edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill. The financial review debate is the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill. The time allocated for this debate is 4 hours and comprises two distinct elements. The first is the debate on the annual financial statements of the Government as reported on by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Once this has concluded the Committee debates individual financial reviews of departments Offices of Parliament and non-departmental appropriations as reported on by the select committees. The debate on the Government’s financial position may be a fairly wide-ranging one but the debates on the individual financial reviews of the departments Offices of Parliament and non-departmental appropriations should be relevant to their performance in the 2010-11 financial year and their current operations.  
The compendium of financial reviews and non-departmental appropriations available for debate is on the Table. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. At the conclusion of the debate a single question is put on the provisions of the bill. There is no amendment to or debate on the question. The Chairperson then reports the bill to the House and it is set down for third reading forthwith. There is no debate on the third reading.
Prosser Richard: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Prosser Richard: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 I agree with the sentiments of the last three speakers particularly the two extremely erudite speakers from the Labour benches. I do not intend to keep the House anywhere as long as those fine gentlemen other than to say that New Zealand First does oppose the truncation of this process and for the same reasons. In order for participative democracy to be effective it has to be participative and there has to be sufficient time for that process to be gone through.  
It is all very well saying that this period has been cut back from 6 months to 3 months. In real terms it has been cut back to 1 month. This House has an adjournment for most of the rest of this month. Then we have only May for anybody who wishes to make submissions to the Primary Production Committee and appear at hearings before the committee. Plainly that is not going to allow for a range a cross-section of opinions and ideas or for the practicalities for people to organise such things.  
I think it behoves us as a Parliament to pay more than lip-service to the process of democracy and frankly given the contentious nature of this bill and given the vital importance of it to the economy to the industry—and to that industry as part of the economy—I think that truncating the period for submissions to the select committee would be a dereliction of duty on the part of this House. Thank you.
McClay Todd: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
McClay Todd: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill and a very important piece of legislation it is. I thank the last speaker from the New Zealand First Party Tracey Martin for confirming that her party will be supporting this bill. I believe it is an important decision that it has made. Why is it important? The sum of $1.6 billion was lent by the Government in student loans in 2010-11 and $690 million was repaid in that same period of time. That means the taxpayer has provided an additional subsidy of $940 million during that time.  
We talk about this as Government money but we must remind ourselves in this House that it is not always Government money that is being offered or lent to New Zealand students. It is money that has been provided by hard-working New Zealanders by businesses by taxpayers and we are providing that to people so they can have a brighter future: work hard in universities polytechnics and technical institutes around New Zealand so they can raise the level of skill within the workforce and then go out and improve the New Zealand economy through their hard work. But in so doing they have obligations back to the taxpayer and I believe that this piece of legislation helps them with those obligations.  
The sum of 54.75c per dollar is lent and the Government writes down 45.25c of that. In essence what that means is that hard-working New Zealanders who pay their tax are not seeing the return that they should see on this investment in New Zealanders and their education.  
As of 30 June last year borrowers overseas represented 15 percent of all borrowers; 50 percent of those were in default and 70 percent of the amount they owed was overdue. It is important that New Zealanders have a chance to go overseas—to travel to gain experience to work. As with many members of the House I too spent some time overseas working. But when I was overseas I had an obligation to a bank through a loan. I had a mortgage when I was there and never once did the bank give me a holiday. I entered into a relationship a contract with the bank and every day I had to work hard to make sure that I met that obligation and paid it back.  
So in this instance we are saying to New Zealanders young or old that if they want to travel that is a good thing and we recommend that they do. They have a year to travel and if they return home they will then meet their obligation and if they are overseas for more than a year they must remember the obligation they have—not to the Government not to this House but to the New Zealand taxpayer the mums and dads who are working hard and providing their taxes to the Government to lend to students so that they can better their lives.  
I think this bill does not ask too much. It merely reminds them of their obligation and helps them with that. I look forward to voting for this bill shortly. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Smith Lockwood: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Dr The Rt Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (Speaker—National) 
: 
 I cannot let those issues go unanswered because under our constitutional arrangements it is not the Government that determines the funding for the Office of the Ombudsmen; the recommendations are made by the Officers of Parliament Committee which includes members from all sides of this House. I chair the Officers of Parliament Committee and as for all agencies of the Crown there is an expectation that all agencies will operate with the utmost efficiency. Just because agencies or departments seek extra funding does not mean to say that they should be allocated extra funding. I think I have told this House previously for example that I run the Speaker’s office on less than half the funding of my predecessor—less than half.  
