edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bennett David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16446. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): That was a shocking speech on the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) from the Opposition by Dr Megan Woods but it just goes to reflect the nature of its argument here today. There are more people in tertiary education under this Government than under the previous Government. That is because we have opened access up. Opposition members are not telling the truth in this House tonight by saying that there has been a restriction on education. It is far from the truth. The real truth is that the Labour Party does not want people to pay their debts. What gives the Labour Party the Green Party and New Zealand First Party the mandate to go out there and say that you can go to a New Zealand educational institution you can get New Zealand training and then you can go overseas and get a free ride whereas if you stay in New Zealand and you make this country stronger you have to repay your debt? Under the policy of the Labour Party the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party why do we give an exemption from paying their debt back to those people who leave this country? Why do they want to do that?Hon Member: We don’t.DAVID BENNETT: They do. That is what they are saying because they do not want those people to repay their debts—that is the simple truth of it. Do you know why? It is the socialist elite over there who believe that they have a right to some higherposition in New Zealand’s social hierarchy and who believe that they should get a free education and not have to pay it back. That socialist elite that is the Labour Party has never represented the people whom they try to stand for. The people out there working in factories who pay for those educational institutions—what do they get? They get to see some other young person—who is in the socialist elite—go overseas and not repay their debt. What about those people who actually go and get training in New Zealand and then work in New Zealand? They have to pay it back. But under the Labour Party if you go overseas you get an exemption. This is disgusting to see from Labour the Greens and New Zealand First: that New Zealanders are treated differently if they leave. That is what they are saying and that is not good policy. We want New Zealanders to pay off their loans and pay their debt back.
Hayes John: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes John: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16444. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I have to say that I was at the Finance and Expenditure Committee where all these discussions were held and that lady from New Zealand First who has just left the House now did not attend any of the discussions about this legislation the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) and made no contribution. The New Zealand First representative at the select committee slept through it—slept through it. They made no contribution at all.I have listened with great interest to discussions this afternoon. Our interest-free student loan scheme is one of the most generous in the world and we want to keep it that way. The student loan scheme represents a major financial commitment by taxpayers including from my electorate in the Wairarapa to support people in tertiary education. The Government wants to support students in tertiary education but it is important for students to take personal responsibility for repaying their loans. I agree with Holly Walker that all of New Zealand has a stake in good tertiary education but loan borrowers need to keep their end of the deal and repay their loans promptly particularly people who take the money and skip overseas.I do not agree with David Clark or Grant Robertson who have spoken earlier today and who want to give taxes from hard-working people in my electorate in the Wairarapa to people who will not pay their bills or meet their obligations. This country I believe would be better governed by the first 60 people in theEketāhuna phone book than by any of the people in the Opposition who want to be elected later in this year to govern this country. We will be far better governed by the first 60 names in theEketāhuna phone book than by any of the people in this Opposition. Thank you.
Wilkinson Kate: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilkinson Kate: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16442. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I rise to take a brief call on the third reading of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3). This bill is about sending a message that if you owe money you should pay it back. The student loan that has been granted to students to enable them to continue and advance their tertiary education is not a gift given by hard-working taxpayers in New Zealand; it is a loan and with that loan comes the reciprocal obligation that it is to be paid back.We have heard that there is about $3 billion owing by overseas-based borrowers of which there are about 100000 borrowers and of those quite a significant proportion 61000 borrowers are not meeting their repayment obligations. That is money that is owed by the students. They borrowed it fully aware that they had to pay it back. It is not a gift as I have said; they borrowed it from other New Zealand taxpayers. It is only reasonable to send them that message and to expect them to pay it back. I do not believe that it is disingenuous to expect repayment of a debt. I think that is being fair. I come from the school of thought that says if you borrow money that comes with obligations. You pay it back.What is wrong with expecting repayment of a debt? What is wrong with expecting personal responsibility? We are not talking about lazy students. We are not talking about them at all as the previous speaker Holly Walker has just said. What we are talking about is expecting them to comply with their loan obligations. It is as simple as that: sending them a message. If you owe money pay it back. This is a good bill. It sends the right message. It is certainly not tinkering when we are talking about $3 billion of taxpayer money. I commend this bill to the House.
