edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Ngaro Alfred: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ngaro Alfred: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 14 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:314. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
5. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What reports has she received about proposed welfare reform in other jurisdictions? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I have seen recent reports that in Australia a number of changes are taking place in the welfare space that are similar to this Government’s proposals. One involves young people particularly teen parents where they will be required to be in education once the child is 1 year old or their benefit will be completely stopped. 
Alfred Ngaro 
: How is the Government supporting teen parents in New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This Government has made the single biggest investment in teen parents—$14.9 million—to support vulnerable teen parents and their children. And from July we will be giving them even more support contracting service providers to provide a full wraparound service to them and help with education money management childcare budgeting and parenting advice. 
Alfred Ngaro 
: Has she seen any reports that recommend we follow Australia’s lead here in New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I have seen support for the Australian welfare reform that teen parents are expected to be in education when their child is 1 year old or their benefit will be cut. The report suggests we emulate the Australian model here in New Zealand. This support is reported in the  
Gulf News 
 and was from the member Jacinda Ardern.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 14 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:314. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister responsible for Whanau Ora in fulfilling the objectives set out in the Relationship Accord and Confidence and Supply Agreement between his party and the Maori Party dated 11 December 2011? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister remember on page 2 the phrase “evolving focus” and can he tell us what that means for the future for Maori? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes; in fact I have it in front of me. It means delivering better results for some families and individuals who are clearly not doing as well as the Government would hope. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Prime Minister tell us whether this “evolving focus” of Whanau Ora will continue to include the funding of family reunions TV broadcasters or the performing arts and how will that improve the benefits for Maori? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot comment on the individual items that the member has quoted because some of those are contested. But what I can say is that the basis of the programme is to deliver better results. I think history shows at the moment that we have had many Government agencies working with these families on a siloed and isolated basis and it has not actually worked terribly well. So let us try something new.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 14 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:317. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Do fire-fighters ambulance officers and the small number of other types of first responders legally required to attend and assist in accident and emergency situations deserve the same level of legal protection from assault as police and prison officers when they are carrying out their duties; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. All citizens have the same level of protection from assault under New Zealand law. Section 196 of the Crimes Act 1961 makes it an offence for any person to assault any other person. This offence has a maximum penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment. The Government wholeheartedly supports this law. 
Charles Chauvel 
: If the Minister is correct and the law already provides all citizens with an adequate level of protection for assault what is the rationale for her advancing of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill which confers particular and special protection on only two classes of occupation? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well the member is quite wrong. His question is around protection of the law and that is in relation to the offence itself which is under the Crimes Act. The bill that he is referring to refers to sentencing which is another factor. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Are we to understand from the Minister’s answers that she is saying that the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill will make no difference whatsoever in practice since as she has already told the House the law provides adequate and equal protections to all classes of person for assault? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No. What I am telling the House is that the Sentencing Act is different from the Crimes Act. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will the Minister support my proposal to instruct the Committee of the whole House to consider my amendment to the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill to extend the same level of courtesy respect and protection to firefighters ambulance officers and other emergency medical first responders; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: In relation to sentencing and the paper that that member has referred to me yes I will support that.
Williamson Maurice: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:464] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call just to remind members of what the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is about. It has been a long time in the Parliament and now that we are up to the Committee stage it would be worthwhile just covering the three major headings that the bill has been done for.  
There are three categories of amendments in this bill which is amending the Customs and Excise Act and the Biosecurity Act. The amendments are required to provide for planned information-sharing by the New Zealand Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. As time evolves and computer systems get more sophisticated information sharing is vital. The bill provides for developing information-sharing arrangements with other agencies in the future as well—things that allow both the Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to get on and do their jobs.  
The second part of the bill enhances the effectiveness of law enforcement. The Customs and Excise Act has a variety of compliance and enforcement mechanisms some of which were put in place in 1996 with relatively little review since then so I think that is important. These mechanisms no longer have the deterrent effect needed or are proving to be unnecessarily complex to administer with little benefit. The amendments will indeed strengthen the Custom Service’s penalty regime increase deterrence and provide greater distinction between enforcement for minor offences and enforcement for the more serious end of town offences.  