The Office of the Ombudsmen has been allocated additional funding to deal with an increase in complaints. The Ombudsman’s office was allocated on a temporary basis $370000 to help the office cope with the increase in complaints. It was not made permanent because there was no certainty that the increase in complaints would be ongoing. The Officers of Parliament Committee is now satisfied that that increase in complaints with events like the Canterbury earthquake is likely to be ongoing for the foreseeable future and so that temporary additional funding of $370000 has been recommended by the Officers of Parliament Committee to be made permanent to give the Ombudsman’s office the certainty of that. In addition to that all the additional funding requested by the Ombudsman’s office has been recommended by the Officers of Parliament Committee to be allocated in this next financial year and that is the $300000 that the honourable member Grant Robertson was referring to. 
 So I want the House to understand that it is not the Government that on its own determines the funding of the Ombudsman; it is the Officers of Parliament Committee which comprises members from all sides of this House. That committee has listened to the representations of the Ombudsman and has accepted that there is a seemingly permanent increase in the level of inquiry required by the Ombudsman’s office at present. What is more there have been additional functions allocated to the Office of the Ombudsmen and those have been funded. There have been funding allocations made to meet those additional functions required.  
I just want the House to understand that the current situation is that in this next financial year in terms of all the requests made by the Ombudsman the recommendations have been met by the Officers of Parliament Committee. 
Report noted.
Robertson H V Ross: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member can I just advise members that every time a member uses the expression “you” the member is referring to the Chair. The member must refer to the Minister or to another member as “the Minister” or “that member” which is in the third person. I suggest that members have a look at Standing Order 104. You cannot bring the Speaker into the debate.
Upston Louise: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Upston Louise: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.
Parker David: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek guidance from you in the Chair as to what is the point at which we debate the debatable motion.
Roy Eric: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is the next one. The first question directs the bill to a select committee and we vote on that. Then the Minister will move the instruction to the committee. 
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
Roy Eric: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Just before I call the honourable member I would invite members to look at Standing Order 286(3). This may well be breaking new ground.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 For the purposes of clarity I seek leave of the House to add “2011” to the end of the date 24 March in the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
10. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What is the Government doing to reduce knife crime in New Zealand? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Justice: On Friday we launched SAFE a voluntary initiative to educate retailers on some simple steps they can take to prevent theft or inappropriate sale of knives. The SAFE initiative has been developed in conjunction with the New Zealand Retailers Association. It is supported by major knife retailers—about 15 in number—and is a clear example of how the Government and retailers can work together to deliver a safer New Zealand. 
Mark Mitchell 
: Is knife crime a growing problem in New Zealand? [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Now I say on this occasion to Labour members it is just unreasonable. The member has a right to ask a supplementary question and to get that barrage of noise is unacceptable. I repeat it is unacceptable. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: No it is not a problem in New Zealand—or not a growing problem in New Zealand—but it should not be taken lightly by anybody including the Opposition. The National-led Government has seen a 19 percent drop in the carriage of knives—people apprehended for the carrying of knives—since 2008 when it came into Government and a 15 percent drop in knife assaults so the SAFE programme is a preventive measure. It will help ensure that knife crime continues to fall and is yet another example of this Government’s commitment to reducing violent crime.
Yang Jian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Yang Jian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
8. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What changes has the Government made to make it easier for low-risk high-value students to come to New Zealand? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced changes to health screening rules that will reduce red tape and costs for international students while protecting the New Zealand public health system. From July this year international students without other health conditions will need to be screened only for tuberculosis. This will greatly reduce the cost and hassle for around 62800 students and it will save them around $17 million a year in medical costs. International education is worth $2.3 billion to the economy a year and indirectly supports 32000 jobs. These changes will help the sector continue to grow. 