McClay Todd: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcClay Todd: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16433. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): I moveThat the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. This bill continues the Government’s efforts to ensure proper governance over the student loan scheme by proposing tougher measures to deal with persistent non-payers and by raising the repayment obligation of overseas-based borrowers. Although the overwhelming majority of borrowers accept the responsibility to repay their taxpayer-funded loan the reality is that some do not despite having the financial ability to do so. The main provision in the bill will allow the Inland Revenue Department to seek an arrest warrant to deal with the small group of mainly overseas-based borrowers. As I previously made clear this action would be taken only in the most serious of cases when the borrower clearly has a financial ability to pay and when all other efforts to persuade that person to make their repayments to the New Zealand taxpayer have failed.The second major proposal in this bill raises the repayment obligation for overseas-based borrowers to bring them more in line with their New Zealand-based counterparts. Overseas borrowers with a loan balance over $45000 will now have their repaymentrates increased. This will speed up the repayment rates for these borrowers and reduce the amount of interest that they have to pay on their loans. These are the principal features of the bill.I want to acknowledge the work of those who have contributed to the successful passage of this bill so far. Particularly my thanks go to the policy officials and drafters who have worked on the detail of this bill. I want to recognise members of the public and representative groups who have made submissions on the proposed legislation and have come before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the committee itself for its recommendations to improve the transparency and cohesiveness of the student loan scheme. Finally I want to thank all those who will vote in favour of this bill because what this does is it sends a very clear message to those who have been afforded a very good education—because the taxpayer has decided to provide them with loans that are interest free in New Zealand with interest when they go overseas—that they do have an obligation to hard-working New Zealanders New Zealand taxpayers up and down this country who have made this possible.Finally I must thank members of the House for recognising the importance of these measures and ensuring that the student loan scheme is managed efficiently and fairly. The student loan scheme and the student loan debt book are in better shape than they have been. They are certainly in better shape than when those opposite left the Government benches and they are much much better than they will be when—one day in the future—they come back and ruin it again. Thank you.
Vote: Standing Orders — SessionalText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Standing Orders — Sessional[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16433. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Meridian Energy Limited be a public organisation for the purposes of the Standing Orders.Ayes112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14;Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes7New Zealand First 7.Motion agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Standing Orders — SessionalText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Standing Orders — Sessional[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16433. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am just seeking some advice on this matter. The member can seek leave to have her party’s vote recorded. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Standing Orders — SessionalText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLole-Taylor Asenati: Standing Orders — Sessional[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16433. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): I totally accept the fact that perhaps I was not alert at the time when you were calling for the voting and I apologise for that. However with your guidance can I please seek leave of the House to reconsider giving the opportunity for New Zealand First to put forward its vote?
Tisch Lindsay: Standing Orders — SessionalText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Standing Orders — Sessional[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16433. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have already declared the result that the motion was passed. Members must be observant and listen to the proceedings of the House. I cannot allow it. I have already put the vote. No one opposed it. No one asked for a party vote and so my ruling stands.
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Standing Orders — SessionalText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLole-Taylor Asenati: Standing Orders — Sessional[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16433. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am terribly sorry. I missed the counting. You went so fast. We wanted to vote on that motion.
