edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13885. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Kris Faafoi—The Smurfs 2.
Yang Jian: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYang Jian: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13885. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr JIAN YANG (National): Very good.Xiexie. I am pleased to rise to take a brief call on the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. This bill imposes a temporary ban on the parallel importation of films for commercial purposes for 5 months from the date of the film’s first release to the public. The purpose of the ban is to give cinemas more time to convert to digital exhibition technology. The ban allows cinemas flexibility in scheduling films particularly for school holiday audiences creating better financial viability which enables more movies to be available at times when wanted by consumers. This position has general support from other parties and within the sector.I do not go to cinemas very often—I wish I could—but I normally would find some time during the school holidays to watch one or two movies with my children. I believe that many parents do the same thing.Over 60 percent of cinemas have now converted to digital exhibition technology so this temporary ban a 5-month ban will give an opportunity for the rest of the cinemas to complete the conversion. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Robertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13885. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Jian Yang. Nihao ma.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13884. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): First of all I would like to congratulate you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson on your election to the local board.It is my pleasure to stand in the third reading of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. I think we will all agree that it is a pragmatic and sensible piece of legislation and the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Craig Foss needs to be congratulated on his commendable effort.The film industry is in the middle of a large-scale makeover as members across the country convert to digital exhibition technology. The conversion is well under way and is expected to be completed within the next 2 or 3 years. The previous speaker Gareth Hughes was saying that we need to create jobs. If we do not support this industry then we are going to lose jobs and stop development in this industry. I think it is in the DNA of the Green Party that it has to oppose everything that the Government wants to do.I think this is a good bill. I commend it to the House.
Young Jonathan: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand and speak at this third reading of the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill. I think the previous speaker Clare Curran did touch on the general sentiment of the Commerce Committee which felt that this next 3-year period is vital for the parts of the industry that have not transitioned to make that transition.We know that in 2003 when this provision was first introduced by the then Labour Government and then when it was extended in 2008 the cost of transition back in those times was exceedingly high. Of course the digital cost these days is reducing all the time. Even though many submitters said to us that it is $100000 per screen to transition from 35 millimetre projection to digital projection we know that most of those theatres in the metropolitan areas have already done this. So in a sense this is a bill for small town New Zealand. It keeps those entertainment industries going while they are able to afford the transition.I think because of that it is a good bill to do. It extends the ban for another 3 years but instead of 9 months where the parallel importation of a film for commercial sale is banned it brings it down to a 5-month period of time. It is a temporary ban for the next 3 years. I guess if New Zealanders want to get something that is hot off the press they can do a number of things—maybe purchase it from Amazon.com or they can even goto a home video rental agency that has paid a licence fee to the importers and distributors and get movies there as well.Kris Faafoi: It’s a video shop.JONATHAN YOUNG: The video shop that is right.National Labour and the Greens had a very interesting debate through this bill. Simple as it is it raised a number of very interesting aspects regarding the market place. I think we are in the right spot for it. I think that the industry out there will appreciate the extension of this temporary ban for another 3 years. Once again as the commentary says and other speakers have said it is imperative that the transition takes place within these next 3 years. Thank you. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.
Foss Craig: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoss Craig: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13877. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I moveThat the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill proposes to amend the Copyright Act 1994 by reinstating the ban on parallel importation of films for commercial purposes. The original ban came into force in 2003 to support New Zealand cinemas in the final stages of the transition to digital screening technology. The bill reduces the period of the ban which will come into force from 31 October 2013 from 9 to 5 months. This reduction reflects the changes in film distribution practices recognising that New Zealanders now often receive films at the same time as international viewers.The bill also imposes a sunset clause so that the ban will expire in 3 years on 31 October 2016. The 3-year time frame will give cinemas that have not yet converted enough time to transition to digital screening technology and to develop their film distribution model to reflect changes in the market for films particularly online. Many films are released on DVD between 3 and 4 months after their cinematic debut. The 5-month ban will effectively give cinemas a further 1 or 2 months to exclusively screen films without competition. This shortened period will allow retailers to parallel import copies of films earlier and encourage authorised distributors to provide consumers with earlier access to films. The ban does not prevent a person from importing a film for personal use.The Government strongly supports the transition to digital screening as it reduces the need for delays in film screening giving consumers earlier access to films. In its report the Commerce Committee noted that the ban allows cinemas flexibility in scheduling films particularly for school holiday audiences creating better financial viability and enabling more movies to be available at the times wanted by consumers. I also acknowledge the select committee’s comments that as consumer viewing technology develops it expects that this will force cinemas to develop new revenue streams to meet consumers’ expectations rather than rely on past business models. I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for its timely consideration of this bill and those individuals and organisations who made submissions on the bill. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13877. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes82New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 6; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes37New Zealand Labour 33;Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Bill read a third time.