Dr Jian Yang 
: How will the public health system be protected with these changes? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Students still must be of an acceptable standard of health. We will now require international students to hold health insurance as a condition of their visa. This will not be an issue for most of these students as they are ineligible for health services in New Zealand and education providers currently require them to hold insurance. These changes show the Government is serious about tackling red tape reducing costs and attracting migrants who can make a contribution to New Zealand.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House now comes to questions to members and although question No. 1 stands in the name of the Hon David Parker and is to the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I do not see the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the House. Therefore the question is postponed until tomorrow.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment and asks: what action is the Government taking to boost— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the member. The previous question has been dealt with. The House will come to order.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
4. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What recent reports has she received about reductions in recorded crime? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yesterday the police released the 2011 crime statistics which show a 4.8 percent drop in recorded crime. This follows a 5.6 percent reduction in 2010. This result represents the lowest number of recorded offences for New Zealand for 15 years. Homicide and related offending dropped 14.4 percent. Illicit drug offences reduced by 9.8 percent. Abduction harassment and other related offences dropped by 8.5 percent. I am sure all members will join with me in commending the police for their excellent work in reducing crime and keeping our communities safe. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What factors have contributed to the lower crime rate? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The police are focused on the Policing Excellence strategy which is aimed at freeing up police on the front line to go exactly where they are needed. Police now place much greater emphasis on preventing crime with neighbourhood policing teams and the use of mobile technology meaning that officers can spend more time in their communities. Of course as a result of the John Key - led National Government we now have an extra 600 police out on the beat. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is part of her strategy to reduce recorded crime to actually just make it harder for people to report crime given the recent decision to reduce front-line services by closing the Gisborne Police Station to the public overnight a decision that the Gisborne community were not even told about until they turned up and found the doors locked and the phones diverted to Napier? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Quite the contrary. In fact the crime reporting line has recently been introduced to the eastern district. That means that people do not have to travel—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Minister. Look I assume the members’ colleague’s question—the question by Moana Mackey—was asked in seriousness and therefore I expect members may want to hear an answer. There is no way an answer can be heard with that rabble.  
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I said quite the contrary. In fact the police are making it much easier for people to report crime and the crime reporting line has been rolled out in the eastern district. People do not have to visit the police station to report crime; they just get on the telephone and they will be dealt with immediately.
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill be reported back to the House by 1 June 2012. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hayes John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
2. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the Government’s plan to return to Budget surplus in 2014/15? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The IMF this morning released its statement under article IV consultations. IMF has concluded that the Government’s planned reduction path “strikes a balance between the need to limit both public and external debt increases while containing any adverse impact on economic growth during the recovery” which is essentially an endorsement of the Government’s well-considered and well-balanced path to surplus in 2014-15 where we will be able to stop the rise in Government debt but on the way we believe that we can improve public services. 
John Hayes 
: How will Budget 2012 contribute to the Government returning to surplus? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This year’s Budget will hold net new spending over the next 4 years somewhere close to zero. More money will be allocated to health and education. This will be paid for by savings in lower priority areas and by tightening up various revenue loopholes and reducing tax avoidance. Budget 2012 will help the Government return to surplus in 2014-15. 
John Hayes 
: Why is it important to return to Budget surplus? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a very good question. There are two reasons. One is we need to stop Government debt rising. But secondly it is important that New Zealand gets the Government’s books back into good shape so that if there is another recession at some stage in the next decade we are in good shape to handle that in a similar way to our successful handling of the last recession. 
John Hayes 
: What are the reasons for net core Crown debt increasing in recent years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is pointing I think in that question to what has been a significant increase in net debt. In 2008 it was as low as $8 billion; it is currently around $50 billion and will peak at around $75 billion. It has been caused by a number of factors: the Government’s strategy of protecting New Zealanders from the sharpest edges of recession a very substantial commitment to the rebuilding of Canterbury after the earthquake and a very large increase in Government spending between 2000 and 2009 which we have worked hard to get under control.
Cunliffe David: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The year 2012—5 years after the former Labour Government reduced Crown debt to zero nearly 3½ years after this Government took office—far too late to blame history and time to take responsibility. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
6. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: What action is the Government taking to boost international education promotion for Christchurch? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 Last Thursday in Christchurch I announced a dedicated $5 million fund that Education New Zealand will use to promote the city overseas as an education destination over the next 4 years. Christchurch is normally our second largest destination for international students and the city has an excellent international reputation for high-quality education. However it has been a tough time for providers in Christchurch following the earthquakes as it has been for many businesses with a 37 percent drop in numbers in 2011. This campaign is designed to send the message globally that Canterbury providers are back in business and students are welcome and it will augment our expanded national marketing campaign. 
