edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Yates Dianne: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Yates Dianne: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13246] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill. I welcome this bill and I am very very pleased. I am a person who in elections is extremely careful. I have always been very careful to comply with the provision of the existing Act that sets out the four things that I as a member of this House have always been very careful about. We do not put out anything under parliamentary expenses or using parliamentary money that says “vote for me” “vote for my party” “give us money” or “become a member of our party”. That was drummed into me and if ever I have been unclear I have rung Parliamentary Service or in the case of an election the Chief Electoral Office. This bill spells the rules out even more clearly than does the existing Act. The rules are absolutely clear and there is no room for interpretation. I have a great deal of sympathy for what Peter Brown said earlier in this debate and most of us in this House have been extremely careful to abide by these rules. 
I have in front of me a piece of information sent out by the National Party in 2002 and I understand that Bill English authorised it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It’s a commitment card. 
DIANNE YATES 
: It is but it is in blue. It is looks very very similar to Labour’s commitment card except it is bigger. It bears the National Party logo and the parliamentary crest which means that it was paid for by Parliament. The information was sent out in 2002 and that was OK; it complied with those four rules. It does not say “Vote for National”; it does not say “Give us money”; it does not say “Join the National Party”; and it does not say “Vote for Bill English” or anybody else. It is exactly the same in form and content as Labour’s pledge card. It was OK in 2002 but suddenly it was not OK in 2005. But I can tell the House that as a member of Parliament I have been very very careful to abide by the laws and I along with many people in this House resent being told by people on the other side and by people perhaps outside this House that we are corrupt and all sorts of things. Most of the members of parties in this House have been very careful to abide by the law. 
I have always been in a very marginal seat and I have been hypercareful to abide by the law. I have checked out that everything I put out was in compliance with that law so I resent some of the comments from the other side of the House. I look forward to the implementation of this bill and know that it will spell out very very clearly particularly for those people who cannot read the previous Act very well what those four rules are. Clause 3(2) provides that under Parliamentary Service funding rules a candidate cannot say: “Vote for me”; “Vote for my party”; “Give us money” or “Become a member of our party”. It is spelt out very clearly and I am very pleased to see it there.
Roy Eric: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13241] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that points of order must be raised at the time a matter to be raised occurs but I did not want to interrupt the speaker Nick Smith who was on his feet. During the course of the member’s debate Mr Woolerton continually interjected from an advantageous position not from his normal seat. I just bring to your attention that that is certainly inappropriate in the context of the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that. Maybe he should have raised the matter during the course of the speech because members cannot move to facilitate interjection. I did call the member to order several times.
Duynhoven Harry: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13231] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take it that if I adopt the practice of using a post and telegraph - type handset to listen to my messages on my cellphone that is acceptable. I take it also that if I tuck my head under the bench—as I saw a National member doing earlier in the day—to listen to cellphone messages that is also acceptable. Perhaps you could clarify that Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are a number of Speakers’ rulings on that and the Speaker has given a considered ruling on the use of electronic gadgetry inside the Chamber. I suggest members have a look at the Speaker’s ruling. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I ask for clarification on one other matter to do with this. Is it acceptable to use a laptop computer in the House? I understand it is. And is it acceptable to use an earpiece in association with a laptop in the House? 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Who’s doing that? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am not doing it; I am asking whether it is acceptable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Again I suggest that the member look at the very precise ruling that Madam Speaker gave on this. It is quite extensive and it covers the issues that have been raised by the members. 
Bill read a second time and a third time.
Heatley Phil: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
Heatley Phil: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13231] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Harry Duynhoven is using his phone at the moment with an earpiece. That is inappropriate in this Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should consider his position and take the issue outside the Chamber. Thank you.
Yates Dianne: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
Yates Dianne: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13230] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) and I was absolutely fascinated to hear that the previous speaker Jo Goodhew has learnt a lot from this debate because I have learnt a great deal from her. I have just learnt that she cares about superannuitants. She must have forgotten about what Mrs Shipley did to superannuitants when she came into power and what happened to the payment rates of superannuation. 
