edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10885] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 The Prime Minister has obviously been called recently from the Chamber on urgent public business. Accordingly I seek leave for this question to be deferred until tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the question to be deferred until tomorrow. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to honourable members I have been unhappy about the unruliness in the House today. I do not like intruding too much but it is becoming very untidy. I would like members to show a little more respect to this place during the last part of question time.
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11005] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.
Young Jonathan: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
Young Jonathan: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:10997] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill presented by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. The Minister recently congratulated the court staff who participated in a highly successful joint operation with the police in Waitakere which saw 10000 vehicles stopped and thousands of dollars of fines recovered. This issue of unpaid fines is one that many people get upset about. Even this year I received correspondence from a very upset constituent when a large number of fines were cancelled because of the inability of the courts to recover them. This bill goes a long way towards making the recovery of fines a more thorough process in order to see accountability and responsibility placed upon the shoulders of people who firstly infringe the law and incur a fine and secondly do not step up to the plate and take responsibility for the payment of their fines. 
It has been stated that a great percentage of fines issued to young people are not paid voluntarily and are filed in the court for enforcement—90 percent of infringements in fact and that is a very high percentage. Local authorities report an 80 to 90 percent voluntary payment for parking infringements and the police report that 75 percent of speed camera infringements are paid voluntarily. We must note that a very high proportion of fines particularly fines incurred by young people are unpaid. The issues that lead to the fines in terms of vehicle usage the speed of the vehicles and like matters are obvious to all of us. Huge expense is incurred in the purchase and the running of vehicles but there needs to be the responsibility that is essential for the safe driving of motorcars in our communities. Fines are a very good way to bring a disincentive to bad behaviour. 
A huge amount in fines is outstanding as other speakers have mentioned and $778 million represents a lot of extra police on the beat or more elective surgery or better classrooms. It can mean that our deficit is lower and less of our tax revenue goes towards paying interest on overseas debt. 
We do not like to see a huge number of people receiving infringement notices but it is a fact and a reality in our society. But what we do expect and which this bill will go a long way to assist is a responsible attitude to the payment of those fines. I believe that this is a good bill that will bring improvement. I acknowledge the work of the Hon Rick Barker and look forward to the bill proceeding to the Law and Order Committee. Thank you.
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10973] 
12. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he believe that his Government should be transparent in all matters where conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest may occur between his Ministers’ personal interests and matters before his Government? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Details regarding conflicts of interest and advice sought in relation to them are not generally disclosed in order to ensure the confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs and in some cases to protect personal privacy. That has been the approach of successive administrations including the previous administration of the questioner and I do not intend to depart from it. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why does such non-disclosure enhance the public’s confidence that all is above board? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are a variety of reasons why that approach has been adopted by successive Governments including the one that the member was a Minister in for 9 years. As I said I do not intend to depart from it. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why is he much happier to disclose publicly assertions that there are no real or perceived conflicts of interest as for example in the case of the Hon Dr Nick Smith the Hon David Carter or indeed himself but so reluctant to advise the public whenever there is a real or perceived conflict of interest? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There is a long-standing set of guidelines and procedures in the  
Cabinet Manual  
on how Ministers should approach conflicts of interest. They are well understood by Ministers and in my view followed. From time to time members will get up in this House and wrongfully assert that there has been a breach of conflict of interest— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: As the member just did. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: —as the member often does for scurrilous reasons and not for accurate reasons. When that happens in the interests of protecting the Minister I often go to seek an opinion from the Cabinet Office and if that opinion is given I release it. That is on the basis of protecting a Minister upon whose name aspersions would otherwise be cast by the sorts of accusations cast by that member who spends a lot of time thinking— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister should not be going down that track. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: On roughly how many occasions has he as Prime Minister dealt with actual or perceived conflicts of interest involving one of his Ministers over whatever time frame he chooses—1 month 3 months 1 year or since the election—a rough numerical estimate? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In that last 24 hours the answer to that is nil. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: On roughly how many occasions has he as Prime Minister dealt with actual or perceived conflicts of interest involving himself since the last election? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not know the answer to that question.
Garrett David: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Garrett David: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11017] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I was not planning to take a call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill but I have been moved to do so by listening to the speeches of two speakers who preceded me. 
