is on for the Chair to say that drafting improvements are not serious alternatives. These amendments in each case—sometimes minor sometimes more significant—make a difference to the meaning. I now want to ask you whether in fact as you have looked at the amendments you have also looked at the Mixed Ownership Model Bill and seen the changes that occur for each of them.
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The questions will now be put. We have some amendments. Members I am guided by new Standing Order 303 particularly paragraph (4) which—
Hipkins Chris: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I just check that it was Speaker’s ruling 115/5 that you were referring to? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Correct. I think I have quoted that correctly. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Speaker’s ruling 115/5 talks about the need for amendments to be “drafted with some precision” and I think you will find that our amendments were drafted with some precision; “in a form of words that may be embodied in law.” and I think you will find they meet that criterion; “must offer a serious alternative form of words.” and I think you will find they meet that criterion— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No they do not. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: And “An amendment that is merely an attempt to criticise the provision will not be accepted.” Well they do not do that. So they meet the criteria.
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. I have certainly read them. I may well have skim read them but if the member would be aware I did extend the debate for quite a period of time not only to let me have a look at them but also to let the staff have a look at them and I am very confident in the ruling I have just made. Therefore the question is—
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want just to seek your assurance that you have read them and that that is your decision for each of those amendments.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3041. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How is the Voluntary Bonding Scheme improving health services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The number of doctors nurses and midwives around the country who have signed up to the scheme since 2009 to work in hard-to-staff communities and specialties is now at 1790 young people. The fourth intake opened on Friday and covers specialties including intensive care medicine and rural hospital medicine. I am advised that so far 278 graduates have had their applications for payments to cover student debt or other costs approved with another 460 yet to apply. The Voluntary Bonding Scheme is helping to protect and grow our public health services particularly in vulnerable communities in isolated areas. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What recent changes has the Government made to the scheme? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In line with our election commitment the Government has expanded the scheme to include radiation therapists and medical physicists as part of the drive to reduce waiting times for cancer patients and to grow and retain key health front-line staff. Radiation therapists and medical physicists are in demand worldwide and keeping these specialised staff in New Zealand is essential to providing better cancer services for New Zealanders.
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: At 7.33 p.m. a large number of amendments to Part 1 were lodged in the names of various members of the Labour Party. These amendments seek to alter words or the order of words contained in the part but make no substantive change to the meaning as required by Speaker’s ruling 115/5. Because they do not meet that standard they are ruled out of order.
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to clause 7 be agreed to.
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 54 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to clause 6 be agreed to.
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 66 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to.
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member is correct. Thank you for that. The member is correct. To précis it Standing Order 303(4) allows the grouping of a member’s amendments where it does not detract from the intent of the amendments. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to Part 1 be agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before you do that I think there is an obligation if the Minister is in the Chamber for him to be in the chair even while you are—
Hague Kevin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3047. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Will she return ACC to the pay-as-you-go funding model outlined in the Green Party’s ACC Rehabilitation Plan and emailed to her this morning and are there any points in the plan she will not consider implementing? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I have not yet considered the member’s ideas but whatever outcome we arrive at regarding funding will need to be affordable and responsible although no formal decision has yet been made on any changes to ACC’s funding model. This Government does not want to burden future generations of New Zealanders with the cost of injuries that occur today as well as the cost of their own injuries. 
Kevin Hague 
: Will she implement another point in the plan and ensure that medical assessments are undertaken by practitioners who are independent of the corporation something that was also recommended in the last major review of ACC undertaken by Judge Trapski in 1994? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: As I have stated before I have not yet had the opportunity to consider the member’s ideas but I am happy to look at them and to discuss them with him. 
Kevin Hague 
: Will she consider another point in the plan also recommended by Judge Trapski: introducing an ACC ombudsman who would investigate the abuses of process that have characterised the culture of disentitlement in ACC over the last couple of years? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: As I have said I have not had the opportunity yet to consider the member’s ideas but I am happy to discuss them with him. 
Kevin Hague 
: Will she also consider another point in the plan: auditing the service delivery model at the corporation against the five Woodhouse principles; and is she prepared to work with the Green Party on her review of ACC? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: As previously stated I have not had the opportunity yet to consider the member’s ideas but I am happy to discuss those with him.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3047. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: How will the Government’s welfare reforms currently before the House support young people on a collision course with the welfare system? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 We know that 90 percent of 16 and 17-year-olds who are not currently in education or training may end up on a benefit when they turn 18 years old. Right now that could be between 11000 and 14000 young people. Under the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill we will target services to these 16 and 17-year-olds connecting them with contracted youth providers and turning their lives round. It is a good message to all those children up there in the gallery watching us today to stay in school study hard and make sure that you have good opportunities when you are older. 
Melissa Lee 
: How will youth providers work with the target groups to ensure that these young people are placed and succeed in education training or work-based learning? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We will pay providers more to work with those who are higher risk. We will do this and prioritise this funding so providers do not go just for those who are easier to work with. We have seen past examples that when you have one price as a consequence everyone eschews working with those who are harder. What we will do is take information from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development we will combine it to actually put an assessment on who is more at risk and we will pay significantly more for them and less for those who we know do not need as much intensive support. 
Melissa Lee 
: How will these changes impact on these young people already on benefits and how will youth providers work with them? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have just in the last week chosen those providers that will be working with these young people. Just last week I was at the teen parent unit out in the Hutt. I must say that when I spoke to the girls and the young women there once they heard that they would be working with an organisation like Vibe—that actually they could have a bit less contact with Work and Income to be fair and have a provider that understands them has a more personal relationship with them and can help them work through what they need to know and how they can get the support around budgeting and parenting—they were quite thrilled to hear about that extra support that they would be getting from this Government.