Finally the third part of the bill is to provide clarity to existing legislation provisions or to address new situations that have emerged since the Customs and Excise Act was passed.  
Can I finally say that technology is changing the whole way that both the Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry do it and there can be no better example to members of this Committee than New Zealanders going through all of our international airports who can now go through SmartGate on departure and SmartGate on arrival and have a computer electronic system do all of that processing for them. And as the Joint Border Management System with the Customs Service comes into effect and as that is developed this particular bill and the provisions of this bill will be needed.
Roy Eric: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Roy Eric: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:479] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Speaker the Committee has voted that you be recalled to determine whether or not the ruling that I made was in fact the correct one. The Committee was debating the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I put a closure motion to the Committee on the debate. The closure motion was accepted. The vote on the clauses the parts and the schedules was agreed to. I then proceeded to call the Minister to put the motion to divide the bill and the question was raised whether or not that was covered in the closure motion. I ruled that it was. There was a question about that and you have been asked to determine whether in fact that is the case.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:478] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 stand part.
Woodhouse Michael: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:478] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is—
Roy Eric: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:450] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Just before I call the Minister just because we are having a debate across all parts and schedules of the Act that does not open up the debate to any subject even remotely related to taxation. The heading of the bill is Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill so I just ask members when they are speaking—yes they can speak on any part of the bill but not on any matter of taxation.
Williamson Maurice: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:475] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I will answer just a couple of the questions that were raised either by the Hon Trevor Mallard or by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. Yes indeed I am confident that the chief executive’s discretion here is the right level for that to be exercised for these levels of penalty.  
I refer to Trevor Mallard’s concern that “materially incorrect” when filling out some of the forms may even relate to a full stop being in the wrong place. Can I tell the member that under section 128A “Imposition of penalty” in clause 13: “(1) The chief executive may issue a penalty notice to a person if the chief executive is satisfied that—(a) an entry of goods made by the person contains an error or omission;” so the chief executive is allowed to use his discretion.
O'Connor Damien: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:470] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I hate to interrupt my colleague Mr Mallard—it is not my style—but I seek leave to table a letter received in my office on 14 February dated 4 January sent to the Minister for Primary Industries claiming that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is enough. I will put the leave. Leave is sought for the tabling of that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] You know the rules. Leave was put; leave was refused.
Vote: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:464] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Roy Eric: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:463] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have had time to consider the member’s amendment— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Be nice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well I am bound by Standing Order 325 which says that an amendment that may have an impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates or move a change to a vote needs 24 hours’ notice and the member has failed to observe the 24-hour— 
Hon David Parker 
: So it’s fiscally significant? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member should not engage in dialogue with me while I am giving a ruling. But can I just say to members—not hearing the member—that the Standing Order does not define the impact. It just says that has a fiscal impact. Now for members who have come into the Chamber since leave was sought I say that leave was sought for the debate to be taken as one and for the vote to be as one question. If the members want to vote against Part 3 they will have to seek leave that Part 3 or clause 142—I am just trying to assist the Committee here. That would have the same impact as the member’s amendment. I am going to put the question now.
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:478] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like those put separately. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well the member will have to seek leave if that is what the member wants. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We do actually have some separate questions. We have an agreement to a debate. We do not have an agreement to have them put together. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I put leave at the start that the debates be taken as one and the questions as one. On the previous bill that was held in Committee leave was sought to separate the questions. Unless there is leave put and agreed to—
McClay Todd: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
McClay Todd: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:459] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 Never have I prayed for the ringing of the bell as I did that time listening to the member opposite. Can I say to members opposite that I think you made the wrong choice last year. There is a man who still harbours leadership ambitions with a speech like that. I am not sure whether it is the party of the member on my left or on my right he is interested in. In fact I had a constituent send me a message yesterday having watched television coverage from this House saying that somewhere in New Zealand a homeless man has lost his beard. Can I suggest that David Cunliffe gives his beard back to him quite quickly. That man is worried and winter is coming. [ 
Interruption 
] Actually Mr Bridges is not homeless; he has always had that suntan. 
