edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call.
Lee Melissa: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLee Melissa: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9183. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MELISSA LEE (National): Just before I actually get on to the core of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill in its third reading I would like to mention to that member who spoke previously Jan Logie that I would not be taking her advice. I would not be taking any kind of advice from that particular party considering it is led by two leaders one of whom suggests members sell dope to actually supplement their income and the other of whom suggests that we print money to help economic growth in this country. Perhaps that is the reason why that party is completely not in tune with what this bill is actually all about.I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Social Development and her officials who have done a wonderful job developing this bill. I would like to thank the chair and the members of the Social Services Committee who actually worked very hard to bring this bill all the way through to this third reading as well as the submitters. Often we did not agree but I thought the debate was a good thing to have.During the course of the passage of this bill through this House there have been many times when members have stood philosophically and ideologically opposed to the arguments put forward by different sides of the debate but I would like to say that today I was actually appalled at some of the personal attacks that were thrown at this side of the House and also at the Minister. On the day of the passing of one of my heroes Margaret Thatcher I would like to repeat one of her quotes: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think well if they attack one personally it means they have not a single political argument left.” and nor do they have any solutions to welfare.I know that Jacinda Ardern mentioned that 75 years ago it was her political forebears who created the social welfare system. I have to say that they would be turning in their graves if they found out exactly where this social welfare system has ended up. It was about giving a hand up to help people who were in difficult times. It was never about giving a handout for generations to come.It is a great bill and we have traversed the contents of the bill over the Committee stage. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Child Support Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Child Support Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9173. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Child Support Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes71New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1.Bill read a third time.
Ngaro Alfred: Child Support Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Child Support Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9172. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): I am honoured to take the last call in the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill tonight. I firstly want to say that when we talk about children and families they are our children our tamariki our families our whānau as well. We on this side of the House take seriously the roles and responsibility we have so we are very conscious of the decisions that we make in this place and particularly those about the Child Support Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Revenue who over 6 years has worked hard to see this bill come to fruition.Here in the final speech on this bill I want to touch on a couple of things that have been mentioned. There was a petition that was put forward by the Opposition members around changing the objects of the Child Support Act. Can I say this: if they actually read the objects these clearly ensure that the paramountcy of care is still affirmed in this Act as well. In section (4) this is what it says: “The objects of this Act are—(a) to affirm the right of children to be maintained by their parents: (b) to affirm the obligation of parents to maintain their children:”. That petition was pure scaremongering. It was purely a way of trying to put some fancy idea in there. The intent of the Act is clear—tomaintain at the heart of this Act the responsibility of those parents to care for their children.The bill has been widely consulted on. We are saying that 2300 people were consulted—online participants—and we heard over 112 submissions. We know that the heart of this bill is about families breaking up. In this sense we want to ensure that the care and the support of our children who are vulnerable are at the heart of this bill. So I support this bill. This is a good bill. It will reach and meet these needs. No bill is ever perfect but we believe this will meet the needs of our young our children and our whānau as well. I commend this bill to the House.
Roy Eric: Child Support Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Child Support Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9170. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Split call? Sue Moroney—5 minutes.
Dunne Peter: Psychoactive Substances Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDunne Peter: Psychoactive Substances Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9149. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): I moveThat the Psychoactive Substances Bill be reported to the House by 14 June 2013 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 188 and 191(1)(b) and (c).Can I briefly offer an explanation why that truncated process is necessary. The first of the temporary notices expires in early August. That was the one from memory that deals with the product Kronic. If this legislation is not in place by that time then those products will be back on the shelves.I know I am not allowed to refer to a previous debate but if I could refer to some themes that were raised there and just correct one or two assumptions that were stated. When we introduced the temporary amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act nearly 2 years ago it was always on the basis that we would follow it up with this legislation. That temporary legislation contains the power to issue a temporary notice for a period of 1 year which is able to be extended for a maximum of 1 further year. So that is the importance of the April 2013 date. There will be some products that will start to expire in terms of their ban and it is necessary therefore to have the permanent regime in place by then so that we can achieve the objectives that the House has agreed to by agreeing to read the bill a first time.The period before the select committee will be about nearly a couple of months from here. It is an issue that has been well canvassed. I say with no disrespect to submitters that I suspect the issues to be raised will not be extensive in that there are not a lot of new issues; we have dealt with this over the last 2 years. The sort of issue that Mr Faafoi raised and one or two others have raised about specific issues might be where the select committee will focus its attention. It is in that context therefore I consider that the 2-month period is not unreasonable and I also have considerable confidence in the ability of the select committee to do the job thoroughly in that time. That is why I have moved the truncated process.
