edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18217] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment to clause 22 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 24 be agreed to.
Auchinvole Chris: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18227] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I fully support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill.
Smith Nick: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18119] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Commerce 
: I move  
That the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The passing of this bill marks the conclusion of a long complex and controversial policy debate on how to address the widespread unauthorised sharing of copyright material via the Internet. I would like to take the opportunity to highlight the key features of the new enforcement and awareness-raising measures that are created by this bill. 
Copyright owners will be able to work with Internet service providers to send a series of warning notices to persons who are engaged in file sharing that infringes copyright. If an Internet account holder ignores these warnings and continues to infringe then copyright owners will be able to take a claim to the Copyright Tribunal for an award of up to $15000. Just as important at all stages persons who are accused of illegal file-sharing will have the opportunity to respond to any of the allegations that are made. The regime will be low cost and it will be efficient for all parties. There is also scope in this bill to bring into force an additional enforcement measure: the suspension of an Internet account by the District Court if the notice and Copyright Tribunal processes do not provide an effective deterrent against illegal file-sharing. 
These new enforcement measures provide important legal protection for our creative industries and the incentives for them to continue to create music film software and other works that New Zealand consumers enjoy. The new measures are fair and balanced and will do a great deal to educate Internet users about the rights of copyright owners and the issues relating to the sharing of copyright works via the Internet. 
On behalf of Simon Power the Minister of Commerce I thank everyone who has contributed to this bill and the policy process that led to it including members of the Commerce Committee parliamentary counsel officials members of the public and industry representatives who have participated in the various submissions and the policy development process. 
It is the Minister’s hope that through the constructive discussions that have been had across the House and through a very thorough public consultation process this bill will provide an enduring solution to a very difficult problem. At core this bill is about a balance of private property rights and the freedoms that people enjoy on the Internet. It provides an appropriate balance. I am very pleased to commend this bill for a third reading in this House.
Vote: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18118] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Ardern Jacinda: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18115] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I appreciate the chance to take a very short call on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. This call is directed at the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment. I would like his response to a particular issue. I have been following some of the social media traffic in relation to the bill—and people are keenly watching the debate in the House tonight—and I am seeing two pieces of feedback coming through. The first is there seems to be an adverse reaction to the Minister’s references to Dave Dobbyn and the second is about an incredibly important point and that is the definition of “file sharing” within the bill. 
Simon Bridges 
: They don’t sing “Loyal” in the Labour Party at the moment. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: The member may jest but I have an important point to raise. Originally in the bill the definition of “file sharing” stated: “ ‘file sharing’ is where material—(a) is downloaded from the Internet; or (b) is made available on the Internet by a user in a form in which the material may be downloaded by 1 or more other users; or (c) is transferred directly or indirectly via the Internet from one user to another user”. That was the original definition of “file sharing”. Under that definition everyone who has ever used the Internet probably by default falls under the definition of having shared files. 
But we do of course have a new definition. After reading the InternetNZ submission I have to say the new definition of “file sharing” is very similar—other than the omission of the word “protocol”—to the original suggestion from InternetNZ: “file sharing is where—(a) material is uploaded via or downloaded from the Internet using an application or network that enables the simultaneous sharing of material between multiple users; and (b) uploading and downloading may but need not occur at the same time”. As I say it is a very similar definition to that worked through by InternetNZ—with some caveats and some trepidation I have to say. InternetNZ was of the view that more work needed to be done on this area but I imagine that for the sake of expediency InternetNZ made a recommendation during its submission. 
I would like to request the Minister given that  
Hansard 
 will be used as a record going forward in the way that this bill is applied in practical terms to give the Committee his view of the definition of “file sharing” how he sees that definition being applied once this legislation is enacted and becomes law. For instance does he believe that it includes an attachment to an email? How far does his view of this definition go? I think clarification from the Minister would be helpful for this debate. I am not going to give my interpretation because of course as a Government Minister his definition on record in  
Hansard 
 will be much more important going forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s contribution on that issue.
