edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20832] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a third time.
Calvert Hilary Jane: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Calvert Hilary Jane: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20691] 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Freedom Camping Bill. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20695] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Freedom Camping Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a third time.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Student Loan Scheme Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Student Loan Scheme Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20715] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I will pick up from where Grant Robertson left off on clause 10D of the Student Loan Scheme Bill. I think calling that aspect of the bill interest by stealth is rather charitable to the Minister in the chair the Minister of Revenue. Let us be honest: this is a flat fee regardless of how large a person’s student loan is and regardless of what their income is. When we get that type of tax the name for it is “poll tax”. That is what that fee is: it is a poll tax on graduates and students. I think “interest by stealth” is one name for it but frankly that is rather charitable. Let us call it what it is. 
That is not really what I wanted to focus on. I will go back to the purposes of the legislation. Clause 3 states: “The purposes of this Act are to—(a) provide for the effective administration of student loans; and (b) provide for the collection of student loan repayments;”. I have a question for the Minister because I have an example of a bizarre set of circumstances that happened to me in relation to my student loan and I wonder how often this happens. 
I completed repayments on my student loan earlier this year. 
Hon Member 
: Well done! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes it was a day to celebrate it has to be said. I checked with the Inland Revenue Department I got the repayment balance and I even got a letter from the Inland Revenue Department saying that my balance was zero. I had completely paid off my student loan. Strangely enough only a few weeks ago I got a letter from the Inland Revenue Department informing me that I had to change my tax code back to MSL as did the payroll here at Parliament and I started making compulsory repayments of my student loan. I am now $500 in credit. The Inland Revenue Department now owes me $500 in overpayments on my student loan. I would hardly call that the effective administration of the collection of repayments by the Inland Revenue Department. 
Grant Robertson 
: Get Peter Dunne to write you a cheque. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I do not expect a cheque from Peter Dunne. I have been reliably informed by the lovely person I spoke to at the Inland Revenue Department when I finally got through—the person to whom I spoke was fantastic—that I would have that money back by October. So I am very pleased that I will be able to get that back. 
I have a question for the Minister about how often people who have organised themselves to make sure they have made the exact repayment required and have faithfully and dutifully made the repayments that they need to make and are required to make by law then find that through some error by the Inland Revenue Department they have to overpay. The Inland Revenue Department then has to make a payment back to that person due to the ineffective administration of student loans. Given that that is one of the main purposes of this bill I would be very interested to hear from the Minister how often that happens and whether he has any plans to rectify that situation.
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:20727] 
8. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his reported statement that it could be fraudulent to apply for a benefit if you were not eligible? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I think the member misquotes what was said. I said that it could be a fraud to lie about a benefit qualification but people wanting information about the matter should take that up with the Minister’s office—and I invite the member to do so. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: What steps does he consider a person uncertain of their eligibility for a benefit should take before making an application to ensure they do not risk being charged with fraud? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: They should contact a Work and Income office. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does he accept that any citizen has the right to apply for a benefit and that his comments on potential fraud will intimidate vulnerable people who need support? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and no. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: What survival advice can he offer people with literacy issues and mental health conditions that cause them to struggle to prove eligibility for the unemployment benefit which beneficiary advocates advise me is leading to homelessness and hunger? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The country has Work and Income offices scattered right throughout it. They are filled with people who work very hard to make sure that people get the benefits that they are entitled to. Any New Zealander who thinks they are entitled to a benefit and who needs help should contact a Work and Income office. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table the High Court judgment  
Stemson v Police 
 dated 19 December 2001 which affirms the right of any person to make an application for a benefit and the duty of Work and Income to facilitate rather than impede that process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Clarification is being sought. The document is? 
Catherine Delahunty 
: A High Court decision. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But where is the document from? 
Catherine Delahunty 
: It is from the website—from the High Court. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is on a website from the High Court. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20681] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 271 in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 18 be agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20775] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 66 Noes 54.
Vote: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20775] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 66 Noes 54. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 254 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Mackey Moana: Student Loan Scheme Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Student Loan Scheme Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20734] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a very brief call on Part 3 and hopefully the Minister in the chair the Minister of Revenue will be able to respond. This part is about the issue of excess repayments which we touched on in Part 1. I am pleased to see that there will be some clarity around this point. As someone who overpaid her student loan I am pleased to see that there is an obligation— 
Paul Quinn 
: A donation. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —trust me I say to Mr Quinn it was not a donation—in Part 3 on the Inland Revenue Department to contact student loan holders and inform them that they have met their obligations under the student loan scheme. In my particular case I felt that perhaps I had reached the point where I might have paid back my loan. I rang the Inland Revenue Department to find out the status of my loan only to be told that I had overpaid it by about $1000. 
