edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Ngaro Alfred: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionNgaro Alfred: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14323. Text is subject to correction.]11.ALFRED NGARO (National) to theMinister of Housing: What progress has the Government made in growing the community housing sector?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): We are on target to treble the size of the community housing providers through this term of Parliament to over 1000 homes with both grants and legislative reform. Over the past month the Government has entered into partnership agreements with Accessible Properties Habitat for Humanity Comcare Trust VisionWest Community Trust the New Zealand Housing Foundation and the Chinese New Settlers Services Trust for the construction of 158 homes in Christchurch Wellington Hamilton Tauranga and Auckland with the average contribution of taxpayers being about $180000 per home. The other changes that we are making with the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill which we hope to have passed by Christmas will further help the growth of the sector.Alfred Ngaro: What are the advantages of having a more diverse social housing sector involving community organisations and what has the Government learnt from international experience?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first is that social housing tenants often have complex needs. They need more than just a roof over their heads; they need specialist community providers that are able to provide those wraparound services that make a real difference for families. The second is that community organisations do a better job of stretching the taxpayer dollar and getting more homes for the taxpayer dollar. The third is that if we look at community housing organisations which are huge in places like the United Kingdom and Australia they have a far better record of consistently managing the quality of their housing far more than State housing organisations not just in New Zealand but internationally. Our long-term goal is in fact to grow the community housing sector to up to 20 percent of New Zealand’s social housing.Alfred Ngaro: How do the Government’s social housing reforms fit with the Government’s broader programme to improve access to affordable housing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The changes that we are making in social housing are just a part of the programme. We have announced changes in past legislation to free up land supply. We have expanded support for first-home buyers with our changes to KiwiSaver and Welcome Home Loans. We have legislation that will be coming into Parliament around development contributions. Tomorrow I will be announcing along with my colleague the Minister of Commerce the results of our market study into building materials costs because all of these measures are required if we are going to give Kiwi families access to more affordable housing.
Roy Eric: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionRoy Eric: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14322. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well I have no recollection of precisely what the member is referring to and I have no recollection of any words being directed at the member. The third thing is that the member should raise a point of order at the time.The member chose to raise a point of order and ask for clarification. Clarification is not a point of order.
Horan Brendan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionHoran Brendan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14322. Text is subject to correction.]BRENDAN HORAN: —“a Speaker … upholds the democratic traditions of Parliament and respects the right of every one of you elected to this House”. Earlier the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ words were out of order and I take offence. I ask you to uphold the great office of Speaker and require that member to stand withdraw and apologise.
Roy Eric: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionRoy Eric: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14322. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Horan Brendan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionHoran Brendan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14322. Text is subject to correction.]BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect the Speaker said when elected—
Sabin Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionSabin Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14319. Text is subject to correction.]8.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to theAssociate Minister of Justice: What has been the outcome of his review of the 2002 Youth Offending Strategy?Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): Youth justice in New Zealand has seen significant changes since the 2002 strategy was set including the very successful 2010 Fresh Start reforms. This has seen real reductions in youth crime with appearances before the Youth Court coming down 19 percent—well on our way to delivering our ambitious Better Public Services target of a 25 percent reduction by 2017. Last week I released a replacement document for the 2002 strategy to take what we have learnt over the last decade and set the direction for youth justice over the next decade. The Youth Crime Action Plan reflects what those on the front line have told us: that we are world leading in youth justice but we need further gains and need to lift our performance at every point across the system. The plan is a package of changes across the youth justice system that will do just that.Mike Sabin: How will the Youth Crime Action Plan deliver on the ambitious targets?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: The plan identifies three key areas where we will focus our efforts over the next 10 years: working in closer partnership with community organisations preventing unnecessary escalation of young people into the system and creating more opportunities to get young offenders safely out of the system and to keep them out. It includes 30 specific actions over the next 2 years covering these areas and Government support for the sector. It keeps us accountable to the communities we serve including regular opportunities to review progress and set new actions that respond to emerging challenges and opportunities.Mike Sabin: What are some of the actions that the Youth Crime Action Plan sets for the next 2 years?