I want to very very briefly make mention of an important part of this Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill and that is where the active income exemptions will bring New Zealand tax rules into line with others. The reason I want to mention this is because of a number of important free-trade agreements that our hard-working Minister of Trade Tim Groser has been working on for a long period of time. The free-trade agreement with China is a very important agreement that Tim Groser has spent a huge amount of time focusing on. What this part of the bill means to that agreement is that New Zealand companies that may manufacture in China will have an opportunity to do so under the same tax rules as other companies will face there. Lastly the Trans-Pacific Partnership is under negotiation at the moment. That too will provide benefits for New Zealand companies. There is so much more I want to say on this that I might need to take another call later in the debate. Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:479] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Sorry the Chairman made it absolutely clear to the Committee that what had been agreed was that the parts and the preliminary clauses would be taken as one question and the votes on those would be taken as one question. He stated that clearly to the Committee as part of an earlier discussion. He did not include in his summary any further motion by the Minister. I also want to make it absolutely clear that in the motion for leave that the Committee agreed to the Minister’s motion which could have been included in that leave and probably would have been accepted was not included in what the Committee agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:479] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we have completed the voting on the question that you put to the Committee. This is a separate motion now being moved. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It has been the convention of this House that all matters dealing with the conclusion of the bill that is being progressed are progressed at that voting. So I will ask the Minister—
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:479] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Chairperson obtain the Speaker’s ruling on whether a motion to divide the bill was covered by the closure motion. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Robertson Grant: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:449] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: She sought leave— 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: This will facilitate the order of the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure where this fits— 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I will go with it. I was just seeking clarification from the Government junior whip that this has been discussed with other parties. 
Hon Member 
: Yes it has. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We have had an assurance that it has been so I am now going to put the leave that the debate be as one question. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.
Tisch Lindsay: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:449] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well no—the opportunity was there and it is up to the member to— 
Hon John Banks 
: But I am seeking leave. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have already done that. It is too late because I have announced the result. We have actually voted on it and we now move to the next section which is moving into Committee stage. I say sorry to the member but the member must exercise his right to vote at the time or bring up a point of order at the time not after. The House has decided we have passed that and we are now moving into Committee.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:478] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 1 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 and 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 119 Noes 1.
Tisch Lindsay: Address in Reply 
Tisch Lindsay: Address in Reply 
[Volume:677;Page:422] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. Yes and I acknowledged that earlier on that it is at the Speaker’s discretion. I had made the decision earlier on and how it was resolved finally was that leave was sought. We are in the hands of the House when leave is sought for a particular course of action and I think that was a resolution a favourable resolution for the Minister. I hope that ends the matter.
Tisch Lindsay: Address in Reply 
Tisch Lindsay: Address in Reply 
[Volume:677;Page:420] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for his comments. If we go back and look at the review of the Standing Orders which was tabled in the House and adopted by the House the point that the member makes on page 28 is correct but the convention has been that we do not read speeches. If you look at the opening statement there: “We also wish to reiterate that where possible members should not read speeches. The reading of speeches was precluded until 1996 and we wish to reassert this rule as a convention”. So this was what was adopted by this House on the review and the member was a member of the Standing Orders review—as I was—and understood the reasons behind that. So what the tabling of this document the report of the Standing Orders Committee and the accepting of it in the House is actually doing is reasserting the convention that speeches should not be read.  
Many members bring up points of order. It is at the Speaker’s discretion whether a speech should be read. I said to the member who was speaking the Hon Tariana Turia that she should refer to her notes so it was not as if I was saying—I think I used the word “verbatim”; it came up a couple of times. But then the House sought leave for her to read it and we were in the hands of the House at that stage and the House decided that the Minister could read her speech. The points that the member has made are taken on board but I want to make it very clear that the reading of speeches as pertained in the report of the review of the Standing Orders—the convention that we do not read speeches—is something that Speakers in the future and the Chairman of the Committee will be looking at very closely. I thank the member for bringing that matter to our attention.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Address in Reply 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Address in Reply 
[Volume:677;Page:420] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe. Me tuku whakapaha ki a Honore Anne Tolley mo taku whakararuraru i tana korero. Mr Speaker e hiahia ana ki te korero mo tetahi korero i korerohia e koe ina tata nei i a au e ngaro ana. Ko te tikanga o taku tu ake ko te ahuatanga o te korero o te Honore Trevor Mallard ko tana i ki mai kaore i te tika kia panui mai tetahi korero ki roto i te Whare ki konei korero ai i taua take. Na me penei rawa te korero kai te whakaae au ki te hiahia ki te korero i runga i te ngakau a tena a tena engari i roto i te Standing Orders kei reira tonu etahi tikanga hai whai ma tatou. Ka huri ki te reo Pakeha i tenei wa. 