Vote: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18101] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Bill read a second time.
Davis Kelvin: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Davis Kelvin: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18082] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 This call will be short but I will respond to Michael Woodhouse who said that the research covers 15 to 19-year-olds. I think a new title for the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill could be the “Come Down Hard on the 15-year-olds but Sacrifice the 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds to the Wolves Bill”. If National members were true to their evidence base and research they would not have cut out the 15-year-olds and said they should be protected because as Michael Woodhouse stated the research covers 15 to 19-year-olds. I wonder what National members have against 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds. Surely those young people deserve the same protections that National members say 15-year-olds will enjoy under the legislation. To me it seems really rich that National members will die in a ditch for 15-year-olds but will sacrifice 16 to 19-year-olds on the roads of New Zealand. 
When Labour comes out with sensible legislation that protects people it is called nanny State but when National does it we hear from the Minister that the Government is being pragmatic. The bill is called pragmatic legislation. I think “pragmatic” and “nanny State” are synonyms; they will be found under the same heading in the thesaurus. If National members want to call this daddy State legislation pragmatic then we will call it what it really is—koro State legislation. 
The issue of the age of 15 is the low-hanging fruit. It was so easy for National members to say: “We did not want to risk a really big public backlash by saying that young people cannot get their licence until they are 19 so instead we will make it look as though we will make a really big difference by targeting just 15-year-olds who cannot vote yet. We will not make them upset. But if we make it harder for 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds to get their licences then oops they may not vote for us.” They will see nanny State in action and they will remember it come 26 November. That is what the National Government has done. It has picked the low-hanging fruit. It has targeted 15-year-olds. National members do not care what happens to 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds who are also targeted in the research. It is really sad that National’s values flip-flop and chop and change depending on which way the polls blow. Kia ora. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 226 and 229 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18054] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments (with the exception of the amendment to clause 12) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 in his name to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18063] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 229 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to clause 97 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Hughes Gareth: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Gareth: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18043] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. I acknowledge the debate we have had in the Committee on this important bill the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We have talked about the good: the alcohol interlocks and the common-sense changes. We have talked about the missing: the change to 0.5 in the blood-alcohol level. 
Missing from this debate and missing from the Safer Journeys document is the single most effective thing we could do to reduce the road toll in New Zealand: take cars off the road. It is simply to give motorists an alternative—a real alternative—to driving. I am talking about better buses better trains walking and safer cycling. With petrol at $2.19 a litre at the moment which is the most expensive it has been in New Zealand’s history I asked the Minister of Finance what the plan was. I asked whether the Government was even planning to start planning to reduce our dependency on oil. I got a no. The Minister said that Kiwis are smart they have alternatives and they will respond to those market signals and find the alternatives. 
I ask the Minister of Transport what Safer Journeys did and what his Government is doing to give Kiwi motorists realistic alternatives. I am seeing regional railways potentially closing across the country. I am seeing the railway station closing in Wellington. I am seeing $10.7 billion spent— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I remind the member that this debate is not about railways; it is quite specific. When we are in the Committee stage we must focus on Part 1 and not extend beyond it. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I guess I was bringing in the broader transport context because the most effective thing we could do is take cars off the road. 
I will read briefly from our submission to Safer Journeys which mentioned what we should be doing to make our roads safer—which is not in Part 1 of this bill. We endorsed the lowering of the speed limits. We would increase the adoption of lower speed limits in urban arterials and we would increase the effectiveness of speed limits. In our submission on Safer Journeys we talked about cycling and the need for the 1.5m To Survive campaign to support it. 
In a nutshell this bill has a whole bunch of common-sense parts to it but it misses in terms of the 0.5 blood-alcohol limit. It misses the whole point about the most effective thing we can do to save motorists’ lives to save the 400 to 600 people who potentially die every year in New Zealand as a result of air transport pollution and—as we read about in the  
Dominion Post  
last week pretty tragically—to help the impact on premature births from living near motorways. We need to be doing more.