Mr Parker and I share a profession. Mr Hodgson and I do not—neither profession nor political persuasion—but I agree with him very strongly that it is most undesirable to have electoral law all over the place. We have a limited written constitution and are heavily dependent on convention. I do not think that anyone could disagree that it is a bad idea to have electoral law changing with Governments whatever hue they may be. 
I thought that Mr Parker’s contribution also made some very good points particularly on the absence of complete consensus—if that is not tautology—not precluding any movement at all. Pete Hodgson used the phrase “equally unhappy”. I do not know Mr Parker’s specialisation in the law but as a litigator I know that oftentimes when both parties are equally unhappy at the end of a case the judge has fairly well got it right. It was certainly the case when I practised employment law. The employers were often very unhappy about what they had to pay out and the employees thought they should have got twice as much so the adjudicators had fairly well got it right. 
I agree with many of the points that have been made by those two speakers. The ACT Party for that reason and obviously for others will happily support the bill along with the rest of the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time.
Calder Cam: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
Calder Cam: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11005] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this most important Courts and Criminal Matters Bill. It was with some surprise that I heard the previous speaker ask why it has taken 18 months to bring this bill to the House. If my memory serves me well Labour had 9 years in Government to bring this bill to the House. 
This bill is necessary because under the late unlamented Labour administration—those loquacious lobbyists for lassitude and legislative lethargy—the amount of outstanding penalties continued to grow unchecked so as to seriously erode the very effectiveness of monetary penalties as a sanction for offending. It is fair to point out that year on year the value of fines collected grew but the total amount of fines owed continued to increase. 
I pay respect to my colleague the Hon Rick Barker. We know that he attempted to restrict international travel for those with unpaid fines but he was a lone voice crying in the wilderness. I hear people ask how useful the previous Government’s efforts were to combat this. They were as useful as a sticking plaster to replace a tile on the hull of the space shuttle! As useful as a ticket to The Checks concert for a lover of Debussy! As useful as a unicycle when climbing Kilimanjaro! 
The public have understandably reacted to recently released figures that state that there are outstanding unpaid fines of $778 million. This National-led Government is listening and is taking steps to address this iniquitous situation. I commend this bill to the House.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
[Volume:663;Page:10974] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may not have been in the House when I explained earlier today that in fact there is an induction system available in the Chamber. The Sergeant-at-Arms has receivers. If the member wishes to avail himself of that system he can use the earpiece that is used for simultaneous interpretation and can get a direct feed from the floor of the House. I explained to members that that is available. However having said that I am not happy with the performance of the sound system especially for members at the back of the House and I might even say for the Speaker too for that matter. Work is ongoing; we are identifying dead spots in the House and the designers of the system will be doing more work—it is a very sophisticated system—to try to get it to perform better.
Robertson H V Ross: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
Robertson H V Ross: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
[Volume:663;Page:10974] 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Question time has been quite robust as it should be in a vibrant democracy but listeners on the cross benches and the backbenches often have a great deal of difficulty in hearing. Might I suggest—the issue was raised by the Hon Peter Dunne in the last session I think—that listeners aids might be appropriate as we once had in this Chamber before the installation of these grotesque overhead ugly-looking sensors. I endorse what the Hon Peter Dunne said on previous occasions and I request respectfully that you as the Speaker look at that possibility.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10968] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said to the House that members are treating this place with absolute contempt at the moment. I called Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and we just had a barrage of noise from the Opposition benches. I require a little more discipline on both sides of the House. I made it clear that it has been my fault. I am blaming myself as Speaker that this situation has developed. But we will from now on show more respect for this place.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
[Volume:663;Page:10974] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Just on that matter I think one of the other problems is that under the systems that have operated here in the past a lot of the interjections were not picked up by the microphone system. Subsequent to your suggestion today that perhaps it was just members being rowdy—and I think that was certainly part of the problem today—I did notice that a lot of the interjections are just as audible as the comments that are coming from whoever might be answering or asking a question. It was particularly evident in the case of Minister Collins when she was answering her questions. It was much easier to hear the comments from the other side of the House than it was to hear her answer and she is only four seats down from where I am sitting. I am not sure whether the whole system in here has ever been tested by the designers with the House in full session. It would be a very different Chamber with only one or two people sitting in it.