I have a question for the Minister. In the past particularly when I have done my income tax returns if I have owed the Inland Revenue Department money the department has wanted it on very short notice. In fact it has been quite tight time frames within which I needed to meet my obligations to the Inland Revenue Department to make sure that I paid any tax that was underpaid. It took 4 or 5 months to get back from the Inland Revenue Department the money that I had overpaid on my student loan. In fact the department got quite snippy with me when I asked whether the money could possibly be paid back earlier. We heard from my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway earlier in the debate who also said that recently just this year he paid back his student loan. He found out that he had overpaid it by about $500. When he asked when he could have his money back he was told: “Well not at least until October.” 
I understand the Inland Revenue Department is a very busy department but it seems to me that for its own credibility when it comes down very firm and very hard on people who owe the department money that perhaps when the opposite case is true—in my case the department had not even informed me that I had met my obligations that I had overpaid my student loan and that I could stop paying—it would seem nice if it was reciprocal and the Inland Revenue Department was as speedy in returning money to people who have overpaid as it is with people who have underpaid. I think the Minister now has an answer so I am happy to sit down.
Katene Rahui: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Katene Rahui: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20691] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Freedom Camping Bill. As New Zealanders we are justly and rightly proud of the reputation New Zealand has as a clean green country but unfortunately some people take advantage of that reputation. New Zealand has a reputation of encouraging our citizens to see our country before they see the rest of the world and also we are keen to let the rest of the world come here and see our beautiful country. Unfortunately some people take advantage of that and we have a problem with freedom campers who are unable to decide what to do with their litter and their waste. This bill sets out a very good way of dealing with that issue. It allows local authorities to pass by-laws not only to allow freedom camping but also to make sure that it is done within limits. I think that is a good idea. The Maori Party thinks this is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Bennett David: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20787] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will just follow on from the last speaker John Boscawen who I think made some very good points about the nature of the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill and what it means for New Zealand’s economic performance. This bill is good for the New Zealand economy. It is good for New Zealand taxpayers it is good for the total tax take that New Zealand will get and it is good for making New Zealand businesses more competitive on the world stage. It is sad that Labour and the Green Party especially have to come and say no to good law in this House just because they want to keep a façade going in the public eye of their attack on those who are successful those who have something or those who have worked hard to make something of their lives and for this country. It is really sad that they cannot support good law that is simple that has all the bases ticked and that is in the best interests of New Zealand as a country going forward. They cannot support it because their ideology will not allow them to. That is very sad for New Zealand. The public out there sees through Labour and the Green Party and it realises that those parties do not actually have the best interests of New Zealanders at heart. They have only their own self-interest and what they can do during election campaigns. They try to divide and conquer a country by putting one person against another. They tell people to look over the fence be afraid of other people have fear of them and try to take what they have earned just so Labour can be in control and try to govern. Those tactics do not work any more. The world has moved on. The New Zealand public has moved on. It is time that Labour got out there and supported things that are in the best interests of New Zealand because there is no way that we can support an industry that costs $70 million in compliance costs. Why would one put $70 million worth of compliance costs on New Zealand businesses and individuals for no real benefit other than one’s political motives? It is a very sad day when Labour has to put politics above the people of New Zealand. Thank you.
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20682] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:675;Page:20732] 
11. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Why has he not provided substantive answers to Questions for Written Answer 6098 to 6102 (2011)? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 As the member knows I have provided an interim answer. The questions asked for a range of information particularly around the issues of investigating potential or historic environmental damage which has taken a bit of time to get. The information has been provided and the substantive answers will be given this week. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Does he accept that the theft of ammunition from a Defence Force depot poses a serious threat to public safety and that he as Minister should be prepared to answer questions on the security of ammunition storage within expected time frames; if not why not? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am prepared. In fact I advise the member that I am meeting the Chief of Defence Force this afternoon with the member of Parliament for Northcote in whose electorate the Kauri Point facility is located with the intention of looking at an improved plan relating to security and also to the environmental protection of the ammunition. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: I seek leave to table a document titled the  
Mapp Report 
 which shows that Dr Wayne Mapp first became aware of security issues at Kauri Point before 16 May 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a new one—a member’s newsletter being tabled—but I will seek leave of the House. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Why when he has known for some time that there were security issues with the storage of ammunition did he do nothing about it and then refuse to answer questions when the safety of his own constituents was put at risk by a security breach? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I assure the member on the first point that the safety of the ammunition per se is not actually at risk but there is clearly a need to upgrade security. There is a new management plan in place and I am meeting the Chief of Defence Force this afternoon to essentially take this whole issue forward to improve security.
