edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Visitors — China—Environment Protection and Resources Conservation Committee National People’s CongressText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVisitors — China—Environment Protection and Resources Conservation Committee National People’s Congress[Sitting date: 24 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13593. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 24 September 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsChina—Environment Protection and Resources Conservation Committee National People’s CongressMr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Environment Protection and Resources Conservation Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China led by Mr WangHongju is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Draft transcript - Tuesday 05 November 2013Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Tuesday 05 November 2013
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13373. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to theMinister for ACC: What announcements has she made today about ACC levies?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): Today I announced my support for ACC’s consultation on significant reductions to average levies for businesses for motor vehicle owners and for workers being a 17 percent reduction in the combined average work levy a 15 percent reduction in the combined average motor vehicle levy and a 15 percent reduction in the earners levy.Chris Auchinvole: What factors of ACC’s performance have enabled this?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The combination of effective rehabilitation prudent cost management and exceptional investment performance has enabled the consideration of substantial levy reductions. ACC runs the system. It is the envy of many countries in the world and I would like to thank the board—Grant Robertson: There’s no one left on the board.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —and ACC staff for their hard work which has contributed to the possibility of levy reductions—an excellent board by the way appointed by me.
Tisch Lindsay: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13450. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.
O'Rourke Denis: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13450. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The bill must achieve a very difficult balance between protecting citizens from serious sexual or violent harm and the right of those affected to be subject to the least restrictive form of detention that is practicable. It must also ensure adequate oversight of detention through regular reviews by a review panel and the High Court independent inspector and Ombudsman visits and an annual report to Parliament. There is a high level of public expectation for legislation of this kind. What we must do and what the select committee must do is get the legislation right and that comes down to the detail of it.I would first like to refer to the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General that the bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The issue is whether these orders would amount to further punishment of sentenced offenders or a regime of civil committal as provided for in other legislation. I agree that the bill incorporates the key safeguards necessary for a civil committal regime and that it will therefore be New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliant. Whether the bill as introduced includes adequate safeguards at each of the stages of the making administration and review—
Tisch Lindsay: Electoral Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13439. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry but the member’s time has expired.
Tisch Lindsay: Electoral Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13437. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I understand that the next call is a split call. Moana Mackey—5 minutes.
Wilkinson Kate: Electoral Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilkinson Kate: Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13433. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to stand and speak at the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and to follow from previous speakers. What impresses me about this bill is the amount and the high degree of consensus. I happen to come from the school of thought that says that when we are making changes in constitutional jurisdictional and electoral matters there should be that high degree of consensus. I am also one of those ones who was really fortunate and lucky enough to sit in on the Justice and Electoral Committee when it was actually doing the so-called hearing of submissions on the infamous Electoral Finance Act.The degree of memory lapse from members of the other side is astounding—Maggie Barry: Typical.Hon KATE WILKINSON: —but typical. Absolutely right it is typical. Actually I took the opportunity to read the minority report on that which we wrote several years ago. Just as an example members of that committee received a paper at 9.05 a.m. for discussion at 9.30 a.m. That was a total abuse of the democratic process. There was no opportunity to read the document before the discussion took place.We have heard criticisms of this bill because of what it does not contain. Again the short memory loss of the other side is astounding. We know that some parties may want a different threshold for MMP. That is fine. But there was no consensus reached on that. Actually on the other side of the coin some wanted a proper discussion on the closure of the electoral rolls. So not everybody got what they wanted. But what we have is a consensus. It is a compromise. I believe that for the public to have confidence in our system that consensus is vital and I am pleased to support it.I know that the previous speaker Denis O’Rourke talked about cynical manipulations and no genuine regard for democracy. Well if that was the case then with the numbers across the House the bill might have been in a different form. But theimportance and the emphasis must be on consensus in relation to electoral matters and I believe that we have got that across the House.I think it is trivial point-scoring to try to criticise either the process or the fact that this bill has the barest of changes. There has been some considerable discussion as Mr Little knows through the select committee process to actually achieve that consensus. Mr Little did not get the changes that he necessarily wanted. We might not have got the changes that we necessarily wanted either but that is the genuine nature of consensus.I do think that we have a bill here that is pragmatic that will improve the efficiency of voting will improve the services to voters candidates and parties and will improve the integrity of our election system. I commend this bill to the House.