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System 
[Volume:663;Page:10974] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point that the honourable Leader of the House makes is absolutely valid. Live microphones are very sensitive and we are concerned that they are picking up a lot of interjection and background noise that adds to the difficulty in hearing. I think that what the member says is absolutely right and that the final solution to this problem may involve bringing technicians on to the floor of the House while question time is under way. I have already sought the approval of the Business Committee to allow that to happen because normally someone who is not a member is not allowed on to the floor of the House while the House is in session. But I have already sought approval for that to happen so that technicians can listen from the floor to what is going on during question time. 
We ought to get better performance out of the system. It is meant to be a good system; it is meant to perform at a high level. But there is a wide degree of dissatisfaction with its performance because it is not good enough. Members need to be able to hear. I think that what both members have said is right and that especially what the Hon Gerry Brownlee has said is valid—that the system is picking up a lot of background noise which makes it even harder to hear the person on his or her feet. I apologise to members that this is happening. I regret that it is happening and we will move now. We have the designers I think. If they are not here then they are arriving very shortly and we will be moving on it as quickly as we can.
Borrows Chester: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Borrows Chester: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11007] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is with some satisfaction that I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Electoral (Administration) Bill. It is a bill that has taken some time to come together but it is one that enjoyed support across the House. All members of the Justice and Electoral Committee contributed to its work on the bill with everyone being in accord. 
As has previously been outlined the only real issue was whether the authority should be an independent State entity or an Officer of Parliament. It was decided after taking advice from a number of experts and consideration of advice from officials that it should be an independent State entity as suggested in the bill. We decided for a number of reasons that that was the best fit and that it should stay as that. It seems good sense and submissions along that line expressed the same opinion that the various three agencies be amalgamated over time—initially the first two and the third joining at a subsequent date. I am pleased to report that submissions were in favour of that albeit there were a number of submissions that suggested the authority should be an Officer of Parliament. 
I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11010] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to speak on the third reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. It is a bill that provides us with a new unitary Electoral Commission. It has also been good to listen to what the member Rahui Katene said. I was intrigued to hear about Mr Large’s 15-day trek through Waikaremoana. He would not have been so large by the end of it no doubt. 
The House is proceeding through this third reading without controversy and with substantial agreement by all parties that having three entities dealing with the matters that our new unitary Electoral Commission will deal with was not efficient or strategic that it held possible confusion for various actors involved with electoral matters and that there were increased costs. There are a number of reasons why what we are doing here makes eminently good sense. There is no controversy at all. 
The only area of what my colleague Paul Quinn called controversy—I would not put it as highly as that; rather the only issue of substance—that we came across at the Justice and Electoral Committee was whether the office we are creating should be an Officer of Parliament or an independent Crown entity. As Paul Quinn has traversed we went to and fro on this issue. There was a lot of discussion and we heard from not just experts but the best experts in the field of electoral law procedure and practice in this country. In the end we came down squarely on it being an independent Crown entity. 
I finish by commending the Minister of Justice Simon Power for the style with which he conducts electoral affairs. He manages with aplomb to get these bills through Parliament with agreement and without acrimony which is exactly as it should be when dealing with important electoral matters. Thank you.
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10970] 
9. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What interest has there been in the Government’s recently introduced Silver Fern visa? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 There has been phenomenal interest. The 300 places were filled within 30 minutes of applications opening. It is a clear indication that the Government has the right policy settings to attract skilled young people to New Zealand. 
John Hayes 
: How does the Silver Fern visa work? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Silver Fern visa provides applicants with a 9-month job-search permit. Once they find skilled employment they can stay for a further 2 years while they apply for residence. This provides employers with the security of knowing that their employee can remain here long term. 
John Hayes 
: Whom does the visa target? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The visa is specifically targeted at people aged between 20 and 35 with a bachelor’s degree or a trade qualification and 2 years’ work experience. The visa is designed so that people who meet the requirements upfront will be likely candidates for residence under the skilled migrant category. It is a great policy which will help to provide the skills that our economy needs. 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Because of the noise it was impossible to hear the answer to the question. I wonder whether the Minister might repeat it. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been raised. I think the House has wasted sufficient time today.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10968] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document showing that inequality decreased for the only time in 25 years in the last term of the Labour Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has not given the source of that document. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is the  
Social Report 
 from 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The social report of— 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is the  
Social Report 
 a New Zealand publication from I think the Ministry of Social Development. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: 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.
