edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Robertson H V Ross: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3969. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In reply I call the honourable member Holly Walker.
Mallard Trevor: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3969. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I too will be supporting this Lobbying Disclosure Bill to the Government Administration Committee. I think we have had an interesting day today with David Clark Simon O’Connor and Holly Walker being the members with the photocopied bills that have had luck at the ballot. As a result of that we have had some interesting debates. I reiterate the points that a number of my colleagues have made and that is that I will certainly not support this bill later if it is not clarified but I think those points have been made pretty clearly. Thank you.
Upston Louise: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3969. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the member Holly Walker’s bill the Lobbying Disclosure Bill. I think she has worked particularly hard in trying to get a piece of legislation that delivers the intent that is clearly behind it so I appreciate the time she has taken to discuss it with us. If I am honest I am not sure whether the drafting has got there yet but that is the advantage of the bill going to a select committee. 
I am a little cautious. I also do not think there is a significant problem in this country with lobbying. I disagree with the New Zealand First member in that I do not think that a lot of activity does go on behind closed doors. I mean if you walk around Parliament any day of the week or to a cafe across the road you will see MPs with people who could be deemed as lobbyists and it is all done out in the open. If I have a concern about this bill it is that it might actually drive activity in a way that is completely different from what we have now. I see that as one of the potential disadvantages. 
Defining a lobbyist is also particularly difficult. I agree with the comments Chris Hipkins made as an electorate MP. If someone who comes into my office is the chair of a school board of trustees a local business owner a trustee of a local community facility and a member of let us say Federated Farmers which hat do they have on and do I have to stop and ask them? Does that then stop the free-flow relationship that we have with that constituent as an electorate MP being able to learn and engage fully? So I am happy to support this bill in the first reading but there is still some work that needs to happen.
Hughes Gareth: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3968. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support Holly Walker’s Lobbying Disclosure Bill. We would like to thank all the other parties in Parliament for their support of the bill. The humour we have seen in the debate has been phenomenal tonight. I would like to acknowledge Sue Kedgley who provided the genesis for this bill. I note that we have already seen some action as a result of this bill coming into the House which is the disclosure of those 15 lobbyists with the access cards to come into Parliament. I think Holly Walker has outlined the Green Party’s arguments for the bill.  
I would like to stress the Green Party view that we see lobbying as a legitimate activity. It is an important part of our democracy and an important way that we as members of Parliament get our information. In a former life I lobbied on behalf of environmental campaigns. But it is something that can be done wrong. Sunlight is the best disinfectant; it is not a cliché to say it. Other countries are moving in this direction including the UK and the US. Canada has this disclosure or is having it. It is something that is only going to be beneficial for our democracy. It is something that the OECD has recommended. 
I would like to acknowledge what Holly said in this House which is that she is going into it with the principles of openness and transparency but she also wants a bill that is pragmatic and workable. So we urge the public and groups to have their say in the Government Administration Committee and thank the other parties for their support. Kia ora.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3965. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Lobbying Disclosure Bill. New Zealand is a vibrant democracy. Its citizens have a high level of trust in their Government and believe that we work in a transparent manner and that we are accountable to the people who elected us. If we compare New Zealand with many other countries I think we are transparent. We remain accountable to the people who elect us to the Parliament. Yet our colleagues in the Green Party believe that there is a need for lobbying disclosure legislation. Green MP Holly Walker through her member’s bill would like to see the establishment of a register for lobbyists which would to be administered by the Auditor-General and the development of a code of conduct for lobbyists. 
 I agree with the example Chris Hipkins gave. A lot of people come and lobby us on their various issues. 
National supports this bill in its first reading. However can I just say that the bill actually in my opinion is an attempt to reduce freedom of speech. I mean why else would a bill want to put a control over people who send a simple email to their representatives in Parliament? 
To some constituents who may not be fully aware of how Parliament functions how laws are enacted or how they can make their voice heard we as members of Parliament have at times to be their voice at various levels. I do not believe that is an amount of lobbying in any manner. Rather it is an opportunity for me to be of service to the people of the constituency. It is my opportunity to engage with constituents and show them that I am at their service. 
In case we are to call engaging with one constituent lobbying then can I ask my colleague across the Chamber: how else are individuals and stakeholders of public policy meant to engage with legislators to make their decisions on their policies? By binding lobbyists to law are we not imposing rules on the right of the lobbyists that they may have just as a normal person? These are the issues that we will look forward to engaging on during the select committee process. Thank you.