Mitchell Mark: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13421. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. I would just like to acknowledge the other parties in the House that are supporting this bill at its first reading and supporting its referral to the Commerce Committee. This bill is a good bill. It seeks to strengthen the regulatory regime that applies to credit providers and financial services providers. The key messages are that under this bill lenders must act responsibly consumers must have the information they need to make informed decisions and there are serious consequences for those who breach the law.The legislation is the biggest overhaul of consumer law in a decade and encompasses wide-ranging changes to consumer credit and repossession laws. The proposals in the bill complement reforms that were progressed in the Financial Markets Conduct Bill and that seek to promote confident and informed participation by businesses and investors in financial markets. The sector has been widely consulted on this bill.The Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill aims to promote confidence in credit and broader financial markets through strengthening protection for vulnerable consumers in credit markets—we have heard many of my colleagues in the House tonight talking about the protection that needs to be wrapped round people who are vulnerable and open to unscrupulous loan sharks—promote the confident and informed participation in markets for credit by consumers and protect the integrity of the financial service providers registration regime. It is a very good bill. I am looking forward to receiving this bill at the Commerce Committee and I commend it to the House. Thank you.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Commerce Committee.
Yang Jian: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYang Jian: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13417. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. This bill is sponsored by Minister of Commerce Craig Foss and its purpose is to strengthen the regulatory regime that applies to credit providers and financial service providers.Some lenders are giving loans that borrowers will clearly struggle to pay back misleading consumers who do not understand the real cost of a loan not disclosing essential information and taking disproportionate security. These are just a few examples of the behaviour this bill is targeting. I had a meeting with a Chinese lady earlier this year. She borrowed $15000 from a loan shark and was unable to pay it back. She said she had been constantly threatened by the loan shark and even made an attempt to commit suicide. Under this bill lenders must act responsibly so that consumers will be able to make informed decisions. There will be serious consequences for those who breach the law.This is a good bill because it will promote confidence in the credit market and the broader financial markets. It is also part of the much-needed reforms that National is making to ensure that irresponsible lending practices are stamped out. Too often we are seeing cases of vulnerable consumers making poor financial decisions that can lead to spiralling debt and financial hardship for them and their families. This bill will extend some protection to these vulnerable consumers particularly against loan sharks who feed off such people.This bill will result in a new easy-to-understand law that incorporates two pieces of existing legislation namely the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and the Credit (Repossession) Act. Combining both pieces of legislation into the new bill will ensure a high degree of consumer protection particularly for vulnerable consumers; require responsible lending practices by credit providers; and promote good business practices in the consumer credit industry.This bill is the biggest overhaul of consumer law in a decade and it is part of National’s Business Growth Agenda. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13414. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the first reading of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. Can I just say that the bill being introduced once again shows that this National Government is very concerned about the citizens of New Zealand. By introducing this legislation we are seeking to strengthen the regulation under which credit providers and financial service providers operate. By strengthening this legislation we in the National Government are seeking to protect borrowers from any dodgy finance companies and dealers. We want our citizens to be better informed.This is a fantastic piece of legislation for any new migrant coming to New Zealand. It takes some time before one settles in a new land. This requires a vast amount of effort and a good sum or amount of money. It is unlikely that new migrants will have sufficient knowledge or money at their disposal straight away. Therefore they are likely to use either banks or other financial institutions. This legislation will protect all consumers by providing them with the information so that they can make informed decisions. The legislation will also be a deterrent to lenders. They must act responsibly and there are very serious consequences for those who breach the law.There is little doubt that the fear that the global financial crisis created in the minds of the ordinary citizens of New Zealand still remains. The global financial crisis meant that most people had to work very hard to keep their jobs and provide for their families. Some had to borrow money at times to survive. However in times of need if a loan shark wishes to take advantage of your situation this is not acceptable. The bill seeks empathy and understanding on behalf of the borrowers who seek finance from these loan sharks. There can be a personal situation such as sickness or bereavement or any other kind of situation that may lead to the borrower not being able to keep up their repayments. Credit providers remain largely unregulated and have no code of conduct. Clarity is sought on any fee or extra payment that consumers are being implicitly asked to pay without the lender properly informing them of the total cost of buying a good or a service.I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Consumer Affairs the Hon Craig Foss on sponsoring this legislation. It is the most extensive review of consumer law in the past decade. I commend this bill to the House.
Roy Eric: Vulnerable Children Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Vulnerable Children Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13401. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Phil Twyford; 5 minutes.