I am really glad that Jo Goodhew supports Labour Government policy on this issue. It is about time that she did support it because many superannuitants are afraid. They are afraid that if Labour should ever lose the Government benches in this House their superannuation would not continue to be paid at the current rates and that the age of qualification would go up. I see members shaking their heads. I say it happened. It happened when Mrs Shipley was the Prime Minister of this country and heaven help us if it should ever happen again. That is why many older people will be really concerned about this issue and the comments that were made by the speaker opposite. So I am really pleased that we see a new caring sharing National Party. 
I also say that this bill is a routine bill. It is legislation that basically turns over many of the levies that are charged annually. I look forward to the passing of this legislation.
Swain Paul: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
Swain Paul: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13228] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 It is with a great sense of humility enthusiasm duty and loyalty that I announce that I support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3).
Hughes Darren: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
Hughes Darren: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingThird Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13218] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Leader of the House 
: I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a second and a third time 
. The bill confirms and validates 16 Orders in Council made under 10 Acts. The bill must be enacted before 31 December this year in order to prevent the subordinate legislation from lapsing. 
Of the 16 orders confirmed by the bill I would like to briefly focus on two in particular. These apply to movements in the consumer price index to the rates of social security benefits New Zealand superannuation and war pensions. The legislation that governs superannuation specifies a 65 to 72.5 percent band within which payments can be made. One of the two orders also made an additional increase to the rate of New Zealand superannuation so that the net amount payable to a couple is 66 percent of the net average wage. In practice this has meant that more than half a million older New Zealanders have been receiving $26 a fortnight if a single pensioner or $42 a fortnight if a couple from 1 April this year. This reflects the commitment that Labour made in its confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First and I recognise New Zealand First for its support in that regard. 
It is good to see that this bill looks set to receive the overwhelming support and confirmation of this House. The bill was introduced by the Leader of the House on 8 October this year and was referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 11 October. The committee rightly asked the departments responsible for administering the legislation to explain why confirmation or validation of the orders was warranted. The committee was satisfied with the responses it received and presented its report 2 weeks ago on 7 November recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. I thank the Regulations Review Committee for its consideration of this bill and for the efficient work it undertook. I particularly recognise the chair of that committee Dr Richard Worth. I commend this bill to the House for its second and third readings.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13218] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13218] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13218] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13218] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13218] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mackey Moana: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:13217] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13211] 
11.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: Has he received any recent reports on apprenticeships in the building industry? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Yes I have seen a report on the launch of the BeConstructive programme developed by the Built Environment Training Alliance. The programme will encourage young people back into the construction sector. The alliance also reports that apprenticeship numbers in this sector have grown by 300 percent since the Government introduced the new Modern Apprenticeships scheme. 
Dave Hereora 
: How much has the Government invested in the Modern Apprenticeships scheme? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I am advised that by 2006 the Government had invested $114 million in its Modern Apprenticeships scheme since its inception in 2000. I am also advised that by 2008-09 funding for Modern Apprenticeships will have increased to $50 million a year continuing to rebuild our skill base after apprenticeships were demolished by National. 
Dave Hereora 
: How many apprentices are currently in training in this sector? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: More good news is on the way—13739 apprentices are in training across the building and construction sector. This is more than half the number who were able to be trained in the 15 years from 1992 as a consequence of Mr Bill Birch’s killing off apprenticeships. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is it not true that if it had not been for New Zealand First there would be no such thing as a Modern Apprenticeship Training Act? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The ability of the member to join forces with the Government to eradicate the influences of Mr Birch knows no bounds.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13208] 
9.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Veterans’ Affairs 
: What progress is being made in implementing the memorandum of understanding signed between representatives of veterans of Viet Nam and the Government? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) 
: 
 The process of implementing the memorandum of understanding is going extremely well. I am pleased to report that over 4500 Viet Nam veterans and their families have registered themselves with Veterans Affairs. This process will assist with the research and delivery of services to them in the future. Usefully this process has also identified a number of veterans we can assist because prior to the registration process Veteran Affairs was unaware of their circumstances. The Viet Nam Veterans and Their Families Trust has been established and is now accepting applications from veterans and their families for financial assistance for conditions that are not explicitly dealt with in the memorandum of understanding. The process for a comprehensive medical check is being finalised work is under way to implement the expert panel an oral history project has begun and planning for Tribute 08 is well under way. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How many ex gratia payments have been made? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Veterans Affairs has recently paid out its 50th ex gratia payment. Of the 50 payments so far 27 have been made to veterans themselves and 23 to families of veterans of Viet Nam totalling $1.75 million. At the time of writing the memorandum of understanding it was estimated that around eight to 10 of these ex gratia payments would go directly to veterans themselves. So the number is actually higher and this is concerning but it is also gratifying that support is going to the Viet Nam veterans. In addition the House needs to remember that of the estimated 3500 who served in Viet Nam 1400 veterans are receiving a war disablement pension. 
