edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tremain Chris: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTremain Chris: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17104. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier):It is a pleasure once again to speak in this part of the Committee stage on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill now that we are on to clause 2 the commencement clause which is a very exciting part of the bill actually.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The gritty part.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: It is actually gritty yes—one of those parts of the bill that you want to get down and really understand in some depth. I know Mr Cosgrove is very focused on this part of the bill. He is a details man. He is a details man. I know that from the work I have been doing with him on the Commerce Committee. He gets into those reports—particularly minority reports. There may in fact be an opportunity tonight Mr Cosgrove to put in a minority report on the commencement clause the second clause of this bill.Kris Faafoi: Don’t start us.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Do not start you? Well I am happy to sit down and give you the opportunity to do that Mr Cosgrove.
Goldsmith Paul: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoldsmith Paul: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17102. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):I have been a little surprised by the extent of probing questions I have had from my side of the Chamber on my ability to accurately describe this bill the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill in its title but I had given some thought. I mean it could conceivably have just been the “Electronic Transactions Amendment Bill” but what I wanted to achieve by adding the words “Contract Formation” was to draw people’s attention to that part of the bill that is about trying to give clarity.I did note a certain snide element to one or two of the speeches from the other side particularly from New Zealand First implying that this was a minor bill but there can be no more important task in my opinion than to ensure that the rule of law in contracts is effective and operational in this country. We are living in very dynamic times where the mode of communications is changing rapidly. We want to make sure that business people and individuals have a measure of clarity when they are trying to transact their business. At the moment there is that lack of clarity and that is why I have chosen the title Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill for this bill. I did consider “Waiver of the Postal Acceptance Bill” which was proposed by Kanwaljit Bakshi my colleague but I think that it is important because it amends the Electronic Transactions Act that we included that in the title otherwise people would be confused as to which piece of legislation it was amending. So that is where I fell on this one.I do not think we need to add any more but I do not think we measure the importance of the contribution that a piece of legislation brings to the economy and to the country by the number of pages it has. I would describe this bill as small but perfectly formed. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.
Moroney Sue: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Senior Whip—Labour):I move That the Committee report progress.
Dyson Ruth: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17099. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):I move That the question be now put.
Mackey Moana: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour):I move That the question be now put.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17097. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. I will start with congratulating my learned colleague Paul Goldsmith on introducing this bill. As my friend the Hon Chris Tremain mentioned he will be remembered in this Parliament for introducing this bill. There are very few members who get a bill drawn from the ballot in their first term and I was one of those whose bill was drawn from the—Scott Simpson: What was your bill?KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: My bill was the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill.Iain Lees-Galloway: That was a stunner.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes that was a stunner. That bill had unanimous support from those members who are talking about this. That was a fantastic bill which I introduced and which was drawn on the very day that I dropped it into the ballot and it was unanimously supported.Hon Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek the leave of the Committee to give the honourable member just a few minutes to reflect more widely on the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill just so we can understand—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not going to put the leave. That is out of order.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Coming back to this bill once again I congratulate Mr Paul Goldsmith. As he mentioned in his introductory remarks he wanted to do law—luckily he did not do it but he did other things. Otherwise there would have been more bills in the ballot. We are debating clause 1 which is the title of the bill. I have got a question for Paul Goldsmith: did he consider giving other names to this bill? For example it could have been the “Waiver of the Postal Acceptance Rule in Relation to the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill”. I would like to know from the member what considerations were given when he gave this bill the name that he has given it. So with these words I conclude my contribution on the first clause and will be back on the second clause.
