edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Insolvency Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7076] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I also rise to support the Insolvency Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the work that the Minister and the officials have put into formulating the bill. I also acknowledge my colleague the chair of the Commerce Committee Lianne Dalziel and the point that she made regarding the length of time spent on public insolvency registers. There was some debate in that area and in the end I think the balance between the interests of debtors and creditors was weighed up. 
I rise to support the bill because basically the procedure provides a one-off opportunity for those who are financially distressed to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy and rebuild their financial lives over time. As has already been stated in the first two readings of the bill but which I will reiterate quickly the key amendments are that it prevents fraudulent debts under the no-asset procedure from being cancelled when a person is discharged from that procedure. It is a pretty basic fundamental principle of law which has been established over centuries that one should not profit from one’s fraudulent activities. 
I am also happy to refer to the provisions of the Insolvency Act around the gifts made in the 5 years prior to a person becoming bankrupt. Again the balance was to place the onus on creditors to prove that the debtor was solvent at the time the gift was made rather than on the official assignee so it is a very sound amendment to the Act. 
As the previous speaker stated the most controversial point was around extending the period of time that a debtor’s name would remain on the no-asset procedure and the bankruptcy public registry. In the end it really came down to balancing the interests of debtors who understandably seek to move on with their lives and those of creditors who require reliable accurate information about a debtor’s history as the basis on which to make informed business decisions. It was not easy to come to the decision regarding the 5-year period but in the end I think it was the appropriate decision. 
This bill which amends an Act passed 3 years ago is consistent with the overriding policy objectives of the personal insolvency legislation. It removes the potential for people to be rewarded for their dishonesty and it implements amendments that reduce the workload of the official assignee. It is required to maintain the integrity of the personal insolvency processes. Hence I support this bill.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7073] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a second time.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7069] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. Improving law and order in New Zealand is a critical priority for the National-led Government. Our actions over the past 11 months have reflected that priority. We share New Zealanders’ concerns about the growing levels of violent crime. We are determined to make our communities safer to promote the security of law-abiding New Zealanders to improve public safety and to ensure that there are appropriate consequences for offenders. 
In its first 100 days the National-led Government introduced legislation to expand DNA sampling of suspects and to match samples taken at crime scenes against profiles in order to help resolve hundreds of cases that might otherwise have gone cold. DNA is a 21st century fingerprint. DNA profiling is an invaluable tool for identifying and catching criminals. The Government believes that DNA samples should be taken in a wider range of circumstances. Our rationale for this is simple: if we use DNA profiling to catch and punish criminals earlier we will prevent them from creating more victims. This bill is a key component of the Government’s law and order package. We are firmly focused on creating safer homes streets and neighbourhoods for all New Zealanders. 
DNA carries a unique genetic code for individuals. Current technology allows bodily samples like blood saliva and semen to be processed and reassembled in the form of a barcode that can be matched with other samples taken from crime scenes. This procedure is an important investigative tool resulting in virtually conclusive proof of identity. It may be used to pinpoint an offender as well as to clear an innocent suspect. The bill allows police to collect DNA from a person they intend to charge with an offence and prior to that person’s conviction or acquittal match the person’s DNA against profile samples from the scenes of other unsolved crimes. 
In conclusion the measures proposed in this bill will subsequently increase the size of the DNA profile databank. The increased size of the databank will aid criminal investigation by linking offenders in the databank both to the scenes of unsolved crimes and potentially to scenes of future crimes. DNA’s role in solving more crimes and identifying more offenders will in turn contribute to increased public safety and public confidence in the justice system. Thank you.
Quinn Paul: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Quinn Paul: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7063] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I say that this Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is about nothing more than the modern-day fingerprint. It drags our identification systems into the 21st century so that we can go forward with confidence. I look forward to debating vigorously with my colleagues from the other side of the House who I must say contributed strongly during the Justice and Electoral Committee’s deliberations under the superb chairmanship of my friend and colleague Chester Borrows and with outstanding contributions from Mr Bakshi and Simon Bridges. We look forward to having a vigorous debate during the Committee stage. With those few comments I recommend this bill back to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7059] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. This Government has been in power for the past 11 months and law and order has been one of its top priorities. This bill is part of the response to the law and order priority of this Government. Victims have been suffering from the anguish of crime. Those sufferings include emotional and financial torment. Victims and also families suffer from the trauma of serious crimes such as murder sexual violence and grievous assault. 