Dyson Ruth: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11007] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me extraordinary pleasure and something of a surprise actually to be able to take the opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill. As always it is a pleasure to follow the member of Parliament for Whanganui Chester Borrows. Mr Borrows never fails to acknowledge the work of the select committee in what I think is a genuine way particularly where there has been cross-party agreement as there clearly has been on this issue. 
It is somewhat rare for both Labour and National to be supporting the passage of a bill but in the area of electoral administration it is particularly important that the parties put aside any game playing or any opportunity to score political points—tempting though it may be—for the greater good of the process of democracy which we obviously hold very dear. 
This bill establishes the new Electoral Commission. It is proposed that it be an independent Crown entity and I was very interested in the debate about the options that were considered during the select committee process and during the Committee stage. So from 1 October this year the new Electoral Commission the independent Crown entity will carry out the functions of the Chief Electoral Officer and the current Electoral Commission. 
I understand that again on 1 October a second bill will transfer the responsibility of the Chief Registrar of Electors for the electoral roll to the new Electoral Commission and that is something that we will all be greatly interested in. The integrity of the data on the electoral roll is obviously very important not just to us as members of Parliament but to our entire process of democracy. 
As well as acknowledging Chester Borrows and his comments I also want to acknowledge the Minister of Justice Simon Power. He made a rare foray into question time today and he made a very interesting contribution. It is not often that we have the Hon Simon Power able to take questions but I think there was a shortage of questions today and perhaps that was because the Hon Wayne Mapp did not have questions for oral answer at question time today. Suddenly we seemed to have a lot of new Ministers popping up instead of the Hon Wayne Mapp hogging question time. And of course Mr Boscawen had not lodged any questions about the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. So the Minister who is responsible for this bill the Hon Simon Power was able to take an oral question. 
I want to acknowledge that the process of development of this bill has been genuine and consultative and that is to the Minister’s credit. There will be more rigorous debate I am sure about aspects of the Government’s proposed electoral reforms especially issues like the regulation of parallel campaigners but on this particular issue it is my pleasure to offer Labour’s support and to commend the bill’s progress.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10968] 
7. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What reports has he received on seizures of methamphetamine precursor at the border? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 For the first 4 months of this year the New Zealand Customs Service reports that it has seized more than half a tonne of methamphetamine or P precursor at the border. This amount of precursor would produce up to 151 kilograms of P with a street value of up to $227 million and would cause around $61 million worth of harm to the community. This means that the Customs Service is on track to better last year’s already big record haul of 1.2 tonnes of precursor intercepted strangling the supply to those who would peddle this disgraceful product in our community. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What further action is the Government taking in its fight against P and the illicit drugs trade? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Budget 2010 provides $5.9 million of capital funding to the Customs Service over the next 2 years to fight the illicit drug trade through enhanced tracking and surveillance equipment. This funding will give the Customs Service technology not previously available to any agency in New Zealand and will allow it to move into the digital age with new more advanced tools to detect the activities of drug criminals. Budget 2010 also provides additional operating funding of $1.2 million rising to $1.7 million per year over the next 4 years to fight the illicit drug trade.
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10968] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I had been given the opportunity to explain to you I would have said that it is the same document that we tabled 5 minutes ago—and you accepted it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House did not give any objection to it being tabled.