O'Rourke Denis: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17097. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First will continue to support the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill—a very grand title indeed. The bill clarifies one small area of uncertainty and would assist business. Given the prevalence of electronic communications in society today including email smartphones and social media it is useful that the current Act be amended in the way now set out in the bill as amended by the Commerce Committee. But it is a little sad that such a simple bill as introduced had to undergo so much amendment. The member concerned clearly did not do his homework well enough. But the bill as introduced has now been saved and is worth enacting.Having said that the bill is probably not needed at all because the general rule of contract formation is that a contract is formed at the time an acceptance of the offer is communicated to the offeror—that is when acceptance is received. This applies generally unless there is an established exception. There is no such exception for electronic transactions such as emails. There is as the member himself said an exception for acceptances by post established by the rule in Adams v Lindsell so that the date and time of acceptance is when the letter is posted not when it is received. The longstanding rule in Adams v Lindsell is not appropriate for electronic transactions. Contractual offers by telex as with the telephone are simultaneous so a contract is formed when the offeree accepts and that is settled law.Although it is correct that there is no clear authority on acceptance by way of email there is no established exception either so the general rule applies in favour of acceptance when it is received. This is effectively at the same time as when it is sent if sent by electronic means such as email. So this bill is not really needed because the general rule relating to acceptances would apply but the bill will serve to confirm and clarify the law.I support the select committee’s amendment of the bill to confirm that the contracting parties can decide for themselves when and how acceptance will occur. That again is no real change because that has always been open for contracting parties to do. The provision in the bill for acceptance as at the time of receipt will be the default position and that is consistent with the law as it now is.So although this bill clarifies one small area of the law of contract it has hardly really been worth the time and effort and hopefully the member who introduced it can think of something more worthy of our time for his next member’s bill.
Williams Poto: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17093. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):Kia orana kōtou kātoatoa na roto i te aroa ma’ata o Te Atua. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for allowing me to take a short call on the third reading of the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. I do not want to take up too much time and hold up the passing of what is a very significant piece of legislation for those people sitting in the gallery—and thank you for being here today.When I had the opportunity of speaking in an earlier reading I spoke about how this bill is a bill about love—about the love of two parents for their child and the love of that child for her parents. It has to be a powerful emotion like love that has seen you through this process and given you the fortitude that you had to hold on to in order to engage in this particular process. So I hope that today you feel justly that all of that process—my goodness what a process it has been—has been justified and that you feel what your reaction is as well and that you have done the right thing. I really want to commend you for doing this because as I have said in the House before it does speak volumes for those of us who are adoptees about our recognition of our birth parents. I think this really opened up a discussion for all of us to at some stage consider the diversity of families and parenting and parentage so I thank you very much for doing that.I want to commend also my colleague Louisa Wall who has held this bill very dear and has encouraged such widespread bipartisan work on it by both sides of the House. That is really due to Louisa as a parliamentarian and as a thoroughly decent person who knows that by doing so and by being the type of person she is and the type of parliamentarian she is she will get this bill passed with unanimous support from all parties. So thank you Louisa for that. Without further ado I am going to finish my call and I heartily commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.Bill read a third time.
Roy Eric: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17091. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised that this is again a split call.
Dyson Ruth: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17090. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Can I say first of all that it has been a real privilege to be involved in this bill the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill and a privilege to chair the Government Administration Committee. The name of the bill has changed since it was introduced. It started off as the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. It has ended up more appropriately as the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. Whatever it is called it addresses an injustice and it makes a love story come true. I think it is something that Parliament very rarely does but it is something that I am delighted we are doing with I understand unanimity tonight. That is a good message from our Parliament and I think it is a very important step however unusual it is for us to take.I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall. It was not good luck that this became her bill actually. It was her clarity her vision and her determination to address that injustice. So can I recommend to Melissa Lee that if she would like her registration records put right in Korea to reflect her correct status she should just write a bill and put it into the ballot and see if she is as successful as Louisa. Louisa has shepherded this bill with great clarity and determination but also in an inclusive way that has allowed concerns and questions to be addressed and answered. I think that is again a very good message for Parliament to give to the public.I want to acknowledge the late Diane Sullivan Doreen Shields and their daughter Rowen Sullivan. This is a pretty simple bill for those of us who have been involved in legislative procedures. Compared with most other pieces of legislation it is tiny but its impact is significant. What it does is allow Rowen to have both of her parents’ names recorded on the birth certificate that she can now apply for when we have changed the birth registration. We have put a new clause in this bill just to put beyond all doubt that this status—the recognition of both Diane and Doreen as Rowen’s parents—applies in all situations so that not just Parliament but Rowen will never have to go through this sort of ordeal this sort of questioning or this sort of challenge. I think the addition of new clause 4 was entirely appropriate.We have got other issues that we want to deal with later on this evening so I am not going to take my full allocation of time but I want to make it clear that that is the opposite of a reflection of how I feel about this bill. I am delighted to have been part of it. I think it is a very good—however unusual—step for our Parliament to take. It makes what is a matter of fact—that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields are Rowen’s parents—a matter of law. That is a good thing for us to do. Thank you.
Roy Eric: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17088. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised this is a split call with a 4-minute bell.
