edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
9. Offenders—Support for Offenders with Mental Health NeedsDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of CorrectionsOffenders—Support for Offenders with Mental Health Needs9. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Corrections: What additional support is Corrections planning to offer offenders with mental health needs?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): The Department of Corrections is to receive close to $14 million in new funding from the Justice Sector Fund to enable it to purchase mental health services for offenders in prison and in the community over the next 2 years. A Department of Corrections study released today found that 62 percent of prisoners had some form of mental health or substance abuse disorder in the last 12 months and that 20 percent had both these disorders. The department will receive $10 million over 2 years to contract mental health clinicians and support workers to work with offenders in prison and the community. Contracted service providers will work with individuals experiencing mental health issues and will provide support to staff managing them. It is estimated that over 9000 offenders will be eligible for these new services each year. The funding is for 2 years and will be evaluated at the end of that time.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What initiatives does the department have planned to address the mental health needs of female prisoners?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The department will receive an extra $877000 to spend on social workers and counsellors to work with female offenders dealing with trauma and to support them with parenting and family issues. Female prisoners are a small proportion of the prison population. However they play a significant role in the communities and families that they come from. Many women come to prison struggling to deal with past trauma and what has occurred in their families. By providing better access to professional counsellors and support to cope better with their complex lives we can reduce the harm that can be done to themselves and others.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What initiatives does the department have planned to address the mental health needs of community-based offenders?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The department will receive an extra $2 million over 2 years for supported accommodation for a small number of offenders with significant mental health concerns or intellectual disability. The department will also receive $920000 for wraparound post-release support services for prisoners and their families with multiple mental health needs. This will also be used to support families from the start of an offender's term of imprisonment providing opportunities to remain engaged with critical services such as education health and other social agencies.Mahesh Bindra: Will she confirm that funding has been cut for chaplaincy services given that this service is an important factor of mental health and rehabilitation for all offenders; if so by how much?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a long way wide of the initial question and I cannot confirm that.
7. Resource Management Act—Resource ConsentsSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for the EnvironmentResource Management Act—Resource Consents7. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for the Environment: What does the latest monitoring report on the Resource Management Act 1991 say about the number of late consents and the time it takes for new plans to be completed?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The number of late resource consents has dropped by 92 percent from over 16000 in 2008 to just over 1200 in the last year. This reflects the changes the Government made in its first phase of Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms where there was a penalty on councils if they went beyond the 20-day statutory period—$450000 of fees that had to be refunded—and I think that incentive has improved council performance. In terms of plan making the average time for councils to write a plan is over 8 years and to change a plan is over 4 years. That is much too slow when you have got a sector like housing moving from a lull to a boom inside 3 years. That is why one of the most important priorities in the Government's second phase of RMA reforms is to make changes to ensure that that is a lot quicker.Scott Simpson: What does the latest monitoring data on the Resource Management Act show in relation to consent monitoring and compliance?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report shows that 88 percent of resource consents in New Zealand are meeting all of their compliance requirements. That is to be welcomed because a key purpose of the RMA is looking after the environment well while simultaneously making sure we minimise the compliance costs. One of the further ways in which the Government wants to improve that is through national environmental standards—of which we have another four in the pipeline—so that we can get costs down while still protecting the environment.Scott Simpson: What does the latest monitoring data on the Resource Management Act say about the cost of resource consents?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report shows that $76 million has been spent over the last year in processing resource consents. It does show that there have been savings since our first wave of RMA reforms. One of the significant things it shows is that a decision to make a consent notified increases the cost by fivefold. There are also still cases where the cost of a resource consent is greater than what the actual cost of the building project is and again the RMA reforms that we have before Parliament allowing councils to waive the need for a resource consent have the capacity to reduce that $70 million - plus cost.