Ross Jami-Lee: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13876. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I commend the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill to the House.Maritime Transport Amendment Bill read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Maryan Street—5 minutes.
O'Connor Simon: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): As I have been listening to the speeches from the Opposition on the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill I have been reminded of Hemingway’s bookThe Old Man and the Sea and themarlin that just goes round and round and round. Although the rhetoric particularly from the Labour Party is not going to win the Nobel Prize in Literature I suspect that some of the fiction from the leader Mr Cunliffe might.This is good legislation. The Government will not apologise for any elements of it. We are proud of the legislation. Those of us on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee have worked hard and I commend the legislation to the House.
Calder Cam: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCalder Cam: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13872. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr CAM CALDER (National): It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on the legislation arising from the Marine Legislation Bill which enjoys widespread support across the House. That is not surprising because of course trade is our lifeblood as has been so eloquently pointed out by my colleague Mr Auchinvole.The Marine Legislation Bill was an omnibus bill that amended the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. The significant amendments that the legislation arising from it makes revolve around changes to the oversight of port harbour and navigation safety; implementing international maritime conventions and protocols; changes relating to the making of maritime and marine protection rules; and transferring the regulation of the discharge and dumping of waste.We as a Government are committed to building a more competitive and productive economy. This legislation highlights our commitment to creating strong and sensible legislation that works. It will provide more certainty around the laws involved as well as improving safety enforcement practices and environmental protection. I commend the legislation to the House.
Auchinvole Chris: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13870. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the third readings of this legislation the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. I will be brief because I think this legislation is in fact so good that it does not really need the embellishment of saying too much about it.The legislation underlines one of National’s consistent purposes and missions. It shows a close analysis of the underlying fundamental structures of the industry that is under examination. It has provided a close dialogue with industry leaders Government experts and the invested members of the public. It shows a strategic adjustment that will increase the communication efficiency and accessibility of in this case the marine sector.We have just heard all the apprehensions and fears that are embodied in the Green view of this particular piece of legislation. I would on the contrary like to commend this legislation to the House in recognition that marine regulations and mariners carry our country’s wealth. They carry our exports to market and bring our imports in through seaports using the regulations that are legislated for in this House. That is 49 million tonnes of product coming through our ports—49 million tonnes a year—at a value of $75 billion. Good marine legislation has always been critical and crucial to New Zealand. It is crucial to New Zealand and will always be crucial to New Zealand. I commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.
Bennett David: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13865. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): That was a very poor speech from that member Moana Mackey. She has a very limited understanding of the legislation arising from the Marine Legislation Bill and it really shows why the people in the area that she purports to represent do not vote for her. They know that she does not understand the issues that are important for the people in her area. There were many things that were said in that speech that were just not true. It is not something this Parliament needs. We need concise general debate and we do not get it from that member very often.But this is a good piece of legislation. It covers a few major areas that needed some reform. Those reforms were done in a very good way through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I would like to commend the members of the select committee for their work in that area. I think we got some pretty good work from all members. I think the Green Party members were quite happy with some of the discharge rules that were changed to be taken into it.Moana Mackey: That’s because you added the EEZ stuff after the select committee.DAVID BENNETT: That member should be quiet for a little while and she might learn something.This is good legislation. It is something on which we have worked hard with regional councils as well because they have an important role in this area. It is something that is not easy. It is setting up structures and procedures but they are necessary and are in thebest interests of our marine environment our transport sector and the wider economic gains that can be made from all those sectors coming together.We look forward to the legislation passing today and thank you very much to all those who were part of the process. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Maritime Transport Amendment Bill Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13865. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry but the member’s time has expired.
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13861. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a second time.
Tisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13860. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. [Interruption] The Ayes have it.Carol Beaumont: Party vote called for.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If you want to have a party vote you must challenge me at the time not when I am ready to move on. A challenge to myruling has to happen at the time not once I have announced the result. So a party vote has been called for but in future I will not accept one.
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13860. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Question agreed to.
Ross Jami-Lee: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13858. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I commend the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill to the House.
Roy Eric: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13856. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Gareth Hughes—5 minutes.