Tisch Lindsay: Standing Orders — SessionalText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Standing Orders — Sessional[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16433. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDelahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16420. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: Has he had any discussions with any Indian Government Ministers about selling Solid Energy assets?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): He met with the Indian Minister of SteelShriBeni PrasadVerma on 30 January this year. His message was that the Government openly encourages international investment in our petroleum and minerals sector but that matters relating to joint developments are commercial matters. He did not engage with the Minister of Steel on selling Solid Energy assets and nor would that be within his responsibility as the Minister of Energy and Resources.Catherine Delahunty: How does he reconcile his response to the primary question with the comment made by the Indian Minister of Steel following this meeting: “We are looking forward to the Government of New Zealand … allocating mineral assets to Indian public sector companies on a Government to Government basis.”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: He too has read that comment. The Minister of Steel made a number of comments during the meeting but the Minister of Energy and Resources was very clear that any discussions in regard to commercial arrangements needed to be had with Solid Energy and did not engage with him on comments that he made.Catherine Delahunty: Can he confirm that there are no planned Government to Government allocations of New Zealand coalmines or mining rights to Indian public sector companies?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes. From time to time individual companies—including for example Landcorp and Solid Energy—buy and sell assets but there is no plan for a Government to Government interaction in that regard.Catherine Delahunty: Therefore will he rule out the partial sale of Solid Energy or the sale of Solid Energy’s coalmines or mining rights to any foreign Government or foreign public sector company?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is not his responsibility but I would make the point to the member that actually New Zealand State-owned enterprises do buy and sell assets from time to time. They do under this Government; they did under the previous Government according to how it works. The member may have noticed that Solid Energy is in some difficulty and I am sure that it is exploring all its options.
Ngaro Alfred: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16418. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.ALFRED NGARO (National) to theMinister of Pacific Island Affairs: What steps is the Government taking to lift the skills of Pacific people in New Zealand?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs): The National-led Government has introduced a range of programmes and plans to lift the skills of Pacific people. For example Budget 2013 included the funding for theMāori and Pasifika Trades Training Initiative. That is $43 million in funding over 4 years to provide greater opportunities for young Pacific people to gain qualifications and better employment prospects. The Government is also supporting Auckland University of Technology’s Manukau campus expansion and this will see the number of fulltime-equivalent students at Auckland University of Technology increase from the current 940 fulltime-equivalent students to 4100 fulltime-equivalent students by 2020 and almost half of these students will be Pacific.Alfred Ngaro: How is the Government helping to raise the achievement of Pacific students?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Government programmes such as Pasifika Power Up Youth Guarantee Achievement 2013-17 and trades academies are making a significant contribution to lifting achievement. Last month Minister Parata announced that National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 achievement among Pacific students in 2013 had risen to 71.8 percent. That is an increase of 16.5 percent since 2008. Tertiary course completion rates for Pacific students at all levels were up to 74 percent in 2012 and that is compared with 54 percent in 2007. Yesterday of course Minister Joyce announced the new Tertiary Education Strategy 2014-19 and one of its six priorities is about boosting the achievement ofMāori and Pacific students.Su’a William Sio: Given the Minister’s responses that his Government is so successful in doing things to lift the skills of Pacific people in New Zealand will he also take the credit for lifting Pacific people not in education employment or training from 16.7 percent in 2008 to 20.1 percent in 2013?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I do not have those figures to hand but what I can say is that since this Government has been in power and since the second quarter of2009 the number of Pacific people employed has gone up from 97700 to over 108200—over 11000 more people are employed.
Simpson Scott: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16417. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to theMinister for Courts: How is the Government improving the way the Disputes Tribunal works to make it easier for New Zealanders to resolve civil disputes?Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): I have been determined to create a modern 21st century justice system that better serves the needs of court users. In disputes tribunal that means allowing online applications so that people can apply quickly and easily—anytime anywhere—which is something a quarter of applicants are taking up; it means centralising the processing of applications to speed up processing times and to leave court staff to focus on administering court cases; it means getting key tribunal decisions published online to make processes more transparent; and it means empowering our court staff and supporting tribunal referees in trying new ways of working to provide a quicker and better service.Scott Simpson: What difference are parties to cases seeing from these improvements in the way the disputes tribunal operates?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Our modernisation initiatives are making a measurable difference in the speed at which disputes tribunal users get results. Online applications and centralised processing mean that it rarely takes more than 2 days for applicants to get a hearing scheduled and 90 percent hear back on the same day. Our focus on faster delivery has resulted in a 15 percent drop in the age of cases last year falling from 75 days to 64 days. This means the roughly 350 individuals and businesses who come to the tribunal each week are spending less time resolving disputes and more time getting on with their lives and businesses.