Hipkins Chris: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Lobbying Disclosure Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3963. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 The Labour Party is going to be supporting the Lobbying Disclosure Bill at its first reading but we do have quite a few reservations about the effect the bill would have if passed into law in its current form. If it were to come back from the select committee in its present form I think it is unlikely that we would support it beyond that stage.
Roy Eric: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3948. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We come to the 5-minute calls.
Roy Eric: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3946. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please sit. Members know that when points of order are taken they should be taken at the time. I gave the member some generosity over her time so when I call that the time has gone beyond the member should sit immediately.
Moroney Sue: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Moroney Sue: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3946. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I actually probably should have called a point of order during my speech. The barracking from that side of the House—
Roy Eric: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3946. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Your time is up. [ 
Interruption 
] Order!
Vote: Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3943. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
McClay Todd: Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McClay Todd: Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3939. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to speak on this bill the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I congratulate Miss Dalziel not only on having the bill drawn from the ballot but also on drafting it up and bringing it before the House. I previously have had the luck of having a bill drawn from the ballot and a couple of weeks ago a second one so I know how difficult it is for this to happen and sometimes a little bit of luck is what is needed. Can I also say to Miss Dalziel that I believe she has put this legislation together with good intent. Therefore I just want to recognise that and I know that she has thought long and hard about this. 
Others in the debate have made a number of points from our side of the House which I will not go over in great detail but I say only that when Miss Dalziel first drafted this legislation there probably was a problem that existed. Certainly many of us were contacted received emails and so on from constituents and others who were going through a very difficult process with the ING organisation regarding their frozen funds. Since then we have had legislation that has come through the Parliament which has entered the place and I do believe it addresses this issue. That is one of the main reasons why on our side of the House we will not be supporting this bill. 
What I would say to other members who have asked the Government to reverse its position and send this bill to a select committee so that we can have an ongoing debate with New Zealanders about this is that actually when it comes to members’ bills and many other bills that come before the House parties have positions and we do not always send bills to select committees. Indeed my first member’s bill was not sent to a select committee even though I think it was an issue that New Zealanders might have wanted to have a say on. So I respect that parties do have different positions and we do not always send these bills on. In this case therefore it is difficult for us to sit and hear that we should do that just so that others can have a say. 
One of the great things about this Parliament is its ability to talk about issues and to debate them and it takes a majority in this House to decide whether we will go further. Unfortunately here today we have decided that this bill is not something we would support. The intention I do recognise is a very good intention and as I said earlier I recognise that Miss Dalziel brings this here with good intent. But it is our opinion that the issue has been dealt with in previous legislation. Therefore it is probably not something that needs to take extra time of the House or of a select committee. Thank you.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3936. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 to expand the Act in order to exclude attempts to grant an individual distribution of any proceeds of any settlement to one individual of choice. 
The collapse of the financial sector has been distressing for thousands of New Zealanders. Many lost part or all of their savings. Most New Zealanders know someone who has been affected by the collapse of financial institutions. The current law is sufficient to deal with legitimacy. This bill could be detrimental to New Zealanders and could deter settlement by the parties of civil disputes. Settlements provide parties with the ability to resolve disputes and to come to decisive conclusions to the benefit of all concerned. The bill also avoids the prohibitive cost of taking settlements to court. 
The National-led Government is focused on creating strong economies and improving the job market which will in turn provide financial security to families. Strong capital markets provide a vital source of finance to help our businesses grow thereby creating jobs. Yesterday two commerce bills were read for the first time that aim to strengthen our financial sectors. These were included in National’s 120-point economic development plan and are a priority for this Government. National will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.
Blue Jackie: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Blue Jackie: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3928. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. It is indeed a pleasure to speak in this first reading of Simon O’Connor’s bill the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. It is about repealing old and tired legislation and cleaning up our statute book. Existing legislation once it has served its purpose needs to be repealed. Certainly the 40-year-old Joint Family Homes Act 1964 fits that category and this bill will do exactly that. We have heard that the Law Commission recommended that it should be repealed over a decade ago. I am delighted that Simon has the opportunity to do just that today. The world has certainly moved on from 40 years ago. The Joint Family Homes Act 1964 is out of date and has been superseded by legislation and certainly modern practice. The Law Commission noted that even in 2001 the Act had largely lost most of the commercial and social importance that it once may have had. 