Judith Collins 
: Why are veterans still waiting more than 6 months for their application to be processed a year after the Government promised in the memorandum of understanding to “review all aspects of Veterans Affairs New Zealand”; and what has happened to that review? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am pleased to report that the review of Veterans Affairs is well under way. It is almost nearing completion. I am pleased also to report that the Government has started the rewrite process of the War Pensions Act and the integral part of the reform process.
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hobbs Marian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13199] 
3.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What new resources is the Government providing to improve the financial literacy of New Zealanders? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This morning at Raroa Normal Intermediate School here in Wellington I launched four new books for students on financial literacy. The books with their accompanying teacher’s notes are the latest in the  
Figure it Out  
series which supports our numeracy strategy and helps to realise the Labour-led Government’s goal of ensuring students are confident and capable both mathematically and financially recognising that everyone needs to be able to make considered sensible financial decisions throughout their lives. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What alternative approaches to financial literacy is the Minister aware of? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen disturbing reports of a party whose various spokespeople have promised to increase funding for private schools to reintroduce bulk funding for all schools and to both offer and not offer 20 hours of free early childhood education at the same time. Curiously these statements come from National MPs who are also promising to slash public spending to fund tax cuts for the rich. Only this Government can be trusted to properly invest in education $4 billion extra a year; an approach supported by a majority of New Zealanders in the Fairfax poll published this weekend. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How do the  
Figure it Out 
 booklets mesh with the new curriculum that was launched earlier this month? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: They absolutely mesh with the new curriculum. They lead to inquiry learning and personalised learning which is exactly what the Government wants to see students doing in order to equip themselves for the 21st century. I seek leave to table the four copies of the  
Figure it Out 
 financial literacy books. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:643;Page:13195] 
1. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any recent reports regarding the way in which physiotherapy services are funded and accredited by ACC? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes I have and the report has been made publicly available. The reviews of physiotherapy services formed part of the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour-led Government and New Zealand First and I know that the previous Minister for ACC and I have enjoyed working closely on this issue with the member who asked the question. 
Peter Brown 
: When does the Minister expect the formal Government response to the report to be made public? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The formal Government response will be made public as soon as possible. 
Darien Fenton 
: What action will the Labour-led Government be taking to ensure the recommendations as set out in the review are addressed? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: A formal Government response to the report will now be developed and considered. In the meantime the Accident Compensation Corporation will be working through the issues raised including providing more flexible guidelines on the number of treatments a claimant should have and giving providers better information about fraud and investigation processes. 
Peter Brown 
: Has any time line been developed regarding the prompt implementation of the non-fiscal recommendations of the report; if so when are the non-fiscal recommendations likely to be implemented? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes; and the non-fiscal recommendations are in fact being implemented immediately. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister read the response of the New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists to the report; if so when does she anticipate that the chosen funding option will be implemented? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes I have; and the funding options will be considered as part of the usual Budget process.