Macindoe Tim: Psychoactive Substances Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Psychoactive Substances Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9149. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): This is a very significant and contemporary issue and the public are rightly looking to Parliament to respond quickly and appropriately. So I want to thank the Associate Minister of Health for the work that he has done in bringing this Psychoactive Substances Bill to this House and for all the efforts that have gone in leading to this point. I thank all members for the very intelligent and constructive debate that we have had this afternoon. I wish the Health Committee well in the work that lies before it and I fully support the bill.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Health Committee.
Tisch Lindsay: Psychoactive Substances Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Psychoactive Substances Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9147. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call.
Blue Jackie: Psychoactive Substances Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBlue Jackie: Psychoactive Substances Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I too am delighted to speak on the first reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. It is not surprising that it has been perceived as a world-leading move and I congratulate Minister Dunne. The bill will regulate psychoactive substances so that only those products proved to be low-risk will be able to be sold.The fact is that the current situation is unacceptable. Basically current legislation has not been keeping up with the rapid growth in this market. As soon as substances are banned there are others coming on to the market. Playing catch-up is not acceptable it is not appropriate and this bill I am pleased to see is getting support across the House today. It is much more appropriate that the manufacturer will have to prove to a regulator that its product is safe rather than the current situation with the Government proving harm before controlling the substance.Importantly the cost of the testing will be borne by the manufacturers and not by taxpayers. A regulatory authority will be set up within the Ministry of Health and this bill will also establish an expert advisory committee to provide technical advice to the authority. It will set offences and penalties which include up to 2 years’ imprisonment and up to half a million dollars in fines. This is an excellent bill. I look forward to it coming to the Health Committee. Thank you.
Ardern Shane: Psychoactive Substances Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Shane: Psychoactive Substances Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9141. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a privilege as a member of the Health Committee to rise and speak on the first reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. I was interested to listen to Kevin Hague the last speaker because for the first time we have actually had a Green spokesman stand up in the House and speak with some clarity and a clear direction. It may be because the member had an involvement in the health system prior to becoming a member of Parliament but he showed absolute clarity about what needs to be done and showed his support for it. So I do congratulate the member on that because that has not been the consistent position of the Green Party in the past.Can I also say that most of us the constituent MPs and list MPs in their role as MPs have encountered an example or an anecdote somewhere or other of people who have been badly affected by psychoactive substances of various different types. The anecdote that I would like to share with the House briefly is this. My good friend and colleague the Hon Chester Borrows called in recently to an outlet in the Taranaki - King Country electorate on his way through and discovered that this outlet was selling these substances or these drugs. Someone had alerted him to that. As a former police officer and an Associate Minister of Justice he said to the proprietor: “Look do you think it is sensible and fair that you sell this stuff into our community which potentially could cause the kind of damage that people are suggesting to me that it is causing?”. The response was: “Well look it’s none of your business. It’s not illegal. If we want to sell it we can and if we can make a dollar from it why shouldn’t we?”.You know Chester’s response to that was similar to my own which is that we need to do something about it. So it is a pleasure to be here today with a bill before us that will at least attempt to address some of the issues that have been raised by members of the public with regard to the trading and selling of these drugs and the effects from them.In this regard members of the community decided they would take action. They protested outside the establishment and suggested that it was unacceptable that this outfit traded in this stuff and I think—but I am not sure—that the proprietor withdrew the substance from the shelf and it is no longer sold from that outlet. But obviously if it is going to take a community response like that there is a need for regulation. So to that part I agree once again with my Green colleague that regulation can at times be a good thing and this is one case where it is.There is an inconsistency as it stands with what is illegal and what is not illegal and what harm can be caused by certain substances if they are used in a way that they werenever intended to be used. So I commend the bill to the House and look forward to listening to the submissions in the select committee.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Earthquake Commission—Response to Release of Personal Information Government Communications Security Bureau—Review of Compliance Justice Ministry—Security of Online InformationText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Earthquake Commission—Response to Release of Personal Information Government Communications Security Bureau—Review of Compliance Justice Ministry—Security of Online Information[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9132. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure now what the point of order is from the member.Grant Robertson: It is just clarification.Mr SPEAKER: The clarification for the member is that as I came into the House at 2 o’clock the report at that stage had not been released. The member should take note of the ruling.