The 1964 Act was originally intended to protect the homes of married couples from the claims of unsecured creditors and from death duties by allowing a dwelling occupied by a couple to be registered as a joint home. Of course the 1964 Act had many benefits which we have heard about today. Briefly they were savings from death duty protection against unsecured creditors security for the spouse who was not already on the title on becoming a co-owner avoiding stamp or gift duty and legal costs in the case of very small estates. The Law Commission as I said before said those advantages had been superseded. Indeed stamp duty was abolished in 1999 and estate duty in 1992 and more recently gift duty was abolished in 2011. The Act has not kept up with modern-day practices. Back in 1964 marriage was certainly the norm; increasingly there have been more and more de facto relationships. The Law Commission report in 2001 said there had been a big shift away from formal legal marriage. In 1996 there were almost 240000 people living in a de facto relationship which was an increase of 46 percent since 1991. Over that time there had definitely been a decline in the number of marriages. Certainly it is interesting to note that since 2001 to the present day the absolute number of marriages has remained pretty static despite the increase in the population. Of course we have had civil unions which is something that was not around in 1964. Since 2005 the number of civil unions has gone from 278 up to 377 in 2011. 
The rationale for supporting this bill is clearly obvious. I am delighted and I am sure it will get the support of the House so congratulations to Simon. It is important that legislation and its current purpose remain valid and it is time this 40-year-old Act is repealed. I commend this bill to the House.
O'Rourke Denis: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 Like many other members of the House who have been legal practitioners I have acted in the registration of so many joint family homes over the years that I have certainly lost count of them. The Joint Family Homes Act was a very very popular piece of legislation and it was a very very popular thing for people to do. I might say that it was a nice little earner as well for those of us in the legal profession. So that was an advantage all by itself. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Very candid of you Denis—very candid of you. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: Thank you; thank you so much. It was of course fundamentally a way in which a husband and wife could become the joint owners of a property and become the legal and beneficial owners thereof. It was a convenient and inexpensive way to reflect the real interest of both the husband and the wife in the family home. It offered some protection against creditors but not very much and I do not think that was ever a major reason for people registering joint family homes. It meant a transmission by survivorship if one of them died; that was important to them. It confirmed equal rights to occupy and use a property and that was pretty important especially to wives who liked to see this being done for obvious reasons. It prevented alienation of the interests of either party while both were living—again very popular especially with wives. It did not affect the capacity to mortgage sell or charge with the agreement of both parties. 
It was not property for the purposes of the Insolvency Act but the main reason was that it was a transaction that was exempt from stamp duties while they were applied from estate duties while they were applied and until relatively recently from gift duty which has now also been abolished. Now that those things have been abolished the popularity of registering joint family homes is of course reduced. It is sometimes said that there is a lingering advantage in joint family homes with the protection against creditors. But as I said before I do not believe that was ever a primary consideration for most people who registered joint family homes. So the loss of that very limited protection which was not a primary reason for joint family homes will not really be missed and it is not a reason for opposing this bill the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. 
The joint family homes legislation and facility was very popular but it is no longer necessary. One of the disadvantages of it of course was that it was discriminatory in that it did not apply to de facto partners and that it did not apply to single owners. It has been superseded of course by matrimonial legislation which provides the same facility in a different way. So we in New Zealand First agree that the Joint Family Homes Act is redundant and we will certainly support this bill going on to the select committee.
Dalziel Lianne: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3924. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I just want to speak briefly to the introduction of the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill to also join in the spirit I guess—I am hoping that there will be a similar response to my member’s bill which is next on the Order Paper—and to say that we will certainly support the bill to select committee. It does raise an issue that has been dealt with substantially by the Law Commission so therefore it is a very good bill for the member Simon O’Connor to be introducing. I think I heard him say that the first time he went down for a ballot he had it drawn. I say congratulations to that member. I have been here a very long time. I do not often get bills on the Order Paper but I have got one next and I do hope that I am able to encourage members on that side of the House to support it at least to select committee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So he’s scoring at 100 percent—that’s pretty good. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is actually not bad. It is actually not bad on every level. He has scored at 100 percent. I just thought I would note for the record what others have mentioned—not to traverse the ground about where the legislation originally came from but simply to comment on the one remaining element of protection that it does offer and that is protection against creditors. When one looks at the detail of the Law Commission report around that remaining protection though it actually is more stated than real. It is less of substance in terms of a remaining protection. In terms of the rights of spouses or their survivor they are protected from bankruptcy in execution but the rights of secured creditors remain unaffected. So it really is not quite a substantial protection. 