McKelvie Ian: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13856. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Without security there can be no democracy and likewise with no democracy there will be no security. It seems a little odd I guess that I have got to remind the Opposition or that I feel the need to remind the Opposition that the rush around the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill—in fact the need to introduce this bill at all—was created in 2004 by some inept legislation put in place by the very Labour members who are criticising the bill we have in the House now. We have heard at least three senior members of the House criticising this bill this afternoon. Most of them spent most of the speech time they had talking about something quite contrary to this bill. This bill is a very simple bill. It updates existing provisions that were put in place as I said earlier by the Labour Government in 2004 it modernises the existing requirements for telecommunications companies to assist with interception under warrant and it introduces a formal framework to protect network security.I want to very briefly comment on one topic that was raised by the last speaker Phil Goff. I want to briefly talk about encryption because this bill does not and cannot insist on encryption services being provided when the encryption tools are held by an independent provider. The very best war stories and spy stories all contain most intriguing lines on code-breakers. I do not know what has changed now.Finally I just want to comment very briefly on what I thought was amazing advice that we had from a very competent team of advisers on what was a pretty technical bill for us to understand. I think the Law and Order Committee has done pretty well in getting through this bill in the manner it has and in getting it back to the House in the form it has. I also want to congratulate the Minister for Communications and Information Technology on her understanding of the bill and the way she has presented it to the House. Thank you.
Roy Eric: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13856. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just as clarification the member cannot actually seek to go back and change the vote but he can seek to have it recorded in theJournals of the House. Is that what the member is seeking?Brendan Horan: Yes.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is no one. It will be so recorded.
Horan Brendan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHoran Brendan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13856. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I seek leave for my vote to be recorded in support of the earlier motion to refer the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill to the Law and Order Committee. In doing so I acknowledge that the Greens support democracy by casting my proxy vote and I regret that on this occasion I did not clearly communicate my intention to the Greens.
Mitchell Mark: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13853. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): The Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill is a very good bill. In simple terms we would be negligent as a country as a Government and as a party if we allowed a company to come in here and build a highway—a privately built highway—gave people access to it and allowed them to use it without any form of oversight and without any form of policing. You are going to get a lot of people who want to use that road. They are going to want to use that highway and they are going to want to use it for legitimate purposes. But I can tell you something right now: you are going to get a lot of people who want to use it for illegal purposes. If we as a country turn round and say: “You know what? Go for it. Fill your boots. Use it any way you want.” then we are not going to be able to do anything about it.All we have done is we have said that the police if they have information will be able to access the information that is being used on these information highways. It is a good bill. The bill does not change the fundamentals of existing safeguards to protectpeople’s privacy it does not change in any way the authority of agencies to intercept telecommunications and it still requires data to be stored and stored data to be disclosed. Thank you.
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13842. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the motion be agreed to.Ayes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 6; Mana 1 Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59;Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.The result altered by leave after originally being announced as Ayes 54 Noes 64.
Curran Clare: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill — Referral to Law and Order Committee Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13842. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I moveThat the order of the day for the second reading of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee for consideration.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Schools Canterbury—Judicial Decision on Proposed MergerText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Schools Canterbury—Judicial Decision on Proposed Merger[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13841. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Chris Hipkins seeking to debate the recent decision of the High Court to overturn the decision by the Minister of Education to mergePhillipstown School and Woolston School on to the Woolston site. For there to be an urgent debate there must be an administrative or ministerial responsibility for the case of recent occurrence. The member in his application cites the judgment of the High Court issued on 9 October as the particular case of recent occurrence. A Minister has no responsibility for the court decision itself. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case that is sought to debated. A decision of the High Court is not a matter for which any Minister has responsibility. The application is therefore declined.