This bill will amend the Sentencing Act 2002. It provides that all offenders who have been convicted of an offence must pay an offender levy of $50 which will be imposed at the point of sentencing. It is intended to help victims with expenses such as travel to and from the court which are not covered by the accident compensation scheme or by any alternative State assistance. This levy will be in addition to any other penalty imposed by the court. 
I remember that during the submission period a submitter Judy Ashton from Nelson was very emotional because she had lost her daughter. The offender a drug addict was on parole and did not have a driver’s licence but he was still driving. In her words that mother said: “I can see there is something being done for the victims.” People understand that this bill may be a small step but it is a step in the right direction. 
It should be noted that the Government will also introduce measures to improve the services that victims receive and that enhance victims’ rights. In other words this bill is part of a bigger package. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time.
Quinn Paul: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Quinn Paul: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7057] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I was somewhat underwhelmed by the previous speaker and sort of flabbergasted at the words that came out of her mouth. Clearly during the deliberations on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee she was obviously completely asleep. I will read to members— 
Sue Moroney 
: Open your eyes at the select committee Paul. Look at the other side. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I cannot refer to the fact that the member was not on the select committee but now that she has raised that I will do so. So how does the member know what she was talking about? That is the very point I was trying to make and you have just made it for me. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member is correct. I ask the member— 
PAUL QUINN 
: I offer my deepest apologies. Let me read something for the benefit of the member because she said this whole bill is derisory. I challenge her to come with me to visit Judy Ashton in Richmond. Judy Ashton fronted up to the select committee and in a heartfelt gut-wrenching submission she gave her full support to the bill. Here is a woman who on 6 December 2006 lost her only daughter in a car accident and the member is making a joke of it. I do not know where the previous speaker was coming from. 
I will now comment briefly on Jacinda Ardern’s contribution to the debate. Although she did share with us some of the issues that were canvassed typically she put her own colourful twist on things. I look forward to debating those and other issues during the Committee stage. Of course one of the other things I look forward to debating is the Sentencing Council. 
With those few words to which I just add that the present net value of the levy means the funding for victims will be self-sustaining I have much pleasure in supporting the second reading of this bill. Thank you.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7047] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7047] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I think clause 2 is a mighty fine clause. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in his name to clause 2(3) be agreed to. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7047] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7046] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 The interesting thing about clause 1 is that it reads as follows: “This Act is the Immigration Act 2007.” “Hark” I say to myself “what year are we in now?”. I wonder what took us so long. I can further advise the House that no amendment to clause 1 is upon us. So we may be about to pass legislation that is wrongly labelled the Immigration Act 2007 when it is to be passed some time late in 2009. But perhaps help is at hand because the parliamentary counsel folk at the drafting office may have taken upon themselves certain extra parliamentary freedoms to make little changes here and there—their little bid for minor amounts of power. It may be that they are fully entitled by the weird and wonderful sorts of practices that we have around this House to make the Immigration Act 2007 become the Immigration Act 2009. I am not sure whether the Minister is worried about that. At that point I sort of give up and think “God I hope the system works” because we have had this legislation in front of us now for 2 years. Two years have clicked by and one hopes that when we print this thing we can get the year right. 
The more important question I would like to ask the Minister—I am not sure whether the Minister is in a talkative mood—is in respect of clause 430 which is the “what the hell happens next” clause. I want to ask the Minister what happens next. Clause 430 comes into effect immediately and it is the clause by which the Minister can get on and promulgate regulations put people on boards and do all of the things that may be said to be part of the implementation of the legislation. The Minister one assumes has a game plan for that. One assumes it will be driven somewhat by officials. I am not suggesting it should not be. But I want to know when this legislation will come into effect because we have waited long enough for it. Of course only clauses 1 and 430 will come into effect on the day after the royal assent. The others will come into effect precisely when the Government wants them to. So we could—and I am not being silly here—pass this legislation and have nothing happen. 
