edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I require Clayton Cosgrove to withdraw that remark.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 What recent announcements has the Government made aimed at improving the quality and management—[ 
Interruption 
]
Sage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8387. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Are the proposals in the recent Government resource management discussion paper intended to give greater weight to economic benefits than environmental outcomes in Resource Management Act decision making? 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 No. The changes proposed are aimed at ensuring that decision makers must have regard to a balance of environmental social economic and cultural values and priorities. This is consistent with both the approach already taken by the courts and the overall purpose of sustainable management under section 5 of the Act. 
Eugenie Sage 
: How will her proposal to change the definition of “sustainable management” which is at the heart of the Resource Management Act and remove the requirement for decision makers to have particular regard to the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment not mean that there will be less scrutiny of environmental impacts? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: I can assure that member that there is no proposal in the discussion document to change the definition of “sustainable management” in section 5. Where we have proposed deletions from the current section 7 of the Act that is because independent and expert advice has confirmed that in each case the clauses in that section are already sufficiently provided for and it is simply thematic duplication and we have acted on that advice. 
Eugenie Sage 
: With her proposal to remove the requirement for Resource Management Act decision makers to have particular regard to the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values does the Minister think that New Zealanders no longer care about how pleasant and attractive their neighbourhoods are? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: In respect of amenity values I direct that member’s attention to section 5(2) and 5(2)(a) of the Act as it stands which there is no proposal to amend and which specifically provide already that the definition of environment includes amenity values. They are already provided for at the heart of the Act. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Apart from natural hazards and urban design what other values that New Zealanders hold have changed so substantially that she proposes to amend the definition of “sustainable management” in Part 2 of the Act by deleting five of the environmental principles? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: Once again I confirm for that member that the sustainable management approach in the Act is not proposed for amendment and where items in section 7 of the Act as currently provided for are proposed for deletion that is because expert advice to the Government has confirmed that they are already well provided for.
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8387. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What recent reports from the Police has she received on the results of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 More good news. I am pleased to advise that since the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act came into law in December 2009 322 assets worth an estimated $26 million have been forfeited to the Crown by convicted criminals. Around $21 million was taken from drug offenders with over $15 million of this coming from methamphetamine-associated offences. In the latest case a Hamilton company director involved in drug dealing was stripped of assets worth approximately $5.1 million including a farm a lifestyle block and two cars. It is a fantastic result by the New Zealand Police and sends a strong deterrent to offenders that crime does not pay. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: What types of assets have been seized from criminals as a result of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] I know they do not like this success but assets confiscated from criminals since the Act came into force include four boats; 85 cars including five BMWs seven Audis five Mercedes-Benz and one Porsche; 142 bank accounts worth an estimated $7.7 million; 24 residential properties worth an estimated $5.7 million; 27 motorcycles including 12 Harley-Davidsons; and three lifestyle blocks worth an estimated $1.6 million. This Act is hitting criminals where it hurts. Nobody should profit from the misery that they peddle in the community and this Government— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice you are very prompt in getting up to make sure that questioners are terse and to the point in their questions. Why do you allow this Minister to go on and on and on when you know full well that she covered the subject a long time ago? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because I was ever-hopeful that it was coming to an end very quickly.
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8380. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What results have the Government’s Gateway Assessments for children in care had to date? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Under Budget 2011 we established gateway assessments for children who are in State care. Gateway assesses the child’s health mental health and educational needs and we are picking up issues not ever before diagnosed. Almost 1700 children in care have now been assessed with an average of more than three needs per child picked up. The most frequent health needs identified so far are 51 percent had emotional behavioural or mental health needs 26 percent had dental issues 15 percent had developmental delay 14 percent had skin problems and 13 percent had speech and language problems. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: What examples have there been that show gateway assessments are making a difference? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There are many examples of how this investment in our most vulnerable children is making a difference but one is that five children have received heart surgery following gateway assessments that picked up heart defects and they are now receiving ongoing treatment. That was not picked up before these assessments were done. Another example is a child who was found with untreated club foot and they received orthopaedic surgery and 12 months later are now able to walk. Children in care have had it tough enough before you add unidentified developmental delay mental health and health problems to a toxic background of abuse and neglect. We are doing something tangible to improve those odds. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: How is the Children in Care package ensuring better outcomes for these children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This is not about just finding and fixing problems; it is also about getting ahead of them. As part of the package we funded some early childhood education places for 18-month-olds to 3-year-olds. Around 230 children in care are receiving early childhood education as a result of this initiative improving their chances and addressing developmental and learning delays and also—importantly I think—giving those people the chance that they need to have a bit of a break as well.
