edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Goldsmith Paul: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 As someone who received a large number of votes from Labour and Green supporters I am very pleased to see a large amount of bipartisan support for this bill the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill although I am disappointed that my supporters amongst the Greens have not come in behind this bill and supported it. In essence this is a practical and a fair solution. It is not a significant economic asset but the farmers who use it and who will be the shareholders are the ones who are affected and who will benefit from this scheme. 
Just going back quickly over the summary of the details the ratepayers of South Taranaki we should remember have never paid towards the purchase maintenance or otherwise of this scheme. It has been operated by the residents. Therefore they want ownership vested to them under the company Cold Creek Community Water Supply. This company has managed the scheme including finances operations and maintenance since 2001. The South Taranaki District Council had agreed to transfer the ownership. However the Local Government Act 2002 means that the water supply cannot be privatised requiring this local bill. 
We have considered this bill very carefully in the Local Government and Environment Committee. Some very interesting submissions were received. I am very pleased to support this bill the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill at its second reading. Thank you very much.
Vote: Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7205. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Roy Eric: Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7196. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We move to 5-minute calls.
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7192. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 21 
Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Noes 98 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Clause 5 agreed to.
Vote: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7190. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 16 
Green Party 13; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Roy Eric: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7187. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is normally a split call. Is Labour not seeking a call? David Clendon has the call.
Kaye Nikki: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kaye Nikki: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7183. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on this South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. I am also pleased to say that I will be in Wanganui on Monday with the Hon Chester Borrows. I look forward to being in that community because what was very clear when we heard these submissions was the passion from the people who have contributed to this scheme. We are proud on this side of the House to say that we believe in community assets and we believe in empowering the community. 
What I want to say with regard to this bill is that it is very interesting that we have a situation here where many residents have contributed to this scheme and all they want to be able to do as the Hon Nick Smith mentioned is to control this scheme and potentially vest it in the ownership of the community. That is a really positive thing. Can I just say as well and point out to members that what this bill does is set in train a process. It sets in train a referendum for residents to potentially get ownership of that scheme. That is a positive thing. We in the National Party support that. 
I want to seek clarification particularly from the Green Party on this issue because I do understand and I do actually have a lot of respect for them. I might not agree with Eugenie Sage but I have a lot of respect for the work she does. I want to seek clarification on the issue of the fact that the Crown did provide some funding for this. Why would the Green Party have a position that if that funding is provided then it should not lead to community asset-ownership? I would ask the Green Party then to clarify all the waste management schemes around the country. There are many other community assets that have some Crown funding and to state a position that says that somehow as a result of that there should not be community ownership I think is a sad day for New Zealand. But I do welcome clarification on that particular point. 
I want to make two other minor points. The first is that there have been some very good improvements to this bill partly as a result of looking at who can be involved in that referendum and also the issue of ensuring that there is better iwi engagement in terms of the process. I want to acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Nicky Wagner and I want to acknowledge all other members of the select committee as well for their hard work on this particular issue. I am very pleased to support this important bill which is about empowering communities and ensuring that for this asset there is a process in train to enable the people who have contributed to this asset to actually have ownership of it. That is a good thing. We support it.
Robertson H V Ross: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7170. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next vote we have is on the schedule. The amendment of Miss Sage is also out of order as it is inconsistent.
Vote: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7170. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 21 
Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Clause 7 agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7170. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that clause 7 stand part. I would just like to advise the honourable member Eugenie Sage that the amendment to delete clause 7 and the cross-heading above clause 7 which is set out on your Supplementary Order Paper 150 is out of order as being a direct negative of the question. OK? So therefore the proper course of action for the member is to vote against the clause standing part.
Dean Jacqui: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7170. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 This part of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill which vests those parcels of land in fee simple is the part that probably matters the most to the folk who are in the parcel of land in Oamaru and the folk who are in the parcel of land in the Palmerston Showgrounds. It matters a lot to them that this bill passes through this House because they have bought property or they are in property that a council and they mistakenly thought had a title that was able to be transferred. It was determined that it was not transferable and so this bill is correcting those mistakes made by a council. The impact of that will be positive for those two families living in those two homes and so this is quite a critical part of this bill for those people. 