Mallard Trevor: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 15 November 
Mallard Trevor: Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 15 November 
[Volume:643;Page:13195] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 350 I wish to make a personal explanation in order to correct an answer I gave to the House last week. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be quiet. We have a point of order. Members need to hear what the point of order is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Last Thursday when answering question No. 7 I said in an answer to a supplementary question: “There is a requirement within the ministry’s operating policy to obtain at least three quotes. I am advised that that was done in this case.” That answer is technically correct. I was advised that it had been done. I am now advised that it was not done. Since that time both the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment and I have asked the State Services Commissioner to look at the matter. A report will be available later in the day.
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 15 November 
Amended answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 15 November 
[Volume:643;Page:13195] 
Tuesday 20 November 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 7 to Minister 15 November 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 350 I wish to make a personal explanation in order to correct an answer I gave to the House last week. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be quiet. We have a point of order. Members need to hear what the point of order is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Last Thursday when answering question No. 7 I said in an answer to a supplementary question: “There is a requirement within the ministry’s operating policy to obtain at least three quotes. I am advised that that was done in this case.” That answer is technically correct. I was advised that it had been done. I am now advised that it was not done. Since that time both the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment and I have asked the State Services Commissioner to look at the matter. A report will be available later in the day.
Street Maryan: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Street Maryan: Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10590] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in rising to speak to the second reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill in part because it is important that somebody rebuts some of the unfounded assertions that we have just heard coming from the Opposition speaker Dr Jonathan Coleman. 
I use as an example a visit I made recently in the Waitemata District Health Board area to the opening of a new acute unit for mental health patients at Waitakere Hospital. There are two acute units in the Waitemata District Health Board area one on the North Shore site and one at Waitakere Hospital. Te Atarau was one of those acute units that was expanded and it has now become Waiatarau. It has 24 beds and it is one of the examples of the effect that money going into the mental health sector has had. There have been expanded services and facilities. 
Debate interrupted.
Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Paraone Pita: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10582] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. I recall quite clearly the last time the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill came before the House. Although there were a number of members in the House members from particularly the major parties were reluctant to take a call because it was too close to 6 o’clock. I suspect that the people I addressed that particular afternoon are the same people who are still locked in the gridlock of Auckland roads while making their way home at this time. I say to them that they can always rely on New Zealand First to ensure that the business of Parliament carries on particularly in this case. 
I come back to the bill. I want to again make the point that this amendment is required because a couple of court cases have shown that the intent of the parent Act has been lost. The Minister for Building and Construction on advice from his officials and I suspect from a number of people within the industry has introduced this amendment. It is a remedies bill not a repairs bill. I think it should be incumbent on members in this House to lend support for it. Those people who have been affected by this terrible problem in terms of the weathertightness of their homes ought to be considered. 
The fact that the Minister has taken the time to introduce this bill ought to have the support of all sides of the House. I know that people in the industry are appreciative of the fact that this Government has introduced this bill in order to ensure that the intent of the Act is met. A couple of court decisions quite clearly have flown in the face of the intent of the Act. I know that some members in this House have been critical of the Minister suggesting that the original Act was introduced and passed in haste and now we are seeing the consequences of that haste. Be that as it may I think it is important that this House recognises that if this amendment does correct the consequences of haste then we should lend support to it. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I say we are delighted to be able to stand in this House to lend our support to this bill. Kia ora.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10581] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Sentencing Council Bill the Bail Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill  
divided into Sentencing Council Bill Bail Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper128. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10581] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10581] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 2 be agreed to.
Collins Judith: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10580] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on this matter because the Minister has set out a challenge. He has referred to the membership of the Sentencing Council and I think he alluded to some comments that I might have made where I referred to the pinko sociologists of Steve Maharey’s friendship who will be appointed to this council. Actually I stand by those comments. 
When I look at clause 11(1) of the bill I see that the council will consist of “(a) 1 Judge of the Court of Appeal … (b) 1 Judge of the High Court … (c) 2 District Court Judges … (d) the chairperson of the Parole Board: (e) 5 members”—that is five members—“who are not Judges appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives.” That is the same House of Representatives that will go ahead today to put forward this bill and pass it—in other words the Government and its mates. 
 Frankly when we have five members of the council who are not judges how can we not infer that the point here is to get a whole pack of sociologists who will be Steve Maharey’s mates when he is back at Massey University? I stand by those comments. 