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: It sets specific actions including working with communities to create local plans that address specific challenges in their communities making family group conferences as user-friendly as possible so that families get the best possible resolution for them improving planning and support for youth returning to the community after an out-of-home court order ensuring that every possible youth offender is referred to police youth aid and increasing the use of supported and electronically monitored bail to reduce the number of young people held on remand in youth justice residences.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionWagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14314. Text is subject to correction.]6.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What progress has been made in the rebuild of the University of Canterbury?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): Last week I was very pleased to announce that the Government will provide up to $260 million to the University of Canterbury to support its rebuild programme following the Canterbury earthquakes. As a result of the quakes student numbers were down 15 percent in 2012 compared with the previous 3-year average. It has been a tough time for everyone at the university. It has developed an excellent campus-wide redevelopment programme to refresh and modernise its campus and supporting infrastructure for the benefit of its students. The new campus will truly be world leading. There will be a new integrated regional science centre fully modern science teaching and research facilities as well as an expanded and fully modernised College of Engineering and other facilities. The Government is delighted to make this contribution to assist in the Canterbury recovery.Nicky Wagner: What will be the total investment by the university in the rebuild of the campus?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is a very significant programme. The university’s total programme of investment is costed at $1.1 billion over a period of 10 years. The university estimates that it will actually spend in the local economy in total in both capital and operating expenditure about $4 billion over the next 10 years as well as bring an additional 3000 domestic and international student places into the region. The rebuild of the university is another very significant injection into the already fast-growing Canterbury economy and a significant part of the wider earthquake recovery in the region because it is of course a very important part of the region—that is its leading university.Nicky Wagner: What other steps is the Government taking to assist tertiary education in Canterbury?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Of course the tertiary education sector was hit hard by the earthquakes. Since the earthquakes student achievement component funding for Canterbury tertiary institutions has been maintained at 2011 levels despite the downturn in students. Institutions have also been exempted from funding recoveries where enrolments did not reach expected levels. The Tertiary Education Commission has recently approved a continuation of this exemption for 2014. Recently of course I announced that the Government would inject just under $19 million into theChristchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology to enable it to further expand its trade training capacity. The expansion means that the institute will be able to once again grow its numbers of students in trade training by a further 1000 student places each year through until 2018.
Draft transcript - Wednesday 06 November 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 06 November 2013
Draft transcript - Thursday 07 November 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Thursday 07 November 2013
Robertson H V Ross: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14261. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Dr Paul Hutchison.
McKelvie Ian: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionMcKelvie Ian: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14259. Text is subject to correction.]IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Firstly I might take a moment to congratulate Sue Moroney on drawing yet another lucky number. She has been busy on members’ day ever since I have been in this House.Sue Moroney: Come to the races with me.IAN McKELVIE: Yes we might get a bit of luck there too Sue might we not? We are not far out from the Melbourne Cup now. This bill the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill does touch on some areas that are of great importance and interest to all New Zealanders. Like in many countries worldwide the new age of technology has led to some issues with security breaches that were not previously experienced and are certainly not desirable. Some of the discussion of course has taken place during the recent discussions on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill introduced to enable our law enforcement agencies to operate in the new era which is an increasingly complex and testing area to understand as members opposite have demonstrated in the past few weeks. Mr Scott Simpson has spoken at length on the reasons we are not able to offer support for this bill so I will merely agree with everything he has said and get on with matters of interest to us all.Andrew Little then said “Show us what you’ve got.” Well I went and got a copy of this bill and if that is all we have got we ain’t got much—it is a page. It is a page. He then went on to talk about some other nefarious stuff with respect to “Show us what you’ve got.” I did not believe any of it. He then got muddled to some extent and started talking about the Minister of Justice and in fact what a wonderful job she has done with that portfolio in her time with it. So I thought really that Andrew Little did a great job.Trevor Mallard’s performance tonight on the other hand has me wishing that the America’s Cup was still running. We certainly got a lot more done during the running of those cup finals and I did quite enjoy the House in that couple of weeks. Mr Auchinvole then got up made an outstanding speech about this bill and then started talking about the black gold. I really thought for a minute that he had joined the Greens but we were saved from that because they then got up and started talking about the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation. They told us that the Privacy Commissioner is underfunded. Well I understand that the Government raised another$1.8 billion today. That should alleviate some of the problem with our funding of issues throughout New Zealand.So with those few words I am afraid that I cannot support this bill and I will resume my seat.
Robertson H V Ross: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14253. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Scott Wilson.Scott Simpson: Simpson.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Simpson. It escaped me for a minute Mr Simpson.