I wonder whether the Minister would like to tell us how he is positioned: whether he has the budget he needs to get the implementation of the legislation done and whether he has the officials doing the work plan. I am sure that he has so when does he think we will see the new authorities up and running? Will it be later this year? Might it be early next year? Will there be any problem around the development of such regulations as are needed under this legislation? Sometimes officials say that regulations take years to put in place. In other words having sweated this legislation through I ask the Minister to jump to his feet and tell us very briefly what he thinks the implementation plan looks like and when we might see this legislation fully fledged and in full force. That concludes my contribution.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7046] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7045] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7045] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7044] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7043] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7043] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
New Part 13 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7043] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7042] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I am struggling to work out where new Part 13 begins and ends but I wonder whether the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman might take a very short call to speak on Supplementary Order Paper 68 as it affects the amendments that have been occasioned by the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. If he has got his head around it—I do not say that sarcastically—I ask him whether he would like to give us any comment on what has happened to the amendment to the District Courts Act 1947 which pertains to the number of District Court judges. I think that the bill acknowledged that the number of District Court judges was going to increase but this amendment takes that increase away. That does not seem quite right. 
The Minister may not wish to take a call. We cannot force the Minister. We could make a great hue and cry about it. In fact we could do so for some hours. I wonder whether we should take this legislation through until 10 o’clock. The Minister does not mind? The Minister has had a terrible day. We were trying to be easy on the gentleman. There is only a certain amount of abuse and hardship an individual piece of physiology can take. An ordinary piece of vaguely humanoid protoplasm does have its limits! I thought the Minister has had a tough day and he would be quite happy to finish at 6 o’clock. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He wasn’t allowed a question time. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is true. He had a late start. That is true. If the Minister is going to ignore me then we can always respond to that. In fact we can respond seriously. What do we think team? 
I am trying to work out what has happened to the number of District Court judges. I thought it had gone up. As I read Supplementary Order Paper 68 it takes the number down again and that does not seem right. The explanatory note states: “The amendment relating to the District Courts Act 1947 (which altered the maximum number of District Court Judges from 140 to 141) will be addressed in a separate Ministry of Justice bill amending that Act.” I think that the Minister is saying that we do not need the amendment now because the amendment will be made later. I can see the whips conferring. Maybe they are working out how many District Court judges we need in this country. The Minister is showing no signs of flexing his flaccid musculature. 
Hon Member 
: Offensive reference. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Is flaccid not the right word? I meant “flac-cid”. I mispronounced it. I apologise. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We would like a response. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We would like a response from the Minister but we will not get one. I will resume my seat. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in his name to add new Part 13 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7041] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on Part 12 includes schedules 3 4 and 5.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7041] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 11 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 11 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7039] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 10 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 10 as amended agreed to.
Bridges Simon: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7039] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to take a call in this debate on the Immigration Bill. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: For us! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: For all of the Committee. I say to Darien Fenton that I thought she made a worthy—not exactly statesmanlike but worthy—contribution to the debate. It did not have the touches of brilliance that Cam Calder’s earlier speech had I have to say. For that she would have needed to use a little more hand movement some alliteration and some onomatopoeia. But it was pretty good. 
I will come at the bill from first principles and say this. I enjoyed greatly taking immigration law at the Auckland University law school— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You went to polytech! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: We did not have a polytech where one could study law back then. If we had I probably would have done that. It was a great experience. I learnt that immigration law is a complex area of law. I want to say this bill does a very good job of simplifying the law making it stronger more flexible and giving us an enduring framework going forward. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 10 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7038] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 It really behoves me to comment on the offering of the previous member who spoke Darien Fenton. In fact it was a case of very nearly taking a point of order on whether that was relevant. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You’re so good at those! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well members know I am a bit new and fresh a bit wet behind the ears a shrinking violet and not very confident when it comes to these things. Despite that and I am sure the senior whip for the Opposition would be able to endorse this that speech was so far outside Standing Order 107 which is about relevancy that I was waiting for him to stand up and take a point of order on it. Every single one of the examples that the member talked about was of people who are legitimately entitled to be here under their work permits. How on earth people who were legitimately entitled to be here are somehow subject to the provisions of Part 10 absolutely defies logic. But Darien Fenton has defied logic before and I am sure she will do it again. We are getting pretty used to it. We get a tired mantra around workers’ rights and somehow the member continues to be able to spin absolutely anything that she has to say around that subject. 