The Minister today effectively alluded to the fact that this Government is trying to cut down the number of people in jail. This bill is about many things but primarily it is about cutting the prison muster. We do not want people in prison but then again we do not want people to commit crimes. But if they commit the crimes they have to do the time. 
It is a nonsense to put these five members in charge of the judges who hear the cases and who sit on the bench every day and understand what is going on. The Government will put them in with a whole pack of people—like all the Labour MPs who have just announced their retirement.
Roy Heather: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10575] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 This bill at this stage is in fact a victory for MMP—and a very sweet one I have to say—because it is not about who changed their mind at the last minute and who said this and who said that; it is about the rights of victims. I am delighted that as a member of a party with just two members—and after the next election that will not be the case any longer—our amendments had the support of the Committee of the whole House as common sense. That is in fact very very good and New Zealanders can be proud of the way Parliament has operated this afternoon. 
I thank the Minister for his comments about my amendments. I thank the National Party for its support and I thank New Zealand First for looking very quickly at those amendments when they came forward at the last minute as indeed they did. But I would like to spend a moment just contemplating what might have happened had these amendments not been supported because the Minister says he is not sure what effect they will have. I think they will have a very profound effect for victims in the future. Victims’ rights are very often set aside when crimes particularly crimes of a very vicious and brutal nature are committed. Very often the rights and the privileges accorded to criminals are not in fact accorded to the victims of crime and that reflects a very very sad part of our society. 
The select committee I notice in its commentary that came back to the House after the select committee process was worked through did not bother to comment on the victims’ submissions and there were many I know. I think that is very regrettable. There was no mention of that from any of the parties on the select committee. I think this shows how our parliamentary process works in that these issues can be raised again in the Committee of the whole House so that the right result can be arrived at. Victims now will have the same ability they have at the moment to present to parole boards and that should and will remain a right. It will not be a privilege. They will not have to be invited to come before parole boards; they will have the right to do so as was previously done. That is exactly as things should be. 
I will focus only on this matter in my speech. Of course this bill is about a wide range of issues and the ACT party does not support many parts of the bill but in fact it is very very pleasing that the amendments that came forward to the Committee in my name this afternoon have been supported by the Committee as a whole. I hope that victims listening to this debate are able to have some degree of satisfaction at that point.
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10573] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to assure Mr Power that my socks remain firmly on my feet. I did not require my toes for counting! I want to repeat what I said before. I think we arrived at a point at which members had seriously raised concerns. I think the points my colleagues were making were entirely valid. I am not convinced that the amendments that Heather Roy has brought forward will in a material way advantage victims. But on balance in a situation where the intent I believe was genuine and where it appears no harm could be done it did no harm for members of Parliament to simply support a measure that clearly—overwhelmingly—parliamentarians would want to support and that is the notion of looking after the rights of victims. So I do not regard it either way as a particularly big deal. 
One way or another these are not significant changes. They will have limits. They may or may not have any meaningful impact but on the balance of it it was simply time to find a positive way of moving forward. Indeed as Simon Power says this is MMP and MMP requires accommodation. From time to time it requires that all of us listen consider an argument that is made sensibly and fairly and respond to it. So the amendment has become part of a much larger measure which we are now seeing move forward. 
I welcome the introduction of what are very significant changes to New Zealand’s criminal justice system. We are seeing the movement towards the introduction of the Sentencing Council. We are seeing a raft of community-based sentences which will significantly enhance the range of choices available to judges and to the community in terms of appropriate sentencing. Of course we want to see where necessary the use of appropriate custodial sentences. But this legislation will enable a raft of non-custodial alternatives where they are the best option with the appropriate support and conditions around them that can give the bench—and perhaps most important the wider community—the confidence that they indeed represent significant advantages for the wider community both in terms of safety and in terms of the way these options deal with those who have offended against society. 