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Young Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8382. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What can he report on potential oil and gas development in the North Island’s East Coast? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Last week Minister Joyce and I launched the  
East Coast Oil and Gas Development Study 
 in Napier. This joint local - central government study highlights the potential of developing an onshore oil and gas industry on the East Coast. The study is about stimulating informed discussion between Government councils community local iwi and industry about the opportunities that could lie ahead in the region. I would like to thank the eight councils that partnered with the Government in undertaking this valuable study. 
Jonathan Young 
: What are the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member has every right to ask his supplementary question. 
Jonathan Young 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. What are the potential opportunities for the region and the nation if such development were to eventuate? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: If development went ahead this could mean up to 2300 jobs in the region potentially growing over time to the levels of more than 5000 currently in the Taranaki region. In terms of wider benefits to the country we need only to again look to Taranaki where oil and gas operations contribute $2 billion to our annual GDP. Development of New Zealand’s oil gas and minerals resources is part of our balanced approach to energy resources.
Carter David: Resignations — Charles Chauvel New Zealand Labour 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Resignations — Charles Chauvel New Zealand Labour 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8376. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Charles Chauvel resigning his seat in the House with effect on Monday 11 March 2013.
Goff Phil: Motions — Human Rights Fiji—Treatment of Detainees Iran Hostage Crisis 1979—Fictional Representation of Role of New Zealand Diplomats Black Sox—2013 Men’s World Softball Championships Victory 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Motions — Human Rights Fiji—Treatment of Detainees Iran Hostage Crisis 1979—Fictional Representation of Role of New Zealand Diplomats Black Sox—2013 Men’s World Softball Championships Victory 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8375. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to move without notice and without debate a motion concerning the beating and the torture of detainees in Fiji. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I move  
That this House condemn the beating and torture of detainees in Fiji evidenced in a recent video recording of the event and call upon the interim Government of Fiji to publicly condemn the use of torture to hold to account those responsible and to uphold as standards of best practice the requirements of the United Nations Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Carter David: Obituaries — Geoffrey Bernard Braybrooke QSO 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Obituaries — Geoffrey Bernard Braybrooke QSO 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8375. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I regret to inform the House of the death on 8 March 2013 of Geoffrey Bernard Braybrooke QSO who represented the Napier electorate from 1981 to 2002. From 1999 to 2002 he served as Deputy Speaker. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy for the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Motions — Human Rights Fiji—Treatment of Detainees Iran Hostage Crisis 1979—Fictional Representation of Role of New Zealand Diplomats Black Sox—2013 Men’s World Softball Championships Victory 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Motions — Human Rights Fiji—Treatment of Detainees Iran Hostage Crisis 1979—Fictional Representation of Role of New Zealand Diplomats Black Sox—2013 Men’s World Softball Championships Victory 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8376. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate in relation to the recent World Softball Championships and the success of the Black Sox. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Kia ora tatou. I move  
That this House congratulate the six-time World Softball Championships - winning Black Sox on their record-breaking 4-1 win against Venezuela over the weekend in the final of the Men’s World Softball Championships 2013. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Motions — Human Rights Fiji—Treatment of Detainees Iran Hostage Crisis 1979—Fictional Representation of Role of New Zealand Diplomats Black Sox—2013 Men’s World Softball Championships Victory 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Motions — Human Rights Fiji—Treatment of Detainees Iran Hostage Crisis 1979—Fictional Representation of Role of New Zealand Diplomats Black Sox—2013 Men’s World Softball Championships Victory 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8375. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to move a non-controversial motion without notice and without debate to correct the grave misrepresentation of the courageous and commendable role of New Zealand diplomats in the 1979 Tehran hostage crisis in the movie  
Argo 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I move  
That this House acknowledge with gratitude the efforts of former New Zealand diplomats Chris Beeby and Richard Sewell in assisting American hostages in Tehran during the hostage crisis in 1979 and express its regret that the director of the movie  
Argo 
 saw fit to mislead the world about what actually happened during that crisis when in reality our courageous diplomats’ inspirational actions were of significant help to the American hostages and deserve the factual and historical record to be corrected 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What recent announcements has the Government made aimed at improving the quality and management of fresh water? 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Last week the Government outlined the most comprehensive and positive reform of our freshwater management system for a generation. The programme of reform is about the Government supporting communities to make decisions plan and set freshwater objectives and limits and then meet the challenges over time of managing our land and water use within those limits. It is also about ensuring we recognise the rights and interests of iwi in fresh water. The proposals outline a clear path of reform for the years ahead that is to begin this year. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How do these reforms compare with the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: The proposals are consistent with and based on the Land and Water Forum’s recommended approach and give effect to its core recommendations. A large number of recommendations will be progressed over the next few years as the work programme outlined is delivered. The Land and Water Forum’s core recommendations for a national objectives framework supported by national bottom lines and a collaborative alternative for developing water plans are being delivered as immediate steps.