Part 10 in particular clauses 314 and 315 talks specifically about the rights of workers even though they might not be legitimately entitled to work in New Zealand. I thought that if that member wanted to say anything about this issue it would have been around the fact that if workers are not legitimately entitled to work—even if employers have taken reasonable steps to ascertain whether the workers are entitled or if they have committed an offence under Part 10 of this bill—employers are still required to and responsible for treating their employees fairly and required to apply the provisions of the Holidays Act and the Minimum Wage Act. Really that speech was something of an irrelevant diatribe and I think we should stick to our knitting when it comes to Part 10.
Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7036] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 In a departure from the previous member’s offering I will talk about Part 10. Although it may have been ruled to be within the Standing Orders I personally do not feel that his contribution had any relevance to Part 10 and neither was his offering prior to the last speech relevant to Part 9. I am sure that is a debating point that members may wish to take up with me. 
I want to talk about the three areas of Part 10 that deal with compliance with the obligations and the offences for not doing so. 
Grant Robertson 
: Stand up. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is a cheap shot. In particular I wish to talk about that provision where it relates to employers. As we know the 1987 legislation placed similar obligations on the employer to not knowingly employ a non-citizen who was not entitled to work in New Zealand. The nuances of the obligation have been changed. The things that are deemed to be reasonable excuses and therefore defences to an offence under Part 10 have changed taking out the issue of whether the IR330 tax code declaration form constitutes a reasonable excuse for employers to be able to say the employee gave them an IR330 and therefore as employers they did all they needed to do to establish whether the person was legitimately entitled to work in this country and therefore they are OK. 
When submitting on the bill at the select committee employers expressed some disquiet about whether that would impose some extra burden on them. I think the committee has very reasonably reassured employers that that will not be the case and that the requirements that employers need to meet in order to establish a defence are not necessarily onerous. As a former employer one who from time to time employed people who were not New Zealand passport holders but who were otherwise entitled to both live and work in New Zealand I can add that there really is no reason for employers to be worried about this part. There are some quite simple things that can be done in order to establish whether a person can be entitled to work here. 
I am also interested in the Department of Labour and in the enabling provisions that I think in the future will enable the department to develop an online system so that employers can go online and find out whether a foreign national is legitimately entitled to work in New Zealand. That is a really good example of the technologies that can be used to streamline the process around immigration. We have heard of a few examples in earlier debates on other parts; this is another one and I support it. 
We also talked in earlier debates in the Committee stage about the obligation on airlines to establish whether a person is legitimately entitled to travel to New Zealand. Of course this part imposes some fines on the carrier for a failure to do that. I think there are some very good provisions in here that employers do not need to be worried about and I certainly support this part.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7035] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 9 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 9 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7035] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7035] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 285(10) regarding warrants of commitment as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 289 be agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7035] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 275 be agreed to.
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7034] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 273 be agreed to.
Blue Jackie: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:658;Page:7028] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to Part 9 of the Immigration Bill. This part is about detention and monitoring and the purpose of it is to establish a tiered detention and monitoring system in order to ensure the integrity of the immigration system through providing for the management of persons who are liable for deportation. This part also ensures the safety and security of New Zealand when a person who is liable for deportation may constitute a threat or risk to national security. 
Part 9 relates to quite a small minority of individuals. Most individuals who have gone through the refugee appeal process and failed will accept the decision and leave New Zealand in an appropriate and timely way through a deportation process. This part relates to those individuals who are obstructive and actively hinder their deportation from New Zealand. The initial period of detention can be up to 96 hours without a warrant. In that case the individual would be in police custody. Following that a warrant of commitment can be applied for in the District Court for up to 28 days. The warrant can be reapplied for on consecutive occasions. 
Generally speaking there is a 6-month limit on immigration detention except where a foreign national hinders his or her own departure. Those individuals who actively hinder their deportation from New Zealand compromise the integrity of the immigration system. There is the option that the individual can be released into the community but that would have to be negotiated. There would be conditions of release into the community and there may be reporting requirements residential requirements a requirement to present for interview and so on. 