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to theMinister of Justice: When she told the House yesterday “I had previously toldOravida that it could not use my name or photograph to endorse or promote its business products or services” when was that and what specific circumstances did it relate to?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General)on behalf of theMinister of Justice: It was in October and related to her upcoming trip to China. The Minister made those comments orally when she was approached to visit theOravida branch in China. She was invited to visit its China branch last year when she was atOravida’s Auckland office opening in October last year and mentioned she would be travelling to China on ministerial business.Grant Robertson: Did she or her office follow up withOravida whether or not it had used her name or photograph following her visit to its Quay Street building in October to open its new offices?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I very much doubt it. One does not go on some kind of jihad or super-inquiry to find out whether a photograph is being used. The Minister is very photogenic. Her photo would be taken on many occasions unlike that member’s. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! And that sort of answer does not assist the order of the House.Grant Robertson: Why given her responsibilities as Minister of Justice was she opening the offices ofOravida in Auckland in October?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: She supports New Zealand Inc.; that is why she did it. When she was in China she also supported New Zealand Inc. by going down and having a flat white at Cafe Flat White which is a company with very strong New Zealand interests. There is nothing surprising or underhand in any of this. She is a loyal New Zealander.Grant Robertson: Did she ever make contact with the Cabinet Office about a potential conflict of interest given her husband’s directorship ofOravida before this week?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I doubt it. It would be a bizarre proposition to seek the permission of the Prime Minister to pop into Cafe Flat White in Beijing for a cup of coffee or intoOravida for a glass of milk.Grant Robertson: From whom atOravida did she receive the invitation to visit its Shanghai offices: was it her husband who is a director of the firm; was it the Prime Minister’s golf buddy Stone Shi who donated more than $55000 to the National Party; was it PeterGoodfellow the president of the National Party whose company is a supplier toOravida; or was it JuliaXu with whom she was going to Hong Kong a month later?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not know the exact name. I would practically guarantee it would be none of those people. But in answer to the member’s unpleasant question I will find out and tell him.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought for this particular question to be held over.Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is actually the third time today that that member has made reference to someone not being here. He made a point at the end of that point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. I moved to put the leave very quickly but if the member did refer to the absence of any member in this House that is completely out of order and it is not to happen again. The member has sought leave for this question to be held over. I am putting that leave. Leave is sought to hold that question over. Is there any objection? There is.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It does go back to the ruling that you have made. It has been a long-term ability of members to ask and on occasion be granted the ability to hold over Ministers’ questions when they are not available—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any further assistance. There is no problem with the member seeking leave but referring to and highlighting the absence of a member from the House is out of order. Members can seek leave but they do not need to highlight the absent members. All members on many occasions are away from this House when they are on other parliamentary business. That is accepted. The Standing Orders are quite clear that members must not refer to the absence of a member in this House. The member has sought leave I have put the leave and that leave has been denied. That is the end of this matter and Grant Robertson can proceed with his question.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I seek leave of the House to hold this question over until Tuesday as an additional question to see whether the Minister of Justice—
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16412. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to theMinister for the Environment: What recent announcements has the Government made on the classification for drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): Last week I announced that activities involved in exploratory drilling for oil and gas in the exclusive economic zone will be classified as non-notified discretionary under the new exclusive economic zone legislation regulations. This completes the classifications of all components of the oil and gas extraction process. Operators will now be subject toEnvironmental Protection Authority oversight for each of the four stages. Initial seismic surveying and prospecting is monitored as a permitted activity then separate discretionary marine consents are required at the exploration stage and any production and decommissioning phases and as part of that are fully assessed for the actual and potential effects of the activity on the environment and existing interests. For the first time the environmental impact of the full cycle of the oil and gas process in theexclusive economic zone will be overseen and minimised by a robust independent regulator.Jacqui Dean: How will New Zealanders get to have a say on oil and gas activities occurring in the exclusive economic zone?Hon AMY ADAMS: Until now the public has never had the right to have a say on activities taking place in the exclusive economic zone including drilling for oil. Now before an oil company can make a single dollar of profit it has to go in front of thepeople of New Zealand and make its case in a full public process. This is in clear contrast to the period between 2000 and 2008 when 36 wells were drilled in the exclusive economic zone including four production wells with no public comment and no opportunity for submissions. In addition during the exploration phase the applicant is now required to have consulted with iwi and affected users and the Environmental Protection Authority has the ability to call for evidence from any parties it determines necessary.Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table a document. It is available on the Ministry for the Environment website but it is incredibly difficult to find so—Mr SPEAKER: Just briefly describe the document.Gareth Hughes: It is a summary of submissions that found that only four people out of 22000—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If members want to search for that I am sure they are capable of finding it.