In the end it is in the best interest of every member of our community that those who have offended ultimately do the time or pay their debt to society but rehabilitation is an important part of the total Effective Interventions package which this legislation is part of moving forward. It is absolutely in all our interests that effective rehabilitation treatment programmes and so on are available in order that those who have offended can ultimately be rehabilitated rejoin the community—which the vast majority of them do—and become contributing members of the community. 
So I say to members that I think this is a positive day for Parliament. We have seen MMP busily at work but perhaps more important we are seeing major legislative change that will significantly improve New Zealand’s criminal justice system.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10571] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10571] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is precisely what my previous point of order was. I wanted to know whether the result of the vote had been announced. You said it had and that leave had been given. The reason I asked that question is that the Standing Orders require leave to be sought— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Mark please I am on my feet. There is no need to relitigate this. The issue has been voted on. It has been agreed to by the Committee and we need to move on. 
RON MARK 
: Can I finish my point of order Mr Chairperson? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. 
RON MARK 
: I might not have given leave from New Zealand First had you answered my question. Mr Power has just clarified exactly what I thought to be the case. You sat me down and said that the vote had been counted. Clearly it had not. New Zealand first might not have allowed that leave at that point in time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that I was under the impression that leave had been granted for the vote to be changed. That can be done under Speaker’s ruling 68/5 and also Standing Order 153(2). Leave was put. There was no disagreement.
Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10571] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before you took the vote on the question that Part 2 as amended stand part I am not sure whether you gave the Committee the result of the previous vote on Supplementary Order Paper 127. If I am wrong I apologise but if I am not I would not mind hearing the result please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The member is absolutely right. The vote in that part particular case on the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 127 and 122 is: Ayes 64 Noes 57.
Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10571] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can you please clarify for me that the member is seeking leave to have those votes changed but the votes have already been tallied and the result of that vote announced therefore— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can do that under Speaker’s ruling 68/5. The member sought leave and it has been granted. The question now is that Part 2 as amended stand part. 
A party vote was called for on the question that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.
Locke Keith: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10570] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to correct the Green Party vote on Supplementary Order Paper 127. We would like to cast a vote against that particular Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: So the member wants his vote reversed—to vote against? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that the voting on the Supplementary Order Paper was done as a bloc. The vote cannot be split. The vote for the two Supplementary Order Papers cannot be split. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: The Green Party will vote against both those Supplementary Order Papers. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Green Party is voting against both? Thank you.
Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10570] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think all the Committee needs to know is that if the Chairman would take the time to just make sure that the Committee is aware of the content of Supplementary Order Paper 127. The Minister is confirming it by nodding. But perhaps it would help the Green Party if the chairman gave us a brief description of what is in that Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just suggest to the member that the Supplementary Order Paper has been on the Table for some time and any member is free to look at it.
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10570] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I actually did say it was the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 127 and 122. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the point the member is trying to make though is that Supplementary Order Paper 127 replaced Supplementary Order Paper 121 and the last time the member was a party to the debate he may have been expecting 121 to be the number before him and it is now 127. So I am sure the member was just confused by the change in the Supplementary Order Paper numbers.
Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10570] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member but I think some confusion has arisen because of the replacement of Supplementary Order Papers between I think 122 and 127. Because you are following the numbers and not the clauses I just want to make clear and check with you Mr Chairman for the benefit of the Committee that Supplementary Order Paper 127 is the one from the Minister that would extend the sunset clause on victims’ and prisoners’ compensation. That is correct is it not?
Locke Keith: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10570] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would just like to correct the Green vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member seeking leave to do that? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10570] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Part 2 as amended stand part.
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10569] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave for the amendments in Heather Roy’s name to be taken together unless any member has objections because they basically all relate to the same part of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that? There is none. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Heather Roy to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3) of clause 96; 
to omit subclause (1) of clause 97; 
to omit subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) from new section 45(7)(b) in clause 98; 
to omit clause 101; 
to omit clause 102; and 
to omit clause 104 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 and 122 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 2 be agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10569] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We now have some further amendments. They are all in the name of the member the honourable Heather Roy. The first is to clause 96. It is an amendment to omit subclause (3).
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10569] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10569] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 in the name of Christopher Finlayson to clause 40 be agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10568] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.