The actions of foreign nationals who deliberately hinder their deportation sets a precedent to others. Such actions suggest for example that if someone refuses to sign travel documents for long enough he or she will secure release into the community because the Government cannot deport him or her. Therefore the Government is proposing to strengthen the detention provisions by way of an amendment whose effect is that such people cannot seek to be released from detention due to the length of time they have been detained. I commend this part to the House.
Barker Rick: General Debate 
Barker Rick: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7022] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like some clarification. As per the Speaker’s very strict ruling previously if we can have the date and publication of the graph it would assist the House in making its judgment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I ask the Hon Maurice Williamson whether he would care to elaborate and give the date to the House. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Unlike a newspaper article which appears on a certain date this is just a published statistic over all those years. It could have been published on any date you like. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: What is the date? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: There is no date. It is published by Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have been consulting carefully with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings on this matter. I can find no precedent whatsoever for the requirement of a date or any right for any Speaker other than the current one to decline to put a matter of leave to the House. I respectfully disagree with the shadow Leader of the House. I think there can be no objection to that being put to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will say that there is no reluctance on behalf of the Speaker to put the matter. The Speaker is required to put the matter because the Opposition wants clarification. The member is the author of his own misfortune. If the member wants to have the matter tabled then he will not object. Is any objection to the document being tabled? There is none. The member may table to document. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
Williamson Maurice: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7022] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 During my speech I said I would seek leave to table a document so I now seek leave to table a document called  
Pre and Post Pseudoephedrine Control Oregon Meth Lab Incident Statistics 
 which indicates the statistics in Oregon since 2003 to year to date.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7018] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am warning the honourable member that I have ruled on the matter and as far as I am concerned that is the end of it. It had better be a totally different point of order. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is. I seek leave—and I am indebted to my technologically advanced colleagues—to table a document from the New Zealand Press Association of 16 June 2009 regarding the police vehicle fleet being reduced by this Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document of 16 June 2009. Leave is sought to table that press statement. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It was not a press statement; it was a press report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me if that affected members’ judgments. Let me put it again if my referring to it as a statement affected members’ judgments on this New Zealand Press Association report. I am seeking leave again. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7018] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the member that he had better not dispute my ruling. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I fully respect you Mr Speaker and I am not disputing your ruling. But as I understand it from the Standing Orders I am entitled to simply ask for you to make a considered ruling. I am not disputing it; I am simply asking again whether you would confirm your advice to the House and make a formal ruling in that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned I have ruled on the matter and that is the end of the matter.
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7018] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. Look I simply ask members to treat this House with some respect. Members of the Opposition have heard me today sit Ministers down and stop Ministers from abusing the Opposition. I have been very hard on Government Ministers today. I treat this House absolutely fairly but I expect the House to be treated with respect. I consider it disrespectful to the House for members to get to their feet and expect me to put leave to table some vague press statement from somewhere. How can the House make a judgment about that? The member can go and get his press statement get the date of it and then I will put the leave.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7018] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not disputing your ruling. I am asking you and I would be grateful if you could rule either now or on a subsequent occasion whether you are now saying that the discretion in respect of tabling documents and the quality or lack of quality of those documents is a matter to be decided by the Chair—
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7018] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a new point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave to table a document from the  
Dominion Post 
 as described by Clayton Cosgrove earlier. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If this is a press statement I want to know the date of it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not giving it to you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I am not putting the leave if I do not know what the document is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No you cannot Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter and the next member to dispute my ruling will be leaving the Chamber. I make that very clear. I will not tolerate more of this nonsense.
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7017] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. I have listened to enough. I will not tolerate this sort of nonsense. I have been very tolerant of Labour members today. At least that is my view of the matter. If members seek to table press statements I believe the House is owed the courtesy of knowing the date of those statements so it can make a judgment. I am not putting leave unless I know the date of the statement. I have ruled on that matter and that is the end of the matter.
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7017] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the honourable member but I warn members that I take this matter very seriously and I am not very amused. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think it is fair to say that members on this side are not very amused either. I make the point that a number of members on this side are unhappy with editorialising from the Chair as to—
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7017] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just ask for clarification. It is a matter as I understand it for the House—not yourself with respect—to judge whether a document is old or new and whether it is acceptable to table it. As you rightly point out Standing Orders have not changed. I will go and get the date of the document for the House but I just note that it is a matter for the House not you to judge the relevance of it because the Standing Orders as you point out have not changed.