Woodhouse Michael: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18060] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bridges Simon: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18059] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Henare Tau: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18057] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18054] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 73 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Chadwick Steve: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18053] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to question your acceptance of the closure motion but Part 1 is an enormous part in the bill and we had several members still standing to take a call. Part 2 is very small— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear the member. The voting process has already started and I cannot change that. We have spent an hour and 52 minutes on Part 1 and everybody who was going for the call was given a call. The voting is now in process and we will continue with it. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 12.
Bridges Simon: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18053] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Ross Jami-Lee: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ross Jami-Lee: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18050] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18044] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I will rise and take just a short call; there are a couple of things I omitted to do earlier. One was to thank and acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne who has had a bill on raising the driving age in this House for a couple of years now. He of course has indicated his support for these measures. I would also like to acknowledge the support of the majority of the ACT Party members. Surprisingly I found myself on the same side as the Greens at least until Mr Hughes gave his second speech and then things sort of diverted once again. 
I thought I would raise an issue of consistency for the Labour Opposition. On Thursday 15 April 2010 the Labour leader told the New Zealand Press Association that his party’s 43 MPs would back the law change to lift the driving age from 15 to 16. That is quite interesting. What we are seeing today is possibly a bit of a revolt against the leader’s direction in that regard. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Table the document! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Mr Jones can check the New Zealand Press Association story by all means. I suppose my comment to Opposition members because they have been flipping and flopping around on this issue—at least some of them have; we are not sure what the leader still thinks—is that perhaps they might like to make up their minds and join the evidence-based solution before they get a chance to vote on this part. They have to be aware that their leader said he would support it so if they vote against it or vote in favour of their own Supplementary Order Paper then I suppose it has to qualify as a little bit of a slap in the face for the leader and a bit of a revolution. I suppose that is a judgment for the senior members of the House to make and it is fair enough that they should do that. I think they probably need to make a careful decision about this Supplementary Order Paper before they dive in. Thank you.
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18053] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to.
Blue Jackie: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18062] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Some of us have not yet debated Part 2. We had the closure of Part 1 which was a significantly long part. Some of us have been trying to use the opportunity to take a call on Part 2. I urge your reconsideration of accepting the closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I do not put closure motions lightly. The member ought to be aware of that. I have listened to a significant number of speeches that had very little to do with Part 2. I have made the decision that the Committee is ready to move on and I will test that decision by putting the closure motion. If members are opposed to the closure motion they should vote against it.
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Quinn Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:18026] 
11. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What progress has been made on implementing the Youth Guarantee? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Heaps—heaps! We have done a number of things including extending the number of wider Youth Guarantee places to 4000 well beyond what was announced in the last Budget. Recently I announced the next step in the Youth Guarantee which is to develop vocational pathways which will allow students who are at risk of dropping out of the school system clear career and learning options. Those vocational pathways will cover five broad industry sectors: manufacturing and technology construction and infrastructure primary industries social and community services and service industries. Schools tertiary providers and trades academies will be able to offer those pathways from next year providing clear ways to further tertiary education apprenticeship and work for young people. 
Paul Quinn 
: What feedback has she had on the vocational pathways? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The support has been very positive. The Industry Training Federation has said: “By developing a broad range of vocational pathways young people will not be pigeon-holed into a future job but gain skills that usefully lead to a career in particular industries. It is a brilliant use of the NCEA that does not require major change to the system but redefines how that system can be used more successfully.” Business New Zealand has said: “It is essential that the business community tertiary providers and schools work together to define these pathways to achieve the most productive results.” Delegates at the recent Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand conference were also very responsive.
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Curran Clare: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:18025] 
10. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Transport? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Absolutely. 
Clare Curran 
: What account has he seen of the economic benefit to New Zealand of increasing skilled employment and reducing unemployment in relation to the tender process for deciding which company will win the $500 million bid for the fleet of 38 electric multiple units for Auckland? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not seen that report. 