Prasad Rajen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionPrasad Rajen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14191. Text is subject to correction.]2.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) to theMember in charge of theCare of Children Law Reform Bill: Why is the Care of Children Law Reform Bill required?JACINDA ARDERN (Member in charge of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill): It is true that adoption numbers in New Zealand are falling but this is in part due to the very antiquated nature of our laws. Not only are there limitations on who can adopt there are also limitations on who is able to maintain a legal relationship with thechild once the order is complete meaning that whāngai adoption for instance is not supported by our current legal framework. The law needs to be changed to introduce the paramountcy principle so that the No. 1 consideration is the well-being of the child.Dr Rajen Prasad: Why does the Care of Children Law Reform Bill reference the Law Commission’s report entitledAdoption and its Alternatives: A Different Approach and a New Framework?JACINDA ARDERN: My member’s bill does take an unusual approach in that it leans heavily on the work of the Law Commission in its report on adoption. That is for one simple reason. This area is very complex. The Law Commission produced over 300 pages of policy and recommendations. We need to get this right and it makes sense to utilise the work it has done.
Vote: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14251. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Care of Children Law Reform Bill be now read a first time.Ayes42New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent Horan.Noes78New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well can I just say to the member that my declaration was challenged and so on that basis I instructed a party vote to be taken. That is the reason why I asked the Clerk to please conduct a party vote. I would appreciate it if the Clerk would now do that. Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is subject to correction.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you might be confusing a challenge with people voting different ways. There have got to be two things. First of all people have the right to vote—Ayes and Noes—but there is a division only if your declaration is challenged as I have tried to indicate to the House. I can give you the case of the immigration legislation of I think 1983 where there was a group of seven or eight Labour members who voted No. This was the Samoan legislation of 1983 which ended up going to the Privy Council. Rosenberg I think took it to the Privy Council. But the point that I am trying to make is that it is always the right of the members to vote with their voices but not to call a division. And they can call for a division—they can challenge your result—only when you have declared it. The point that I am making to you is that you had not declared the result before Mr Macindoe was calling for a party vote. He has got to wait for you to call for a party vote before he can challenge your ruling because you cannot challenge a ruling that has not been made.
Robertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well can I just say that the thing was challenged and because it was challenged I instructed a party vote to be called. So I now call the Clerk to conduct a party vote.
Mallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is subject to correction.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That cannot possibly be right because you called “The Ayes have it.” Why would people on this side of the House who supported it call for a division on a vote when you had already declared that we had won? That cannot be right.
Robertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just instruct the House that the declaration of the result was challenged and I took it from this side that there was a party vote called for so I instructed a party vote to be taken. I now instruct the Clerk to please take the party vote.
Mallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is subject to correction.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think that the member has absolutely proved my case because what he has to do is to call for the vote after you have declared the result. So you quite properly said “Those in favour say Aye those opposed say No.” But you went then from saying “The Ayes have it.”; you declared the result but then immediately called for a party vote rather than wait until after the member had himself called for a party vote which he can do only after you have declared the result. He cannot call for a party vote against a result until he knows what the result is. That is the way things work. You have got to declare a result and then that is the point when he calls for a party vote.
Macindoe Tim: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionMacindoe Tim: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14250. Text is subject to correction.]TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): As is your custom you called for the Ayes. Members opposite said “Aye.” You called for the Noes and members on this side said “No.” I immediately said “The Noes have it.” and I was joined in that by several of my colleagues. Immediately after that I said “Party vote.” as you were saying “The Noes have it.” The member’s point is totally wrong.
Mallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14249. Text is subject to correction.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a requirement for someone to call for a party vote after—[Interruption] Well no—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Can you hear the point of order first? With all due respect I did hear someone call for a party vote but it was after you said you would ask the Clerk for a party vote. My understanding of the way that these things are meant to be ordered is that you declare a result and if the people do not like it then there is a requirement for a party vote. Although it is probably reasonable given the debate for you to anticipate that there might be a division on this particular question the point I would like to put to you is that you should wait to make sure that they are actually voting with their votes as opposed to just on their voices. As you will know Mr Assistant Speaker although there is a tradition in this House of having votes after voicevotes there is a long-term tradition of members being able to vote on the voices but not force a division. My view is that it is up to you to wait and make sure that members do want a division before you decide that there should be one.
Robertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14249. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it. [Interruption] The Ayes have it. [Interruption] Right. In that case the Clerk is instructed to carry out a party vote. Thank you.