Colin King 
: How important is international education to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Currently the international education sector is worth around $2.3 billion to the New Zealand economy with contributions from schools universities polytechs and private training establishments. The Government has an ambitious goal of doubling the economic value of New Zealand’s international education sector to $5 billion over the next 15 years. International enrolments have been steadily increasing since 2008. However the impact of the Canterbury earthquake has meant that although numbers in the rest of the country grew 6 percent last year with Canterbury included the net growth was flat. Therefore having Christchurch back on its feet and growing again in this important industry is a crucial part of reaching our goal.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I noted that the chairperson was here at the start of question time— 
Hon Member 
: So what? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well—
Guy Nathan: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Guy Nathan: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) 
on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: I move  
That the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill be reported back to the House by 1 June 2012. 
 Can I first of all give you a couple of reasons for that shortened select committee process. But before that as Associate Minister for Primary Industries it is important that I let the House know that I can confirm in my own personal interest that Fonterra shares are owned by Kereru Farm (2005) Ltd. The company is owned and controlled by my parents of Levin and I have no current legal interest in Kereru Farm (2005) Ltd. I just wanted that placed in  
Hansard 
 before the House.  
Importantly what I wish to do now is make some comments on why the Government has decided on a slightly shortened select committee process. If Fonterra wants to proceed with Trading Among Farmers—and it is our indication that it does—it would need the legislation to be passed by the end of June this year 2012. 
 Of course the select committee is the appropriate place to have the debate that has occurred in the House today. Shareholders and members of the public can come to engage with the select committee and also engage with officials. Once legislation is passed of course it is up to Fonterra to engage and sell the concept to the investor community in terms of Trading Among Farmers. It is difficult to promote Trading Among Farmers without the legislation being passed and I think it is worth noting in summary that Fonterra shareholders have already voted about 80 percent in favour— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I must just caution the member. This is probably going to be the first debate we have had about this extension. The only issues that can be debated by either side are the reasons precisely around why the date of the report back is different—the instruction in relation to that. There is nothing else in this motion. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Thank you for your guidance. In summing up I have tried to give the House some indication of why the Government supports this select committee process which is for it to report back in June this year. In essence we are looking forward to receiving those submissions and looking forward to the Primary Production Committee reporting back on or before 1 June 2012.
Sage Eugenie: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sage Eugenie: Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be opposing the reduction in time for this bill the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill because we all know that haste is the enemy of good law. From my short time in this House I know that select committees are the engine room of Parliament. They are the opportunity for the variety of perspectives from the public to be heard for people to put forward suggestions to amend the legislation and the reasons why it needs to be changed and for members to consider those to seek more information on the bill and to seek a good briefing on the bill from officials. This legislation is very complex. It affects a significant portion of our economy as previous members have noted and truncating the time it is before the Primary Production Committee will truncate the opportunity for the public to have its say and to be involved.  
At the last election we had a decline in the number of people casting their vote. For people to have faith in this Parliament for people to have faith in democracy they must be able to have their say. They must be able to put their views clearly and know that they are well considered by members.  
Truncating the select committee process will reduce the opportunity for the committee to travel around New Zealand. It will reduce the time in which the submitters are able to present their views and we know that farmers do tend to get actively engaged in any regulation and will be very interested in this bill. So it is bad law to significantly reduce the time that the select committee and the House have to consider the bill because Fonterra is asking for that. It reduces the confidence that people have in our democracy if we do not allow people a good opportunity to have their say. There are a number of complexities in the bill that merit further consideration detailed consideration by members at the select committee and by members of the public.  
Haste is always the enemy of good law. The Green Party will be voting against this truncation so that we can end up with a bill that is substantially improved from the one that has been introduced. Thank you.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It is a well established—the rules are very clear around questions to members. The chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I do not believe is in the House. If I am in error I stand to be corrected but I do not believe he is in the House and the question is therefore postponed until tomorrow. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! That kind of language is totally unacceptable but I will not go there because I do not want to give more coverage to it.