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHeatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13374. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to theMinister for Social Development: How will the Vulnerable Children Bill make a difference for those children most at risk of abuse and neglect?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): This bill is first and foremost about protecting vulnerable children. We are putting the children first. The bill introduces joint Government accountability requires agencies working with children tohave child protection policies and new standard safety checks in place and creates tougher orders for offenders who pose a high risk of abusing or neglecting children into the future. This work is being driven not just by my own and this Government’s passion to better protect children but also the determination of a number of New Zealanders who have contributed to this process. I am hoping that there is cross-party support across this House for this work.Hon Phil Heatley: How will the child harm prevention orders better protect children from adults who may harm them?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The child harm prevention orders will apply to people who have been convicted of or found on the balance of probabilities to have committed a qualifying offence against a child and pose a high risk of harming children in the future. I have heard that other parties have concerns around some of the checks and balances so we want to outline a few of them. Each order needs two health assessments from a clinical psychologist and a health assessor nominated by the respondent. They will be reviewed annually by the review panel and may be discharged if the person can demonstrate that they are no longer a risk. The orders will also be in line with the level of risk of reoffending or offending against a child. It will be for that period of time and as I say it may not be that they all cannot be at a park; it might be that they are just banned from a particular house and restricted from being there.Hon Phil Heatley: What role does the Government community organisations and the public have to play in the Children’s Action Plan?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Without a doubt all three are the answer to some of these issues. When it comes to New Zealand’s record on child abuse it is quite frankly appalling. More than 50 children have died in the last 5 years because of extreme abuse. A child under 2 is hospitalised every 5 days because of abuse. Every year Child Youth and Family substantiates around 22000 cases of physical sexual emotional abuse and neglect and those are just the ones that we know about. We all have a role to play in better protecting children from abuse and neglect. The legislation that will be introduced into the House shortly plays a very significant but only one part of that.
Woodhouse Michael: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration)on behalf of theMinister of Commerce: I moveThat the Copyright (Parallel Importing of Films) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I want to thank the Commerce Committee and its chair the hard-working Jonathan Young for its timely consideration of this bill. The select committee received 10 submissions on the bill including four accompanied by oral submissions. The bill proposes to amend the Copyright Act 1994 by reinstating the ban on parallel importation of films for commercial purposes.The ban is important to support New Zealand’s cinemas in the final stages of transition to digital exhibition technology. The Government strongly supports the transition to digital exhibition as it reduces the need for delays in film exhibition giving consumers earlier access to films. In its report the select committee noted that the ban allows cinemas flexibility in scheduling films particularly for school holiday audiences creating better financial viability which enables more movies to be available at times when wanted by consumers. I also acknowledge the select committee’s comments that as consumer viewing technology develops it expects that this will force cinemas to develop new revenue streams to meet consumers’ expectations rather than relying on past business models.The bill reduces the period of the ban from 9 months to 5 months. This reflects the changes in film distribution practices recognising that New Zealanders now often receive films at the same time as international viewers. The bill also imposes a sunset clause so that the bill will expire in 3 years on 31 October 2016. The 3-year time frame will give cinemas that have not yet converted enough time to transition to digital exhibition technology.The Commerce Committee reported the bill back to the House with no amendments. I support the decision of the committee. Many films are released on DVD between 3 and 4 months after their cinematic debut. The 5-month ban will effectively give cinemas a further 1 to 2 months to exclusively screen films without competition. The shortened period will allow retailers to parallel import copies of films earlier and encourage authorised distributors to provide consumers with earlier access to films. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the motion be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Collins Judith: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCollins Judith: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Committee divide the bill into the Care of Children Amendment Bill (No 2) the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Family Dispute Resolution Bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 3) the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 2) the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Family Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 350.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13530. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13528. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The honourable member Christopher Faafoi.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13525. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 5 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13525. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13521. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13521. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13512. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 3 as amended agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 56.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13512. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13512. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the motion be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 52.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 3 be agreed to.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13511. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that a closure motion must be put precisely and I believe that that member started to take a call.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I found the manner in which the motion was put to be acceptable.
Wilkinson Kate: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilkinson Kate: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13511. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I moveThat the question be now put.
Simpson Scott: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13510. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I moveThat the question be now put.
Tisch Lindsay: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13500. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members the Committee of the whole House is suspended for the valedictory speech. The Committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.Debate interrupted.House resumed.
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13492. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Collins Judith: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCollins Judith: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13487. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):Thank you for the opportunity to complete the call that I started a few weeks ago. Part 2 of this bill the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill now clarifies that the Ministry of Justice has responsibility for the approval of providers of the non-violence programmes. The legislation needs to be sufficiently flexible for the future to ensure that appropriate providers can deliver safe and effective programmes to the people who need them. If they are required regulations can be made to prescribe the approval process as well as the criteria for making these decisions. Overall the amendments to the Domestic Violence Act will give effect to the Government’s aim of ensuring ongoing safety and protection for children and for vulnerable people. The changes will improve the Family Court’s responsiveness to domestic violence ensuring that it is more focused on safety.