Robertson Grant: Urgent Debates Declined — Earthquake Commission—Response to Release of Personal Information Government Communications Security Bureau—Review of Compliance Justice Ministry—Security of Online InformationText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Urgent Debates Declined — Earthquake Commission—Response to Release of Personal Information Government Communications Security Bureau—Review of Compliance Justice Ministry—Security of Online Information[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9132. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Obviously I am not challenging your ruling but I do note that in your reasons for declining my application you said that media reports were not a basis. I would like to note that it was the words of the Acting Prime Minister that there was a report and that he in fact described some elements of the report—the fact that there were around 80 potential pieces of unlawful spying. So it is not just media speculation; it is actually the Acting Prime Minister’s own words about the report that were in our application.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Earthquake Commission—Response to Release of Personal Information Government Communications Security Bureau—Review of Compliance Justice Ministry—Security of Online InformationText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Earthquake Commission—Response to Release of Personal Information Government Communications Security Bureau—Review of Compliance Justice Ministry—Security of Online Information[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9131. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the shutdown of the Earthquake Commission’s external email systems and business-to-business data exchange and all systems that allow access to its systems by external parties as a result of another major data breach. The shutdown is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. As significant as such privacy breaches are to confidence in Government information systems not every such breach will warrant an urgent debate. The action taken by the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission to immediately shut down the Earthquake Commission’s external information system was significant but a restricted return to business has been approved and an investigation by the Government’s Chief Information Officer is under way. In these circumstances I am not convinced that the business of the House should be set aside today. The application is therefore declined.I have also received letters from Grant Robertson and Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the release of the Cabinet secretary’s report on the Government Communications Security Bureau. For there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The members’ authenticating material shows that the report is due to be released later today. The urgent debate procedure is not a means of debating matters that may occur in the future. There cannot be a debate on the basis of media speculation about what may or may not be in the report. An application can be lodged up until the time the House meets. If something occurs after that time it can be lodged for debate on the next sitting day. The application is also declined.I have also received a letter from Clare Curran seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 a serious flaw in the Ministry of Justice’s website. Every statement in a letter seeking to debate a matter of urgent public importance must be authenticated. The member has not provided authentication of the flaw other than her own press releasenor is there any authentication of the Ministry’s reaction or response. In these circumstances I am not convinced that the requirement of a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility has been met at this time. The application is therefore also declined.
Carter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9131. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9131. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I seek leave to table your letter to me of 28 March 2013.
Carter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9131. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: OK. I do not have the original letter in front of me at the moment. The member is welcome to come and discuss that matter with me and I will have a further look at it.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No. We are getting to the stage now where you are clearly relitigating rulings that I have made. I invite the member to come with his letter and I will talk him through the issue and make sure I have adequately responded to his letter.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order I will hear it.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9130. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling but I do have in front of me what I wrote and there were two issues. One was in relation to Mr Diack as you have responded to directly. The second was in relation to information from other members of the executive of Solid Energy that was not provided to the Commerce Committee but some days after the meeting was provided to third parties and the media. You have addressed the issue specifically. You have addressed—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where’s the point?Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Can I be heard in silence?Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: You have addressed the first point specifically and I am not going to further challenge that in relation to Mr Diack. You have not in any way in the letter dealt with the second issue I wrote to you about.