Shanks Katrina: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionShanks Katrina: Care of Children Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14242. Text is subject to correction.]KATRINA SHANKS (National): I was going to say that it is my pleasure to take a call on this Care of Children Law Reform Bill. It is actually a very very unique bill. I have never seen one actually drafted like this in the House before. Normally when you look at a bill especially a member’s bill you see the person’s passion coming through that bill their principles what they believe in how they want it to go and what they want to achieve. But in this bill you do not see any of that. All you see in this bill is the member saying that she directs the Minister of Justice to direct the Law Commission to write a report to draft a bit of legislation to come back into the House and for it to be tabled. Nowhere in this bill does it actually talk about adoption in between clauses 6 and 9 where all the information should be about what you want to achieve in this bill.Between clauses 6 and 9 adoption does not come up once. You do not mention the word “adoption” once between clauses 6 and 9 where all the action actually happens—where the Law Commission has been directed. There is no reference to that word.So when we have it in the select committee and we have submitters come forward what are they going to submit on? Are they going to submit on those clauses and say: “We do not want it referred to the Law Commission.” or “We do not want the Law Commission writing legislation that has to be tabled in the House.”? Is that what they are going to say? There is no clear direction in this bill about what you actually want to achieve.We all agree that adoption is very important for many many families in New Zealand. It is a very emotive topic for many many people in New Zealand. So let us have a piece of legislation that actually talks about what you want to do with adoption what your vision is where we should be going with adoption in New Zealand and what people in New Zealand actually want. The bill does not give us that. It does not give us direction. It does not give us clarity about what that member wants. What really concerns me is that if the Law Commission does a report reports back to the House and there is a piece of legislation attached to that and the member does not like those recommendations then she has put forward a bill that will have recommendations that she does not even agree with. I cannot support this bill.
Lee Melissa: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionLee Melissa: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14227. Text is subject to correction.]MELISSA LEE (National): I would indeed like to continue a little bit because as we draw closer to the dinner break I was wondering whether I was once again going to have to break up my speech. If I remember correctly I was speaking in support of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I wanted to bring a little bit of the ethnic perspective into it and I talked specifically about my mother who is raising my child.As members of Parliament we often leave our homes and given that I am a single woman my son who has just turned 15 is often at home with my mother. My mother I sometimes joke has become my wife. It is so in many ethnic communities and I think people have often talked about the goose parents the goose mums who migrate to New Zealand and often their husbands go back to their home countries because they cannot get a job. The wives then try to find a job here while looking after their children and when a wife does in fact find a job often the young children are looked after by grandparents.The Government recognises this incredible work being done by family members who are raising children who have lost their parents or who are unable to live with their parents. At the moment kin carers are entitled to assistance to help with the cost of raising orphaned or unsupported children and in 2009 National ensured that kin carers would get the same weekly amount as foster carers which I think is excellent.You know traditionally in ethnic communities grandparents played a very big role in teaching young children about their culture about their language about their tradition and about their family history. They play a significant role. But the thing is that when they are lumbered with the care of children whom they do not necessarily have responsibility for after they have raised their own children they have to relearn how to be parents. I think it is a wonderful job that they are doing and we need to support them.More than 12000 children are being cared for by wider family members for one reason or another and I know that we have agreed with New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin who has introduced this bill to look at further options within that $10 million capped fund that we have already committed to in the Vulnerable Children Bill. I look forward to the submission process in the select committee and I look forward to building on the good work that is already under way. I commend this bill.
Tisch Lindsay: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14227. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members when we were last on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill Melissa Lee had the call and has 3 minutes remaining if she wishes.
Vote: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14227. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes117New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes3Māori Party 3.Bill read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14223. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call—Moana Mackey.
Robertson H V Ross: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14216. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the honourable member Andrew Williams.
Robertson H V Ross: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14208. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the Hon Ruth Dyson.
Robertson H V Ross: General DebateText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: General Debate[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14206. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for informing me that you have finished.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Robertson H V Ross: General DebateText is subject to correctionRobertson H V Ross: General Debate[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14205. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much Mr Henare for your contribution but it is not a point of order. It is entirely up to the member. Honourable members the time for this debate—Simon O’Connor: Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Oh you were lucky.Simon O’Connor: Damn straight.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Simon O’Connor.Hon Member: No we’re lucky.
Henare Tau: General DebateText is subject to correctionHenare Tau: General Debate[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14205. Text is subject to correction.]Hon TAU HENARE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. An accusation has been made. There are 120-odd members of Parliament in this place and I think it behoves that member there Brendan Horan to name that person so that the rest of us are not wrapped up in his little game.