5. Budget 2016—Bowel Cancer ScreeningALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of HealthBudget 2016—Bowel Cancer Screening5. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the Government is investing $39 million over four years to begin to roll out a national bowel screening programme?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes I can. As part of the $568 million invested in health as part of Budget 2016 $39 million over 4 years is being spent on a national bowel screening programme. Around 3000 New Zealanders are diagnosed with bowel cancer every year and it is a major killer. Once implemented a national bowel screening programme is expected to screen over 700000 New Zealanders every 2 years.Alastair Scott: Where will the roll-out start and how long will it take to roll out across all district health boards?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member will be delighted to know that the programme is on track to start in the Wairarapa District Health Board as well as Hutt Valley District Health Board in 2017 subject to final business case approval. It is expected there will then be a progressive roll-out across the country in 6-month blocks over 2018 and 2019. This staged approach is in line with international best practice in adoption of screening programmes. Once in place district health boards will offer a bowel screening test every 2 years to people aged 60 to 74 the age at which 80 percent of cancers were found in the Waitematā District Health Board pilot programme.
2. Government Financial Position—Surplus and Crown DebtJONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of FinanceGovernment Financial Position—Surplus and Crown Debt2. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to increase surpluses and start repaying debt?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As the Budget outlined forecasts are for growing surpluses and debt falling below 20 percent of GDP by 2020. The Government has achieved balanced books so far by focusing on getting results rather than spending more money. We continued the approach of small additional allowances in Budget 2016 with a net operating allowance of $1.6 billion per year. This is compared with the eighth and ninth Budgets of the previous Government which averaged $4.3 billion of new money per year.Jono Naylor: How is the Government seeking to better manage its balance sheet to assist with debt reduction?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The amount of assets the Government owns continues to grow every year and currently the New Zealand taxpayer owns $280 billion worth of assets so even small improvements in their management can drive significant gains. Budget 2016 allocated $1.4 billion of new money for capital expenditure. However because of capital recycling we are actually spending around $2.6 billion of new money. The drive to better use our balance sheet follows on from the Government's share offer programme which freed up $4.7 billion for the Future Investment Fund to reinvest in new assets rather than having to borrow to pay for the Government's new capital investment.Jono Naylor: What are some of the assets that have been provided by the $4.7 billion Future Investment Fund without having to borrow?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Future Investment Fund which is now being used has allowed for significant investments in new roads schools and hospitals. It also provided $1.3 billion towards projects in the Canterbury rebuild. Outside these headline measures it also allowed for further investment in core infrastructure for the Government and the country—that is investment in the security and intelligence services ultra-fast broadband SmartGate at the border our contribution to international organisations a contribution to refugee resettlement facilities and also helping to free up land for more housing.Jono Naylor: How is the Government's focus on fiscal prudence supporting the wider economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Probably the most important contribution is that it has meant the Government is focusing on the productivity of its own services—that is getting better results for the money that we are spending. Around 70 percent of the New Zealand economy is services and about half of those services are Government-run services. So the best contribution we can make to the broader economy is to make sure our own services are more productive—that is when we spend money we get results for New Zealanders.
Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): There we go—that was Hamilton's finest export in the House tonight. They want to export—David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Stephen Donald would actually be the greatest export.GRANT ROBERTSON: You see the point is that Hamilton still wants Stephen Donald; he is there tonight doing very well. David Bennett is here because Hamilton wanted to export him. They wanted him out; they did not want him there. If David Bennett had actually even been in Hamilton tonight I suspect that the Chiefs would have lost. But he was here—thank God—and the Chiefs managed to win. So the benefit of Mr Bennett's deep understanding of tax law in New Zealand has shone through tonight.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Moroney Sue; Borrows ChesterPARENTAL LEAVE AND EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (6 MONTHS' PAID LEAVE) AMENDMENT BILLProcedureSUE MORONEY (Labour): I seek leave to move the third reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment Bill forthwith.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — Procedure
Tolley AnneHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): It is all very well to come into this Chamber and make fine speeches and sanctimonious—in fact to take personal objections to what members on the other side of the Chamber have said; but actually the role of the Opposition is to do a bit of work. If the member cares to go into the Ministry of Social Development website she will find her way to all the explanations of how the liability is worked out. It is all there; you just have to do a bit of homework.The other thing I would say to the member who has just resumed her seat Carmel Sepuloni is that there is plenty of research—again if she does her homework. I refer her to the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study—actually she does not even have to go and do very much; there is a television programme currently showing that will actually tell you about some of the research that we are basing our work on that is well worthwhile having a look at—and to the Christchurch Health and Development Study that is freely available on the internet. That actual study found that teen parents relative to a comparison group who were not mothers at age 21 were nine times more likely to have no qualifications and three times more likely to be receiving a benefit.You see the difficulty is that the member who has just resumed her seat does not understand what average means. Average means that there are some above and there are some below. So she may well have been a teen parent who went back to school. Unfortunately the evidence that we have looking back at what has happened to teen parents is that if we do not get them back into education within 1 or 2 years of their leaving it their chances of not returning to education are many many more times greater. That is why we want to get them back into education in a supported manner as quickly as possible.I just have to say that it is pretty rich the Labour members taking credit for teen parent units because I as Minister of Education came in at the start of the global financial crisis to find a long list of teen parent unit applications that despite years of massive surpluses the previous Labour Government never funded—never funded. This National Government even when times were really tough and money was really short funded them it supported them and it expanded them. Those are the facts and you know you are wrong. This Government understands that teen parent units support young mums back into education at the same time as they are able to give them parenting education; they get the socialisation they have close contact with their children and they are able to bond and continue breastfeeding. Those are the facts.
Tolley AnneHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I just want to make a couple of points in response to Tracey Martin the speaker who has just resumed her seat. First of all I think it is fair to point out that the Social Services Committee made what I consider to be a very sensible change in that those 18 and 19-year-olds are perfectly entitled to ask to have a look at their risk analysis and be consulted on it. It is not a tick box that is just putting a person into a category. As I say I think the select committee made a very good change to the bill to ensure that these young people are consulted and that they have the ability to discuss that analysis and to correct anything that is wrong.The second thing I would say is that I really would hate for the Committee to go on thinking that the liability model has anything to do with in any way labelling young people as a burden to the community. In fact it is quite the opposite. This Government has high aspirations for all of our young people and the young ones that this Youth Service is designed to—[Interruption] Well you know the trouble is that if you spray a whole lot of money around what we know is that the ones who really need it are the ones who are least likely to access it so the investment approach is actually about making sure that those who are most in need get the help that they need when they need it. What we know from the liability valuation that was done is that if a young person under the age of 20 goes on to a benefit their likelihood of staying on that benefit is much much greater than if we had got them into work or kept them in education until they were beyond that age of 20. Why that is important is their life outcomes. We know that a life dependent on the taxpayers' benevolence through the benefit system is not a great life for those young people or for their families. If you look at the outcomes for young people it is not a pretty picture.We have high aspirations for them because they have those talents and they need some extra help in order to develop those talents. The Youth Service is designed to do that. It is a service that is based on relationship-building between the providers and the young people. We are trying all sorts of ways to engage those young people and keep them in training or in education or get them into some form of sustainable employment. That is the aspiration that we want but these young people do need that extra help and if that means we have to do a risk analysis on them—as I say they are perfectly able to have a look at that risk analysis and discuss it—we want to be putting those extra resources and services and support around those who need it. Most young people do not need that. They are quite capable of getting on with their own lives with the support and resilience that they have in their own lives. But these are the most vulnerable young people in our communities and these are the ones who very much deserve the best support that we can wrap around them.