Carter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9130. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have already responded to the member to the extent of the complaint put before me.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9130. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Would you be able to advise whether you will be writing to me dealing with the second issue of contempt which was contained in the same letter?
Carter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9130. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his assistance.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is it a further point of order on this?Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is.Mr SPEAKER: I think the matter has been determined.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is a fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9130. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In order to invite you to make a correction to a statement you made earlier I note that the word “fulsome” means excessive insincere offensive or distasteful. I would not describe your reply to Mr Twyford in that manner.
Carter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9130. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: No. As I have just mentioned to the member there were two important aspects to the decision. One was whether the attempt was deliberate and whether any attempt was made relatively quickly to correct the answer.
Parker David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9130. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Whether this case has been determined on the basis that it was not serious rather than it being a contempt it is very difficult for the Opposition to know. From the complaint that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove put in it seemed pretty clear that there was a contempt. Are we to take it that you thought that it was a contempt but that it was not serious enough to go to the Privileges Committee?
Carter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9130. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member is making. No I am certainly not in a position where I determine whether there has been a breach of privilege. My duty as Speaker is to determine whether the matter is serious enough whether an attempt has been made to deliberately mislead the House or a select committee and whether any attempt has been made to correct an incorrect answer. Taking all those matters into account will be important to determine whether any case goes to the Privileges Committee.
Parker David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9130. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a concern that the question that is asked of you as Speaker is not whether there is a breach of privilege but whether there is a reasonable question of whether there has been a breach of privilege. I have the impression—and I would like to be assured that I am wrong in this because this case here seems surprising—that you are looking at whether you should be determining whether there is a breach of privilege rather than ascertaining whether there is a question of a breach of privilege.
Carter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9129. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: As I have just said to the member I have adopted a practice adopted by the previous Speaker Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith and it is consistent with his practice as well that where letters of complaint of privilege come to me at the same time as they involve the media I will still make a decision on the value of it going to thePrivileges Committee but I will be less inclined to enter into a fulsome debate in my explanation.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9129. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again—I have the letter and I am going to seek leave to table it—I just do not quite understand “less fulsome”. In this case there is not one reason at all that you have given to turn it down and I am just inquiring as to why you are not being consistent with your explanations to other members of Parliament.
Carter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9129. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! The member has raised a reasonable point of order. I have adopted the practice of the previous Speaker Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith who had an attitude that when something was taken to the media at the same time that it went to the Speaker he was inclined to give a less fulsome explanation. I intend to adopt the same practice.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9129. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Indeed. Based on your reply—I think you used the words that in some cases you provide detailed explanations and in others you provide less fulsome ones—in the case that I have put before you you provide no reasons at all zero fulsome or otherwise and I am just wondering whether you yourself believe it should be consistent to provide some reasons or am I a special case?
Carter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9129. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Well I have no doubt that at some stage something will go to the Privileges Committee but at this stage I have not seen something that I think is worthy of sending to the Privileges Committee.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A further point of order?
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9129. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just hope there is one other option—that at some stage you might refer one of the letters to the Privileges Committee.
Carter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9129. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: On some occasions I will be writing a very fulsome letter and explaining why I do not believe there has been a breach of privilege. On other occasions I will be less fulsome with my explanation.
Cosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of DecisionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Points of Order — Privilege—Speaker’s Notification of Decision[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9129. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker under Standing Order 407(b). I wrote to you on 18 March—without going into the matter—in respect of a complaint in respect of the acting chief executive officer of Solid Energy allegedly misleading the Commerce Committee. It was an issue of contempt. You replied to me on 28 March determining that “There was no matter of privilege involved.” However you gave no reasons to justify your decision and you did not address the second complaint of contempt in respect of another member of that company.My question is this in respect of the Standing Orders: could you advise whether you will be providing reasons for your decision in respect of these matters as you yourself have done in other privileges complaints in respect of other members of Parliament including I am told Mr Twyford who raised with you recently a complaint of privilege on another member of the House. You replied and gave detailed reasons as to why that complaint was not upheld.
Macindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9128. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to theMinister of Education: What progress has she made against the Government’s early childhood education priorities?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Today I have the pleasure of announcing an increase in the number of children participating in early childhood education. Provisional data for the first quarter of 2013 shows that around 95.5 percent of children who were starting school had participated in early childhood education. That is over 2500 more children than the same period last year. The provisional data also shows increased participation from Māori and Pasifika children with just under 92 percent of Māori children and around 88 percent of Pacific Island children attending early childhood education before they start school. That is a 1.4 percent and 1.9 percent increase respectively on the same period last year.Tim Macindoe: What else is this Government doing to get children into early childhood education?Hon HEKIA PARATA: In Budget 2012 we invested $1.4 billion in early childhood education which included 20 hours’ early childhood education funding for all families as well as over $48 million in equity funding to target children and communities who have not traditionally participated. We have established an early learning task force which is working with communities and neighbourhoods to apply or develop modelsthat will work for them and we are taking early learning opportunities to the families whānau and aiga where there is either limited provision or low uptake. As can be seen by the provisional data these issues are working.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9127. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to thePrime Minister: Why was only one candidate interviewed for the position of Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau in July 2011?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): The recruitment process had identified only one candidate who was interested in the position and who had the mix of skills and experience needed to lead the Government Communications Security Bureaugiven the challenges facing the agency some of which have been set out in detail in the Kitteridge report released today.Grant Robertson: What opportunity was there for other candidates to be considered for the position of Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau given that Ian Fletcher was the only person interviewed only 5 days after his phone call to Mr Fletcher and the scrapping of the short list?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There was plenty of opportunity. As the Prime Minister and the State Services Commissioner have outlined they had a discussion about a short list of four people who presumably had been through a process to get to a short list and the State Services Commissioner had the view that none of them had the required qualities to do the job that was ahead of them.Grant Robertson: In light of the Acting Prime Minister’s primary answer mentioning the Kitteridge review does he still claim that he was not briefed by Ian Fletcher about unlawful spying until September 2012 when paragraph 25 of the Kitteridge report says that the legality of spying was being discussed at the Government Communications Security Bureau all the way from May 2012 to September 2012?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister stands by his statements on that matter.Grant Robertson: Why is the Prime Minister’s oversight of a security agency that can spy on people so lax that he was not even aware according to his statements that there were discussions about unlawful spying taking place from May to September 2012?Hon BILL ENGLISH: He simply does not agree with the member’s assertion that the oversight was lax and actually the report sets out a description of an agency where there was not a strong focus on compliance.Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister assure the House today that he was not briefed about unlawful spying by the Government Communications Security Bureau or allegations of unlawful spying by the Government Communications Security Bureau before September 2012?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the earlier answer: the Prime Minister stands by his statements on that matter.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9127. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I just warn the member—[Interruption] I do not think it is funny at all. Leave is sought. I am going to put the leave and leave it for the House to decide. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9127. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I seek leave to table the question that I intend to ask the Prime Minister next week on his involvement in the appointment of Ian Fletcher so he might prepare an answer for it.