Clare Curran 
: Is he aware that a KiwiRail board decision is imminent on deciding the successful bidder for Auckland’s electric multiple units? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I am not and that would be an operational matter for KiwiRail’s board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he been informed of or received any report on Sammy Wong’s 6-year relationship with Chinese rail companies? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he received any reports formal or informal that make him aware that Sammy Wong is the subject of an ongoing Audit Office investigation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess that in so far as the Prime Minister has seen any reports he can answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was informally advised some weeks ago that the Audit Office was going to have a look at Sammy Wong. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is he prepared to work with the Minister of Transport to instruct the KiwiRail board not to proceed with the letting of any tender to a Chinese company until the Audit Office investigation of Sammy Wong is concluded? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That would be an operational matter for the KiwiRail board—whom it purchases trains from. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter to the office of the Auditor-General from my colleague Pete Hodgson that was sent to the Auditor-General on the invitation of the Prime Minister on 15 December last year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the reply of the Assistant Auditor-General Legal to that letter. It refers to a meeting that was held on it and indicates that an inquiry is under way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:18019] 
6. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all Ministers involved in the MediaWorks frequency payment arrangement? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes as I do with regard to the other eight transactions that were entered into on the deferred payment schedule. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of his answer yesterday that he had not read Deloitte’s report is it his practice to grant $43 million loans without reading the paperwork? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was not the Minister responsible for the loan. I make the point that the paperwork from Deloitte that the member is talking about was issued in May 2009. Cabinet considered the matter in October. The proposition we considered then was vastly different from the proposition that Deloitte reported on in May. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who approved his answers to parliamentary written questions No. 2043 (2011) and No. 2044 (2011) in which he denied discussing the issue with any MediaWorks senior manager when in fact he had discussed it with Brent Impey the chief executive? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I did and I corrected the answer as soon as I became aware of the issue. I would not describe our conversation as a meeting which was the basis of most of the questions. Very brief informal discussions took place as Brent Impey said yesterday. The conversation was a couple of quick sentences. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Following that discussion which he forgot when answering the questions did he refer the matter to Mr Steven Joyce? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot remember the exact details but there were discussions in Cabinet as the position worsened for all of the companies.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:18017] 
3. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What powers do the New Zealand Police have to protect the economic interests of New Zealanders in our exclusive economic zone? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The police who are operationally independent under section 16 of the Policing Act deal with operational matters on a case by case basis and exercise their discretion as appropriate. The police’s ability to act is found in a variety of legislation. In particular the Policing Act 2008 outlines the roles and functions of police and they include keeping the peace maintaining public safety law enforcement and crime prevention. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: What powers do the police have in respect of the protesters who at the weekend threw themselves in front of the Petrobras exploration vessel forcing it to veer off course to avoid endangering them? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: In a general sense it is understood that enforcement jurisdiction on the sea is covered by customary international law the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and New Zealand domestic law. Applicable New Zealand legislation includes the Crimes Act the Summary Offences Act the Maritime Transport Act the Maritime Crimes Act the Maritime Security Act the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Act and the Continental Shelf Act. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: What is the point of the police serving notices on the protesters to stay at least 250 metres from the bow and the stern of the Petrobras exploration vessel if the police are not prepared to enforce that order? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Commissioner of Police and the police act independently of the Government as they should do. I believe that they have full powers under the Acts I have just listed to take action should they wish to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:18016] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Thank you—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Labour front bench—[ 
Interruption 
] That just let them off the hook. [ 
Interruption 
] Senior members should know better than that. I heard two members use totally unparliamentary language. I will not do anything about it on this occasion because of the responses from the other side. But the House will come to order. It may not have liked my rulings but I am satisfied that I have ruled appropriately.
Young Jonathan: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Young Jonathan: Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18126] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to continue the discussion and debate on the third reading of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. The issue is very interesting. Essentially three parties are involved—copyright holders those people who utilise what they produce and in the middle Internet service providers who are the medium through which the files are shared. 