Ross Jami-Lee; Borrows ChesterJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts of this debate to be taken as one question and voted on separately.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Upston Louise; Borrows ChesterHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I seek leave for the vote on the provisions of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill to be taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 not agreed to.Carmel Sepuloni: Did Jami-Lee just vote from the table?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No. I put the motion again and there was a no" on the lost. So I put the motion "All those in favour." and no one responded. Then I said "Those against?" and somebody thankfully responded "No".Hon Ruth Dyson: We were trying to hear what Jami-Lee was saying. What was that motion?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): So the members will know from Supplementary Order Paper 180 that there was a technicality in drafting—Iain Lees-Galloway: Sorry—microphone. We can't hear you.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We will have another go. There was a technicality in drafting. It is outlined in Supplementary Order Paper 180 where a clause needed to be—to delete clause 3 and that required then that the vote on clause 3 standing part be lost. So that is what has just happened on the vote that was taken. Members we turn to the Riccarton Racecourse Bill.Clauses 1 to 14 and schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill to be reported with amendment and Riccarton Racecourse Bill to be reported without amendment presently."
Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill Riccarton Racecourse Bill — In Committee
Contract and Commercial Law Bill — First Reading
Urgent Debates Declined — Refugee Quota—Increase
Tisch LindsayRICCARTON RACECOURSE DEVELOPMENT ENABLING BILLRICCARTON RACECOURSE BILLIn CommitteeThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Business Committee determined on 9 March 2016 that the Committee stage of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill be considered as one question for the purposes of debate with separate votes on each question at the end of the debate. The question therefore is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 of the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and clauses 1 to 14 and schedules 1 and 2 of the Riccarton Racecourse Bill stand part.
Motions — Orlando Florida—Shooting
Dean JacquiJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I just want to make a brief call on the proposed amendments in the name of Phil Goff and thank him for the thoughtful contribution that he made to the Justice and Electoral Committee.Mr Goff's amendments would allow coroners to investigate military deaths in action unless the Attorney-General directs the coroner not to investigate which is contrary to what is proposed in the bill. In response I would say that this issue—which always involves a grieving family of a Defence Force member or civilian in hostile action—was debated extensively by the select committee and it was decided to retain the option in the bill as it was drafted. Inquiries into military deaths will potentially expose sensitive information relating to tactics and relating to matters of national security and we should not underestimate the importance of not making that kind of intelligence available because the lives of others may depend on it.It is appropriate to have the Attorney-General direct the coroner to investigate to protect national security and potentially top secret tactical information. One of the members who spoke previously did go through the relevant provisions in the Coroners Amendment Bill and I do not propose to go through those again but they are new section 59A(4A)(a) (b) (c) and (d) in clause 32. If the Attorney-General does direct a coroner to carry out an investigation or to resume an inquiry the coroner might open or resume that inquiry but the only purpose of that inquiry is to as far as possible relay the particulars specified in section 4(2)(a) of the Coroners Act. These proposed considerations would assist the Attorney-General in considering whether coronial investigation might be helpful or might be redundant or indeed might pertain to issues that are non-judicable.I would say that this option as proposed in the bill is to also avoid duplication of investigations of defence combat deaths given that they are normally investigated by the Defence Force's court of inquiry process. I know that the court of inquiry process is a process that is disputed and perhaps undervalued by the Opposition but we were assured in the committee that that court of inquiry process is truly independent and so that is the view of the select committee.I also want to make a brief comment around Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Jacinda Ardern. Again there was a lot of discussion around the potential merit of requiring a mandatory response to coroners' recommendations including by the Chief Coroner. However we felt and came to the conclusion that rather than require a mandatory response it is more beneficial to better focus on the coroners' recommendations and involve those relevant individuals—so instead of waiting for a recommendation and then having a mandatory requirement for a response to involve at an earlier point in the investigation those relevant individuals and organisations—to ensure that the coroners' recommendations when they are made are indeed useful. Thank you.
Brownlee GerryAPPROPRIATION (2015/16 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLFirst ReadingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move That the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.