O'Rourke Denis: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17088. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):The Magna Carta of 1215 states: “To no one will we sell to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.” I think that those beautiful and striking words are the words we should keep in mind when we look at situations such as this because right and justice—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.DENIS O’ROURKE: Before the break I referred to some of the fine words of the Magna Carta. That guarantee of individual rights and of justice is of course the foundation of our legal system. New Zealand First will continue to support the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill because it is just and right to do so. We are satisfied that it is necessary and that it is indeed the only solution to ensure that the birth certificate concerned will properly and realistically show the names of Rowen Sullivan’s late birth mother Diane Sullivan as well as her adoptive mother. It is a very natural thing for anybody to want and everybody can relate to it. It is difficult to see in fact how anyone could rationally object to it once of course the reasons for it are known. Others in this debate have well enough explained those reasons and it is not necessary for me to do so again.It is actually extraordinary that it would be possible in our legal system not to record the birth mother on a birth certificate—absolutely extraordinary—so this is a unique solution to a unique set of circumstances. The desired solution would not be achievable without legislation and I observe that if Rowen had been born today her parents could marry and both of them would be recorded on her birth certificate as a matter of course. New clause 4(1) provides that “Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are for all purposes the parents of Rowen Helen Louise Sullivan.” That clause reinstates the legal position for all purposes including the laws relating to succession and parental relationship and that as we all agree is as it should be. So there does not need to be a great deal more debate. This is a good bill which should proceed to final enactment forthwith with New Zealand First’s wholehearted support.
Mahuta Nanaia: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17086. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):It gives me great pleasure to take a short call also and to join with previous speakers to support the intention of the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill and its passing into legislation. I had to reflect on the debates that have come to the House on this bill and I really want to say that it is the little things that matter. I want to applaud Louisa Wall for having attention to detail and for fixing something that can be fixed in a way that will make a difference not only in the life of Rowen but I think in the lives of many other children who may find themselves in the same predicament. It is worth doing.Many contributions have talked about this being a minor bureaucratic technical issue. It certainly does advance the principle of equality in ways that this House often struggles with. There are a great deal of moral and ethical challenges but actually if we were looking purely at the principle of equality this is something that we should and must do. We should continue to build I think on the courageous nature in which many issues have been championed before the House—by Louisa in particular—so that they can be addressed in a manner that is fitting and worthy of the cause.I do not want to take a long call upon request because it is important to make sure that we pass this bill quickly tonight and that we all see fit to be able to do that in the spirit with which this bill has been brought not only to the House in its first reading but before the Government Administration Committee and back to the House. With that to Louisa Rowen Doreen and Diane I say thank you for making the little things matter and for reminding us all that we can do simple things to make things worthwhile. Kia ora koutou.
Logie Jan: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17086. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green):It is with pleasure that I rise to take a short call on the third reading of what will become the Sullivan Birth Registration Act. I am taking a short call not because I want to deal with this flippantly or I do not see this as a really very very poignant moment for this House and for Rowen her mum Doreen and her mother Diane whom I am sure is watching but because really I think it is so simple. It is just such a simple and such an obvious thing to fix that I think the family I imagine just wants it to be done. I think that the speedier we can be about that the better because this is about enabling a family to be able to move forward and about fixing a gap in legislation to enable them to do that.That is something I am really pleased to be able to be part of and thank you Louisa. I remember my colleague Louisa Wall sharing this story with me before the third reading of the marriage equality Act. I was very moved at the time because it is just such a maddening situation that this could ever have happened but we are so used to dealing with people falling between the cracks of our legislation on a very large scale. To be able to bring this piece of legislation to the House which deals with one family makes it just real. We can see the people and we can see the impact and fix something which is a really really lovely thing. So on that note I wish the family well in the future and the three of you will be together for all legal purposes from now on. Kia ora.
Mackey Moana: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Sullivan Birth Registration Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17084. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour):I am not going to take too long on this call because I think the issues have been well traversed throughout the various stages. I want to recognise Rowen Diane and Doreen for the personal journey that they have been on. I cannot imagine it is much fun having such a personal matter discussed by Parliament but it does highlight a very important point which is that until we get full equality under the law for gay lesbian bisexual transgender and intersex people we are going to find these loopholes in many parts of legislation. This was a very important step along the way for Parliament’s understanding of how what might not seem like a very big issue can actually have a huge impact on families. I really do not underestimate how difficult this must have been to have had such a personal matter discussed in public.Thank you very much for bringing this piece of legislation the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill to the House and thank you to my colleague Louisa Wall for once again being a champion for this community and raising further issues. That is all I really want to say. I am very excited to see this bill pass into law so I am going to sit down now.