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20682] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to Part 3 be agreed to.
Bennett David: Student Loan Scheme Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Student Loan Scheme Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20750] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 An interesting final point was made by the previous speaker Grant Robertson. He said that we cannot have Governments that take money out of tertiary education yet that is exactly what the previous Labour Government did—take money out of tertiary education. It shifted money from tertiary education into the student loan scheme and those tertiary institutions have been paying the price since because of those Labour policies. Labour members start waking up now but it is too little too late because Labour does not have a desire for tertiary education or students in tertiary education. 
The Student Loan Scheme Bill is good for students because it takes advantage of students being able to manage their accounts online and that is very important for students who are aware of and use those new technologies all the time. This bill gives them the opportunity to do so. 
It is an important bill as well in the sense that it is part of that reform of the student loan package a package which meant that there was a limit on the number of students in our institutions a change which was brought in by the previous Government. That has directly affected the ability of New Zealanders to get into tertiary education. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did National remove that cap? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: A cap was brought in by Labour. Members on that side of the House know very well that Labour brought in that cap and reduced the number of students who could potentially go into tertiary education through its student loan programme. So I think when we talk about this bill that it is also important that we put into perspective some of the comments made by the Opposition that are completely wrong and do not reflect the reality of the situation. 
This is good for students. It is a good bill. It is good for the tertiary sector. It is part of a range of initiatives that the Minister for Tertiary Education has made that have been very effective in building a stronger tertiary sector. We look forward to this bill progressing through the House. Thank you.
Kaye Nikki: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20810] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill. I am very pleased that this bill has widespread support except for Labour. It is interesting to note that both Chris Carter and the Greens support this bill. I also think it is interesting that one of the lines I took from Mr Hodgson’s speech was that there has been diddly-squat going on here. This bill is about ensuring that we are able to hold a national census. That is non-controversial. Members opposite have raised the fact that this is being done under urgency. I will raise a couple of points about that. Ms Dalziel raised the issue of the fact that the regulatory impact statement was produced in April. In April what was decided was to defer but there has been a whole lot of work between April and now to make the decision to have the census in 2013. That is why there have been those couple of months. 
But let us just remember again what the point of this legislation is. There is a technical part about the Parliamentary Counsel Office and there is a part that enables members of Parliament to have representation in their electorate. We know that as a result of the devastating earthquakes in Canterbury people have shifted around the country. I know that in my electorate in particular we have had quite a large number of people come in over the last several years. I believe that if we cannot hold that census it means that we cannot do our jobs properly because we do not know how many people we are representing. Secondly and also very importantly it is very difficult for many local government authorities to do their job because they do not know the number of people living in their electorates. Many businesses and community organisations also rely on census data. 
I am very pleased to support this very crucial legislation and commend it to the House. I believe it is fairly non-controversial. I am shocked that Labour is not supporting this legislation. I think there are some very good reasons to support it. If legislation supporting a census is not something that can be taken under urgency as a result of our largest natural disaster in this country then I do not know what would be more worthy. I am very pleased to support this legislation and I commend it to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20673] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now move to debate on clauses 18 to 48 and schedules 2 to 4. The question is that Part 3 stand part.
Barker Rick: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20679] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The member Gareth Hughes made a very good point about freedom camping. He talked about Auckland sweeping the streets of all the people who sleep on the street. Well surely they are the ultimate freedom campers. Does each of those people who sleep on the street realise that they will be subject to a $200 fine if they are making preparations for freedom camping? What does this mean for Blanket Man in Wellington? I do not think anybody has heard that this is an attack on Blanket Man’s right to sleep on the streets of Wellington. 
I want to come to another point. There are several points I want to make and I start on clause 18(1)(c) of the Freedom Camping Bill. It states “makes preparations to freedom camp in a local authority area” and there is a similar reference for a Department of Conservation area. What does “makes preparations to freedom camp” mean? Does it mean that the campervan has stopped and someone has pulled on the handbrake? Surely that is a prerequisite to freedom camping. One cannot freedom camp without the vehicle being stopped and the handbrake pulled on as we saw tragically at Lake Hayes. So if someone has pulled the handbrake on and stopped are they making preparations? 