[ 
Thank you. I need to apologise to the Minister the Hon Anne Tolley for the problems I caused her during her address. Mr Speaker I want to follow up a recent ruling you made in my absence. The reason for rising and making this point of order relates to the circumstances around what the Hon Trevor Mallard said when he stated that a member cannot read his or her address in the House but should deliver it in an impromptu manner. I agree with that. Each member should speak from the heart but there are procedures in the Standing Orders for us to follow. At this point I switch to English 
.]  
I just wanted to take up a matter raised earlier by the Hon Trevor Mallard and other speakers coming in the debate and I appreciate that I have come down from my office to address this. It is to do with the issue about the reading of speeches. Immediately after that issue was raised our office made an investigation and found that there is actually from our understanding no mention of anything about not reading speeches in the Standing Orders. That is the first point. The second point is to raise however that in the Speakers’ rulings—and I refer specifically to Speaker’s ruling 47/1 from September 2011—there is a phrase that states: “Where possible members should not read speeches … However no member other than the Speaker may interrupt a member who is speaking to suggest a breach of this convention and the Speaker may allow speeches to be read in some circumstances. Such circumstances may relate to the technical nature of the material under discussion or the relative experience of the member concerned.” That was part of the  
Review of Standing Orders: Report of the Standing Orders Committee 
 September 2011 on page 28.  
So there are two points I wanted to raise with respect. The first one is to correct Mr Mallard’s discussion in Parliament that there is in fact no ruling from our understanding from the Standing Orders Committee about that convention. Secondly the onus is actually on the Speaker to make a decision as opposed to a member of this House. I raise that because Mr Henare and others have spoken about the fact that that may set a precedent for the rest of our time over the next 3 years. I leave that for your consideration.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:677;Page:404] 
8. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What reports if any has he received on labour costs in the local government sector as compared to central government and the private sector? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The reports are that labour costs in the local government sector according to Statistics New Zealand grew by 7.6 percent. This is about double the 3.9 percent in the central government sector and also exceeds increases in the private sector over the first term of this Government. In the previous term from 2005 to 2008 labour costs in both central and local government were rising considerably faster than in the private sector. The Government has been successful in its endeavours to pull back labour costs in the central government sector but these latest reports show that local government costs are out of step and rising too quickly. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Are there any differences in the tools available to central government as compared with local government in managing labour costs? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes there are. Cabinet has the capacity to set overall policy on the levels of remuneration and staff numbers across the State sector. These tools have been used to get these costs back under control after the excessive growth that occurred prior to 2008. Mayors and councillors currently do not have such tools available to them and this makes it more difficult for them to manage labour costs and their impact on rate increases. The Government is exploring whether the councils need more tools to better manage these costs as part of a broader programme of local government reform to reduce pressure on rates.
Williamson Maurice: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:479] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I move that Supplementary Order Paper—
Banks John: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Third Reading 
Banks John: National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:449] 
Hon JOHN BANKS (ACT—Epsom) 
: 
 I seek leave to cast a vote against the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill which came through at about 90 miles an hour and I did not hear it.
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Volume:677;Page:410] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to set aside time for such a debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Volume:677;Page:409] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the members for their contributions because this is an important issue of order. I appreciate the contributions. As the Hon Trevor Mallard pointed out in fact the application way back in when was it 1980— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: 5. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —1985 was it? It was 1985 indeed. That application was turned down on the grounds that the Hon Trevor Mallard has mentioned. The reason why I have declined this application is that the case was not made for an urgent debate. This is not a recent Government decision or action. What has triggered this is the decision of a court; that is what the application is based on. The application is specifically to debate the decision of the High Court and no Minister is responsible for the decision of the High Court.  