Twyford Phil: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17081. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):Labour supports the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I just want to say that although the filibuster is a perfectly legitimate tool of debate in this House and part of the democratic process it is a shame that the Government members in this debate—Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been in the House for the last hour or so and I have been particularly concerned by some of what is happening and I am going to seek your guidance. During the course of that time we have had Mr Andrew Williams when he spoke in his contribution implying that the National Party was improperly guided or influenced by the Business Roundtable. Subsequently we had Maryan Street a Labour list member implying that the—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. The member will sit. Look this is a debating chamber and so long as it is not unparliamentary members will make the comments that they make. They can imply things. It is up to Government members if they take offence to rebut those in their speeches. I have not heard anything during the course of my presiding at the moment that is unparliamentary.PHIL TWYFORD: I was simply going to point out that in choosing to filibuster their way through this members’ day the Government members are showing their own desperation to avoid debating Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. They are so scared of the political embarrassment that they face by a majority of members in this House voting for Sue Moroney’s paid parental leave bill that they are willing to sacrifice the interests of the members of this House in having a productive members’ day. They are willing to filibuster—Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would invite you to require this member to direct his comments to the nature of the bill because so far we have heard nothing at all about the Tasman bill—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I thank the member. Mr Twyford has been going for less then 30 seconds. I will be asking the member to come back to what this bill is about.PHIL TWYFORD: I support this bill.
Street Maryan: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17078. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):Mr Speaker—Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do apologise to the member Maryan Street. I am very much looking forward to hearing what she has to say and I apologise for interrupting her before she has even got under way. I noticed from the speaking list that ordinarily at this point Mr Assistant Speaker you would indicate that this is a split call. I am just wondering whether that is the case. Are you able to clarify that for us?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The call is a call to the Labour Party. In the past it has had the right to share that call with the Green Party with 5 minutes each. I understand it has chosen not to do that and the Green Party is not going to take its 5-minute call. That is why when I announced the Labour speaker I did not say that this was a split call of 5 minutes. I have just allocated the call to the Hon Maryan Street and it is a 10-minute call.Hon MARYAN STREET: Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. This is enough. The time for filibustering is over. For those interested people in Tasman District and the people of Tata Beach and Ligar Bay who may be watching this debate at the moment be aware that the Government is simply filibustering on this piece of legislation the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill which affects those people because it does not wish to debate Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill before the Budget. That is the kind of disdain in which the Government holds the people of Tata Beach and Ligar Bay and the Tasman District Council. Nobody likes retrospective legislation but this has to be done and I support the bill.
Robertson H V Ross: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17074. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the honourable member Andrew Williams.
Mackey Moana: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMackey Moana: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17071. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOANA MACKEY (Labour):I have to agree with the Green member who has just taken her seat Eugenie Sage. We have gone over and over the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill numerous times. We had extensive discussion in the Committee stage. We know the issues. None of us likes to be passing retrospective legislation to validate rates that were set unlawfully but we need just to get on and do it.
Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17071. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]In the Committee stage we had National members reading at length from the bill itself so I think members of this House and any listeners are very familiar with the content of the bill and what it does. We should simply get on and pass it. Thank you.
Sage Eugenie: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17071. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]EUGENIE SAGE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker and thank you. I will make a very short call on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. This bill deals with the funding of stormwater infrastructure in several small Golden Bay settlements. It corrects mistakes that the Tasman District Council made in the way it set its rates to fund that stormwater infrastructure from 2003-04 to 2008-09. The council is embarrassed by those administrative mistakes. It has apologised for those errors.
Sio William: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSio William: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17069. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):Talofa lava Mr Assistant Speaker. All that needs to be said on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill has been said. To repeat the same thing over and over again only delays the inevitable. This House needs to pass this bill and support the Tasman District Council and its peoples.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Schools Canterbury—Merger of Phillipstown and Woolston SchoolsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Schools Canterbury—Merger of Phillipstown and Woolston Schools[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17052. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Minister of Education’s decision to merge Phillipstown School and Woolston School. The Minister’s announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. A debate was held on the Government’s proposed changes in September 2012 because of the importance of the proposal for the future direction of education in Canterbury and the wider public interest. The Minister’s announcement today relates to a particular school merger. Speaker’s ruling 190/6 is relevant. Following in principle consideration by the House every subsequent decision will not necessarily be of sufficient importance to warrant an urgent debate. The general debate today offers members the opportunity to raise particular constituency concerns. In these circumstances I am not convinced that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House again today. The application is therefore declined.