In July 2008 20 percent of Europeans used file-sharing networks to obtain music and 10 percent used paid-for digital music services such as iTunes. So we can understand why musicians are particularly concerned about and interested in the passage of the bill. If we look at those figures in Europe we see that two out of three downloads were through file sharing whereby there was no payment to or acknowledgment of the owner of the music. I remember Moana Mackey making a comment during the Committee stage that I found very interesting. Her comment was about working to find a compromise between the personal property rights of a creative person who constructs a piece of art writes some music or makes a movie and the rights of people who own a computer to access information and content on the Internet. We should be looking for a compromise. 
There is a very logical compromise which I am sure everybody in the House supports and which the bill is about and it is called a financial transaction. If somebody wants to download something from the Internet that belongs to somebody else if they engage in a financial transaction—value for value—then the person who downloads the song and listens to it or watches the movie receives value from it and they reciprocate value back to the producer whether the producer is a company or an individual. That transaction is broadly acknowledged as being both honest and fair. The bill is about balancing the rights of people by doing what is honest and fair by people. 
Our Government wants to see the economic and financial growth not only of industry manufacturers and exporters but also of our creative people entrepreneurs designers and innovators. We want to see those people acknowledged and advantaged by their skill. We want the nation to be aspirational. If we allow people to rip off others take away what they have created and give back no value then we are undermining the aspirations of this country and undermining those people who use their intellect creativity— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Joyce Steven: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18028] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I need to inform the Committee that I am withdrawing the amendment to clause 12 on Supplementary Order Paper 226 and the items relating to the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule 1999 to allow these same provisions proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 229 to proceed.
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:18013] 
1. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the performance of the Public Service? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today Treasury released a report benchmarking the back-office costs of 33 State sector agencies which showed that in many instances the costs of functions like property management human resources financial management and information and communications technology are higher than international benchmarks or higher than those of other agencies. The report concludes that Government departments could save more than $230 million a year through greater sharing standardisation and automation of administrative functions. These are savings that we would be keen to see Government departments get on and make so that we can improve front-line public services. 
David Bennett 
: How will the report change the way that the Public Service operates? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think it will change it in a couple of ways. One is just transparency. The Government is not taking particular action as a result of this exercise but is simply publishing the results so that everyone can see agency by agency what the costs are. Secondly it will be the responsibility of chief executives to implement any changes that they see fit. It is important that they own the savings they make and move those savings to front-line services. 
David Bennett 
: Why is it necessary to find these savings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the reason that there is potential for up to a quarter of a billion dollars of savings is that between 2005 and 2009 Government spending increased by about 50 percent which is twice the rate of economic growth. There is a lot of scope in the public sector to bring those costs back in line after a decade of extravagance. 
David Bennett 
: What progress has the Government made in improving front-line services? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are so many ways we can improve front-line services that it is hard to know where to start. One way that is published regularly in the newspapers is the quarterly reports on district health board performance across a range of health services from emergency department waiting-times through to cancer treatment waiting-times. In addition to that the Government has for instance lifted the number of front-line police and that seems to be having some impact on the crime rate. There are a number of other ways that the Government is improving front-line services. We are not giving up; even if money is tight we will continue to improve front-line services.
Barker Rick: Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Second Reading 
Barker Rick: Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18012] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 When people reflect on the progress of human history and look at the important elements of it they usually start with philosophers like Plato and Socrates. They look at the great mathematicians like Archimedes and Euclid and also they think about the great physicists poets and composers. No one puts on their list an accountant. But the fact is that the Dutchman who devised double entry accounting probably has had more influence on our lives than any of the others who went before. 
We are all subject to having sets of accounts and the tyranny of accrual accounting. This place is run on accrual accounting and every Government establishment is run on accrual accounting. 