Draft transcript - Thursday 05 April 2012 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Thursday 05 April 2012
Draft transcript - Wednesday 04 April 2012 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Wednesday 04 April 2012
Draft transcript - Tuesday 03 April 2012 
Published as advance copy. 
Draft transcript - Tuesday 03 April 2012
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my privilege to participate in the third reading of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill otherwise known as the “JBMS” legislation. This omnibus legislation expands the range of requirements to maintain the sharing of information across the border security agencies. To this end the Government is investing $75 million in a new system to administer border management. 
There are three categories of amendment in this legislation which is amending the Customs and Excise Act and the Biosecurity Act. Information sharing between the New Zealand Customs Service and other agencies that are involved in border security is vital for them to ensure that our borders are protected effectively. An example of the good use of technology is the use of SmartGate which uses a computer electronic system to process arrivals and departures. The Joint Border Management System together with the Customs Service has developed this new system.  
There are enormous risks to New Zealand associated with harmful pests and diseases. We need to have a system that is more responsive to the changes is cost-effective for the users and involves everybody doing their bit to manage the risk. Our aim is to get the balance right between managing biosecurity risks and minimising any unnecessary impact on trade and travel. We need to protect our borders. The new Joint Border Management System will bring the Customs Service and the MAF Biosecurity processes together under the same system providing improved security at New Zealand’s border. 
Another major problem affecting our country is the illegal importation of prohibited drugs especially for the trade in methamphetamine. The tracking of illegal drugs through the new Joint Border Management System is essential to prevent these drugs from making it on to our streets and thereby giving criminal gangs the ability to distribute these drugs into the neighbourhoods of our country. The Government is providing $5.9 million to the Customs Service over the next 2 years to fight the illicit drugs trade by intercepting these drugs before they reach our borders.  
In conclusion the National Government intends to do all in its power to throttle the illegal trade in drugs to New Zealand by using the effective sharing of information among the agencies operating at the border. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bills read a third time.
Robertson H V Ross: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
Robertson H V Ross: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Honourable members the question is that the Regulatory Reform Bill be now read a second time. Those of that opinion will please say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. 
The question now is that the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill be now read a second time. Those of that opinion will please say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. 
Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill read a second time.
Woodhouse Michael: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
Woodhouse Michael: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is recent precedent for this when the ACT Party sought retrospectively to cast a party vote in respect of the third reading of a bill it opposed and that was declined as outside of the Standing Orders. So I just wonder whether you would reconsider—I am not challenging your ruling and the House is free to make that change but my recollection of that particular event was that leave could not be put in that instance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise honourable members that this particular case because it is the second reading is in the members’ hands. Had it been a third reading then that would have been a different issue. So the member is perfectly free to ask the House and seek leave—the member has done so—for a party vote. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The member may call for a party vote.
Guy Nathan: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Guy Nathan: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Customs: I move  
That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. These bills were introduced to Parliament in September 2010 as the Customs and Excise (Joint Border Management Information Sharing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill which was an omnibus bill. This bill had its first reading on 15 September 2010. The bill has been reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Committee of the whole House stage was completed on 6 March this year at which point the bill was divided. 
These bills amend the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Biosecurity Act 1993. The amendments in these bills are important improvements that are required to support the sharing of information across border sector agencies. These amendments will ensure the Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry meet the Government’s priorities in relation to the delivery of the Joint Border Management System and support effective collaboration at the border. The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill also provides for improvements in the effectiveness of customs law enforcement. These amendments will restore the level of effectiveness to the administrative penalty and petty offence schemes that was intended when the Customs and Excise Act was passed in 1996. Finally the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill addresses emerging customs and border management issues and provides clarity to existing legislative provisions to improve administration of the Customs and Excise Act. 
In terms of the purpose of the amendment bills they contain three categories. The first one is amendments to provide for planned information-sharing by the Customs Service with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and across a range of other agencies with interests at the border. There are amendments to enhance the effectiveness of the customs law enforcement mechanisms and finally nine smaller amendments to clarify provisions within the Customs and Excise Act. 
 I wish to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee members who provided a number of amendments including the insertion of definitions of “biofuel” and “biofuel blend” into the bill and clarification of when blending of biofuel for home consumption occurs. These amendments have been incorporated into the legislation. 