The other thing is that the specified sum which is fixed from time to time by Order in Council is currently $82000 for the joint family home—an amount that was fixed in 1996. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I do not know that there are many places where one can purchase a house for $82000 or anywhere near it but I certainly know that property prices have been increasing in Christchurch quite considerably having been recently in the property market myself. I think—and this is going back in my memory—we signed up for a joint family home on the basis that you just signed up for a joint family home. There really was not any substantial reason for so doing. I think the time for this legislation to stay on our books has probably gone and that is certainly the conclusion the Law Commission reached in December 2001. 
I congratulate the member on his success and look forward to some positive support for my member’s bill which is next on the Order Paper.
Chauvel Charles: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3922. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 When the Joint Family Homes Act 1950 the predecessor to the legislation that would be repealed by this bill the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill was enacted the then National Government described that Act as part of its programme to reinforce Christian family values. What the current Act does as we have heard from the previous speaker Simon O’Connor is allow a married couple that lives in a house owned by either or both of them to have the house vested in both of them as joint tenants. Originally there was a great deal of benefit in doing this because it would save potential liabilities for death duties to unsecured creditors for gift duty and in respect of other anomalies that have now been excised from the statute book. Most of these advantages simply do not exist any more except perhaps for some of the creditors protection and perhaps some minor advantages in relation to legal costs. 
That is why in December 2001 the Law Commission recommended that the Act be removed from the statute book. The Law Commission points out in its report that the legislation discriminates against single owners; it is anomalous given the way in which our society has evolved; it discriminates against those in de facto relationships; the protection that it provides against creditors is limited; and it takes into account neither the differences in property values around the country nor the fact that trusts are often used on a contemporary basis to protect against creditors. 
The Law Commission report is an excellent report. The bill replicates almost exactly the Law Commission’s recommendations. The Labour Opposition will be delighted for those reasons to support it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee and we will listen to the evidence given at the select committee carefully.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister—Judicial Decision Regarding Use of Powers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister—Judicial Decision Regarding Use of Powers 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3898. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the High Court ruling that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery stepped outside the legal limits of his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 in making his decision to amend the 1998 Canterbury Regional Policy Statement. The manner in which the Minister exercises his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act is undoubtedly an important issue for the House because of the considerable nature of the powers the Act grants. 
However for there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. The Minister’s decisions were yesterday set aside by the High Court and an application for a judicial review granted. There is no ministerial responsibility for a decision of the High Court. The urgent debate procedure is a way of holding the Government to account for matters of recent occurrence. There can be no particular case of recent occurrence in the absence of any further decision by the Minister which in all probability may not be forthcoming until the outcome of the judicial review is known. The application is therefore declined.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3898. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave under Standing Order 354 to make a personal explanation in respect of a reference to me earlier in question time by the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: The Prime Minister referred to comments that I made at a conference of the Environmental Defence Society some years ago where I expressed a preference in general terms for collaborative dispute resolution procedures over litigation. I stand by those comments but obviously they were made without any knowledge of the funding structure for the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust its membership the involvement of Ministers or members in that trust or the view taken by officials of the appropriateness of those arrangements.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Primary Industries 
: What recent announcements has he made to further improve New Zealand’s biosecurity system? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 On Friday I announced that 11 new biosecurity detector dogs would join the front line this year. This is a 42 percent increase in the number of detector dogs active at our border. Detector dogs and their handlers are another important part of our biosecurity system’s front line. The dogs’ visual presence at the airport is a big factor and they are great at detecting seeds and plants that X-rays may miss. 
Shane Ardern 
: What additional improvements is the Minister making to New Zealand’s biosecurity system? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I strongly believe that New Zealand’s biosecurity system is the best in the world and that the Ministry for Primary Industries does an outstanding job. Having said that neither I nor the Ministry for Primary Industries are content with simply maintaining this world-leading system. We are continually looking to make improvements and they include such things as adding 40 additional jobs to the biosecurity front line in Auckland and Wellington next month progressing the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill through the House and progressing a number of Government-industry agreements. That is why biosecurity expenditure in the last year was the highest that it has been in the last decade and almost double what it was in 2001. 