Robertson Grant: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Business Statement[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16407. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I wonder whether I might inquire of the Deputy Leader of the House given that she said in the Business Statement that the Electoral Amendment Bill will be looked at on Tuesday just to clarify whether Judith Collins will actually show up on Tuesday—Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Tolley Anne: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTolley Anne: Business Statement[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16407. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 11 March the Government will look to progress the Electoral Amendment Bill the Families Commission Amendment Bill and the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. On Wednesday 12 March effective on the morning of Thursday 13 March with the agreement of the Business Committee the House will sit in extended hours to progress the second readings of theNgā Mana Whenua oTāmakiMakaurau Collective Redress Bill and theNgāPunawai o TeTokotoru Claims Settlement Bill and the third reading of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill.
Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBusiness Statement[Sitting date: 06 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16407. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 6 March 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 11 March the Government will look to progress the Electoral Amendment Bill the Families Commission Amendment Bill and the Border Processing (Trade Single Window and Duties) Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. On Wednesday 12 March effective on the morning of Thursday 13 March with the agreement of the Business Committee the House will sit in extended hours to progress the second readings of theNgā Mana Whenua oTāmakiMakaurau Collective Redress Bill and theNgāPunawai o TeTokotoru Claims Settlement Bill and the third reading of the Raukawa Claims Settlement Bill.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I wonder whether I might inquire of the Deputy Leader of the House given that she said in the Business Statement that the Electoral Amendment Bill will be looked at on Tuesday just to clarify whether Judith Collins will actually show up on Tuesday—Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Wagner Nicky: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15969. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I am very pleased to support the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill. Coming from Christchurch just like the previous member Ruth Dyson I really understand the importance of this bill. There is no doubt at all that the earthquakes of 22 February 2011 and the death and destruction that accompanied them followed by 11000 other earthquakes have really raised awareness and highlighted the number of earthquake-prone buildings right across the country. We believe that there could be somewhere between 15000 and 25000 earthquake-prone buildings right across the country.We have discussed how you define an earthquake-prone building. Basically under the Building Act 2004 an earthquake-prone building is one that “will have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake”. In other words if there is a moderate earthquake it is likely to collapse causing “injury or death to persons in the building” or around that building. But in practical reality that means that it would be about 34 percent—or we have been using the number of 34 percent—of the current building code. It should be noted that when we talk about the building code and the percentage of the building code that a building has to reach that does vary depending on the location of that building. It depends on the geography and it depends on the seismic activity of that geography. This bill ensures that the earthquake-prone buildings can be dealt with in a timely manner and in a nationally consistent way.The public are now very aware of and concerned about dangerous buildings and they are keen to have readily available information. This bill will establish a register of the seismic capacity of our building stock so that you will be able to know how the buildings you use day after day would react in an earthquake and the quality of those buildings.Debate interrupted.
Vote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15966. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a second time.
Upston Louise: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUpston Louise: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15965. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am proud to be a member of the National Party and the National caucus which are putting so much investment and commitment into education. Whether it is trade training whether it is Youth Guarantee or whether it is apprenticeships for Māori and Pacific students there is a whole suite of work that this Government is doing to lift education achievement across the board. Part of that is making sure that our spending is responsible and that those who have the opportunities of education actually play their part and fulfil their responsibility which is as you would expect to pay that debt back.When I am in the streets of Tokoroa orTaupō and I am speaking with a teacher a bricklayer or a doctor I want to be able to say to them very confidently that this Government is minding their money and their tax and is making sure it is spent effectively and efficiently. Those who are responsible for debts to the Government should be responsible for paying them back. So anyone who takes out a student loan should do so knowingly with an expectation that it is repaid and is repaid in the most efficient way that it can be whether they are studying here in New Zealand working in New Zealand or working overseas. It is what hard-working New Zealanders expect when they pay tax every week out of their pay packets. Thank you.