The amendments in the bills enhance customs law enforcement which is essential to ensure that the Government can prevent the importing of drugs and precursors and other illegal activity at the border and contribute to the prosperity of New Zealand as a whole. I commend the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Regulatory Reform Bill Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill — Second Readings 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Bill. These two critical pieces of legislation once again show the hard work of this National-led Government towards ensuring a brighter future for all New Zealanders. By introducing the two bills concurrently the aim of the Government is to boost New Zealand’s productivity and international competitiveness and raise the living standards. The efficient regulation bills ensure that the focus remains on lifting long-term economic growth which will create jobs for New Zealanders and raise our standard of living along with providing world-class public services. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 14. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 14. 
Question agreed to.
Woodhouse Michael: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 That was exactly the same speech that the member Gareth Hughes gave I think during the last time we amended the student loan scheme provisions particularly in respect of the student loan repayment bonus. Remember what the Greens said about that? They said it was bad law it had not been researched there was no empirical analysis. Only what we know is that it worked. It worked by reducing the amount of debt that these students had to repay when they graduated. 
Let us just disavow ourselves of one notion and that is debt is not interest-free. The only question is: who is paying the interest? Under the present legislation it is interest-free to the borrower the student when they are there. But that does not mean it is not interest-free. It is not the State that pays it. The State might pay it but it is on behalf of every single taxpayer in this country—hard-working earning New Zealanders and pensioners who have income through interest and other investments are paying for these student loans and it is only right to expect that good value is gained from that investment. 
At a time of recession we are seeing more people going into tertiary education than ever before. The pass rates are higher and the amount of student debt that is accumulated is now finally starting to slow because of the very sensible policies that have been put in place by this Government. 
It is a really straightforward thing. Do not you think if you are going to borrow should not one actually repay the debt? Only the previous Government did not do anything about the number of people who were going overseas with a repayment holiday for at least 3 years and then creating such a debt burden that they were not prepared to come home to face it. Well if Mr Hughes is so concerned about that if he is so concerned about the number of graduates who are going away overseas he should be supporting this bill the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill because this is exactly what this bill is going to do. 
I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their careful consideration and the officials who helped us. I really look forward to debating this bill clause by clause in the Committee stage. Then we will see what this will really do for our students. I commend the bill to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next call is a split call: Labour and the Greens.
Clark David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Clark David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise following that very mediocre speech from the member opposite Simon Bridges to outline a few points about why we would support such a bill despite its various inadequacies. Look Labour supports all attempts to make sure that people do pay back what they have been loaned that it is done in a fair way and that everyone pays their fair share. But the way that this Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill is structured begins to hint at some of the other things that we have seen recently in terms of restricting access and opportunity.
Ngaro Alfred: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Ngaro Alfred: Customs and Excise Amendment Bill Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I stand in support of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill in their third reading. I really do want to commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for the commendable work it has done to get this legislation to this stage. This is especially shown by the fact that there is widespread support right across the whole of Government here and inside the House tonight. It is great to hear that support. These bills make improvements that are required to support the sharing of information and key to that is that border management is dependent on the effective sharing of information amongst agencies. 
One issue in which I am particularly interested is that National has focused on preventing the importing of drugs and precursors and other illegal activity at the border. P is destroying families and communities in all areas of New Zealand and the people who import it must be stopped. Budget 2010 shows that $5.9 million was invested into the Customs Service over the next 2 years to fight the illicit drugs trade through enhanced tracking and surveillance. Tools of this kind are vital to clamp down on criminal gangs and the methamphetamine trade. The Customs Service is already doing a great job but this continues to help give the Customs Service the conditions it needs to keep busting drug importers. The amount of precursors to P that customs officers intercepted in 2011 was enough to manufacture at least 169 kilograms of methamphetamine saving an estimated $68.3 million of potential harm to our communities. 
There is enough that has been said tonight about the legislation. It is in its third reading. We do support the legislation. The great thing about this is that the Government has made a $75.9 million investment in new systems that can deliver a real change in border management. The member across the House talked about the importance of not being too reliant upon information technology systems but the issue around information technology failure is often to do with human behaviour rather than the information technology itself. I think a combination of a good information technology system with good training makes a real difference to these bills and also to the industry as well. So I stand in support of these bills tonight. Thank you.