Finlayson Christopher; Robertson Grant; Carter DavidCONTRACT AND COMMERCIAL LAW BILLFirst ReadingHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move That the Contract and Commercial Law Bill be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Sorry Mr Speaker. I could not hear most of that. Could you please repeat the motion?Mr SPEAKER: For the benefit of Mr Robertson we have moved a motion that the Contract and Commercial Law Bill be read a first time. It is a revision bill. Therefore there is no debate. I have then subsequently moved that it go to the Justice and Electoral Committee and I am putting the question.Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDRefugee Quota—IncreaseMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the announcement of the decision to increase the refugee quota to 1000. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The business of the House should not be set aside just because an announcement has been made even though it may be important. There must be such an element of urgency that the matter must take precedence over other business. Concern has been expressed at the level of the increase in the quota which comes into force in 2018. The Estimates debate must be held before the end of August and that provides an opportunity to debate the economic and infrastructure sector which includes immigration and refugee resettlement. Because the policy does not take effect until 2018 there will be several other wide-ranging debates that provide opportunities to address this issue. For example there will be a debate on the Prime Minister's statement and another Budget debate before the policy comes into force. On that basis I cannot accept that the matter requires the urgent attention of the House despite its importance. The application is therefore declined.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I would like to add the ACT Party's sympathy and condolences to those messages from other leaders who have made dignified and factual contributions to this debate. It is a great tragedy and our thoughts are with the victims with their families with their communities and particularly with the LGBTI communities of Orlando which appear to have been deliberately targeted. Let us remain strong in the knowledge that free and open societies have the resilience to sustain these tragedies to support each other and to grow stronger again together. Thank you.Motion agreed to.
Dunne PeterHon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): No words no spin and no gloss can carry over the events that occurred in Orlando yesterday. The slaughter of nearly 50 innocent people is unacceptable by any moral or ethical standard. Equally unacceptable I think is the sort of intolerance and the bigotry—because that is what it is—that gets paraded at a time like this as people start to attempt to explain these unacceptable actions. I believe that bigotry begets bigotry and that in turn begets the type of extremism that we saw exemplified in Orlando yesterday.This is not an issue where one makes a moral judgment about anybody. The fact is that these young gay and lesbian people were out socialising something they should have been able to do in perfect freedom in perfect security and in perfect confidence. A madman—because that is the one thing that is certain about the perpetrator—cruelly ended that and the questions will go on for some time as to why and how. There will be questions about the United States' attitude to the possession of handguns. There will be questions about the motivation of the individual. None of those actually remove the tragedy of what happened. None of those restore any of those lives rebuild any of those families or those friendships or rebuild those shattered communities.We are a long way away and I am sure that the people of the United States are not sitting by their televisions now hanging on our every word but our expression of sympathy and solidarity with them at this time of grief counts in that it shows that as members of the world community we actually share some basic values about integrity we share some basic values about freedom and we share some basic values about people being able to live their lives and express their personalities to the fullest extent.Every time we see an event like this it is a challenge to all of those values that we hold dear even if we may not be immediately near the scene of the crime. So I share with others the sense of outrage and the expression of condolence and sympathy to the people of the United States and Orlando in particular on this horrific occasion. But to start to go beyond that to draw spurious conclusions at this early stage I simply think starts to light the fuse for the next horrible outrage and that is unacceptable.