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7017] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. If the member is having difficulty understanding I say that I have made it very clear to the House that with regard to recent newspaper reports the Standing Orders Committee made it very clear in its report to this House that it considered that it was not appropriate for recent newspaper reports to be tabled. However the Standing Orders have not been changed. I have made it very clear to members that when they are seeking leave to table a press statement or media report we have to know the date of it because if in fact it is a press report from some years ago it may be perfectly sensible to make it available to the members of the House. If it is a newspaper article from only a couple of days ago the House is unlikely to accept it. That is why it is important that the date of a press statement is available to members so they can make a sensible judgment about whether they want to grant leave for it to be tabled.
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
Hughes Darren: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7017] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Mr Cosgrove has told you that it is a report from the  
Dominion Post 
 newspaper. He has given you the substance of what the report contains yet you are saying that you do not know what you are putting to the House.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:658;Page:7017] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table media reports noting the Government’s cut of $21 million from the police budget. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member describe for the House where— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a media report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the media report? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: A report in the media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I need to understand what I am putting to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: A newspaper report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But what newspaper? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The  
Dominion Post 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What date is it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not have the date with me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot put a document to the House if we do not know what the document is. I cannot seek leave for that.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
[Volume:658;Page:7012] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Labour whip please to remove that. I ask him to do it right away please. [ 
Interruption 
] This is a point of order and will be heard in silence. The Speaker ruled that those will be removed by the end of question time. I allowed members—[ 
Interruption 
] There will be no noise while a point of order is being considered. [ 
Interruption 
] I will choose to ignore that.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7006] 
9.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What was the value of oil exports in the 2008 calendar year? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that the value of New Zealand’s oil exports in the 2008 calendar year was NZ$2.8 billion. In 2008 oil was New Zealand’s third-highest export earner ranking behind dairy and meat exports only. In the last 12 months the Government has received more than $900 million in petroleum royalties and taxes. These numbers prove that it is worth New Zealand pursuing the full capacity that its offshore basins may contain. 
Jonathan Young 
: What initiatives does the Government have planned to stimulate further oil and gas exploration in New Zealand waters? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government has a number of initiatives planned. I am pleased to inform the House that this coming summer will see the largest exploration activity occurring in New Zealand during any drilling season to date. In fact New Zealand is ranked as one of the top 10 most prospective countries in the world. The Government has a number of initiatives planned to keep up the momentum. The Raukumara and Northland basins are currently open for exploration permits. Applications for those new blocks offers are considerable. Further there will be a new blocks offer in the Reinga basin which will open at the end of this year. Over the summer new seismic data will be collected thanks to the appropriation in Budget 2009 of some $20 million over the next 3 years. And of course the Government is continuing the 183-day tax exemption rules for explorers in New Zealand.
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Henare Tau: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:658;Page:7004] 
7.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: How is the Government planning to improve broadband services in rural areas? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I recently announced the Government’s $300 million Rural Broadband Initiative combining direct Government funding with revenue from a proposed new more transparent and effective industry levy than the current telecommunications service obligation levy. Our target is to improve the coverage of fast broadband services so that 97 percent of New Zealand households and enterprises are able to access broadband services of 5 megabytes per second or better and so that 97 percent of New Zealand schools are able to access ultra-fast broadband of 100 megabytes per second. Given New Zealand’s dependence on its rural sectors for economic growth and productivity improvements there are considerable benefits to be obtained by delivering fast broadband right throughout the rural sector. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What will happen to the current telecommunications service levy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Currently Telecom receives approximately $70 million per annum largely to compensate it for supplying local services to rural customers. This money is sourced from the industry by the telecommunications service obligation levy which is paid by market participants including Telecom on a market share basis. However there is concern about the lack of transparency around where this money is spent and what benefit rural customers actually receive. Instead we are proposing a new more transparent and contestable telecommunications development levy which will deliver $300 million over 6 years. It will be contestable and made available on a grants basis primarily to develop rural broadband. Further details regarding the tender process will be released following the consultation process that is currently under way.