What I am not ruling is that the issue is not important or that it is not possible to frame an application that might meet the Standing Orders. But it is my view that this application does not meet the requirement of the Standing Orders because this application is to set aside the business of the House to debate the decision of the High Court and that is not a responsibility of a Minister. That is why I believe we have to be very careful not to allow setting aside of the business of the House for actions that are not the responsibility of a Minister—and this one is not. The application is based on the decision of the court. But it does not rule out further applications.  
What I am saying is the application in front of me in my view does not meet the test. But just because an application has been made today does not mean to say that it is not possible to make further applications. Members may recollect in fact that there was an issue in the last term where I finally did consider that an application met the test. It might have been the third application on a particular issue. So this does not rule out future applications. It is just in my view today—I have to be careful. In this particular application I am not in any way belittling the issue it is just that the way this application is made does not meet the test because we cannot set aside the business of the House to debate a decision of the High Court. On that basis I must decline this application.
Parker David: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Parker David: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Volume:677;Page:409] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my application. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the Hon David Parker made there. It is his application. I will hear him. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There are three parts to the test laid out in Standing Order 386. The first is that it is a particular case of recent occurrence and this clearly is. The second is that it involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government and with regard to the Speaker’s initial comments I think with respect that it does and that the difference with the case of the Rugby Football Union that was referred to is that was not a case of ministerial responsibility. In my submission Mr Speaker the decision for you is whether this requires the immediate attention of the House because the first two legs of the test are made out.
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Volume:677;Page:409] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Very briefly I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Although I hesitate to disagree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters I think he might have had his argument slightly upside down. My memory is that the House declined the debate on the injunction when it was granted and the reason that it was declined was that it was an injunction between a group of individuals and the Rugby Football Union for which there was no ministerial responsibility. But in this case I do not think we could have anything that was more involved with ministerial responsibility. I think if you look at the accompanying documents and go through them you will see there is line after line where the court has pointed out that ministerial responsibility appears not to have been exercised properly. That I think when you have a court finding that Ministers are not doing their jobs according to the law— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No I think we have heard sufficient on this. I do not need to hear further on this.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Volume:677;Page:409] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not really need to hear a lot more but I will hear firstly from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Just as a suggestion there is a precedent for such a ruling and that is the injunction against—you remember—the All Black tour to South Africa where the ruling was given by the judge favouring the injunction whereupon that triggered an urgent debate in Parliament. I am not trying to gainsay your decision but there is precedent where that is exactly what happened.
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Volume:677;Page:407] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you have another matter to deal with unless you are just going to call Mr Parker straight away.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Volume:677;Page:407] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his intervention because indeed I should consider this before I call the Address in Reply debate. What has been lodged is a letter. Letters seeking under Standing Order 386 an urgent debate on matters can be lodged up till—I mean ideally lodged before the House sits. But I am not in any way turning this application down because that was not the case; my understanding is it may not even have been possible to achieve that.  
What I am faced with here—and it is not very often that the Speaker has to make a decision on one of these on the hoof—is a letter from the Hon David Parker that seeks under Standing Order 386 that I allow an urgent debate on the decision of the High Court in Wellington that “The Ministers’ consent to the overseas investment to be made by Milk NZ in the Crafar farms is set aside.” I feel able to make a ruling on this pretty much on the hoof because for an urgent debate on an issue to be allowed the issue must be an issue for which a Minister has direct responsibility. A Minister does not have direct responsibility for a decision of the court. That is not a matter the Minister has direct responsibility for and I believe on those grounds that it is not appropriate for me to allow that urgent debate.  
I make it very clear that I am not turning it down on the basis of the slightly unusual arrival of the application. I accept that the application is perfectly in order but Ministers are not responsible for decisions of the court. Urgent debates can be allowed and the business of the House set aside under Standing Order 386 only for matters that are the responsibility of Ministers.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Rules—Judicial Decision on Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Volume:677;Page:407] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call on order of—
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:677;Page:407] 
12. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What announcements has she made regarding the igovt scheme and making it easier for people to verify their identities to government agencies? 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Last week the Electronic Identity Verification Bill had its first reading in the House. The bill will give New Zealanders the option of an easy and secure way to verify their identities to access a range of Government services. I was heartened by the extensive cross-party support for the bill’s first reading. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How will this service work in combination with the igovt log-on service? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: The service allows people the choice of using one log-on to access secure online services across multiple Government agencies without having to repeatedly provide physical documents time and again. Under igovt the process will be streamlined while ensuring appropriate safeguards remain in place.