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills)to the1000.: What is the purpose of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill):Thank you—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read the bill!SUE MORONEY: —and Mr Brownlee might like to listen up. The purpose is to give families the time to spend with their newborn baby in these precious early months and to support breastfeeding to 6 months. Research and evidence shows this approach will improve the health and education outcomes and the social development of these children.Hon Ruth Dyson: What support has she seen for her bill to extend parental leave to 6 months?SUE MORONEY: Twenty-six weeks’ paid parental leave has the support of 99.6 percent of the 3807 submitters on the bill 62 percent of New Zealanders polled by Colmar Brunton last year and a majority of MPs in this Parliament. All we need is for National to step aside and let democracy take its course. If you just bear with me Mr Speaker I want to describe the document I would like to table in the House. This is a document from the 26 for Babies—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not prepared even to put the leave.
Dyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills)to the1000.: What reports if any has she seen on how practical it is to implement the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill):I have seen a report in the National Business Review on 5 April that says that the way to make 26 weeks’ paid parental leave affordable in the current financial settings is to do so by “gradually introducing an increase in paid parental leave … over a period of three years adding an extra month each year.” This is exactly what my bill proposes to do.Hon Ruth Dyson: What are the fiscal implications for Budget 2014 of her bill to extend paid parental leave to 6 months?SUE MORONEY: Core Crown expenses for the next financial year to June 2015 are forecast to be $73.2 billion. In the same period my bill will cost a net amount of $36 million—just 0.05 percent of the core Crown expenses. The Government plans $1 billion of new spending in that period and my bill would account for just 3.6 percent of that new spending. There is no justification for a financial veto in these circumstances.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National)to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcement has he made about energy efficiency initiatives in the transport and industrial heat sectors?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):I thank the member for his interest. Earlier this week I announced three new energy-efficiency initiatives. The energy sector specifically transport and industrial heat are two key areas where such initiatives have the potential to save business and consumers thousands of dollars and reduce carbon emissions. Administered by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority the Energy Efficiency Meat and Dairy Farm Initiative the expansion of the Heavy Vehicle Fuel Efficiency programme and the Fuel Efficient Tyres Initiative will increase awareness and provide essential information through energy audits training workshops marketing campaigns and industry partnerships.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What savings are expected as a result of these three initiatives?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: From a modest investment of $3.8 million we expect businesses and consumers to be better off by up to $30 million. For example an increased uptake of fuel-efficient tyres represents a great opportunity to reduce emissions at a national level. The initiative is expected to save around 2.5 million litres of fuel each year. In the heavy vehicle programme—already a proven success—we expect to deliver around $1.2 million of diesel savings each year with a potential for fleet operators to save up to 15 percent of their fuel use. With good information businesses and consumers can make smart choices.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17045. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country)to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about colonoscopy services in New Zealand?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):Today the Government has announced that we are investing an extra $3.5 million to provide over 3000 extra colonoscopies. Some district health boards have traditionally been stretched to keep up with the demand from a population that is both growing and ageing but we are making good progress. In the 2012-13 financial year 41000 colonoscopies were performed by district health boards—a 20 percent increase on 2008-09.Shane Ardern: How does this announcement fit with the Government’s drive to improve diagnostic services?Hon TONY RYALL: The funding boost is the latest in a range of recent Government initiatives aimed at improving colonoscopy delivery in New Zealand. This includes the $24 million bowel screening pilot in Waitematā; the $16 million faster diagnostics project which aims to improve access to a range of tests and scans; and the $1.8 million National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Programme. We know that the biggest constraint to a larger roll-out of bowel cancer screening is the need for a workforce and a symposium is to be held next month in Wellington to look at ways of increasing New Zealand’s colonoscopy workforce capacity and efficiency.