Sabin Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13837. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to theAssociate Minister for Social Development: What new measures have recently begun to help prevent fraudulent criminal activity in our welfare system?Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development): This week the Ministry of Social Development is starting a new low-trust - client regime that will involve a small group of beneficiaries who have been proven to be dishonestly taking money from the welfare system and put in additional checks for them to prevent them ripping off taxpayers again. They will face increased scrutiny on information they provide be prevented from accessing services over the phone or the internet and be required to meet face to face with the same case manager on a regular basis. Although they will still receive welfare support when they need it these measures will make it harder for them to rip off the welfare system a second time.Mike Sabin: How does the low-trust - client regime fit with other new measures the Government has introduced to prevent detect and punish welfare fraud?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: This is one of several sensible and targeted measures the Government has introduced to stop welfare fraud. It complements other measures such as increased information sharing streamlined investigative procedures and joint agency investigations all of which started this year. These measures have already seen significant fraudulent benefits worth millions of dollars a year stopped and people put before the courts to answer for their actions.Mike Sabin: What views has he seen on the Government’s approach to welfare fraud and alternative approaches?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: The Government takes the view that fraud is fraud whether it is dipping into grandma’s purse or the social fund or taking welfare money you are not entitled to. It is all fraud it is all criminal and we make no apologies for treating it as such. Unsurprisingly the feedback I have had from Kiwis out there has overwhelmingly been in support but if that lot over there wants to turn a blind eye to crime—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is quite sufficient.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13833. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What recent reports has he received on the value of the international education industry to New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): I recently received a new report by Infometrics on the economic impact of international education in 2012-13. This report shows that the value of international education to the New Zealand economy is continuing to grow. It contributed $2.6 billion in 2012-13 and around 28000 jobs. The sector has grown in value since 2008 despite a recent fall in international student head count due to the impacts of the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes. It is worth noting that international education is important not just for New Zealand as a whole but also for our regions—for example in 2012-13 spending generated $177 million for Wellington $165 million for Otago and $152 million for Waikato.Nicky Wagner: What steps is the Government taking to encourage growth in New Zealand’s international education sector?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Last week the Minister of Immigration and I announced a package of new initiatives designed to help grow our international education industry further. The changes will make it easier for some international students to work during their studies and allow streamlined visa processing in partnership with selected high-quality education providers. Furthermore the lowest-quality providers will be prevented from enrolling international students. Together these changes will help ensure that New Zealand remains internationally competitive and provides a good quality experience for students in New Zealand. Growing international education is not just about direct revenue; it is about creating relationships with countries that are vital for New Zealand’s future. International students who study here often go home to their home country and become great ambassadors for New Zealand and maintain their links with this country.Nicky Wagner: How will the changes enhance protection for international students in New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is important that we do look after international students who travel a long way to come and study here. In addition to the legislative changes made previously in 2011 the Government is proposing further amendments to establish a new legal framework for enforcing the Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students as well as a new disputes resolution scheme to resolve contract disputes. We need to remain vigilant to the risks of unscrupulous agents and providers. Although we are already making a number of legislative changes to deal with bad apples in the system these changes will further strengthen our regulatory framework so that we keep looking after this very important industry for New Zealand and for the students who study here.
Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeInsolvency Practitioners Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13910. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Insolvency Practitioners BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 26 September.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members when we were last on the Insolvency Practitioners Bill Jonathan Young had the call. He has 6 minutes and 30 seconds remaining to speak if he so wishes. Well I am afraid he is going to have to wait until next time because the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.
Urgent Debates Declined — Schools Canterbury—Judicial Decision on Proposed MergerText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — Schools Canterbury—Judicial Decision on Proposed Merger[Sitting date: 15 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13841. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedSchools Canterbury—Judicial Decision on Proposed MergerMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Chris Hipkins seeking to debate the recent decision of the High Court to overturn the decision by the Minister of Education to mergePhillipstown School and Woolston School on to the Woolston site. For there to be an urgent debate there must be an administrative or ministerial responsibility for the case of recent occurrence. The member in his application cites the judgment of the High Court issued on 9 October as the particular case of recent occurrence. A Minister has no responsibility for the court decision itself. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case that is sought to debated. A decision of the High Court is not a matter for which any Minister has responsibility. The application is therefore declined.
Draft transcript - Thursday 05 December 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Thursday 05 December 2013
Draft transcript - Wednesday 04 December 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 04 December 2013
Draft transcript - Tuesday 03 December 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Tuesday 03 December 2013
Draft transcript - Wednesday 20 November 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 20 November 2013
Shanks Katrina: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionShanks Katrina: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15108. Text is subject to correction.]KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill tonight. First of all I would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice on bringing this bill to the House. I alsocongratulate the rest of the parties in the House on supporting this bill. It is good to see that every party in the House is behind it today.Unfortunately our children are vulnerable and they are especially vulnerable when they are on the internet with the new technology that they have in front of them and available to them. Unfortunately there are predators out there who will prey on our children and abuse them. So this bill is very very important in that area in particular. I am not going to go into any detail on this bill. Denis O’Rourke just went through the bill clause by clause so I do not think I need to give you that detail straight after his speech.But what I do want to say to everyone listening out there is that you have the opportunity to come to the Justice and Electoral Committee next year to give your opinion on whether you think we have this balance right or wrong and on how we can change the legislation to make it even stronger than it is now. It is an opportunity for us to hear your voice. It is your opportunity to tell us about an issue that is really important to many people and impacts on their children.I encourage everybody to look at this legislation have the debate with family and your friends over Christmas and actually get the discussion going in New Zealand about how we can protect our children especially in this area. I commend this bill to the House.