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Blue Jackie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:677;Page:405] 
10. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What initiatives are underway to assist court staff to improve the collection of outstanding fines? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 On Monday the Credit Check of Fines initiative went live. The Government is determined to strengthen fines as a credible sanction and hold offenders to account for these actions. From now on when a person applies for credit such as for a power account or to buy a TV on hire purchase the retailer will be able to access details about overdue fines as part of their credit history. This is a strong incentive for people with overdue fines to pay them. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How will the new initiative work and whom will it target? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Credit Check of Fines targets people who are able to pay their fines but do not whether negligently or wilfully. Not paying fines is unfair on those people who do pay their fines in a timely manner and fines will not show up in a credit record check if they have been paid or if the person has made an arrangement to pay over time.
Hutchison Paul: Address in Reply 
Hutchison Paul: Address in Reply 
[Volume:677;Page:448] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the debate be now adjourned 
.  
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:677;Page:405] 
9. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does she have confidence in her Chief Executive and his staff? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Minister have confidence in her chief executive who authorised the payment of $50000 to merely alter the font and colour of 42 Department of Corrections’ signs when the wording remained the same? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I do not have details of that. If the member would like to put it in writing to me I will get him the answers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister has not got details of that why was she writing a letter complaining of this very matter on 26 January 2012—a two-page letter signed by her as Minister of Corrections and excusing her predecessor’s waywardness when it came to expenditure? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: What I said in answer to the second supplementary question was that I did not have details of that case here in front of me. How could I possibly given the primary question? But if the member likes to put something down in writing to me I will get him an answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a letter dated 26 January 2012 that the Minister wrote—less than what 2 or 3 weeks ago and signed by her—as evidence that she knows all about this issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The rest of the point of order was fine. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is it correct that there have been several cases recently of corrections staff improperly accessing computerised offender records but in most cases no disciplinary action has been taken against the staff concerned; if so how will she be making it clear to her department that it needs to take security of offender information more seriously? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I understand that that member’s assertions as to the actions of a couple of staff are correct. However the assertions regarding the actions taken by the chief executive are incorrect. I have absolute confidence in the chief executive to ensure that employment matters are dealt with.
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:677;Page:403] 
7. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will he give an assurance that New Zealand’s armed forces will not be used in any possible military intervention in Syria in violation of the United Nations Charter? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Is he then in that case in a position to confirm that the Government does not support external military involvement in Syria unless it responds to a United Nations Security Council resolution authorising it—that is to say no coalition of the willing is legal without that mandate? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: New Zealand always follows the United Nations Security Council resolutions so we would not be doing anything in violation of that. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Will New Zealand condemn military intervention in Syria under the responsibility to protect principle without a council resolution given that major powers such as Russia and China would then be free to do precisely the same thing including in the Asia-Pacific region? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well that is a hypothetical situation so we will see what happens. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Will he then confirm that New Zealand is bound by the outcome resolution of the World Summit of the UN General Assembly in 2005 that any intervention under responsibility to protect is legal only when it is authorised by Security Council resolution? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I am not familiar with that resolution but we do follow international law. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does it mean—just to be clear—that New Zealand will never commit its armed forces to military action without a Security Council resolution authorising it? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: That is what I said at the start. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Should New Zealand impose economic sanctions or leadership sanctions against Syria as has been done by the Arab League the EU and the US? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Should we oppose economic sanctions? Well look Mr McCully has made it New Zealand’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It seems there may have been a misunderstanding here and it is not the Minister’s fault. I invite Dr Kennedy Graham to clarify. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Impose. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Impose economic sanctions? 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Impose sanctions. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: We are not in a position to impose economic sanctions because we do not actually have any trade with Syria. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Will he call upon the Syrian Government to release the 37000 or so civilians who have been detained in prison since the unrest began as a move towards the kind of reconciliation the UN Secretary-General and High Commissioner for Human Rights are appealing for? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I am pretty sure we have already done that.
Parker David: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:677;Page:463] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee that the vote in the Committee stage on Part 3 be taken as a separate question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.