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3046. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
8. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement with regard to the public-private partnership for the Hobsonville schools “you can be assured that the contract that we’ve signed today the taxpayer will be better off under this arrangement”? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. In relation to these schools the taxpayer will not face the risks nor costs such as those associated with leaky buildings or earthquake strengthening requirements. There is an upfront cost saving of 1.7 percent over the public sector comparator a total value of $111 million in the contract with Learning Infrastructure Partners. If Learning Infrastructure Partners does not meet its performance targets under the contract the cost to the taxpayer will be less. 
Chris Hipkins 
: What is the estimated saving in dollar terms from using a public-private partnership to build the Hobsonville school instead of using regular public sector processes? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: In notional terms I think the net present value was $111 million which is about $2 million less than the public sector comparator. The absolute notionals from memory are something like $125 million or $128 million. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How much has been spent over the last 2 years developing the business case for the Hobsonville schools project? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I do not have that answer to hand but the costs for the partners associated with this—of course those partners have to bear those costs themselves. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Is he aware that Budget 2011 documents show that the Government spent $3.5 million over the last 2 years simply to prepare that business case—significantly more than the $1.98 million saving the public-private partnership is supposed to produce? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: The member is correct on the savings under this particular model. The actual amount spent would be based on the general model for modelling potential public-private partnerships which we utilised in this example. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Has he informed the Prime Minister that the Hobsonville school public-private partnership will cost more than building the school using regular public sector processes and did the Prime Minister inform him of his previous commitment that if public-private partnerships “weren’t [cheaper] no Government would consider them.”? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: The model has been chosen because it is less than the public sector comparatively.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3045. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: Can he confirm that Mexico is now a full participant in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 Yes but the word “full” needs a little elaboration. New Zealand Australia the United States and the other existing members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership have been negotiating for about 2 years and it has been very important to ensure that bringing Mexico into this negotiation or any other country that wished to participate is not going to slow the process down. The House should be aware that there are intense discussions going on now around Canada and Japan. But I am confident given the discussions I have had in Mexico City Auckland and more recently Russia with the Mexican commerce Minister that Mexico’s participation will not slow the negotiation down and will add a great deal to it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: If the enlarged Trans-Pacific Partnership results in New Zealand having free access to the Mexican market what benefits are there likely to be for New Zealand? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: As with all trade agreements of this type assuming we can complete it successfully it is about jobs better-paid jobs and the need to borrow less money overseas. Mexico is a giant economy the 14th largest economy in the world. We sell already around half a billion dollars of exports and face very considerable barriers. So I would anticipate at the end of a successful negotiation many benefits to New Zealand. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why in his view has Mexico decided to take this step? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Because like Governments around the world including this Government it sees the pathway to improved jobs better incomes and above all growth through export-led growth. The growth story for all of us is in the Asia-Pacific and I am certain that that is the underlying calculation behind its decision.
Joyce Steven: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 2 to Minister 14 June 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Joyce Steven: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 2 to Minister 14 June 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3035. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I seek leave under Standing Order 354 to make a personal explanation to correct a reply I gave to a supplementary question in the House last Thursday in respect of the proposed international convention centre. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: During oral question No. 2 on Thursday 14 June I was asked what advice I had received on the financial or legal impact on any deals signed with Skycity should the Auditor-General find issues with the Government’s expression of interest process. Although my answer was correct in that I had not sought advice on the legal or financial impact on any deal from the Auditor-General’s process I had obtained advice on any impact of the Auditor-General’s process on ongoing negotiations. That advice did at one point address a situation should an agreement already be signed. I am therefore taking this first opportunity to correct my answer in the House.
Urgent Debates Declined — Education Sector—Ministerial Report on Employment of Convicted Sex Offender 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgent Debates Declined — Education Sector—Ministerial Report on Employment of Convicted Sex Offender 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3049. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Education Sector—Ministerial Report on Employment of Convicted Sex Offender 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s decision to withhold a ministerial report into the employment of a convicted sex offender in the education sector. The decision is a case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. However not every ministerial decision will warrant an urgent debate. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. The authentication for the member’s application reveals that Ministers will consider the report and when and what aspects will be made public will be determined in due course. It also reveals that a further review of the Teachers Council can now get under way. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the setting aside of the House’s business for an urgent debate today can be justified. The application is therefore declined.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 2 to Minister 14 June 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 2 to Minister 14 June 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3035. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 19 June 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 2 to Minister 14 June 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I seek leave under Standing Order 354 to make a personal explanation to correct a reply I gave to a supplementary question in the House last Thursday in respect of the proposed international convention centre. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: During oral question No. 2 on Thursday 14 June I was asked what advice I had received on the financial or legal impact on any deals signed with Skycity should the Auditor-General find issues with the Government’s expression of interest process. Although my answer was correct in that I had not sought advice on the legal or financial impact on any deal from the Auditor-General’s process I had obtained advice on any impact of the Auditor-General’s process on ongoing negotiations. That advice did at one point address a situation should an agreement already be signed. I am therefore taking this first opportunity to correct my answer in the House.
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3103. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
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. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3100. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: My ruling is essentially on the basis that they do not offer a serious alternative form of words. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They certainly do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No it is my ruling that they do not.
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Dr Russel Norman’s amendment to delete clause 6 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 67 is now out of order as it is inconsistent with an earlier decision of the Committee. The Rt Hon Winston Peters’ typescript amendment to delete clause 6 is out of order as it is inconsistent with an earlier decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 46 in the name of Chris Hipkins to clause 7 be agreed to.
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 62 in the name of Dr David Clark to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 63 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Ngaro Alfred: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ngaro Alfred: Mixed Ownership Model Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3091. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.