Paul Foster-Bell: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionPaul Foster-Bell: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15106. Text is subject to correction.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I rise to take a brief call on the first reading of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill. I speak in support of this bill. Those of us who have had a secure and loving average New Zealand upbringing can only struggle to imagine how horrific situations of child abuse must be. I think that those situations are made even worse by those depraved people who would seek to record distribute and view those sorts of materials online. So I think it is absolutelyappropriate that the sentences for those very worst kinds of offending are being tightened and that the legislation is being updated to include technological changes such as the fact that these days materials can be viewed online without pressing a download button or committing it to a hard drive or a disk.I think this is very welcome legislation. The Minister of Justice should be congratulated on introducing it. I would like to thank other parties in the House for offering their support as well. I commend this bill to the House and to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration.
Simpson Scott: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionSimpson Scott: Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15104. Text is subject to correction.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I rise to take a short call on the first reading of the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill which I am pleased to hear has the support of the Labour Opposition for its referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is very appropriate that as a Government we are taking actions to increase the maximum penalties around sexual abuse of children that occurs online.These days people can access all manner of objectionable material in all manner of ways. Many of those avenues were never previously imagined by existing legislation and technology is moving at a very rapid pace indeed. One of the great challenges for legislators all over the world is how to ensure that legislation remains relevant and current in the face of fast-moving technology. I guess the real challenge here for us in New Zealand is to ensure not only that we address current issues of the day of this sort but that we futureproof our legislation to ensure that technology does not continue to outpace our legislation. I am looking forward to having the bill at the select committee for consideration and I commend it to the House.
Vote: Parole Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: Parole Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15101. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Parole Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes15Green Party 13; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Law and Order Committee.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Parole Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionLees-Galloway Iain: Parole Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15100. Text is subject to correction.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): This is just a very very brief call. I can assure Jan Logie that she will get her opportunity very very soon to make a contribution on this Parole Amendment Bill. Labour does support this bill being sent to the Law and Order Committee. The Parole Amendment Bill amends the Parole Act 2002 to increase the minimum time between parole hearings from 12 months to 2 years for offenders serving indeterminate sentences or sentences of 10 years or more. The maximum time between parole hearings increases from 3 years to 5 years. Hearings will also be aligned with the completion of core milestones in an inmate’s offender plan and this is estimated to reduce the number of parole hearings by 800 per year.Labour looks forward to the discussion and the debate at the select committee and I am sure to the many public submissions. With that we commend this bill to the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Parole Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: Parole Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15100. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I advise the House that this is a split call.
Mitchell Mark: Parole Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionMitchell Mark: Parole Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15098. Text is subject to correction.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): The Parole Amendment Bill is not just about cost. There are some very good things in this bill that relate directly to making the justice system just a little bit easier to negotiate your way through especially for victims.I am a member of the Law and Order Committee; I am looking forward to receiving this bill. It is a good committee. We work very well across parties. We have a very good chair in Jacqui Dean and I am looking forward to receiving this bill. Thank you.
Dean Jacqui: Parole Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionDean Jacqui: Parole Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15094. Text is subject to correction.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): This Parole Amendment Bill is another example of National delivering on its promises with a big plan for the justice sector that is being rolled out and has been very successful.This bill aims to reduce the number of unnecessary parole hearings. Victims of crime should not have to face the very stressful prospect of attending parole hearings year after year when an offender is clearly not safe to be released into the community and might have made little or no effort at rehabilitation. Each year there are around 5000 parole hearings and on average offenders have three hearings before they are granted parole. Our changes will provide strong incentives for prisoners to address their offending behaviour for the betterment of our community. I commend the bill to the House.
Roy Eric: Voting — Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Recording Party VotesText is subject to correctionRoy Eric: Voting — Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Recording Party Votes[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15090. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes as long as members are aware that it records the position in theJournals but does not change the vote. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. Leave is granted. TheJournals will so record that.
Robertson Grant: Voting — Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Recording Party VotesText is subject to correctionRobertson Grant: Voting — Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill—Recording Party Votes[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15090. Text is subject to correction.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I seek leave for the following votes on the third reading of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill to be recorded in theJournals: New Zealand Labour 33 votes for the Noes; Green Party 14 votes for the Noes; New Zealand First seven votes for the Noes; Mana one vote for the Noes; and Brendan Horan one vote for the Noes. This does not affect the outcome of the vote.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15090. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.Ayes111New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes7New Zealand First 7.Abstentions1Mana 1.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
Roy Eric: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRoy Eric: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15089. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Denise Roche—5 minutes.
Roy Eric: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRoy Eric: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15088. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that this is to be a split call. Andrew—Andrew Little 5 minutes.