Richard Prosser 
: Does he agree with the findings of the Sapere Research Group report into the outbreak of Psa in New Zealand that the lack of consistency in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry staff’s individualised approaches led to “reactive and fragmented assessment of the risks of Psa across individual pathways”; if so what action will he take to ensure there is greater cohesion between Ministry for Primary Industries staff in order to mitigate future risks? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Action has already been taken accepting the recommendations of that report. What it clearly demonstrated to me is that there does need to be substantially better engagement between industry and the Ministry for Primary Industries if we are to get the best possible outcomes for the biosecurity system. What Psa showed is that there were changing circumstances and that information was never fed to the people it should have been fed to at the Ministry for Primary Industries.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3895. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Science and Innovation 
: How will the Advanced Technology Institute boost business-led research and development? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 The Advanced Technology Institute is designed to be a one-stop shop for businesses’ research and development needs. It will support firms at different stages of development from start-ups to established research and development performers to innovate in response to domestic and international market opportunities. The Advanced Technology Institute will consolidate services that were previously only available across a number of entities if at all. These include services such as product testing analysis and certification research and development work access to business research and development funding commercialisation assistance and intellectual property advice. The Advanced Technology Institute will also broker connections for businesses with the specialised expertise equipment and facilities they need to develop new or better products or services whether located within New Zealand or further afield. 
Colin King 
: How does the establishment of the Advanced Technology Institute and the Government’s commitment to science and innovation compare with the previous Government’s spending on research and development? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Actually we have made tremendous progress given tight financial conditions. Total Government spending on research and innovation funding has increased dramatically since 2007-08. In fact funding has increased 46 percent in that period from $848 million to $1241 million in 2012-13. We have also managed to increase the share of business-led research and development expenditure from just 8 percent of the total in 2009-10 to an estimated nearly 20 percent in 2012-13. Combined with these funding increases the creation of the Advanced Technology Institute will help better link business and science and help create new high-tech products and services which are crucial to help New Zealand grow faster.
Williams Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williams Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does the Government still intend to achieve a budget surplus by 2014/15; if so how? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes; we want to achieve this by keeping firm control on the Government’s costs which we believe is the situation at the moment. Budget forecasts show that the tax revenue which is inclined to be more volatile is on track for surplus in 2014-15. 
Andrew Williams 
: Are cutbacks to major Government roading programmes such as the Otaki to Levin expressway—which was scrapped in favour of upgrading the existing highway with the sudden saving of $300 million—now the only hope the Government has of getting anywhere near the target of a Budget surplus in 2014-15; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Andrew Williams 
: Can the Minister confirm that scrapping the four-lane expressway from Otaki to Levin will not be the first of a series of cutbacks to roading programmes in order to achieve a Budget surplus in the 2014-15 year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well if the member wants to debate the details of what decisions have actually been made about the Otaki to Levin highway then he could direct those questions more properly to the Minister of Transport. But what I have put out to the Minister is that decisions about roading are made on their own merits. They are not made in the context of the need for the Government to find money for the 2014-15 surplus. 
Andrew Williams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In that last question I specifically asked whether it would be the first of a series of cutbacks to the roading programme. So I asked for an assurance that it would not be the start of a series— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister in answering the question said that each decision on one of the roading programmes is made on its own merits so there is no pattern. His answer made it very clear that this was not the first of anything; each decision is made on its own merits. I think he did answer the question.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What initiatives has the Government put in place to better protect children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Protecting children from abuse and neglect is and has been a major priority for this Government. We have introduced a number of significant initiatives that are making a real difference. Just in the last few months for example we have announced the first roll-out of extra social workers in schools and 96 more Child Youth and Family social workers on the front line. The “failure to protect” amendment to the Crimes Act has come into effect and the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill is progressing through the House. 
Melissa Lee 
: How is the Government supporting professionals working with children to recognise and respond to signs of child abuse and neglect? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As part of our initiatives to better protect children we funded NGO Child Matters to run 1-day workshops around New Zealand providing training to health education and social service professionals to identify signs of child abuse. To date it has delivered over 96 workshops reaching over 2700 professionals. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can she confirm that her answers to written questions are correct and that the number of child protection cases that Child Youth and Family has deemed serious enough to prompt further action has increased over the past 4 years by 42 percent to almost 58000 cases yet the number of social workers in reality has increased only by 50? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I said we recently made announcements of those 50 and we have got 96 who will be there overall. Yes notifications have increased. Also though if you like the false positives—so the number of notifications we get— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: That’s further action required. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am just saying also those ones that we do not have to follow up. Over the last 8 years from memory—I do not have the number in front of me—notifications have actually increased by about 400 percent overall. 