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10968] 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document from the OECD handed to me by the Deputy Prime Minister which shows that from 2000 to 2008 poverty had actually risen in New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table—[ 
Interruption 
] This will stop. Leave has been sought to table a document. It seems to me to be a legitimate document. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
Hon Annette King 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just inform you Mr Speaker— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: You can’t take a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I put this leave the member is keen to— 
Hon Annette King 
: Can I inform you Mr Speaker— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No no. Mr Speaker you cannot do that. The Standing Orders are very clear. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Both members will resume their seats immediately. We are getting into a problem. Leave is sought to table a document that has been identified. I will put that leave. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woodhouse Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10963] 
5. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What is he doing to promote “mum and dad” investor confidence in financial markets? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Among other things the Government has decided to create a new consolidated regulator for our capital markets to be known as the Financial Markets Authority or FMA. The Financial Markets Authority will consolidate functions currently fragmented across the Securities Commission the Ministry of Economic Development—including the Government Actuary—and NZX. The authority will have a clear focus on surveillance and enforcement designed to help rebuild mum and dad investor confidence in our financial markets. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: When does he expect to make further announcements on the proposed Financial Markets Authority? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I intend to introduce legislation to establish the Financial Markets Authority later this year to enable the new authority to be up and running early in the new year. In the meantime I expect that I will be in a position to make further announcements regarding the establishment board very soon.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10963] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member will resume his seat. The Speaker’s ruling that the member has referred to is that where a Minister becomes aware of an error in an oral answer he or she normally takes the earliest opportunity to correct it. It is not an opportunity for another member of this House to relitigate an answer. That is very clear. This is not a valid point of order.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10963] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I understand what you are saying but this is a very clear case. I am not relitigating and I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister was deliberately in error but it is now clear from documents—
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10963] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I have just made it clear that members cannot abuse the point of order system. It seems to me that the member is seeking to relitigate the answer to a question. 
Hon Members 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is what I heard the member doing. He was implying I believe that there was something wrong with the Prime Minister’s answer in this case. If I am wrong in the way that I have interpreted what the member was saying then I apologise for that but the member must not abuse the point of order system. If it is a matter of order then I will hear it. If it is relitigating an answer given by a Minister or the Prime Minister then it is out of order.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10963] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 167/7 with regard to the Prime Minister’s earlier reply and the document that has been tabled in the House. I ask seeing as there will be no opportunity tomorrow as there will be no question time for the Prime Minister to make his correction—
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10961] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to bring up this matter at this point but today at least two questions have had to be repeated because you were unable to hear them and a number of other members have expressed the view that they could not hear them. That again points to the problems with the sound system in this House. We had a discussion about this matter a couple of weeks ago. I wonder what information you might be able to report about improving it because it does seem to be an ongoing difficulty. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Indeed the matter is being addressed. The designers of the sound system have been called back to look again at the performance of the sound system to see what can be done to make it work better. It is my view actually that this week the sound system has been working a little better. I have to say in honesty that I feel that some of the difficulties today have been caused by just the amount of noise in the House. There is a danger that the more we turn the sound system up the louder members will be in their interjections and we will progress towards bedlam. 
Although I accept absolutely that we should try to ensure that the sound system performs better there is an induction loop system available in the Chamber. I am aware that in particular some members at the back of the House who sit under the gallery find it very difficult to hear. They can pick up a receiver from the Serjeant-at-Arms and I understand that it can be plugged in and members can use it to hear. But I do not consider that to be an adequate long-term solution at all and that is why I am taking steps to make sure the sound system performs better. But I stress that I think the problem today has in large part been caused by members making a lot of noise.
Norman Russel William: Points of Order — Budget Lock-up—Access for Parliamentary Library 
Norman Russel William: Points of Order — Budget Lock-up—Access for Parliamentary Library 
[Volume:663;Page:10955] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I bring this point of order to your attention because of the short notice involved; otherwise I would not take your time here. I am seeking your support for the Parliamentary Library staff to have access to the full Budget lock-up. Currently they do not have access to the full Budget lock-up. It is important in order for the Opposition to keep the Government to account that we are able to rely on the parliamentary team in our analysis of the Budget as part of the Budget process. Currently Treasury is keeping Parliamentary Library staff out of the full Budget lock-up. It has agreed to let them into the short Opposition Budget lock-up but currently they do not have access to the full Budget lock-up. It would be tremendously helpful if you could prevail upon the executive Mr Speaker to let the parliamentary team into the full Budget lock-up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a matter for the Government. How it handles the lock-up prior to the Budget is not a matter for the order of this House and it is not a matter that this House can make decisions on.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:663;Page:10955] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Commerce Committee must report the Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill to be extended from 24 May 2010 to 14 June 2010. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection.
Points of Order — Budget Lock-up—Access for Parliamentary Library 
Points of Order — Budget Lock-up—Access for Parliamentary Library 
[Volume:663;Page:10955] 
Points of Order 
Budget Lock-up—Access for Parliamentary Library 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I bring this point of order to your attention because of the short notice involved; otherwise I would not take your time here. I am seeking your support for the Parliamentary Library staff to have access to the full Budget lock-up. Currently they do not have access to the full Budget lock-up. It is important in order for the Opposition to keep the Government to account that we are able to rely on the parliamentary team in our analysis of the Budget as part of the Budget process. Currently Treasury is keeping Parliamentary Library staff out of the full Budget lock-up. It has agreed to let them into the short Opposition Budget lock-up but currently they do not have access to the full Budget lock-up. It would be tremendously helpful if you could prevail upon the executive Mr Speaker to let the parliamentary team into the full Budget lock-up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a matter for the Government. How it handles the lock-up prior to the Budget is not a matter for the order of this House and it is not a matter that this House can make decisions on.
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:663;Page:10955] 
Wednesday 19 May 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Commerce Committee must report the Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill to be extended from 24 May 2010 to 14 June 2010. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is no objection.
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — First Reading 
Lotu-Iiga Peseta Sam: Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:10954] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I also rise to support this bill along with the Minister and the chairperson of the Commerce Committee. The proposals in the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill are part of the single economic market outcomes framework which was announced to great acclaim last year by the Prime Ministers of both New Zealand and Australia. As has already been stated by the previous speaker it enables greater cooperation between not only the Commerce Commission in New Zealand and its Australian counterpart but also other regulators in foreign jurisdictions. 
I will not traverse the points made by Lianne Dalziel but I do welcome the points raised by the Minister in terms of the areas that we need to scrutinise and investigate. It really is about giving the single economic market between New Zealand and Australia a new impetus. Our ambition certainly for this Government is that New Zealand companies can do business as easily in Australia as they can at home and vice versa. The easier we make it for these companies to operate in both countries by removing unnecessary barriers the greater the opportunities for businesses to make big productivity gains and take up new opportunities that will underpin our long-term growth. Of course what is important with our relationship with Australia is not just the types of relationships we have over time in terms of the Anzacs and sporting relationships but also that for many of our businesses Australia is the first stop. For many of our businesses that look to expand into overseas markets Australia is the first port of call. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10950] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill without amendment and the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10950] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10943] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 13 be agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10949] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10943] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10926] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10949] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10949] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to.  
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10944] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10944] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10946] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10926] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Collins Judith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10938] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I have a few things to say to Grant Robertson who has just resumed his seat. It is a long way from central Wellington to the streets of South Auckland. I am sorry for that member that he lives in a world where he does not understand that the people who suffer most from violent crime are the poorest members of this country. They are the people who do not get a choice about where they live. 
The member can stand there and say that this legislation is just about electioneering and campaigning but no it is not actually. It is about the day-to-day life of people like Rita Croskery people who have to go in year after year to the Parole Board to try to stop people like the killers of her son from getting out of jail free. That is what parole means for a lot of the victims of crime. That is what it means. 
When Mr Robertson says that someone who has committed a serious violent offence should get parole because they need something to live for well I say that the member should go and say that to Mrs Croskery. Go and tell that to the victims of crime I say to Mr Robertson. They need something to live for too. 
One of the things that Labour has said is that if a prisoner is paroled he or she will not commit a crime. Well that is not true at all. In fact we see a lot of people who misuse parole in order to get what they want which may be more violent crime against innocent people. 
Grant Robertson 
: So is the Minister going to abolish parole entirely? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Robertson wants us to abolish parole entirely. I will not do that. I do not think that is right. Besides the Minister of Justice would be in charge of that. We will not do that. 
Grant Robertson 
: I thought it didn’t work. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: For some people I say to Mr Robertson parole does not work; for a lot of people it does. That is the point of this bill. It is not about people who steal a muesli bar a chocolate bar or a loaf of bread; this bill is about people who kill who maim who shoot people and who rape people—why should they get three chances to destroy someone’s life? It is simply not good enough I say to Mr Robertson.
Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:10937] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.