Little Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionLittle Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14192. Text is subject to correction.]4.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to theMember in charge of thePrivacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill: Why is the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill required?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill): This bill gives two important tools to the Privacy Commissioner: firstly the ability to launch her own investigation without a specific complaint in order to investigate a privacy breach; and secondly the right to require agencies to take specific remedies when there are privacy problems. Both of these issues which are in this bill were recommended by the Law Commission.Andrew Little: Why is it important to New Zealanders for this bill to be progressed now?SUE MORONEY: It is important that this bill is progressed now because of this Government’s record of playing fast and loose with New Zealanders’ privacy—breaches everywhere from ACC to the Earthquake Commission—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is quite sufficient.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—no. Order! It is not in order to have a supplementary question.
Little Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionLittle Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14192. Text is subject to correction.]3.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to theMember in charge of thePrivacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill: Is it still her intention to proceed with the first reading of the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill): Yes. I hope that parties that take privacy breaches seriously will in fact get the chance to vote for my bill this very evening.Andrew Little: Has she seen any reports of similar legislation being proposed?SUE MORONEY: Yes I have. In May 2012 the Minister of Justice Judith Collins promised a privacy forum that she would be introducing a bill to replace the Privacy Act in the first half of 2013. As we head into November there is no sign of that bill yet but help is at hand. She can make—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is now sufficient.
Prasad Rajen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionPrasad Rajen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14191. Text is subject to correction.]1.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) to theMember in charge of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill: Is it still her intention to proceed with the first reading of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill?JACINDA ARDERN (Member in charge of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill): Absolutely it is my intention to proceed. Although the bill was delayed to allow for clarity around the impact of the marriage equality legislation on the bill there remain a number of unresolved issues as a result of the fact that quite simply our adoption laws are out of date and no longer fit for purpose.Dr Rajen Prasad: Has she received any reports on the likelihood of the bill reaching a select committee?JACINDA ARDERN: I have. Although I am optimistic I understand that unfortunately some parties would rather wait for the gamble of a second member’s bill on this issue being drawn before progressing with adoption law reform. Others quite simply do not see it as a priority. I would ask that these parties reconsider.
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionDyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14189. Text is subject to correction.]11.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to theMinister of Conservation: Why did he tell the House on 24 September “the first I knew of the issue of the submission was just 5 days before” when as he stated on 17 October “The first full briefing on Tukituki was on 5 March and it confirmed the department’s role in the process and mentioned nitrogen and phosphorous management”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The 5 March report on Tukituki from the Department of Conservation said that the proposed project would result in water-quality improvements throughout the catchment. It is ridiculous of the member to suggest that as a consequence I should have known of the existence of a draft submission that said the exact opposite. I stand by my answers that I did not know of the existence of the 34-page draft submission until it was publicly leaked in September.Hon Ruth Dyson: When he told the House last week about his paper on 5 March that “The paper was very positive on the project” and “I was surprised at the content of the leaked draft submission which had a very different view on the effects of the project.” was he saying that the reason he expressed so much concern over theDepartment of Conservation’s submission was because he thought it was going to be positive about the Ruataniwha Water Storage scheme?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I simply leave it to the comments by the Deputy Director-General of Conservation. She said that she made the decision on the submission that I never saw the leaked draft submission that I had no role in the decision making and that she did not know what my view was. It could be no more comprehensive than that. The allegations from members opposite do not have a leg to stand on.Hon Ruth Dyson: Does he think he is keeping the Department of Conservation sufficiently neutral given that his weekly report from 11 March notes that it was preparing material for a meeting with the Bluegreens a National Party organisation?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is perfectly normal of Ministers to say “I’m going to an event and I’m likely to give a speech on some subjects and I’d like to be well informed.” I remember well Ministers under the previous Labour Government in terms of the Prime Minister receiving substantive briefings prior to giving speeches at Labour Party conferences.Hon Ruth Dyson: What exactly did he say to the Prime Minister on 30 September when he briefed him on the public controversy over the Department of Conservation’s leaked draft submission on the Tukituki plan change?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: At lunch when the Prime Minister returned from an overseas trip I said to him that the Labour Party had been making up some nonsense over Tukituki that the Deputy Director-General of Conservation had made it absolutely plain that the department made the decision and that we were getting on with the important business of Government.