Hughes Gareth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9127. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.GARETH HUGHES (Green) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: Has he requested that the Attorney-General assess Supplementary Order Paper No 205 to the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): No.Gareth Hughes: Given that several highly respected legal professionals believe his Supplementary Order Paper breaches international law in human rights will he now request that the Attorney-General undertake a New Zealand Bill of Rights assessment of his amendment?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No.Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister support leave being sought to return the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill to the select committee to allow for expert scrutiny and public consultation on this amendment which has significant constitutional democratic and human rights implications?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I refer the member to my earlier answers.Gareth Hughes: Why is the Minister rushing ahead to pass this amendment which highly respected New Zealand legal professionals have said is in breach of international law and an attack on democratic rights without any select committee scrutiny without any public consultation and without a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis by the Attorney-General?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We are not rushing ahead. This was signalled in the previous Minister’s first reading speech. I expect vigorous debate in this House this week where all the views can be frankly canvassed.
Shanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShanks Katrina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9125. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.KATRINA SHANKS (National) to theMinister of Justice: What announcements has she recently made to address the harm caused by cyberbullying?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Cyber-bullies are able to harass their targets 24 hours a day 7 days a week and the trail of abuse lives on in cyberspace following victims for years. This Government is introducing new legislation to stop the growing incidence of cyber-bullying and its devastating effects particularly for young people and the new anti - cyber-bullying proposals protect victims and hold perpetrators to account sending a very clear message to cyber-bullies that their behaviour must stop.Katrina Shanks: What first line of support is the Government putting in place for victims of cyber-bullying?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We are creating a new civil enforcement regime and setting up or appointing an approved agency as the first port of call for complaints. The new approved agency will help people get the support they need to stop cyber-bullying quickly including liaison with website hosts and internet service providers to request take-down or moderation of clearly offensive posts. The agency will also be able to investigate and resolve complaints directly and will be able to refer the most serious complaints to the District Court which can issue sanctions such as take-down orders and cease and desist notices.Katrina Shanks: What other steps are being taken to eliminate cyber-bullying?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Serious ongoing recidivist cyber-bullies can expect to be punished by up to 3 months’ imprisonment or a $2000 fine for posting material online that is grossly offensive indecent obscene menacing or knowingly false. We are creating a new offence of incitement to commit suicide even in situations when a person does not attempt to take their own life punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment and the Harassment Act the Privacy Act and the Human Rights Act will be amended to ensure that they are up to date for digital communications. This Government is putting the right support in place and is modernising our outdated laws so victims of cyber-bullying particularly our young people no longer have to suffer as they have been.
Draft transcript - Thursday 06 June 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Thursday 06 June 2013
Draft transcript - Wednesday 05 June 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 05 June 2013
Draft transcript - Tuesday 04 June 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Tuesday 04 June 2013
Draft transcript - Thursday 30 May 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Thursday 30 May 2013
Draft transcript - Wednesday 29 May 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 29 May 2013
Draft transcript - Saturday 18 May 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Saturday 18 May 2013
Draft transcript - Friday 17 May 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Friday 17 May 2013
Draft transcript - Wednesday 15 May 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 15 May 2013
Draft transcript - Tuesday 14 May 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Tuesday 14 May 2013
Draft transcript - Thursday 09 May 2013 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Thursday 09 May 2013
Draft transcript - Wednesday 08 May 2013 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Wednesday 08 May 2013
Draft transcript - Tuesday 07 May 2013 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Tuesday 07 May 2013
O'Connor Simon: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Simon: Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9106. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Although I acknowledge that those who seek assistance from the Government can find it difficult can I also I suppose counter that by saying that the people of Work and Income do a fantastic job. As someone who has worked within the Ministry of Social Development in its different branches I know from personal experience the enormously hard work that the people of say Work and Income or Child Youth and Family do to support the most vulnerable in New Zealand. 
Tim Macindoe 
: And they deserve our support. 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: And they do deserve our support; I think that is quite correct. So I want to acknowledge them. 
This Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill has been well discussed in periods of 5 minutes and 10 minutes and other succinct contributions. I just want to say to those who do live alone those on war pensions or on superannuation who in age find themselves alone that from this House and certainly from me they are not alone; they stand with us in this community. As we approach this weekend of Easter and as we move to pass this legislation they are not alone. They live with us in our community and we support them. I want to wish them and the House a very happy Easter. 
Bill read a third time.