Horan Brendan: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Horan Brendan: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8425. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee for another call.
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8460. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (2011/12 Financial Review) Bill and no progress on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Report adopted.
Obituaries — Geoffrey Bernard Braybrooke QSO 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Obituaries — Geoffrey Bernard Braybrooke QSO 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8375. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 12 March 2013 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Geoffrey Bernard Braybrooke QSO 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I regret to inform the House of the death on 8 March 2013 of Geoffrey Bernard Braybrooke QSO who represented the Napier electorate from 1981 to 2002. From 1999 to 2002 he served as Deputy Speaker. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy for the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Motions — Human Rights Fiji—Treatment of Detainees Iran Hostage Crisis 1979—Fictional Representation of Role of New Zealand Diplomats Black Sox—2013 Men’s World Softball Championships Victory 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Motions — Human Rights Fiji—Treatment of Detainees Iran Hostage Crisis 1979—Fictional Representation of Role of New Zealand Diplomats Black Sox—2013 Men’s World Softball Championships Victory 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8375. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Motions 
Human Rights Fiji—Treatment of Detainees 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to move without notice and without debate a motion concerning the beating and the torture of detainees in Fiji. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I move  
That this House condemn the beating and torture of detainees in Fiji evidenced in a recent video recording of the event and call upon the interim Government of Fiji to publicly condemn the use of torture to hold to account those responsible and to uphold as standards of best practice the requirements of the United Nations Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Iran Hostage Crisis 1979—Fictional Representation of Role of New Zealand Diplomats 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to move a non-controversial motion without notice and without debate to correct the grave misrepresentation of the courageous and commendable role of New Zealand diplomats in the 1979 Tehran hostage crisis in the movie  
Argo 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I move  
That this House acknowledge with gratitude the efforts of former New Zealand diplomats Chris Beeby and Richard Sewell in assisting American hostages in Tehran during the hostage crisis in 1979 and express its regret that the director of the movie  
Argo 
 saw fit to mislead the world about what actually happened during that crisis when in reality our courageous diplomats’ inspirational actions were of significant help to the American hostages and deserve the factual and historical record to be corrected 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Black Sox—2013 Men’s World Softball Championships Victory 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate in relation to the recent World Softball Championships and the success of the Black Sox. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Kia ora tatou. I move  
That this House congratulate the six-time World Softball Championships - winning Black Sox on their record-breaking 4-1 win against Venezuela over the weekend in the final of the Men’s World Softball Championships 2013. 
Motion agreed to.
Resignations — Charles Chauvel New Zealand Labour 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Resignations — Charles Chauvel New Zealand Labour 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8376. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Resignations 
Charles Chauvel New Zealand Labour 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Charles Chauvel resigning his seat in the House with effect on Monday 11 March 2013.
Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Mighty River Power 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Mighty River Power 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Mighty River Power 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 an Order in Council removing Mighty River Power from the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986. The House has only relatively recently considered the issue of a partial sale of State enterprises in principle. Every subsequent decision made under the legislation will not necessarily be of sufficient importance to justify setting aside the business of the House. I am not persuaded that the matter deserves the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate today. There will be other occasions on which the matter can be debated. The application is therefore declined.
Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Partial Failure of Audio System 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Speaker’s Statements — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Partial Failure of Audio System 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8412. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Partial Failure of Audio System 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just wish to advise members of the House that although there may be audio problems inside the House broadcast by all mediums is operating fine outside of the House. So we just need to acknowledge a bit of decorum in the House until that is solved. The problem is being worked on. It may well be resolved by now. But efforts are being made to resolve it and we are being broadcast through the normal channels.
Draft transcript - Thursday 18 April 2013 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Thursday 18 April 2013
Draft transcript - Wednesday 17 April 2013 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Wednesday 17 April 2013
Draft transcript - Tuesday 16 April 2013 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Tuesday 16 April 2013
Draft transcript - Thursday 11 April 2013 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Thursday 11 April 2013
Draft transcript - Wednesday 10 April 2013 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Wednesday 10 April 2013
Draft transcript - Tuesday 09 April 2013 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Tuesday 09 April 2013
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8372. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Mathers Mojo: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mathers Mojo: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8371. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 It comes as no surprise that the National-led Government justifies this appalling bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill which continues the suspension of democracy in Canterbury by saying that Canterbury must realise its economic potential. It is extraordinary that the Government justifies its actions in this way because the only economic vision it has for Canterbury is one of intensive dairying and massive irrigation schemes. The trouble with this vision is that Canterbury is already reaching the limit of what it can sustain in the way of intensive dairying. 
Canterbury is already experiencing serious environmental impacts and particularly downstream impacts on our water from its existing levels of dairying. One of the reasons for this is that not only is irrigated dairying incredibly water hungry with two large dairy farms using as much water as the whole city of Christchurch but the impact of that number of cows is exacerbated by the fact that in Canterbury the gravel soils are not suited to dairying. The gravel soils readily leak the nitrates and other pollutants into the aquifers and into the downstream areas polluting drinking water and causing areas to become very high in nitrates with real concern for bottle-fed babies and so on. It is extremely serious. 
One of the things that really strikes me is that those using this bill to justify the expansion of intensive dairying are showing that they value intensive dairying and irrigation ahead of democracy ahead of the environment and ahead of social cohesion and agreement about the way forward for Canterbury economically. It is utterly and completely unethical. I know that if we on this side of the House were to suggest that we should be removing democracy in order to protect the environment there would be howls of outrage from irrigators and farmers and that is the way it should be. The reality is that democracy is the foundation for a stable cohesive society where we have to work together and work within the limits of what we can agree to move forward. 
I am utterly appalled that the Government cannot trust the people of Canterbury to agree on what is the best economic vision for Canterbury that does not involve polluting our waters draining our rivers dry and building massive dams. That is not the vision that many people want for Canterbury and the Government should not have to do it by removing democracy in order to pursue that vision. It is an extremely narrow short-term vision for Canterbury. We can do better than that and that is why the Green Party does not support this bill. It is an absolutely unethical immoral bill. Thank you.
Upston Louise: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Upston Louise: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8372. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 My colleagues on this side of the House have canvassed the issues well and summarised them succinctly so I do not wish to add anything further in my support of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill.
Roy Eric: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: A split call? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: A split call is correct.
Barry Maggie: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8367. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As the Hon Michael Woodhouse said at the beginning of this debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill we acknowledge the concerns of the submitters. We very much acknowledge the unease around these sorts of things. This though was a decision not taken lightly. We were very much of the view that we could have left it alone except when you look at the facts—which is unknown territory for the Opposition ranks particularly I would have to say the bellowing filibusterer— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Bellicose. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: —bellicose as well thank you—the former member for Waimakariri charmless individual that he is. 
Environment Canterbury’s performance when we look at the facts was ranked the worst out of the 84 councils in New Zealand. The review group stated that “the institutional failure in Environment Canterbury required comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government.” Unfortunately that is what we had to do. But do you know what? It has worked. The processing time frames for consents have gone from 28 percent in 2008 to 93 percent currently and only a 2.9 percent increase in rates. This has worked very well. The collaborative approach of the commissioners has been commendable and the elections will be held in 2016. 
This is a piece of legislation that unfortunately is essential and I commend it to the House.
Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8365. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 When the Minister for the Environment Nick Smith took the brave move of sacking the councillors and appointing commissioners to Environment Canterbury water policy in Canterbury was an absolute basket case. It did not even have an operative water plan. Consents were being made in a policy vacuum. Its overallocated catchments were being consented with no regard to the overall picture. Environment Canterbury councillors were a factionalised bunch more interested in fighting for their own interests than in the interests of the wider region. It is a bit like the Labour Party caucus actually if you ask me. Consenting times were the worst of any council in New Zealand. Every other local authority had lost confidence in Environment Canterbury. So the speaker from the Green Party Eugenie Sage should not tell me that all was wonderful during her time as an Environment Canterbury councillor. It was not. 
During the time the commissioners have been in their role they have been highly successful and effective in addressing Environment Canterbury’s systemic problems and reforming its decision making and conduct. In particular I want to mention a couple of things. They have managed the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan to an operative stage and started work on a second-generation land and water plan which was notified in August of last year. They have made significant progress on the implementation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy through collaborative processes. Praise the Lord for collaborative processes! And there has been development of zone implementation plans which are now working their way into the statutory plan by way of plan change processes. That is progress. That is what matters to the constituents of Environment Canterbury. 
The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill gives effect to the continuation of that work. It is important work. It is important for the economic future of Canterbury. I commend the bill to the House.
Bennett David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8354. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to speak after the last speaker David Clark who represents the Labour Party which has the worst political record in 50 years. He would know about backtracking being dumped from the Finance and Expenditure Committee and trying to tell this House what is happening in the finance markets. He is just not in there. 
This bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) is good. It is what we need to do. We need to make sure that we recover money from those people who are lent money go overseas and do not repay. This bill is part of that process. I look forward to the bill passing through the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Raymond Huo. This is a 5-minute call.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8356. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8356. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be agreed to. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Question agreed to.
Barry Maggie: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Barry Maggie: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8356. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 New Zealand has one of the most generous student loan schemes in the world. It is interest-free and we want to keep it that way. Our very able chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Todd McClay has already detailed the main provisions of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) the amendments and the recommendations as made by the select committee of which I am a member. In a nutshell this is a bill that aims to improve the value and the fairness of this scheme to ensure that student loans are administered as efficiently as possible. In my view that is a commendable aim. 
Labour supports it—sort of in that grudging mean-spirited way we have come to expect from it—and in the never-never land of the Greens their philosophy is at least consistent on this bill: borrow as much as possible and take as long as possible to pay it back in the meantime living off the hard work of others. The Greens are at least consistent I suppose and their predictable negativity remains at the core of their lacklustre contribution to this Parliament. I commend this bill to the House. 
The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.
Hayes John: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hayes John: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8351. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It was the Labour - New Zealand First Government that brought in the SuperGold Card and had to pay for it so it put a price on student loans. A fundamental way of running this country is that the money that comes in has got to be equated with the money that goes out. 
I have got to say to this House that there were two interesting speeches this week: one by Charles Chauvel about 3 days ago and one by David Cunliffe. I would just say to them that there is a Maori proverb that says it is the feathers that make the bird fly. They represent the broken left wing of the Labour Party. 
The changes that have been introduced by this Government over the last 3 years have been to make the student loan scheme sustainable. We said we would reduce the costs from 38c in the dollar to 40c in the dollar. In fact it is down to 39c in the dollar so we have surpassed that. We made a one-off saving in 2012. We said we would save $250 million. In fact we have managed to increase that to $286 million. 
I absolutely support the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) and the intention of giving everybody a good education. Even if people go off overseas we are educating them for humanity and that is excellent. This is a demonstration of National delivering on one of our key priorities of responsibly managing the Government finances. But it is unacceptable that some people go overseas and do not meet that obligation of paying the money back—about $2 billion is in this category. I think that it is really important that we encourage those people to meet their obligations to this country even if it means looking down the track if the changes in this bill do not work of tying the obligation to future passports—that is my personal view. Thank you. It is a good bill.
Goldsmith Paul: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8348. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). There is no question that the student loan scheme that this Government inherited was excessively generous. It gave out money for free with very few checks and balances just as in so many other areas of Government under the previous administration. We have heard more of the same from speakers on the other side saying that we should just keep pouring the money in with no regard or little sense of the context that we live in at a time when we are trying to rein in Government spending and massive debt. 
National is taking the student loan scheme and making it sustainable into the future reducing the need for more Government borrowing and preparing students for the jobs of the future. Our interest-free student loan scheme let us not forget is one of the most generous in the world and we want to keep it that way and to have it as a sustainable scheme. It represents a major financial commitment by the Government to support people in tertiary education. You look at any of the figures around the world and New Zealand’s student support within our tertiary education budget is very high indeed. 