Flavell Te UruroaHon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): E Te Whare e tū nei kotahi tonu te hāngai o te kōrero o Te Pāti Māori he tangi he tangi he tangi mō te hunga ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi kāre i kō atu kāre i kō mai.He rā mō te kōrero mō ngā piki me ngā heke o te kaupapa nei ēngari i tēnei rā tonu nei kai te tangi te ao o te 50 kua ngaro atu ki te tirohanga kanohi. Ka pērā tonu te aro mō Te Pāti Māori i tēnei rā me taku kī atu ngaro te kai ngaro te tangata ki te pō. Iri te rau kawakawa iri ki whare aituā. He piki raukura he kotore huia ka whatia ka ngaro ki Paerau ka ngāro whakaōti atu!Āpiti hōno tātai hōno te hunga mate ki te hunga mate āpiti hōno tātai hōno ko te hunga ora e takatū nei i te mata o te whenua kia kaha ki a tātou! Ehara tēnei i te wā ki te whiuwhiu kōrero he tangi ki ngā mate tangi ki ngā mate! He tangi ki a rātou e rongo nei te ngau o mamae nō reira anei anei tētahi waiata he waiata tangi mo te hunga kua ngaro.[To the House standing here the Māori Party has only one focus and that is lamenting mourning and grieving for those lost from sight; absolutely no more no less.It is a day to talk about the ups and downs in relation to this matter but on this particular day the world of the 50 lost from sight is grieving. The Māori Party's focus is unchanged and furthermore I say if food disappears mankind will be lost to the void. Suspended kawakawa leaves hang upon the death house feather plumage and huia tail feathers adornments of those gone to the meeting place of the dead of no return.The lines are joined the dead to the dead and the living to the living standing here ready on the face of the land we need to be courageous! This is not the time to cast aspersions but rather to grieve the dead yes to mourn for the dead! Weep for those who feel the pain so here is a lament for those who have gone.]Ko-ia tēnei—te mōnehutanga te whakapū-aki te ara tā-ro-aKi ngā paepae maunga—i koia e te tini—e te ma-no kia tau ki te toka-o-maumaha-ra. E tangi nei e te hau marangai ma-te E ngau kino nei—te aroha—e![This indeed expresses the expiration of life and the very lengthy pathway To the mountains on the horizon to be traversed by the countless and the multitudein order to reach the rock of remembrance.It is here that the wind of death rains tearsof keen heartfelt sympathy.]Koi nei tāku e rongo nei i tēnei ahiahi e taku rangatira tae atu ki tō kōrero tēnā koutou huri noa kia ora tātau![This indeed is what I am experiencing this afternoon my esteemed one and that includes your contribution so acknowledgments to you collectively throughout and my appreciation to us all.]
Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First tenders our condolences sympathy deep concern and regret to the people of Orlando in the USA at this latest terrorist massacre. We in New Zealand First are opposed to religious extremism in any form and this atrocity resulted from Islamic extremism by a terrorist whose family had sought shelter in the United States. There are those who will take the politically correct view and blame it all on a lack of gun control. They are wrong. They have been misled. They are seeking to divert blame from where it should lie because this terrorist could have used any weapon of destruction—a bomb an improvised device a method of mass poisoning—and blaming a lack of gun control in this way is seen in our view as simply a cop-out. In the San Bernardino case last year two extremists gave their baby to somebody to look after and set out to cause a massacre and when their home was searched improvised explosive devices were discovered to be present as well. We have New Zealand cases as well of loose border and security controls. Do people remember the hijacking of a plane out of Blenheim by someone whom a political party said should not be here? Or the fact that we could not find a henchman of Saddam Hussein and when immigration officials did they found a diplomat who had no connection with him at all and when it was all over it was found that he should not have been here in the first place? And there are countless examples now where border control officers are making a judgment and having it overruled by others on the basis that they are safe. In short we are inviting that problem into our country by the looseness and the cavalier attitude we are taking as a country towards matters of security and—[Interruption] This is not crap; it is a fact and those who would defend what has gone on here without knowing whom they have brought here and how they are brought here will one day be weeping crocodile tears pretending that they sought to take action. With the greatest of respect one of the reasons that we in New Zealand First are appealing to the moderate Muslims is this: throughout the Western world there are extremists of every religion—we do not distinguish who they might be. But our appeal to the moderate Muslim people in this country and in any other country is that the joint security of the country in which you exist or live is dependent on us all alerting the authorities. That is the least we could expect. And as for signing a declaration of values with the greatest of respect if you are going to apply it only to refugees and not to everyone who seeks to come here then you are engaged in a puppy whistle without any real concern for the consequences. Lastly there are members here who will say that they are concerned and yet when put to the test as to the level of upgrade of our security raising the bar of our finding out who is here they have simply been found wanting.Hon Member: Crap.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If it is crappy when I talk about it sir that is your speciality.