Vote: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13487. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes14Green Party 13; Mana 1.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Gilmore Aaron: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGilmore Aaron: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13486. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is my pleasure to take a brief call in the first reading of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill introduced by our very hard-working and very fine Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins. I would like to welcome the fact that Opposition parties are supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I will look forward to hearing views from a range of people and a range of submitters including whoever the Labour Opposition spokesperson on justice happens to be next week.I will be listening very carefully in the select committee stage to submitters on this bill because I think that this sort of legislation has to be very carefully devised. It has to be very carefully balanced between protecting the civil liberties of those who have been convicted of an offence and who have served the time and served the sentence that the court has given them and the right of every New Zealander to feel safe in their home and the right of every New Zealander to be protected from the very worst offenders because we are talking here about the most dangerous violent and sexual attackers predators and offenders that this country has. So I think that this will be an important piece of legislation.It actually brings us into line with some overseas jurisdictions. For instance criminal sentencing legislation in the United Kingdom was clarified and updated in 2000 permitting people to be held at Her Majesty’s pleasure when they represented a very grave risk to society.This is welcome legislation. This is an important tool as others on the Government side have said. This is another weapon in the armoury of the justice system to make sure that ordinary Kiwis can feel safe in their homes and communities. So I welcome it and I commend it to the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13484. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand this is a split call.Sue Moroney: No I do not believe it is.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is not. In that case I call the honourable member Sue Moroney.
Shanks Katrina: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShanks Katrina: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13483. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill in its first reading today. I believe the debate on this bill has been very considered and measured—by most members in the House—over the last 2 days while it has been debated. I think it is interesting the debate that we have had and I think everybody has talked about the similar themes of how important it isthat we get the balance right between justice and giving people the tools to keep New Zealand safe and the civil rights of prisoners as well once they have served their time and they are up for release and how to get that balance so you can get it absolutely right.I think that at the end of the day it comes down to keeping New Zealanders safe in their homes. That is what we are here to do and as legislators it is very important that we get that right. This is one more tool. It adds to the tools that are already in place in the justice sector like preventive detention like extended supervision orders. What this tool does is basically say that if you have done your time but you are in imminent risk of violent or sexual reoffending then this tool can be put in place—this public protection order—that means you have to stay on the grounds of the prison. That is what the condition is all about. Only a High Court can give that order. It does actually impinge on prisoners’ rights once they have served their time that that can be applied but at the end of the day it is about getting that balance right for New Zealand and keeping us safe.I think it is also really important that we have got pathways for these detainees—pathways so they can work towards being released at some stage if that is an option for them. Each individual will have a management plan that identifies goals that could contribute to their eventual release. An annual review will be performed on each of these public protection orders. The High Court will look at each case every 5 years as well so that will be in place.I am looking forward when we get into the Justice and Electoral Committee to the debate which we have had in this House today and yesterday as well and to debate on the issues that some of the Labour members have raised about how they would put more balance in this bill. I will be interested in the select committee process to see what that balance will look like actually. I commend this bill to the House.
Wilkinson Kate: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilkinson Kate: Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13481. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to stand and make a small contribution in support of the first reading of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. We have heard that this bill empowers the High Court to issue those public protection orders that allow for the detention of a person in a secure facility.This bill is for the worst of the worst offenders—those who actually should not be allowed out who should not be endangering our community. It is part of our programme to build a safer New Zealand to protect our communities to prevent crime and to put victims first. It is aimed at that high end of high-risk offenders—those offenders who pose a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent reoffending. That threshold is high and so it should be. Only a small number of people are likely to be subject to a public protection order but they are the very worst of the worst and they should not be inflicted on our community.This bill does strike the right balance between the rights of New Zealanders to be safe in their own communities with the rights of offenders who have served theirsentences. I look forward to hearing the submissions on this bill during the select committee process for this bill. I commend this bill to the House.