This bill aims to improve the value and the fairness of the scheme and to ensure student loans are administered as fairly as possible. The result that we have seen of the scheme we inherited at the start of this Government was that every dollar lent immediately was written down to 50c. Who paid it? Well it was other taxpayers many of whom are struggling in their own way. This Government has not drastically altered the arrangements but it has focused on restoring some basic disciplines to the scheme. 
Earlier in Budget 2012 as we have seen two major changes were introduced increasing the repayment rate from 10 percent to 12 percent and also reducing the voluntary payment bonus which was repealed. This bill goes further and looks at the question of the two main areas of defining “income” in a broader sense to catch the full income that students may receive and also to match information with the Inland Revenue Department and the Customs Service. 
This is all absolutely common sense. We need to make sure that this information matching is done properly. Why do we do this? Because this is about people paying back their debts to other New Zealanders. That is only fitting and proper. On that basis I commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8338. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In no circumstances would you be in a position of having to make such a ruling as sought in the final comment from that member. But what I would say is that I think the whole issue around urgent questions—and particularly in this case—falls to one side and in favour of your decision because the member himself has said that these conditions have existed for quite some time. Although he quotes Speaker’s ruling 182(3) the fact is that Speakers’ rulings 182(6) 182(5) and 182(4) lend a huge amount of weight to the decision you have made. We are going into what effectively is a 1-week adjournment not a 2-week adjournment and the circumstances that the member is trying to suggest are hypothetical. No doubt during the time we are in adjournment officials will look at the hypothetical position being put before the House today and will be able to give a better explanation of why for some time this gap has existed and how they expect to fill it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank both members for their contribution. An urgent question has been lodged. Urgent questions are allowed to deal with matters that require the absolute immediate attention of the House. They may be asked where the Speaker considers that it is in the public interest that they be answered immediately. A classic circumstance is where an irrevocable course of events is about to happen before the House sits next. I fully accept that the question lodged by the Hon Damien O’Connor raises a serious matter but biosecurity protection does not relate to any identified specific immediate risk. I have taken guidance from the Clerk. I have had a look at the Standing Orders. I refer the Hon Trevor Mallard to Speaker’s ruling 182(6) which reads: “The guidance used in deciding whether a question is urgent is to ask whether it needs to be answered today tomorrow or next week.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well it can’t be any of those. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Or the week after. In my opinion the member’s question does not raise an irrevocable turn of events and that is the test. There is no greater risk now than there was earlier today as a result of that report. I therefore rule that I am not allowing an urgent question.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8338. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand from my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor that you have declined an urgent question on the Auditor-General’s report on biosecurity. I would like to refer you to three things. 
One is Speaker’s ruling 182/3 which makes it clear that a member would normally get an answer in 48 hours but where an adjournment is due special consideration should be given. We are going into a period of adjournment. I would like to refer you to McGee’s  
Parliamentary Practice 
 third edition page 553 where he says in relation to urgent questions: “When an urgent question has been submitted to the Clerk it is for the Speaker to consider whether it should be allowed to be asked on the ground that it is one which in the public interest should be answered immediately. For a member to be able to bypass the normal [practice] for questions there has to be a need inherent in the question for it to be answered on that day or before the member could [normally get] an answer by submitting it through the normal channels.” which of course would be Tuesday of next week. And I refer you to the overview statement from the Auditor-General where she says: “Plans for responding to potential incursions from some high-risk organisms are not yet complete. For example the plan for dealing with a foot and mouth disease outbreak is inadequate.” 
It seems to us that we have a very real situation now where we have a gap in our system. The Minister for Primary Industries might have an explanation as to how that gap which appears to have been there for a little bit of time could be closed in the next 12 days. Because of the very serious nature of for example foot-and-mouth disease to our agricultural system it is a question on which really the whole country and our economic future hangs on the answer. Therefore I submit that the question does in fact meet the test. Of course we cannot guarantee that there will be an incursion in the next 12 days but I would invite you Mr Speaker not to rule that there cannot be.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8333. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Thank you—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Now this member has every right to have his question heard.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8334. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let us see whether there is any objection to that document being tabled. No? There is no objection. The document may be tabled. 







Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.