One would think that a person who did that would have a defence. But no National has made sure there is no defence because if we go over to clause 19 of the bill “Strict liability offences” it states “In prosecuting an offence under section 18(1) the prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant—(a) intentionally or recklessly committed the offence;”. So there is no need to have proven intent. The person needs only to have stopped and encountered someone of mean spirit who has had a bad day and decides they need to do something so issues an instant fine of $200 to that person because they have stopped. Is it an intention to camp if someone stops like in those glossy adverts where people put a couple of chairs outside to have a cup of tea and enjoy the view? Is that an intention to camp? It is very hard to prove an intention. But it gets worse. I draw members’ and the Minister’s attention to new clause 18(1A)(b) which states “has caused or is likely to cause significant concern to the community and users of the area or land.” A concern—what is a concern? 
Debate interrupted.
Calder Cam: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Calder Cam: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20678] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20673] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Upston Louise: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Upston Louise: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20673] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20665] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Power Simon: Sittings of the House 
Power Simon: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:675;Page:20652] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House or if in Committee of the whole House for the Committee to suspend at 11.45 a.m. and for the House or Committee to sit again on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 17 August to enable members to attend the State farewell luncheon for His Excellency the Governor-General. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20665] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 in the name of Rahui Katene be agreed to.
Hipkins Chris: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20664] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take what will be a very brief call on the Freedom Camping Bill. I think this is a ridiculous bill. It is a total overreaction to what is a real problem. I am not saying that it is not a real problem but this is a total overreaction to it. I am a freedom camper. I have quite often with old flatmates driven up to the Tararuas parked in the car-park overnight on a Friday night and gone tramping the next day. Under the definitions and provisions provided in this bill we could be slapped with a $200 instant fine for doing that. I think that is absolutely ridiculous and an absolute attack on what is a Kiwi way of life—the ability to drive to a place park sleep in the car or camp beside the car and go tramping or hunting. This bill attacks that. 
There is a real problem with people leaving a mess behind by not using adequate camping facilities; there is also however a responsibility on us to make sure that those facilities are provided. I note that this Government of course has cut the funding for providing sanitary disposal facilities and that is absolutely ridiculous as well. This is an overreaction to what is a real problem but it could be much more easily solved and I think this bill is ridiculous.
Calder Cam: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Calder Cam: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20663] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Calder Cam: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Calder Cam: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20669] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20653] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 1 is clauses 3 to 9. The debate includes schedule 1.
Tremain Chris: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Tremain Chris: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20651] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a quick call on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill and to commend the bill to the House. I also commend the previous speaker Kelvin Davis on his speech particularly for the way he focused on compliance costs. It was great to see Mr Davis focusing on one of the six key strategies of the National Government’s plan. We welcome him to come over to this side of the House at any time to work on bringing down those compliance costs for businesses in New Zealand. It is a fantastic thing and we support that initiative. I commend the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill to the House at this point in time. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time.
Power Simon: Business of the House 
Power Simon: Business of the House 
[Volume:675;Page:20652] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 17 August and Thursday 18 August and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Wilkinson Kate: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20661] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I will take just a few minutes to have a call on the Freedom Camping Bill. I think there is general agreement throughout the House that freedom camping in New Zealand is a valued tradition and it is part of our way of life—and no wonder when we have so much beautiful scenery and we are the best country in the world. Having said that unfortunately there are some behaviours that do need to be discouraged. 
I want to take a call to address just a couple of the issues and questions that have been raised by the Labour Opposition. The first one is in relation to blanket bans. There is absolutely no intention in this legislation to allow local authorities to issue a blanket ban on freedom camping in their area. In fact one of the amendments that I think was pointed out was in clause 3(2A) which specifically states that “the powers of regulation under the Act do not allow for freedom camping to be prohibited on all land” so that therefore addresses the blanket ban. 
In addition to that it is further provided later on in Part 2 that the by-law has to be appropriate and proportionate. We think we have put in sufficient safeguards to prevent a local authority thinking it has carte blanche to issue a total blanket ban on freedom camping in New Zealand. The other misunderstanding that I think the Opposition has is that this legislation bans freedom camping. In fact it does the complete opposite. It is permissive. It permits it and it actually specifically provides for freedom camping which until now has not been protected or enshrined in law. This is actually good legislation. 