Hauiti Claudette: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHauiti Claudette: General Debate[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13478. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker.Tēnā koe e te Whare. Unity is about great leadership and great leadership unites a party. With this party this John Key - led National Government is united in growing the economy. This John Key - led National Government is united in delivering better public services—Sue Moroney: It’s not working.CLAUDETTE HAUITI: Oh hang on honey because you know this is all really good news and I am actually speaking in English. This John Key - led National Government is united in providing fast and more efficient health services—so I know that you are going to understand me. This John Key - led National Government is united in improving the lives of our most vulnerable children united in our efforts to raiseachievement at school to five out of five tamariki and united about great leadership. Leadership is about uniting a party.Our economic growth agenda includes all New Zealanders including Māori. The John Key - led National Government has done more for Māori than Labour did under its previous leader—the one before the last one. Under the leadership of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson we have signed—[Interruption] It is really good news here; you need to listen. We have signed 21 deeds of settlement in 3 years compared with Labour’s 16 deeds of settlement in 9 years. In 3 years we moved 33 agreements in principle compared with Labour’s 25 agreements in principle in 9 years. We currently have five settlement bills in front of the Māori Affairs Committee while theNgāiTūhoe claim is ready for its first reading. We have provided increased funding for the Office of Treaty Settlements and this Government has directed considerable resources towards claimants so that iwi can hit the ground running.We know that Treaty settlements provide economic stimulus which boosts local investments creates jobs and lays foundations for future economic success. We know this to be true becauseNgāiTahu transferred its 1998 settlement of $130 million into locally owned asset portfolios of tourism property fisheries and investments worth over $600 million. This John Key - led National Government is maintaining the momentum by ensuring high-level political leadership kanohi ki te kanohi with rangatira a iwi.Labour would take New Zealand backwards. Labour would render Māori shackled to the dependent ū of the Crown. Labour’s record between 1999 and 2008 waspōhara. Labour stalled investment settlements averaging less than 1.8 deeds of settlement a year. Labour would not have resolved outstanding settlements until past 2020 if at all stymying economic growth and paralysing Māori aspirations.This Government is united under a strong leadership focused on economic growth. That is why this John Key - led Government will be the Government again in 2014. Kia ora.
Sabin Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13467. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to theAssociate Minister of Transport: What progress has been made as part of the Safer Journeys road safety strategy?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport): In the 4 years since the Government released theSafer Journeys: discussion document there have been a number of significant policy changes to reduce the rate of death and injury on our roads and agencies are now well joined up as they work to deliver this joint goal. We have targeted drink-drivers put in place a zero alcohol limit for under-20s and recidivists lifted the driving age and made the restricted licence testing more challenging. We have got more front-line police and sustained advertising and education campaigns are in place. A lot of work has gone in to lowering our road toll and we are now seeing real results.Mike Sabin: How has the road toll and injury rate changed since the start of the Safer Journeys strategy?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The 2013 road toll currently sits at 183—the lowest year-to-date figure on record. This represents a reduction of nearly 40 percent on this time 4 years ago. The latest available year-to-date figures for crashes involving drivers aged 15 to 24 years show a 56 percent decrease in the number of fatalities and serious injuries from 2009. That means that 1122 young people have avoided death or serious injury on the road in the past 4 years since the 2009 base. In saying that we are certainly not resting on our laurels and there are more safety initiatives on the way through the Safety Journeys road safety strategy.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 18 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13460. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.MELISSA LEE (National) to theMinister for Social Development: What announcements has she made that will get beneficiaries better deals on white ware appliances saving taxpayers money?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I am delighted. In this year’s Budget we announced that we would work to get better value for beneficiaries and for taxpayers in the way that we help people purchase fridges freezers and washing machines. I am pleased to announce that we have finalised a whiteware purchasing agreement with Fisher and Paykel Appliances which will provide a good deal for both beneficiaries and taxpayers. We saw second-hand machines that quite frankly were not up to standard and for which far too much was being paid. Now they can get a new machine and I think that is really great for them.Melissa Lee: What difference will this procurement arrangement make for beneficiaries?Hon PAULA BENNETT: At the moment they get repayable grants for whiteware. They will still get repayable grants but instead of getting second-hand machines for not far off the same price they will actually be getting a new machine with a 2-year warranty. It will be delivered to them and it will last 5 years. There are significant savings for them and significant savings for the taxpayer.Melissa Lee: What savings are anticipated as a result of this procurement arrangement?Hon PAULA BENNETT: On average beneficiaries borrow around $10.5 million a year to spend on whiteware. Conservative estimates put it that there will be $10 million in savings over 5 years but also the savings to the individual and their family are I think really considerable.Jacinda Ardern: Has the Minister noted the concerns raised by the New Zealand manufacturing community in the inquiry led by the Opposition; if so what proportion of whiteware procured by the Ministry of Social Development will be manufactured in New Zealand?Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have said the contract is with Fisher and Paykel Appliances. Some will be made overseas; some will be manufactured here. I do not know what the proportion is and I am not particularly interested to be honest because I think—Hon Members: Oh!Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well go and tell that to all the New Zealand companies that export shall we? Well go and tell all the New Zealand companies that export their products that actually those countries overseas should not be purchasing them. This is a great initiative for New Zealanders and a great initiative for beneficiaries. The member should actually take that on board.