Roy Eric: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15962. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A split call—5 minutes; Chris Hipkins.
Bennett David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15962. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): This afternoon we have heard the socialist Labour elite and their true beliefs. They believe that education is only for a small group of people who can then go overseas and do not have to pay it back. What about the hard-working New Zealanders who pay for people to go through that education? Should they not see that money repaid? How about the young men and women who are out there in apprenticeships and working on the farms and in the factories? They pay their taxes for somebody else to get the benefit go overseas and swan around. That is the Labour socialist elite that has always been part of that party. It is part of this current Labour party as well. It is communism coming home to roost. They do not even want democracy in this country. They will do everything to get rid of democracy in this country.New Zealand First members are in the middle. They do not know what is happening. They have not got the brown bag from Kim Dotcom to tell them how to vote today but they will get it tomorrow—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is extremely out of order in this House to suggest that any member of this House is any way the subject of bribery or corruption in the way in which the member has just done about the New Zealand First Party. It is extremely out of order.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes I am going to uphold that. I did not hear the exact context in which the member did it but the member who raises the point of order is correct. All members are honourable members and members should desist from any inferences that would suggest that that is not the case.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this the same point of order?Tracey Martin: I am offended. I am deeply offended by what Mr Bennett just suggested.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise.DAVID BENNETT: I withdraw and apologise. But the elite of socialism are shown here today. How many more students are there in New Zealand universities now than when Labour was in power? There are more. The Labour Party comes in here today and says that we have cut down the number of students and that we do not want people to get an education. That is wrong. That is not true. It is not true. I ask the Labour Party to come up with the figures. Table the figures today showing that more people got education under the Labour Government than under this Government. That is not true and Labour cannot do it. It believes in letting somebody go overseas take advantage of the New Zealand education system and not have to repay their loan. That is patently wrong. Something that all New Zealanders want to see is fairness and equity in our system. We want New Zealanders to get an education but we want New Zealanders to repay their debts to this country and repay them fairly. This is a good bill.
Wilkinson Kate: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilkinson Kate: Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15959. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I rise to take a short call on the second reading of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 3). This bill is simply about making the student loan scheme sustainable into the future. It is simplyabout students taking personal responsibility for repaying their loans and their obligations. Doing nothing in relation to the outstanding debts which are significant is not fair to the good students who pay back their obligations; nor is it fair to the taxpayers who have advanced the money in the first place. We would not need this bill if all students met their obligations to the taxpayer. Regrettably they do not. Regrettably we need the bill. This bill is a fair bill and I support its passage through the House.
Vote: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15947. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a second timeAyes113New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes7New Zealand First 7.Bill read a second time.
Hayes Joanne: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes Joanne: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15947. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora. I arise and feel privileged as a new member of Parliament to be speaking on this Electoral Amendment Bill. New Zealand is fortunate that its electoral system has a very high level of integrity. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins for this piece of legislation. To the chair and the members of the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee I thank them for the common-sense professional approach they have taken to this piece of legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
Foster-Bell Paul: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15945. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): To bring this debate on the Electoral Amendment Bill back to what is in the bill rather than what is not in the bill I would just like to say that the provisions contain within them an excellent move ahead. They are also—Dr Megan Woods: Why don’t you take the time to apologise for your disgraceful behaviour?PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I say to the member Megan Woods that I will get to that in a moment. I would like to say that the provisions in this bill that allow greater efficiency through the use of technology through full online enrolment are positive. The use of EasyVote cards as an administrative measure has always been useful but having them as the definitive way of identifying a voter does risk the integrity of our precious voting system in New Zealand. I have lived in a country where people have died bleeding on the street after being shot during elections. I have lived in a country where fraud corruption and misidentification are absolutely rife. So I think it is important that we protect this precious aspect of our system.I think it is a bit rich to be lectured by parties opposite when we have a party over there that brought in the Electoral Finance Act which was a measure that was highly undemocratic and that took away the rights and freedom of expression that are so precious for New Zealanders. So it is a little bit rich to take a lecture from them on that. It is also a bit rich to be lectured by a political party that in 1999—I am talking about the New Zealand First Party—relied on the coat-tailing provision to bring in its members after getting less than 5 percent of the vote and winning an electorate seat. So I do not think that we on this side of the House should take any lectures from parties opposite on those measures. I commend this bill unreservedly to the House.I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation—an apology.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): What is the personal explanation about?PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I behaved in a way that was not acceptable earlier and I wish to apologise for it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. You can make a personal statement.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: I know that the matter was dealt with during question time by the Speaker but I stood up and applauded another member. It was meant in humour but I can see now that offence was taken so I wish to unreservedly apologise.