The final issue I will raise is from the Hon Steve Chadwick whom I recognise as a former Minister of Conservation. She made the interesting comment that there is a by-law that provides for this in Rotorua which is working well. Well actually all this legislation does is provide for other local authorities to have the same by-law. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They can do it without a law. They don’t need the law. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: But what actually happens under the by-law in Rotorua is if the council wants to enforce it it has to go through the courts and that wastes court time and several thousands of dollars in legal fees when an instant $200 fine should be all that is required. It is actually pretty light-handed but I do agree that this is only one of the tools in the tool box. 
We do need to get across the culture that spoiling our pristine countryside is not acceptable. Freedom camping is acceptable; irresponsible spoiling of our countryside is not. That will take more than just one piece of legislation to stop; it will take a change of attitude education working with the Department of Conservation and local authorities working together with various sector groups appropriate signage and a whole lot of other tools. This is one small tool in the tool box that we hope will discourage those irresponsible people who want to spoil our countryside.
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Correction—Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill 
Tisch Lindsay: Voting — Correction—Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill 
[Volume:675;Page:20651] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Earlier today when the House was considering the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a second time was incorrectly announced as Ayes 63 and Noes 57. The correct result is Ayes 62 and Noes 58.
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20665] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to Part 1 be agreed to.
Power Simon: Urgency 
Power Simon: Urgency 
[Volume:675;Page:20651] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Freedom Camping Bill the Student Loan Scheme Bill the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill the Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill the Maori Purposes Bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill and of any bills into which those bills may be divided and the introduction and passing of a Government bill 
. 
As noted in the business statement last Thursday the Government has moved that urgency be accorded to items of business that require timely implementation. As members will know the supply of House time has been reduced this year from the normal 30 weeks or so to just 23 weeks due to factors such as the Rugby World Cup and the general election. Including this week there are just 5 sitting weeks remaining before the dissolution of the House for the general election. On the demand side some of the bills in today’s motion require immediate action due to the impending Rugby World Cup such as the Freedom Camping Bill and the Trade Marks (International Treaties and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
Other bills require passage as soon as possible to enable implementation to commence in advance of looming deadlines such as the Student Loan Scheme Bill which is due to come into force on 1 April 2012 and the Taxation (Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill which is due to commence on 1 October this year. Similarly the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) formalises the restructuring of three agencies one of which is due to be defunct by 1 September 2011. 
The Duties of Statutory Officers (Census and Other Remedial Provisions) Bill is a slightly different case. The Government made the decision earlier this year that the census scheduled for 2011 would not be held due to the disruption caused by the Canterbury earthquakes. By law the Government must hold a census this year so amending legislation is required to reflect the decision to defer the census. Cabinet subsequently decided that the census should be held in 2013 instead. 
The swift passage of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) is desirable to provide much-needed certainty to the industry. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Freedom Camping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:20673] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to Part 2 be agreed to.
King Colin: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
King Colin: Biosecurity Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20647] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the second reading of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. I would have liked to address the bill in some depth but I think that has been done very adequately by previous speakers. 
I will spend a bit of my time rebutting some of the Opposition’s comments. I will take people back down memory lane. It was 11 or 12 years ago that Murray Sherwin on being appointed as the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry pointed out to the people of New Zealand that a foot-and-mouth incident in New Zealand would cost about $10 billion. Further along the way we had the Waiheke Island experience and we learnt that nothing substantive had been done from 2000 through to that incident. So I say to members of the Opposition that they are lions in Opposition and lambs in Government. The Primary Production Committee spent 3 years sitting on its hands waiting for work to come from the then Labour Government and nothing was forthcoming. 
Having said that I say on behalf of the select committee that the major risk is from importers. With the Government-industry agreement for biosecurity readiness and response we are putting in place a very appropriate measure to manage the outbreak of an incursion but the question we cannot answer is how we penalise a person who breaches our border control and brings in a biosecurity incursion. That is the $64000 question. 
This bill is very good. The Government-industry agreement is very appropriate and is overdue. We have seen so many cases where an ounce of prevention would have prevented a pound of cure. This is good legislation. It should have been in law 10 years ago but because of the procrastination of the previous Labour Government and the difficulty it had in making the hard calls we are dealing with it today. It is very good legislation. I commend it to the House.