Also of course this clause relates to Forrester Heights and again it will correct a historical mistake whereby the land was wrongly designated as a reserve. It never was a reserve; it was a mistake. It was correctly gazetted back in—I forget the year now but in the late 1800s as an endowment in aid of borough funds so in effect it was endowed in the predecessor of the Waitaki District Council effectively as a land bank. The current council of the day wished to have that designation corrected so that it can do whatever with that piece of land. Whatever it does is up to it and so it should be. Thank you. 
Clause 6 agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7222. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The normal practice for the Labour Party when there is a member’s bill that is well drafted and heading in a general direction that the Labour Party approves of is to send it off to a select committee. But this bill the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill is a bill that is very badly drafted. It is an area that the Government should be dealing with and it is a relatively minor area and would almost certainly slip through statutes amendment legislation or commerce law reform legislation. When it is left to a member like this Paul Goldsmith to draft a bill what do we end up with? We end up with a bill that does not even achieve what it is meant to on the face of it. 
The really important point—the issue that the bill is designed to remedy—is the lack of definition of “receipt” when it comes to electronic transactions. This bill does not remedy it. We would not mind if the member had done it and got it wrong. If he had said it was received by a server or it was in an in-box or it was in an in-box and it was open—if he had picked something and defined “receipt” as that—well then we could have had a discussion about it at the select committee and we could have heard the evidence and worked out whether that was the right thing or not. But this member brings a bill to the House that does not even pick one of the alternatives. He did not even look at the essence of the question that he was meant to be answering in bringing in this legislation before he put his name on it. Do you know— 
Chris Hipkins 
: He knew Paul Quinn. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no Paul Quinn is an intellectual giant—an intellectual giant—in comparison with Paul Goldsmith.
Vote: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7170. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 13; Mana 1. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.
Dean Jacqui: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Supplementary Order Paper 150 proposes that clause 3 of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be amended to “delete the definition of Lookout Point land” from the bill. The effect that that would have is that Lookout Point or the Forrester Heights portion of land could not be considered as part of that bill. I think it is worth reminding the Committee and perhaps the Green member Eugenie Sage that doing that goes against the wishes of the local authority. This is the Waitaki District Council’s bill. This is not a Government bill. This is not a member’s bill. This is a local authority bill. The local authority wishes to have this matter dealt with in Parliament which is why it brought it to us. What the Supplementary Order Paper does really is perhaps satisfy the wishes of the Green Party but this bill is not about the wishes of the Green Party. This is a local bill. It is about what the local authority wants to do. Therefore I will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 150 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 3 be agreed to.
Dean Jacqui: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7162. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I am very happy to stand and take a call on clause 1 of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. In doing that I want to just perhaps explain to the Committee why I believe that it is so important to go through this bill— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can’t do that on a clause 1 of a Committee stage. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well with the leave of members and just to set the scene of this bill I think it is important that we do address the clauses of the bill in their entirety. Of course clause 1 of the bill refers to— 
Hon Annette King 
: It’s delaying tactics. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: No it is not actually. I am trying to find my copy of the bill. I think that is important because there are members of the public back in Oamaru who care a lot about this bill and have had quite a bit of dialogue with the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Hon Annette King 
: They’ve waited for years for it. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: No. I think it is probably fair to them that this process is not truncated in any way. If it is truncated in any way they will not feel as if their word has been listened to. 
The Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill deals with three lots of land: one in Oamaru one in Palmerston—neither of those are controversial and they were passed through the select committee—and the third part known as Forrester Heights which has been controversial throughout the passage of this bill through the Parliament and indeed in the local community. That is why I think it is so important that we give good consideration to the entirety of this bill in the Committee stage. I will not talk too much on the first two parcels of land but Forrester Heights was land that was wrongly designated back in the 1930s as a reserve under the Reserves Act. That designation as it turns out was wrong. Through the process of the consideration of this Committee it is being determined that actually the land was reserved in aid of borough funds. It was an endowment in aid of borough funds. Once that is settled the Waitaki District Council can then dispose of the land as it wishes. It is that which has caused so many problems for some of the locals. They do not see the difference between the classification of the land and the use of the land. With that full explanation thank you. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7162. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is in Committee. Kia ora tatou. Good afternoon honourable members. We are in Committee on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill and the question that the Committee has to consider first is that clause 1 stand part. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can we just take all questions as one question debate it and put it together? Have you got an amendment have you? [ 
Interruption 
] Sorry I thought we wanted to get it through. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no we are just trying to be helpful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is trying to be helpful. [ 
Interruption 
] I am putting it. The question is—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Not yet. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
Roche Denise: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7190. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 In the first part of my speech I was outlining the fact that casinos benefit from theft fraud and money-laundering crimes and I was making the case that this bill would reduce the level of crime associated with casinos by introducing disincentives. When there is no disincentive there is no will to actively monitor the gambling activity of people who spend large sums of money. 
Casinos make millions—absolute millions—from the proceeds of crime that are being gambled there and there is no incentive to reduce crime because it will affect their profit margins. I listed several examples of casinos making millions of dollars from people convicted of theft and fraud and explained that small businesses not-for-profit organisations and family members are being defrauded of huge sums of money—money that essentially the casinos get to keep. 
This bill says that if a casino knows and can reasonably know that vast sums of money are being spent on their premises then they need to do something more than just sit back and take the profits. They need to do something about it. And they do know when it is happening. That is what VIP cards are. That is what loyalty cards are. They track what casinos are doing. The winners of casino crime are the casinos. This bill says that the money should go back to those who have lost that money. Thank you.
Yang Jian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Yang Jian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7146. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What progress has been made to reduce the incidence of food poisoning in New Zealand? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that very good progress has been made in reducing the incidence of food poisoning in New Zealand. Back in 2007 there were approximately 160 cases of food-related campylobacter per 100000 people. This year that figure is expected to halve to approximately 80 cases per 100000 people. In 2007 there were also approximately 14 cases of salmonella per 100000 people compared with 11 cases per 100000 people this year. What this means is that around 3300 fewer New Zealanders got sick from campylobacter this year than 5 years ago with more than 100 Kiwis escaping illness from salmonella. According to the Ministry for Primary Industries this reduction in food poisoning has produced savings of around $40 million per year. This is good news for New Zealanders good news for our food industry and it translates to significant savings for the economy. 
Dr Jian Yang 
: What has the Government done to achieve this result and how can improvements continue to be made? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The Government has funded research to identify likely sources of the illnesses and the Ministry for Primary Industries has done a good job working closely with relevant food sectors and businesses to improve food control measures. We have also mandated a performance target for control of campylobacter in chicken slaughter and dressing premises which has resulted in significant improvements in this sector. We are currently reviewing this performance target and we will provide further guidance for control of food-borne hazards in each sector as appropriate under the proposed Food Bill regime. As we scrape down the barbecue over the festive season it is a good time to remember to do the food safety basics: do not cross-contaminate surfaces properly cook chicken and make sure the whole family washes their hands before eating—or in other words cook cover chill and clean not necessarily in that order.
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Turia Tariana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7142. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does he agree with Te Runanga o Ngati Ruanui that iwi are more likely to be on the ground in respect of oil and mineral operations and therefore inclusion of iwi in the assessment of health safety and environmental requirements is essential; if so how does he intend to demonstrate this? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: The Government does recognise that iwi have a particular interest in respect of some oil and mineral operations in the energy and resources sector as do other New Zealanders at different times. That is precisely why we are introducing a number of measures to strengthen the relationship between permit holders and iwi. However we believe that it is the role of the regulator to properly undertake the assessments that the member mentions. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister aware that Ngati Ruanui as part of the Iwi Leaders Forum mandated group to lead the oil and minerals kaupapa has suggested that an inclusive approach on the development of the Crown minerals bill was not honoured despite early concerns raised by iwi; if so how will he address their concerns? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am advised that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has had in fact numerous engagements with Ngati Ruanui and other iwi on the Crown minerals regime throughout 2012. This engagement has included never previously offered opportunities such as reviewing early drafts of the bill and also minerals programmes. Further the Minister has met with Ngati Ruanui personally on a number of occasions this year. I am advised that although this process has not gone as far as Ngati Ruanui desired it is clear that the level of engagement has been a very marked improvement on what the iwi experienced previously. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: How will the Minister respond to the concerns of Ngati Ruanui that not recognising iwi in the permitting process could create inefficiency and frustration and that further more exclusions will only drive opposition and reinforce barriers? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I have said in my earlier answers the Government believes that it is the role of the relevant regulator to be the decision maker in the permitting process. Officials are committed to engaging with iwi constructively and I believe that iwi will find that the cumulative effect of the amendments proposed in the bill that is before the House and the minerals programmes as well as the operational changes implemented by officials add up to very significant improvements in both engagement and consultation practice.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7140. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What progress has been made to ensure children in care have access to the health and education services they need? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to inform the House that since July 2011 1048 children and young people involved with Child Youth and Family have received a gateway assessment. Gateway targets children and young people coming into care who are often disconnected from regular health and education services. Identifying and responding to their health and education needs is a critical step in enabling them to thrive. A gateway assessment is very extensive and enables us to build a complete picture of their needs and then act accordingly. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What did these gateway assessments find? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Well every single child of those 1048 has presented with significant health issues—three issues on average—ranging from heart murmurs to dental problems and hearing loss. Emotional or behavioural needs have been identified in 53 percent of those assessed. A developmental delay has been found among 16 percent of children hearing problems with 17 percent and 14 percent would seem to have speech problems. Other issues included incomplete immunisations skin problems dental issues and parental mental health. The research said that we would find them and we have. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What is the Government’s commitment to the future of gateway assessments? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Evidence to date as I have just outlined shows us that we really do need them. These gateway assessments will now be available for up to 4200 children and young people each financial year. Five hundred of these are for children and young people already in care 2200 of these are for children entering care and the balance are for children who have been referred for care and protection via a family group conference. The process is well and truly up and running. Nineteen of the district health boards are on board and Hawke’s Bay will be starting early next year.
Dean Jacqui: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7166. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Just very quickly in reply to the member Eugenie Sage’s speech on Supplementary Order Paper 150 treating land as a reserve over a period of time does not make it a reserve and that is exactly what this bill the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill is addressing. I think that the comments on issues around the district plan are a red herring because what this bill does is deal with the status of the land and the status of the land only. This land cannot remain a reserve because it never was a reserve. Thank you.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7137. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Science and Innovation 
: What investment is the Government making in new science projects? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 Yesterday I called for applications for $52.8 million worth of Government research funding for the 2013 science investment round. This research funding is another part of the Government’s annual $1.25 billion cross-portfolio investment in science and innovation. Science and innovation are major drivers of progress and key strands of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. We are focusing this particular investment on new science and research projects that will improve New Zealanders’ health and well-being in the areas of biological industries high-value manufacturing and services energy and minerals and health and society. Researchers have until early April to submit proposals which will then be peer reviewed and assessed by independent panels. The science board of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment will decide which proposals get funded by August of next year. 
Colin King 
: What other investments is the Government making in science? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Almost too many to mention. Last month saw the launch of the Great New Zealand Science Project to encourage New Zealanders to get involved in identifying our biggest science challenges. We have identified a number of illustrative challenges including our rich seas land and water food for health advanced materials in manufacturing New Zealand’s biodiversity fighting disease our changing climate and resilience to natural hazards. We are seeking the public and the science community to put forward their ideas and in April next year following public engagement and expert advice from a panel chaired by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Cabinet will decide which science challenges will be funded to make the biggest difference to New Zealand’s future.
Tisch Lindsay: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7215. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I call—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am calling the Hon Shane Jones.
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Statements — Change of Parliamentary Membership—Brendan Horan 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Speaker’s Statements — Change of Parliamentary Membership—Brendan Horan 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7133. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members under Standing Order 35(1)(c) I have been advised by the New Zealand First Party that its parliamentary membership has changed and that Brendan Horan is no longer a member of the New Zealand First Party for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly under Standing Order 34(4) Brendan Horan is from 4 December 2012 regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes. Allocations of speaking slots and oral questions will be adjusted. Allocations of funding to the New Zealand First Party and to Brendan Horan will also be adjusted.
Tisch Lindsay: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7218. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Dr Russel Norman 5 minutes in reply.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7136. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his promise to New Zealanders that “I expect high standards from my Ministers…if they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary”; if so how have his actions in respect of Hon John Banks this year upheld that promise? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I understand the point of order because the question actually is more than just asking whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement and it is a primary question. It asks: “if so how have his actions in respect of Hon John Banks this year upheld that promise?”. It is a primary question. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. Where there have been questions raised my office has sought and received assurances from Mr Banks. 
Grant Robertson 
: With some months to reflect does he not think he owed it to New Zealanders to actually read the police report into John Banks’ donations so that he could make a judgment on the facts as to whether Mr Banks was meeting the high standards he promised New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why does he not think Mr Banks has lied when Mr Banks told his chief of staff earlier this year that he had not received a donation from Kim Dotcom but only a couple of months earlier had told Mr Dotcom’s lawyer that he could not help him because of the election support? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because where questions have been raised by my office we have sought assurances and received those assurances. 
Grant Robertson 
: How can he claim Mr Banks has not lied when Mr Banks did not declare a donation from Skycity despite receiving it in an envelope at a meeting organised specifically to hand over the cheque and when his campaign treasurer sent a receipt for the donation to Skycity? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: My memory of the PR that was put out by the police was that there was not a prima facie case in that instance. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is it not the case that he is just putting politics before principle to try to hang on to John Banks’ vote and he has broken the promise he made to New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Grant Robertson 
: If the Prime Minister is keeping his promise of high ethical standards for Ministers why did he not ask John Banks to explain why he said: “No I don’t know.” to the question of whether he knew Kim Dotcom had donated to his mayoral campaign when the police file shows that Mr Banks sought the donation he made suggestions to split it into two he thanked Mr Dotcom for it and he acknowledged to Mr Dotcom’s lawyer in February this year that he had received it? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have no ministerial responsibility for anything Mr Banks did prior to becoming a Minister.
Vote: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7164. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 14. 
Noes 106 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to.
Speaker’s Statements — Change of Parliamentary Membership—Brendan Horan 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Speaker’s Statements — Change of Parliamentary Membership—Brendan Horan 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7133. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 5 December 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Change of Parliamentary Membership—Brendan Horan 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members under Standing Order 35(1)(c) I have been advised by the New Zealand First Party that its parliamentary membership has changed and that Brendan Horan is no longer a member of the New Zealand First Party for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly under Standing Order 34(4) Brendan Horan is from 4 December 2012 regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes. Allocations of speaking slots and oral questions will be adjusted. Allocations of funding to the New Zealand First Party and to Brendan Horan will also be adjusted.
Macindoe Tim: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Human Rights Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7079. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I was on the verge of taking a call on this Human Rights Amendment Bill when the House adjourned last Thursday evening. As I look up at the clock I suspect that the House may be spared the benefits of most of my thoughts on the subject again this evening. But in view of the fact that it has been several days since we began considering the measure it might be helpful if I just remind you of some of the key points that the Minister of Justice outlined about the purpose of the bill in her introduction because it is a significant measure. It is an amendment to our Human Rights Act of 1993 and it comes about in part because of a measure that the previous Labour Government took in the final months of its term in office in 2008 when it ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 33 of that convention requires States to “maintain strengthen designate or establish with the State Party a framework including one or more independent mechanisms as appropriate to promote protect and monitor implementation of the present Convention.” That is a very wordy article but the gist of it is that we need to ensure that we have a very specific designated role for somebody to look after human rights under the broader constitutional arrangements that we have. 
I see that Mr Speaker is about to stand—no I am getting a bit more time. Mr Speaker has very kindly moved an extension of my time. It has never happened before and I am very grateful for this. The changes in the bill therefore will enable the Human Rights Commission that we already have in place to look after better the very important human rights field. At the moment we have an Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner and a Race Relations Commissioner. Those roles will continue to exist but in a slightly amended form. This enables us to bring human rights up on to the same level—an equal footing. It is quite an important change to the structure. It is one that the Government is firmly dedicated to getting right. 
Debate interrupted.
Sabin Mike: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sabin Mike: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7078. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am pleased to take the last call on this Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. I largely agree with the last speaker Andrew Little and I think it is fair to say that there is fairly broad support for this technical—but very necessary none the less—piece of legislation. 
When we look at the whole criminal justice pipeline if you like there is a bottleneck a very small junction when it comes to the delivery of that justice and the measures within this bill largely go towards addressing that. As a former police officer and detective having been in front of courts and taking victims through what is a very very arduous process with stays of proceedings and difficulties with witnesses getting into court and their recall I can say that the drawn-out nature of the process is often causing added hurt and delaying healing. It is a convoluted and diluted justice system in many ways in the eyes of those who are subjected to it generally through no fault of their own. 
 One of the key areas in this bill is about addressing the justice delayed justice denied notion. The key area really is about amending an Act that goes back some 60 years that has its origin some 60 years ago and that has been subject to many ad hoc additions reforms and so forth. Arguably a lot of what we do in this criminal justice space could fit into that category. It is somewhat a balloon that is full and when squeezed it bulges in different directions. It must be addressed in a pragmatic fashion. 
This bill is very much in line with a number of the other changes that this Government has been committed to right across the criminal justice spectrum that go right through to the way in which our police are engaging with our communities and making them safer places and their focus on prevention. It goes to a lot of the changes that have been very much a part of the last few years in terms of the criminal justice system how it operates its expediency and its focus on victims right through to the other side to where we deal with matters around corrections. It is all about getting the balance right across that spectrum. Right at the centre of it is very much what this bill is about—very technical but very necessary. Certainly as someone who worked in the field I can vouch for the fact that it will make a difference in the lives of many New Zealanders. I think many professionals across the spectrum would share with me in supporting this. 
It is a technical bill not a sexy bill but it is pragmatic and common sense. I think that says a lot about what we see on this side of the House. I commend it to the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Ngaro Alfred: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ngaro Alfred: Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7076. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill. The last speaker the Hon Mr Phil Goff ended his speech with the words “changes nothing” and “does nothing”. He talked about us being a shambles and said this was rushed legislation. Well I just need to remind him that the crime rate in New Zealand is at a 30-year low. You will not hear him say that. There has been an average 15 percent reduction across all crime over recent years since we have come into office. Those sorts of statistics he does not choose to share and to talk about. But the general public have confidence now because they are seeing that there is safety for the concerns that they have had in our communities. 
The issue around the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill is dealing with some of the problems that many stakeholders have been concerned about over a number of years—in fact over 20 years. They have summarised them in a number of ways—people have talked about them and we are just reasserting them—in the sense that there have been excessive delays. National believes—and it was talked about—that justice delayed is justice denied and this bill will ensure that timely justice is delivered for victims witnesses defendants and the community. I know that those are some of the issues that we were wanting to put forward. 
Excessive complexity—for example the main laws for criminal procedures the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and Parts 12 and 13 of the Crimes Act 1961 have been amended numerous times over 50 years resulting in a very difficult system for non-lawyers to proceed with. The proposals build on the changes already under way to improve the criminal justice system including the removal of oral depositions hearings legal aid reforms victims of crime initiatives and the roll-out of audiovisual links between courts and prisons. 
The other challenge that is in the system at present is the outdated legislative framework. For example the current provisions were drafted on the assumption of a paper-based system creating barriers to the use of modern technology. Over the last 10 to 20 years the law relating to criminal procedures has attracted increasing criticism. The principle statutes governing criminal procedures are out of date and inflexible. 
Excessive costs—for example it is estimated that there are approximately 43000 unnecessary court appearances a year in the criminal jurisdiction and more than two-thirds of those cases that reach a defended hearing fail to proceed on the day. We cannot continue to mask the delays and inefficiencies in criminal procedures by simply building more courthouses and appointing more judges. Reforming criminal procedure makes the justice system more responsive to the needs of victims and witnesses. I commend this bill to the House.