Paul Foster-Bell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionPaul Foster-Bell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14189. Text is subject to correction.]10.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to theMinister of Police: What recent announcements has she made to support the victims of serious financial crime?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): Yesterday I announced that the Serious Fraud Office has signed a memorandum of understanding with Victim Support. The emotional and financial consequences for victims of serious financial crime can be extremely traumatic and like other victims of serious crime they deserve support. That is why when I became the Minister I asked the Serious Fraud Office to establish a close working relationship with Victim Support. The resulting memorandum of understanding will ensure that victims have access to help and advice as well as giving them the confidence that those who commit financial fraud are held to account for their crimes.Paul Foster-Bell: How will the memorandum of understanding result in better services for victims of serious financial crime?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Serious financial crime can have a devastating impact on victims with many of them losing a lifetime of savings. The memorandum of understanding will see the two agencies working together to promote and deliver victim support services and to keep victims informed about their cases. The Serious Fraud Office and Victim Support will also hold joint training sessions to help share information and best practice. The Serious Fraud Office has already published two guides to help victims understand the processes involved in investigations and prosecutions and how this might affect them.
Williams Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionWilliams Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14184. Text is subject to correction.]6.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to theMinister of Conservation: Has he received any reports on the environmental impact of seismic surveying in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): My responsibilities as Minister of Conservation relate to the protection of marine mammals. I have received reports on improving the management of the environmental impacts of seismic surveys. The new law I introduced to Parliament as Minister for the Environment in August 2011 enables such effects to be regulated whereas prior to this when many seismic surveys were done there were no rules. This has enabled the 2012 code of conduct for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from seismic survey operations to be introduced. I have received reports on updating and improving it. It is just another example of the improvements this Government is making to environmental law.Andrew Williams: What environmental safeguards have been put in place in relation to seismic surveying in the exclusive economic zone and what monitoring structure will be in place to provide comprehensive data and reporting on the environmental impacts of seismic surveying?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would be happy to provide the member the 2012 code of conduct specifically about seismic surveying which also includes monitoring requirements. I would point out that this code of conduct for seismic surveying has been introduced only as a consequence of the law changes made by this Government and opposed by members opposite and that many seismic surveys were done by the previous Government with the support of New Zealand First with no standards at all.Andrew Williams: What information does he have on any adverse effects on marine wildlife as a result of seismic surveying?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The key issue for marine mammals in respect of seismic surveying is the effects of the acoustic disturbance. That is where the Government has done a huge amount of work. That is why that code of conduct was introduced last year. That is why it is being updated this year and that is why this Government has such a proud record of improved environmental regulation.Andrew Williams: Given the Minister’s answer and given New Zealand’s strong international stance on protecting whales dolphins and other marine animals will a precautionary approach be taken to protect marine life if adverse effects of seismic surveying are evident and proven?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The2012 Code of Conduct for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to Marine Mammals from Seismic Survey Operations including whales is world’s best practice around managing these risks. It has become regulated only as a consequence of this Government’s laws. I do have confidence that it enables us to be able to utilise our resources in the ocean environment while making sure we look after those precious whales and dolphins.
Young Jonathan: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Insolvency Practitioners Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13822. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am pleased to stand in support of the Insolvency Practitioners Bill in its second reading. It came before the Commerce Committee on 24 August 2010. During that time we received and considered 11 submissions from interested groups and individuals and we heard only one submission from that period of time. So essentially it is not a large sector but it is very important as the previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said. When it comes to a company that has gone into difficulty and insolvency it is very important that the person who oversees that has not only the skills but the credibility because there are lots of people—creditors obviously—who are dependent upon the good work of that person to recover as much as possible. We know that it is important for our economy that when things do go AWOL when things do turn upside down that we can recover as much as possible. We live in a very interconnected economy obviously and so thisbill in particular is ensuring that we do have some very robust measures around those people who are appointed as insolvency practitioners.This bill is actually part of the National-led Government’s focus on improving the integrity of our financial system. The previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove talked about the number of companies that have gone through difficulty since 2008. I think that we need to be reminded again that the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009 was the worst financial crisis that has affected this economy and the economies of the world in over 60 years. Yes it brought incredible stresses upon companies in New Zealand for a variety of reasons. Obviously during those times of pressure the system is tested and the integrity of our financial system in many regards stood up far far better than those in other jurisdictions around the world—our banking system in particular.The overriding focus of the commerce portfolio is to restore the confidence of investors and people who participate in our economy and to bring confidence to our capital markets especially after the very very difficult time when we saw so many finance companies collapse. We are focused on boosting growth and creating jobs. Only a strong economy can provide financial security for families real opportunities for young people safer communities and the higher education and health services that all New Zealanders need. This bill is a further measure in that process.One of the things I want to talk about through that process that the committee looked at is the appointment of family members. We considered clause 5 of the bill as introduced—Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.