Vote: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20636] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a first time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 57. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Quinn Paul: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20634] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 There is much on the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill that I could talk about but I will take just a short call because as Opposition members have alluded to this is a starting point. From here the bill will go to the select committee and at the select committee we will listen with intensity to any issues that are raised and consider those in our deliberations which I am sure will improve this bill. 
With those few words I say that I look forward to receiving this bill before the Justice and Electoral Committee—a very hard-working select committee where the work never stops and the candle never goes out. Thank you.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20632] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 The purpose of the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill is to amend the Legal Services Act 2011 and other Acts. The bill makes changes to the provision of legal aid services by the Crown including aid and lawyer for the child and youth advocate services. The legal aid system helps to uphold the principles of and access to justice. It helps to uphold equality before the law and natural justice which helps to build and maintain public confidence in the legal system. This Government led by the Rt Hon John Key is committed to ensuring that the legal aid system remains affordable in the future and that legal aid is available to those who need it and to the victims of crime and domestic violence. The current system is unsustainable. The cost has increased by 55 percent since 2006. If no action is taken now then the gap in legal aid funding will grow to $402 million in the next 5 years. It gives me pleasure to commend this bill to the House on its first reading and I look forward to working on it in the select committee.
Bridges Simon: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bridges Simon: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20630] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill is a very good illustration of what was wrong with Labour in Government and what is right with National in Government. We see in this bill a Labour Government that wanted and paid for champagne while living on a beer income that took legal aid costs in this country up 55 percent since 2006 and that left us with a funding gap in this country if we do not do anything of $402 million over 5 years. That is many schools hospitals and other social services that this country needs. So I say shame on Labour. 
National has an approach to make this sustainable so that the people in need who need legal aid in this country get what they need and we make the legal aid system sustainable for the long term. As we have done in other areas like accident compensation as we are doing in the early childhood education sector and as we are doing in welfare we are making sure that these important social services are sustainable for the long-term betterment of New Zealanders. 
We are responsible in this Government. We are not trying to have champagne while living on a beer income; we are trying to cut our cloth to suit the circumstances of this country. In this bill as I say we have an illustration of a National Government that is making very good stewardship of what it has as opposed to a Labour Government that increased all the costs without any clue as to how to pay for them. I commend this bill to the House.
Borrows Chester: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:20624] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill. Drawing on experience as a police prosecutor and later on a criminal legal aid lawyer it is interesting to see a tension between wanting to live in a country where we supply people accused of crimes the ability to draw on legal services free of charge so that they can make an adequate defence and at the same time recognising that those costs come at a cost to the taxpayer so there needs to be some control on them. Decisions that are made from time to time in respect of policy mean that some of those costs blow out. It is also true to say that probably no one is more unduly maligned within the criminal legal aid system than the lawyers who are prepared to work as criminal legal aid defence counsel. 
It is though timely for the Government to take stock of where legal aid is going in this country and to try to account for the Budget responsibilities it has. National wants to make sure that legal aid is available for those who need it while ensuring that it remains affordable in the future. Budget 2011 included $103.5 million in short-term funding while longer-term sustainability issues were addressed both through this bill and through a wider review of the Family Court. 
The previous speaker Charles Chauvel made a number of very salient points in respect of the delivery of legal aid in the society in which we want to live. There is a huge disparity for instance between the amounts of money that are supplied for Crown legal representatives and for those who are supplied on behalf of the taxpayer to those accused. Both bills are met by the taxpayer but for some reason there is a huge disparity there. That is just one of the many issues that will need to be investigated. I also accept that there are many creative ways in which we can do it. This bill seeks to do a number of those things and I commend it to the House.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Trevor Mallard 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Trevor Mallard 
[Volume:675;Page:20621] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the goodwill in which the member the Hon Rick Barker raises the point of order. Let me make it clear that up until now I have not asked many members to leave this Chamber—only three in fact—and they have been out for the day. That is why the period is a sitting day of the House. I do not muck around. I tolerate a lot of what I consider to be unacceptable behaviour but when the limit has been reached so far every member whom I have asked to leave has been out for the day. That is why I warned members that the day may be a little longer—may—than they might have anticipated. I will reflect on the matter because that possibility may have escaped the member’s attention. I will reflect on the matter but I will not make any decision right now. At the moment the member is excluded for the day. But I will reflect on the matter and advise of any change to my decision in due course.