SpeechKEVIN HAGUE (Green): I rise to support the Prime Minister's motion and to thank him for it. The Green Party wishes to express its profound shock and sorrow at what has occurred and its sympathies to the victims themselves to their families to their friends and to the lesbian gay bisexual transgender and intersex communities in Orlando and around the world. An attack against one of us is an attack against all of us. I want to name this as an act of homophobic violence. For those of us who are in the lesbian gay bisexual transgender and intersex communities we know that just below the level of taunts and name-calling and subtle prejudice there is an undercurrent of violence. In this particular case in Orlando America's absurd gun laws have been a unique enabler for the mass murder that has occurred. But New Zealand also has a history of homophobic violence. One thinks for example of Jeff Whittington who just over 17 years ago was murdered in this town. It should not be that when I and my partner or any from our communities are out in public we should have to check who is around before we kiss or hold hands and yet it is so. At this time I want to ask everyone in this House and everyone listening to this debate now to pay particular attention to the needs of young and vulnerable members of our communities. For older members of the gay community—for example like me—we have the privilege of being able to choose whom we associate with. We have the relative privilege of being able to make ourselves as safe as we can be. But a younger person does not have that privilege. They are particularly vulnerable; they need our support and they need our love right now. I also want to extend a hand of friendship and of love to Muslim communities around the world. We understand that what this man did is not representative of your communities and we seek relationships that are based on peace and mutual respect. A belief that gay lesbian bisexual transgender and intersex people are not entitled to what we call universal human rights or worse a belief that we deserve death for being who we are cannot be allowed to stand in the world. In closing we in the Green Party and I hope this House commit ourselves to act against homophobia and homophobic violence and indeed transphobic violence wherever it occurs in the world and we seek to be a constant voice in the world for universal respect for basic human rights. Thank you.
Little AndrewANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): The Labour Party joins with the Government in expressing its horror at this atrocity and its love and sympathy for the victims and their families. Our thoughts are with the people of Orlando and the United States as well as their representatives here in New Zealand.This was an atrocious and hateful act. It was an act of terror. It was also an act of hate. It was a targeted attack at the LGBTI community. It was the deliberate mass murder of LGBTI people because of who they were and whom they loved. These young people were attacked and murdered in a place that was meant to be safe for them. It was meant to be a haven where they could go to dance and have fun and be themselves. This was a place where they would not be subject to homophobia or violence or hatred. And in that place in that sanctuary they were murdered in cold blood.Like millions of people around the word we have all seen the heartbreaking details of what emerged about this shooting—the stories of first responders arriving at the scene to a chorus of ringing cellphones as the families of those hurt and killed desperately tried to contact their loved ones; the story of Eddie Justice who was able to hide in the bathroom of the nightclub long enough to send his mother a text telling her that he loved her and whose mother then had to read the horrifying words: He's coming I'm gonna die".This attack has broken hearts around the world but while we mourn and grieve we must also rededicate ourselves to the great universal values of humanity that attacks like this seek to deny and destroy: inclusion openness respect love. We must reaffirm our commitment to a society where everyone is free to love whom they choose to worship how they choose and to be themselves without fear of violence or repression. We must reaffirm our commitment to ending bigotry and intolerance and hatred wherever we find it because that is what the path of true freedom demands. While we grieve and we mourn we remind ourselves that love is love and that love is stronger than hate and that together we will not let hate win."
Key JohnTUESDAY 14 JUNE 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MOTIONSOrlando Florida—ShootingRt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to express sympathy with the victims of the Orlando shooting.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I move That the House express sympathy with the victims of the Orlando shooting. This is a shocking atrocity and on behalf of all New Zealanders I would like to express our country's sincere condolences to those affected by it. As I said yesterday no innocent person should have to worry about such violence when going about their daily lives or be persecuted for their beliefs or because of who they are. The evening vigils that took place in Auckland Wellington and elsewhere were a tangible demonstration of the depth of people's very real feelings at the scale of this atrocity. Over the days and weeks ahead we will learn more about the motivations behind this senseless tragedy but right now there are many people grieving: the victims' families and friends and the gay and lesbian community in Florida and around the world. All too often we see these hateful attacks and mass shootings taking the lives of innocent victims. New Zealand stands with the United States and other countries in the fight against violent extremism. Yesterday I wrote to President Obama to express condolences on behalf of all New Zealanders. Our thoughts are with the victims their families and friends and those who responded to this tragic attack and we wish those who are injured a speedy recovery.