Lee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLee Melissa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17041. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.MELISSA LEE (National)to the Minister for Social Development: How many people have had their benefits suspended since the Government tightened rules on overseas travel?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development):As part of last year’s welfare reforms the Government tightened the rules about people travelling overseas while receiving a benefit. Since then more than 21000 people have had their benefits suspended for taking unauthorised overseas travel. More than 1750 people have had their benefits suspended for multiple trips. Suspending these benefits has saved taxpayers more than $10.5 million.Melissa Lee: Why did the Government tighten the rules?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We tightened the rules because we believe that those who have work obligations should be in New Zealand and looking for a job. Those with work preparation obligations should be here and looking for a job. If they travel and do not tell us or do not have compassionate reasons for travelling then their benefits will be suspended.Melissa Lee: Are there exceptions to allow beneficiaries to travel in some situations?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. The new rules still allow for overseas travel on compassionate or health grounds and obviously the rules do not apply to those who are on superannuation. People without work obligations can in most cases travel overseas for up to 28 days as long as they tell Work and Income they are going. Since July last year we have had around 13000 exits from New Zealand where the person has been able to keep their benefit while they have been travelling.
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17039. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney)to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she received on crime levels in New Zealand?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police):I am pleased to advise the House that crime fell for the fourth calendar year in a row in 2013 down by a total of 20.2 percent so that recorded crime is at its lowest figure in 29 years. Overall the number of offences dropped by 4.1 percent in the 2013 year with 15600 fewer recorded crimes compared with the year before. This is nearly 91000 fewer crimes reported in 2013 than in 2009. The biggest drops in crime were in Auckland and Wellington with a 9.9 percent fall in each of those and a drop of 5.6 percent in Canterbury. This is an outstanding achievement and I would like to congratulate police staff and all those involved in the justice sector on their hard work.Dr Cam Calder: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Despite listening carefully because of the noise from the Opposition benches I found it difficult to hear that answer. Is it possible—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot help the member on this occasion but the level of noise we did have through that question was unacceptable.Mark Mitchell: What steps has the Government taken to reduce crime in New Zealand?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Under this National-led Government the police have changed their focus from just reacting to crime to preventing crime. We have provided our front-line police officers with smartphones and tablets allowing them to spend much more time out on the streets and less time at the station doing paperwork. This technology has delivered 520000 additional front-line hours every single year. That is the equivalent of an extra 354 extra police. Police have also increased foot patrols by 155 percent in the last 2 years and they are using their rosters in a smarter way ensuring that their officers are in the right place at the right time preventing crime before it occurs. There is no doubt that under National crime has gone down whereas under Labour it just went up.Carol Beaumont: Do the statistics show that sexual violence crimes are going down?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No. What the statistics show is that there has been an increase of around 11.6 percent in reported sexual offences. That in itself is a very good indicator that the public has much more confidence. This is a notoriously under-reported area and the police are working very hard in fact to make sure that more people report sexual crimes and that the police can take action accordingly.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many manned police cars were available to act on calls in Greater Auckland last night?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I would say to that member: as many as were necessary.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17038. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing against the yelling coming from my left-hand side. Would the member please start the question again.
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17038. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):My question is to the Minister of Police. What recent reports—[Interruption]
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 8 AprilText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAmended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 8 April[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17118. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Amended Answers to Oral QuestionsQuestion No. 5 to Minister 8 AprilHon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct answers I gave to a supplementary oral question on 8 April.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.Hon NATHAN GUY: Yesterday in the House during question No. 5 in answer to a supplementary question from Richard Prosser I said “This is why funding has increased every year since we took over from Labour.” I would like to correct that to “This is why funding has increased since we took over from Labour.”
Urgent Debates Declined — Schools Canterbury—Merger of Phillipstown and Woolston SchoolsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — Schools Canterbury—Merger of Phillipstown and Woolston Schools[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17052. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedSchools Canterbury—Merger of Phillipstown and Woolston SchoolsMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Minister of Education’s decision to merge Phillipstown School and Woolston School. The Minister’s announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. A debate was held on the Government’s proposed changes in September 2012 because of the importance of the proposal for the future direction of education in Canterbury and the wider public interest. The Minister’s announcement today relates to a particular school merger. Speaker’s ruling 190/6 is relevant. Following in principle consideration by the House every subsequent decision will not necessarily be of sufficient importance to warrant an urgent debate. The general debate today offers members the opportunity to raise particular constituency concerns. In these circumstances I am not convinced that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House again today. The application is therefore declined.
Vote: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:16951. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes71New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill without amendment and that the Committee had divided it into the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Road User Charges Amendment Bill; the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill without amendment; the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill without amendment; and the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill with amendment.Report adopted.