Melissa Lee 
: What reports has she received that support the Government’s focus on protecting children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I welcome the coroner’s recommendations which validate the initiatives we have already introduced and the work we are currently doing as part of the white paper on vulnerable children. None of the recommendations come as a surprise as they have been raised in previous inquiries and in submissions on the green paper. A response will be coming forthwith.
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Zimbabwe—Prime Minister and Minister of State 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Visitors — Zimbabwe—Prime Minister and Minister of State 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3883. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Rt Hon Morgan Tsvangirai MP Prime Minister of the Republic of Zimbabwe is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the Hon Jameson Timba Minister of State and the delegation in the Speaker’s gallery also be welcomed. 
The Rt Hon Morgan Tsvangirai accompanied by the Minister for Primary Industries entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Sittings of the House 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sittings of the House 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3970. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Sittings of the House 
GARETH HUGHES (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 Since the debate on Holly Walker’s bill the Lobbying Disclosure Bill has finished I seek leave for the House to suspend a few minutes early so we can resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection? There is.
Visitors — Zimbabwe—Prime Minister and Minister of State 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Visitors — Zimbabwe—Prime Minister and Minister of State 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3883. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 25 July 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Karakia 
. 
Visitors 
Zimbabwe—Prime Minister and Minister of State 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Rt Hon Morgan Tsvangirai MP Prime Minister of the Republic of Zimbabwe is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the Hon Jameson Timba Minister of State and the delegation in the Speaker’s gallery also be welcomed. 
The Rt Hon Morgan Tsvangirai accompanied by the Minister for Primary Industries entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Vote: Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3920. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
O'Rourke Denis: Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3915. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 I certainly want to use my final 2 minutes for the purpose of recording that New Zealand First does support the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill and there are five reasons to do so. 
One is the opportunity for observance by all employees and that should be something that is primary in the consideration of the bill. Without the opportunity to observe these important days we do not have a proper system of observance at all. The second reason relates to fairness. Some employees work on weekend days and some do not. It should be fair between them all. The third relates to consistency. There should be more consistency around which days you can Mondayise and which you cannot. Fourthly we need to enhance the importance of these two days. And fifthly there is no real burden on the economy from doing so. 
Finally as a holiday can be granted in two out of seven years on average there can be no burden on employers either.
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3904. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We are not going to debate this matter in the House now. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will resume his seat. We are not going to debate this matter in the House now. The Speaker rules on all matters in this House and if the member does not have confidence in the Speaker there are certain procedures to follow in that regard. But the Speaker has ruled that consistent with the findings of the Standing Orders Committee there are occasions when speeches can be read indeed. In fact I remember on a recent occasion the member reading a particularly detailed speech following his attendance at an international conference. I did not intervene in that case because there was a lot of detail the member wanted to convey to the House. That is a judgment of the Speaker. In all matters the Speaker rules in this House.
Graham Kennedy: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3904. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to pursue it beyond this and this will be my last comment on it but that is not the understanding on which I participated in—
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3904. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. I do not think we need to put further attention on this this afternoon. It is only for the good of the House that I raise the issue. I accept that I allowed one member to read his speech this afternoon and that is why I wanted to make sure that on the other side of the House I did not preclude another member from reading his speech. But I want to encourage members for the rest of this general debate which I would rather we got on with to please enter into the spirit of the general debate.
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3904. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I do recall the debate that occurred at the Standing Orders Committee. Some of us would have preferred the wording to be tighter. In fact some of us promoted having it in the Standing Order as it had been previously. It was in the end a consensus of the committee. The wording went through without dissent. It had the two exceptions: it was the technical exception for Ministers especially on first reading was the discussion and secondly for inexperienced members. That member fulfils neither of those requirements and I therefore totally support the Speaker’s ruling.
Graham Kennedy: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3904. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You would recall the very first words you read out in that paragraph which says “where possible”. This accorded an element of individual discretionary judgment to the MP. It was on that basis that the Green Party agreed to the report. If you are going to interpret that paragraph to accord to yourself total discretion as to whether an MP in his or her individual judgment may wish to make the most boring speech in the annals of this Parliament that is not for the Speaker to determine. If you wish to do that then the Green Party will revise its view of that report and disassociate itself from it.