Vote: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11622. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 108New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a second time.
Vote: Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11592. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14Green Party 14.Bill read a second time.
Mallard Trevor: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11630. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that the time has come for me to leave the Chair and I have to interrupt the member.Debate interrupted.
Naylor Jono: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11630. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National): Talofa lava. It is always a bit tricky at this time of the night. Mr Assistant Speaker I was not sure whether you were standing to adjourn the House or whether I should stay seated or not. So it is a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill. It is a very—
Mallard Trevor: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11630. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Right. The question is that the motion be agreed to—oh Jono Naylor.
Young Jonathan: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11616. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): How disappointed I am to hear those comments when every other party in this House supports this bill. We are not surprised—we are not surprised—that New Zealand First does not stand up for the rights and protections of the public in this case. It is outrageous.This bill does gather support all around this House because it puts the public first. Although I also heard what the member from the Green Party said I disagree strongly that there are not strong rehabilitation and reintegration practices put in place by the Department of Corrections because I know that there are. Recidivism has reduced significantly because of the educational opportunities given to inmates in our prison system. The ability for them to work and gain a trade skill is quite phenomenal. The Law and Order Committee has visited a number of prisons and has seen the great work that the Department of Corrections is doing to assist prisoners in their reintegration and upskilling of their education which not only affords them a better way of life when they return to society but also protects our society because those people are more fulfilled and more focused.What this bill does is very important. It is utilising electronic technology to better monitor prisoners when they are released whether that is on a work programme whether that is to go to a funeral or whether that is on probation. What it does is it enables the Department of Corrections to monitor that prisoner to the point where if they violate or breach their conditions the department is made aware of that far sooner. The person who wears an electronic bracelet knows that. That in itself creates a deterrent for breaching. Without having the electronic bracelet people can breach their conditions with nobody knowing and so what that does is it just encourages bad behaviour and encourages breaching. What this bill does is it brings accountability far sooner to those people.I believe that this is a very good bill. As we know right across this House with the exception of New Zealand First parties are supporting this and we are thankful for that. Thank you.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11610. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill. First of all I would like to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Judith Collins for her support and her leadership on this bill. I would also like to acknowledge all the members of the Law and Order Committee on their contribution and lastly I would like to acknowledge the officials who supported us during the select committee process.The main provision of this bill the purpose of the bill is to remove legislative barriers to the electronic monitoring of offenders released from prison sentences of 2 years or less and offenders sentenced to intensive supervision. It is very important to understand that we do not want offenders who are released into the community to reoffend. As the previous speaker Kelvin Davis just mentioned the focus of this Government is to reduce reoffending and part of the Better Public Services target is to reduce that by 25 percent by 2017.We want to remove the barriers to the monitoring of offenders to help ensure the safety of the New Zealand public. Where offenders are back in our communities we want to support them so that they stay away from the drivers of crime and so that we keep our communities safe.The technology is advancing day by day and this electronic monitoring can help to monitor offenders—show where their movements are. For example if there is an offender who has been released into the community who has been a child sex offender there will be restrictions in his release order that he should not be seen around schools. This electronic monitoring which has GPS tracking can help us to monitor the offender so that he is not around a school or anywhere nearby.Traditionally prisoners have been temporarily released under supervision from prison for reasons like funerals medical treatment or work experience from time to time. Electronic monitoring can help us to achieve this. Nowadays most prisons are working prisons and they give opportunities to the prisoners to go out and work so that when they come back into the community they have some kind of skill so that they can earn their bread and butter and help their families. When we put bracelets on the offenders we could easily monitor where they are going and what is the purpose of their visit. Another reason could be that the prisoners nowadays may be in an external self-care unit where they go and live and try to get back into the community.These are some of the issues that can be addressed with electronic monitoring. With these words I commend this bill to the House.
Borrows Chester: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11610. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired.