edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Boscawen John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4364. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that the wording of the referendum “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” is “a bit ambiguous”; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because I think it is. 
John Boscawen 
: Why does the Prime Minister continue to support legislation that makes a smack for the purposes of correction a criminal offence thus making good parents into criminals; and how can New Zealanders have any respect for the rule of law when the Government has told the police not to enforce it? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think that when the Parliament voted on this matter some years back it actually sought to reach a compromise. That compromise was to send a strong message to the police that we did not want good parents to be criminalised for lightly smacking a child. It is my belief that the police are carrying out the wishes of that Parliament—and indeed I think those carried forward into this Parliament. On that basis I think that good New Zealand parents have nothing to fear. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that my member’s bill that is going into the ballot tomorrow and is based on the amendment from Chester Borrows will not take us back to the situation that we had before in which parents could in certain narrow circumstances hit their children with a riding crop for example; if so will his Government be supporting my common-sense legislation when it comes up for its first reading? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly let me answer those questions in reverse order. I say that the previous National Party caucus had an agreed position. That agreed position was reflected in the law that was passed. I cannot tell the member whether we would support his bill because our caucus has not had an opportunity to discuss that matter. We will not consider that matter unless or until the member’s bill is drawn from the ballot. I say that in my view the current law is working. I have given New Zealand parents a commitment that if the law did not work I would change it. I stand by that commitment. But I have seen no evidence to date that the law is not working.
Dyson Ruth: Voting — Correction—Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Voting — Correction—Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4432. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct a vote cast earlier this evening on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. A vote was inadvertently cast on behalf of Jim Anderton Progressive and I would like that vote removed from the voting schedule. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The vote of the Hon Jim Anderton will be removed.
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bradford Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4362. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that it “might make sense” for new rules to be drafted governing the questions that can be asked in citizens initiated referenda; if so is it Government policy to change these rules? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The answer is yes I stand by the statement. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Prime Minister been advised that today the Green Party put forward a member’s bill aimed at improving the rules on referenda so that questions are clear and people know for certain what they are voting for; if so does he support our bill? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I am aware of the bill although I have not seen it; and yes the Government caucus may consider supporting the legislation. We agree that it is important that referendum questions are clear and we believe that the one that will be before the New Zealand public in a few weeks’ time is quite ambiguous. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that our country is spending around $9 million on a referendum that is so confusing that even MPs from parties across Parliament say they will not be voting because they do not think the question makes any sense? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I am concerned about spending $9 million but I think it is important to acknowledge that we operate in a democracy. A legal process triggered that citizens initiated referendum and on that basis we will be following through with the cost. 
Sue Bradford 
: If the bill I am putting forward is not drawn from the ballot this week or if there is no ballot this week will his Government consider adopting it as a Government bill in order to ensure that future referenda will not be loaded with ambiguous complex leading or misleading questions? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot comment on that option until we have had an opportunity to see the bill but it is possible. I have received some advice in relation to the current legislation particularly section 10(1) under which the Clerk of the House is responsible for determining the wording of questions. She is we believe in a difficult position of trying to refine the question to make it more easily understood while not being seen to change the intent of the question and she has to do so with the goodwill of the promoter. The member raises an interesting point; I think it is worthy of consideration and the Government will take a good look at the bill.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4358. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three papers. If I can I will take them one at a time. The first answers the request from the Minister of Finance. It is a letter to Mrs Anne Tolley from Mt Roskill Intermediate School talking about the rights of disabled children being compromised by the cuts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The second document is the response by Pita Sharples to a question for written answer saying that he had not received any briefings on funding cuts to the Enterprising Communities initiative. 
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. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The third document is an answer by Paula Bennett to an oral question saying that she consulted fully with the Minister of Maori Affairs before announcing the axing of the Enterprising Communities initiative. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it that is a  
Hansard 
 document. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is from  
Hansard 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a  
Hansard 
 document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4359. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the transcript of the radio interview with the Secretary to the Treasury of 10 June where he predicts that something has to be given up as a consequence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that radio transcript. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4355. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 There has also been a tradition in this House when a change of this sort has been made that not only are people informed but also the question wording if necessary has been changed so that it makes sense. One does not need a degree in English literature or usage to know that this question in the way it has been approved by your office no longer makes sense. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Labour Party—the member’s party—was informed of the change of direction of the question to the Minister of Finance. The question still makes sense. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to ask it.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4355. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I received this question back from the Clerk’s Office it was addressed to the Prime Minister as being appropriately addressed to that Minister. It seems that the National Government has transferred it now to the Minister of Finance. Can I confirm that it has done that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: [ 
Interruption 
] I remind members that a point of order has been placed in front of the Speaker and it should be dealt with in silence. The honourable Leader of the Opposition knows full well that it is up to the Government as to which Ministers have responsibility for answering which questions. That is an old custom in this House. I do not think the point of order was necessary.
Event: Members Sworn 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Event: Members Sworn 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4355. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Members Sworn 
Mr Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Campbell Gordon Calder who then took his seat in the House.
Smith Lockwood: List Member Vacancy 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: List Member Vacancy 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4355. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Campbell Gordon Calder has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Richard Westwood Worth. I understand that Campbell Gordon Calder is present and wishes to take the oath. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right.
Voting — Correction—Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Voting — Correction—Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4432. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Voting 
Correction—Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct a vote cast earlier this evening on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. A vote was inadvertently cast on behalf of Jim Anderton Progressive and I would like that vote removed from the voting schedule. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The vote of the Hon Jim Anderton will be removed.
Amended Answers To Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Amended Answers To Oral Questions — Question No. 5 to Minister 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4430. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Amended Answers To Oral Questions 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation correcting an answer given in the House today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: On behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education today I answered a question regarding Moroccan cooking classes. I told the House that this particular course was self-funded. That is not in fact correct; it is funded by the Government.
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Adams Amy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4357. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on imbalances in the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports on this issue. The economy was in recession from the first quarter of 2008 and the global recession has shown up some fundamental imbalances. For instance the tradable sector of the economy including manufacturing the primary sector and export of services such as tourism has been in recession for the last 5 years while the non-tradable sector which has been about consumption housing and Government spending has grown remarkably fast over those 5 years. 
Amy Adams 
: What were the main causes of these imbalances? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: At least one cause of these imbalances was the previous Government’s policy over the last 5 years of having significant increases in Government spending but without much focus on its effectiveness. Core Crown expenditure grew by 50 percent over those 5 years. That put upward pressure on interest rates and the exchange rate and meant that the export sector which we generally rely on has been in recession for 5 years. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the Minister’s criticism of the level of investment in the export sector over the 5 years which he expressed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning does he agree that keeping initiatives such as Labour’s $700 million Fast Forward Fund in agriculture the research and development tax credit and improvements to KiwiSaver would have signalled to New Zealanders that the Government really was committed to an export-led recovery? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealanders had an opportunity to look at that programme and they rejected it. 
Amy Adams 
: What plans does the Government have to reverse these trends? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is no clear and obvious way to reverse these trends quickly. However we will focus on getting better value from Government spending and in obtaining better and smarter public services for the same or less money rather than recklessly increasing spending levels as the previous Government did. We will also move to get rid of widespread problems with red tape that hold back business investment. 
Hon David Parker 
: What Treasury reports has the Minister seen about the imbalance resulting from the decade of deferrals to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in last month’s Budget given the Secretary to the Treasury’s reported comments on Radio New Zealand National on 10 June that “We’ll have to give something up.”; and why does the Minister not openly admit what is obvious to others which is that future cuts to superannuation are part of the Minister’s long-term plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because that is not true.
Vote: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4417. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Boscawen Garrett); Maori Party 5. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Douglas Hide Roy); United Future 1. 
Question not agreed to.
Members Sworn 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Members Sworn 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4355. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Members Sworn 
Mr Speaker 
 administered the Oath of Allegiance to Campbell Gordon Calder who then took his seat in the House.
List Member Vacancy 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
List Member Vacancy 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4355. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 17 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
List Member Vacancy 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Campbell Gordon Calder has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Richard Westwood Worth. I understand that Campbell Gordon Calder is present and wishes to take the oath. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4363. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What steps is the Government taking to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Government is announcing today that we will be exempting light electric vehicles from road-user charges for an initial period of 4 years. This is to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles as commercialisation of this technology progresses. The policy will come into effect on 1 October this year and will apply until 2013 when we will reassess the initiative. 
David Bennett 
: How will increasing the number of electric vehicles in our fleet help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The combination of highly efficient electric motors with our competitive advantage in renewable electricity generation will reduce the greenhouse gases produced by the transport sector as well as the harmful emissions that affect air quality. Electric cars can also decrease our reliance on imported fossil fuels. The Government sees private vehicles as continuing to be the most significant method of transportation for most New Zealanders. It is important that we encourage the use of affordable fuel technologies in order to help meet our environmental obligations over time.
Power Simon: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7356. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank the member Lynne Pillay for her contribution to the debate on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. A few johnny-come-latelys though are contributing to this discussion in the Committee stage. I myself have been an affiliate member of the Chester Borrows fan club for some time. Now everybody else seems to be rushing to the party during the Committee of the whole House to pledge their allegiance to Mr Borrows. I tell members of the Committee that I have been a fan of Mr Borrows for longer than most members and I would appreciate it if there was more historic depth to their analysis of his contribution on this particular issue. 
Part 2 of the bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002. It provides that when an offender is convicted of a domestic violence - related offence the court may make a final protection order against the offender if it is satisfied that the making of the order is necessary for the protection of the victim and the victim does not object. When making the protection order the court must explain to the offender the effect of the order and of any direction to attend a programme. Any protection order issued by the criminal courts is referred to the Family Court. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee made two amendments to Part 2. Ms Pillay made reference I believe to one of those. The first is to delete new section 123B(1)(c) inserted by clause 9. That amendment clarifies that the criminal courts may make a protection order regardless of whether the victim has applied for one in the Family Court. That is a critical step and one that the committee should be applauded for taking. The second amendment is to new section 123D also inserted by clause 9 and it requires the court to explain to an offender the effect of a protection order and the consequences of failure to comply with it. The court must also explain to the offender the effect of the court’s direction to attend a stopping violence programme and the consequences of failure to attend any such programme.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Domestic Violence Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Domestic Violence Amendment Bill Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7369. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the third readings of this legislation. This legislation enables police to issue on-the-spot protective orders for a period of up to 5 days. This will ensure the safety of victims and protect them from offenders depending on the situation as it is assessed on the spot. The legislation will also repeal criteria for arrest without warrant for breach of protection orders and will also amend the structure and penalties for offences of breach of protection orders. This Government is working hard to bring down the level of violence in our society. This legislation is a significant step in making our society safe. 
Domestic violence is committed not just against women. It is also committed against men children senior citizens and disabled people. During the select committee process we heard many submissions from the representatives of elderly and disabled victims. These people suffered not only from physical trauma but also from mental trauma. There were submissions from disabled people who had undergone physical and mental trauma on a regular basis. There were also submissions from the representatives of ethnic communities. They mentioned that there was a lack of awareness of the law and there were cultural sensitivities. Therefore there has been an increase in family violence in ethnic communities too. Whatever legislation we may pass it will be ineffective unless everyone contributes to it. It will be ineffective until people take responsibility for their actions and until they start reporting any misconduct or family violence in their neighbourhoods or in their families. 
Violence is not just the actual act of physical assault against a person which is unacceptable; psychological and emotional violence is equally unacceptable. We need to stand up and raise our voices against any violence. We need to make our fellow New Zealanders aware of the legislation. In this country of 4.4 million people New Zealanders have close to 80000 domestic violence incidents every year which is a shocking statistic. 
I will conclude by appealing to all New Zealanders to stand and raise their voices against domestic violence. We should all be proactive and be models for all New Zealanders. I say to members let us stand against this behaviour. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Bills read a third time.
Ardern Jacinda: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ardern Jacinda: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7359. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I will talk briefly to the title and commencement clauses because there was some discussion at the Justice and Electoral Committee when the bill was referred to it as the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. The Minister originally set out that the legislation would come into force only on the date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. That was not satisfactory to the committee. The view was that the legislation should be time-bound which eventually was the case with provisions coming into force on 1 July 2010. 
Of course those provisions will still affect only a particular group of people as set out in Part 3 which talks about the amendments to the Bail Act. We have already considered that children for instance are defined as being those aged up to the age of 17 as described by the Domestic Violence Act. Regardless of when this bill comes into force because of its drafting there is a significant group of young people who some of us on this side of the Chamber consider will be neglected by this bill. I look forward to expanding on that issue in my speech during the third reading debate. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper71. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Power Simon: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Power Simon: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7359. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The commencement clauses contained in clauses 1 and 2 of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill relating to revised offence provisions the new provision on arrest without a warrant and the amendments to the Bail Act will come into force immediately following this bill’s assent. Proposed new Part 6A of the Domestic Violence Act which concerns the police safety orders and is to be inserted by clause 7 of the bill and the amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002 that are made by Part 2 of the bill and enable the criminal courts to make protection orders will come into force on 1 July 2010. The additional time allowed before those proposals come into force will allow for the development of processes and for system changes and training to be completed. 
In respect of the matters that have been raised by the Hon Ruth Dyson I will take a moment to address those because they are fair questions. The first reassurance that I want to give the member and the Committee of the whole House is that in respect of the domestic protection orders we were keen to move that part of the legislation that was previously on the Order Paper swiftly which is why it was introduced and extracted from the remaining legislation. The second bill that was introduced to the House which we are debating now was introduced in a way to cover some of the issues that have been raised by the member in her first contribution to the debate on Part 1 but particularly because I was keen to see a particular international instrument taken care of as part of this bill. I reassure the member that the reason the original bill is still on the Order Paper today and will remain on the Order Paper is that those matters she has raised are still under active consideration.
Bridges Simon: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7354. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I start by acknowledging what the previous speaker Ruth Dyson said particularly in relation to Chester Borrows. He has done an exceptionally fine job of chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee through its consideration of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I agree with what Chester Borrows said: all the members of the select committee—whether they were from Labour the Greens or National—entered into a spirit of cooperation that was very good to see. It was this Parliament and the select committee process working at its finest. 
I also agreed when Ruth Dyson said that every member of this Committee wants to do his or her bit to enhance the safety of victims and potential victims of domestic violence. In fact we want to do what we can to ensure people do not become victims. The Minister of Justice acknowledged that there is more work to do which he and his ministry are working on. This bill is a response to a serious issue and in respect of the Minister I think we are seeing a fine response. 
Before talking very briefly about the response I say that I am sure no one doubts the severity of the problem. I agreed with Lynne Pillay when she said that domestic violence is a blot on our society. We think of the very high-profile cases the children like Nia Glassie and the wives and spouses who are badly beaten. But of course it is also clear that domestic violence can be rather more banal than those headline cases. With 80000 domestic violence call-outs for police every year no one can be in any doubt that this issue needs a response from this Parliament. As I said it has been a privilege to be part of the team under Minister Simon Power that worked on this. 
What does the bill do? Well it does many things. It deals with the penalty provisions for failure to attend a programme and so on. There are a number of specific provisions but perhaps the key part is that it allows for on-the-spot protection orders for up to 5 days in situations where police may not have sufficient evidence to charge then and there—although they may get it eventually—but it is quite clear that the situation is bad is serious and needs to be dealt with. In other words this bill allows for immediate safety to come first. It empowers the police and gives them the tools to ensure that immediate safety comes first. I do not think anyone in this Chamber could disagree with that. I look forward to taking a call in the third reading debate of this bill. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Borrows Chester: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7351. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak in this debate in support of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. As the bill went through the select committee process it enjoyed the goodwill of members on all sides of the Justice and Electoral Committee table. We had a number of very positive submissions from the public in respect of this bill and only one or two were against it. Those submissions seemed to be from a partisan view of the proceedings of the Family Court rather than against the bill itself. We made a number of changes around process to take account of for instance—as the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern mentioned—the difficulties for those in rural areas of accessing legal counsel. The days available to obtain a formal protection order whilst the police safety order endured was lengthened slightly. There were some concerns around just how that would fit at certain times of the year—for instance over the Easter period or over the Christmas period—and I think that those are valid concerns. We will have to see how that runs. There were also concerns in respect of an enhancement made to the bill to allow police who preferred prosecution out of certain circumstances to be able to bring a safety order there as well. 
One other aspect of the debate within the select committee process that was very interesting was the submissions made by groups in support of women as victims of family violence. One group suggested that the protection orders should not be able to be put in place by a court on sentencing because it took away the power of the victim to have some self-determination in respect of her—it is usually “her”—own circumstances. It was interesting to note that the exact opposite suggestion was submitted for exactly the same reasons. Other groups in support of women came before the committee and suggested that courts should be able to make these orders without any consultation with the victim or despite their not wanting them because women who are oppressed in these relationships are frequently unable to make those decisions and choices of their own volition. In the end we allowed the courts to impose a protection order at sentencing because we felt it was in the best interests of the people involved in the centre of these disputes. 
I finish by thanking those who were involved in the select committee process. I am thankful for the spirit in which we engaged together for the good result we ended up with and for the enhancement of confidence in the parliamentary process given the result we had in preparing this bill for the House. I commend it to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7349. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on this part includes the schedule.
Vote: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7349. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a third 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 third time.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7345. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker Carmel Sepuloni questioned what this Government is doing for law and order. This Government promised that it would implement an increase of 600 police officers in New Zealand of which 300 would be deployed in South Auckland and that has been implemented. 
The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill applies a $50 levy on offenders. The bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002 and provides that all offenders who have been convicted of an offence must pay an offender levy of $50. The $50 levy will be imposed on all offenders at the point of sentencing. It is intended to help pay victims’ expenses not covered by ordinary State assistance such as travel to and from court. The levy will be in addition to any other penalty imposed by the courts. There have been many submissions from the public and I would like to mention one in particular—the submission of Judy Ashton from Nelson. Her 20-year-old daughter was killed by a drug addict and disqualified driver who was on parole and was on a police witness protection programme. She commented that there is absolutely nothing that could compensate her for her daughter’s death but nevertheless she supports this bill. In her words: “I have a vision that one day the victims of the crime will be truly recognised and regardless of their assets or income they will not be left financially disadvantaged by the crime that was forced upon them.” 
The Government wants to eliminate the all too frequent horror stories that victims are forced to relive which are traumatic simply because the system has been deficient and has let them down and it seems that offenders are getting better deals than the victims. Like all of our law and order policies the victims’ compensation scheme’s overreaching objectives are to ensure there are fewer victims of crime in New Zealand. This levy is set at a rate that most would agree is too low to compensate victims. There is no argument about that particularly for the victims of the most serious crimes. But it is an important first step towards reinforcing the focus of our justice system on to the needs of the victims. It should be noted that the Government will also be introducing other measures to improve the services that the victims receive and to enhance victims’ rights. In other words it is part of a bigger package. I commend this bill to the House.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7312. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has the Government made in tackling illegal street racing? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report that the House unanimously agreed last night to the passage of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. Although legislation alone is never the whole answer this bill in conjunction with the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill which is now divided into three separate bills will introduce a number of measures to tackle illegal street racing and close loopholes in the existing law. These measures include giving councils powers to prohibit cruising on key roads; increasing police powers for dealing with illegally modified noisy vehicles; and promoting the greater use of demerit points and vehicle impoundment in order to deter offenders. The new legislation will send a clear message that New Zealanders will not tolerate dangerous and antisocial behaviour on their roads. 
Allan Peachey 
: What other actions has the Government taken to curb this problem? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In addition to passing this legislation my colleague the Hon Judith Collins has worked with the police on ensuring that the most effective operational strategies are used nationwide. Also the National Land Transport Programme is to provide the New Zealand Police with an extra $121 million over the next 3 years for road policing and the Government is currently working through the feedback from consultation on the next road safety strategy. I am sure that many New Zealanders who have been intimidated or have had their businesses or home life disrupted by illegal street racers will welcome all of these developments.
Quinn Paul: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Quinn Paul: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7331. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 As previous speakers on this side of the House have said it is our pleasure to support and commend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill to the House. I think it is important to note that the reality of life is that people have the best opportunity to travel when they finish work and before other events take over. 
The only point I want to make is to pick up on something that the previous speaker Ruth Dyson alluded to: the fact that the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill from which these bills were divided was a previous Labour Government bill. I ask why if it was such a good bill it took Labour 9 years to bring that bill before the House. The only thing I can think of is that Labour saw the writing on the wall. The Labour members saw that they would be going out of office and they wanted to travel overseas and run for the hills. They were looking after themselves whatever it took. I am very happy to support these bills. Thank you. 
Bills read a third time.
Borrows Chester: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7322. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I am pleased those are the ones we are on and that everything is on target and I thank the Minister. 
It is important to note that these are changes that have been wanted for some time and that they have received wide support from across the House. There was goodwill on both sides of the table around the select committee process. We received substantial help from the officials who were present and they guided us through the process. As the previous speaker has said this legislation was initiated under the previous Government and it has continued under this Government. It deals equitably with those hard-working New Zealanders who have spent years contributing to our society paying their taxes in anticipation that in their elder years they would receive superannuation. We do want those people to travel around the world. We certainly want them to come back but it is good for their health and the health of our nation that they travel around the world not only to visit their family but also to drink in all that this world has to offer and to come back and add to the rich tapestry that is the wonderful country in which we live. This bill enables them to be able to do that and to reap the benefits of their long years of hard work working towards a better New Zealand as we all are. I endorse this legislation and commend it to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7321. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just say that it is very impolite for conversations to be going on while members are speaking. I know that the member here had only a minute and a bit left but it was very difficult to hear. If members want to speak they should move out into the lobbies. I do not know whether the member was calling or not because there are people standing in front of him. If any member wants the call he or she needs to stand up and seek it.
King Annette: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill War Pensions Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7321. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 In conclusion I say that the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill now divided into the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill has been accepted and supported by all parties in this Parliament except the ACT Party which during the Committee stage made it clear that it would oppose it. I am delighted that this legislation will go through. It was started by Labour in Government and has been completed by the National Government. It will be widely welcomed by older New Zealanders who look forward to being able to travel and to live overseas taking with them a large proportion of their New Zealand superannuation which is something that they worked for for many years and they believe is their entitlement. It is not a benefit; it is a pension and they are delighted that with the passage of this legislation they can make choices about where they go to live and how they can now spend that money. Under the old criteria they could have only 50 percent of their pension. This legislation is supported by this House; I am pleased to see it being passed today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is—[ 
Interruption 
] Is the member seeking a call? 
Chester Borrows 
: Yes.
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7320. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: What respectively are the most and the least amounts of notice given to a submitter for an invitation to appear before the committee on 15 October to speak to their submission on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 The first submitters offered hearing times on 15 October 2009 were contacted on the evening of 14 October 2009 straight after the meeting at which the committee made its decision as a whole committee to hear from submitters. Submitters heard on the 15th were also contacted that morning and in the afternoon for bookings that evening. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Did he during public submissions to the committee receive any complaints from submitters giving evidence about the short notice of their invitation to appear and give evidence before the committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that the chair of the committee is responsible for what submitters to the committee might say. He has no responsibility for that whatsoever. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wanted to make sure that you heard my question. I asked the member whether as chair of the committee during the public submissions he received complaints from submitters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the member’s question very clearly. It is not in order to ask the chair of the committee that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. May I understand the reasons for that ruling? I had a look at— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I am very happy to explain to him that the chair of the committee is not in any way responsible for what those making submissions at the committee might say be it about the time of the warning they have been given in terms of when they might make their submission or the contents of their submission. The chair has no responsibility whatsoever and he cannot be questioned on that.