Wilkinson Kate: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilkinson Kate: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15943. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I am delighted to take a brief call to support the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill. I may be old-fashioned but I believe that electoral law needs to be enduring and if possible it is preferable that it is enacted on a multipartisan approach with some sort of consensus. Therefore I find it somewhat disappointing—in fact very disappointing—that New Zealand First has indicated that it will vote against this piece of legislation especially coming just at the time that it seems to be embroiled in a Kim Dotcom quagmire.Our electoral system has a very high level of integrity. It is important that that integrity is a reality not just a perception and it is the behaviour of some members of Parliament that runs the risk of impugning that integrity. Having just observed the international presidential elections in the Maldives I think we can be really proud of our electoral system and the integrity that it has. It needs to be enduring. It should be a multipartisan approach. It needs to be updated.I do not think that any party in this House probably got everything they wanted out of the reforms in this Electoral Amendment Bill but most of us want an enduring piece of legislation that will give the public confidence that we are a country full of integrity and that our electoral system has corresponding integrity. I have pleasure in supporting this bill to the House.
Ngaro Alfred: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Electoral Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15940. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Electoral Amendment Bill in its second reading. What I would like to do is acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee in this regard and also our previous chair. My discussion will be brief because there has been a real consensus around this.There were 49 submissions and 16 oral submissions were heard in 2012. What we heard was the importance of ensuring that there was participation and that there was access to this because we do realise and agree that our participation rates were low. Inour deliberations we also heard about youth participation which is obviously important to us.What we are particularly privileged to do as a whole committee with consensus is ensure that this bill as it returns to the House does three important key things. It does improve efficiency by allowing greater use of technology. It improves services to voters candidates and parties. And thirdly and most important it improves the integrity of elections through simplifying and clarifying the law.I do want to commend this bill to the House. We hope that as this bill goes into our election process this year it will ensure that there is greater participation and greater releasing of information which is important in order to make conscious and clear decisions as voters head to the ballot boxes. I commend this bill to the House.
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15932. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to theAssociate Minister of Transport: What progress is being made in improving road safety?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport): The Safer Journeys road safety strategy is now 4 years old and the Government has introduced a number of road safety measures during that time including increasing the driving age lowering the blood-alcohol levels for drivers under 20 and repeat offenders to zero fixing the give way rule and continuing to support high-profile campaigns. I can report to the House that the road toll for 2013 was 254 which was the lowest in more than 60 years. Although this number is still too high the 2013 road toll was 34 percent lower than 4 years ago and it is particularly pleasing that 15 to 24-year-olds have seen a significant drop with a 37 percent lower road toll than 4 years ago.Chris Auchinvole: What is the Government doing to continue the downward road toll and further improve road safety?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well although the downward trend is promising we need to set new expectations of what is acceptable on our roads in terms of crashes and injuries so the road toll can be even lower. Our actions for 2014 will focus on developing a speed management programme which will encourage people to travel at safer speeds addressing drink-driving by reducing the alcohol limit and progressing plans to improve vehicle safety by mandating electronic stability control for new andused vehicles imported into New Zealand. I am confident that these actions will contribute to ensuring we continue to see a downward trend in the road toll.