Jonathan Young 
: Did you say “cruel”? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It can be cruel accounting. One of the great reforms of the 1980s was putting the Government books on to accrual accounting. Reforms have flowed from that. People did it at the time to ensure that the Government’s books were accurate. People need to be able to rely upon the figures and to make judgments from them. 
We have seen some terrible examples around the world of where figures have sadly proven inaccurate. I draw members’ attention to for example WorldCom a massive company that collapsed into a shower of nothing and Enron. Other major accountancy companies have suffered as a consequence such as Arthur Andersen LLP. We have seen the global financial crisis where banks have melted down and people have lost millions and we have seen finance companies in New Zealand going crash—all because the accounting systems were inadequate. The numbers that they represented proved not to be the reality. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Lee Melissa: Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Second Reading 
Lee Melissa: Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18011] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I commend the member opposite my dear friend Rajen for his considered contribution to this debate. Considering that he does not sit on the Commerce Committee I like to think that either he studied the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill or he had really good speaking notes. That is unlike the speech his colleague Stuart Nash delivered for the Opposition. Until his last sentence it looked like Labour had a fan club for the Hon Simon Power. He did so well until the last sentence. I commend him for his positive contribution recognising the wonderful work that our Ministers are doing. 
This bill is about licensing regimes for major audits of the likes of banks insurance companies and companies listed on the stock exchange. I will give an example that is non - accounting-related. One of the reasons the Auckland councils amalgamated was to provide standards across the whole city and to have a vision for the whole region rather than those things being replicated over so many councils across the Auckland region. This bill provides that standard for accounting just like the Auckland Council is doing for the city. 
This bill recognises the fact that with the advent of the financial market failures audits of companies that manage substantial investments from the public must be performed by people who are the best at what they do meaning the top echelons of people. It is to protect the moneys of the public. It is to restore confidence in finance companies—confidence that was lost by the mums and pas of New Zealand who had invested a lot of money. With the advent of the financial market failures they lost a lot of money. This bill is part of what the Government is doing to restore that confidence. It is a great bill. I commend it to the House.
Young Jonathan: Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Second Reading 
Young Jonathan: Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18009] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand in support of the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill and I am pleased to hear members on the other side of the House likewise doing so. I must admit that Mr Nash’s speech improved until he came to the last couple of sentences. The first half of his speech of course was full of what is now becoming a predictable knocking of some of our hard-working Ministers. 
The reason this bill is very important is simply that trading which is what this is all about requires an accurate quantifying of weights and measures and our auditors are our measurers. It is incredibly important that what they do is accurate transparent robust and independent and this bill will ensure that. As the previous speaker and other speakers have alluded to I think that the numbers of financial companies who have experienced demise at the tremendous expense of New Zealand investors were not strongly serviced by a robust auditing regime. This bill will ensure that in terms of our future we are robust. 
It is very important to understand that the $4 billion to $6 billion that has been lost out of our economy has been lost by people who tremendously relied upon it such as the many people who have entered retirement. It is very important to understand that in this nation in the next 20 years more of those people will be in retirement. In fact our retirement numbers will double. It is imperative that we have financial systems in place that will never ever allow what has happened to happen again. Our future depends on a robustness of transparency and accountability and it depends upon the ability to have internationalisation of standards because so many of our opportunities are global. It is important to realise that currently six people are supporting one elderly person but in a very short time there will be just three people providing that support. Therefore having a robust financial system and having strong capital markets will be incredibly important. It is not just a matter of increasing taxation to care for our increasing ageing population. We need to have an incredibly robust economy that is growing strongly and this Government is focusing strongly on that in order to have the wealth in our nation to enable young and old to experience the lifestyle they aspire to. 
I am very happy to support this bill as are other members of the House. The Commerce Committee has worked incredibly hard over this last year. We have worked through a whole suite of legislation that will bring stronger and more robust support to our economy. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Katene Rahui: Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Second Reading 
Katene Rahui: Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:18005] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Thank you for this opportunity to speak at the second reading of the Auditor Regulation and External Reporting Bill. This bill strengthens the regulation of practitioners who carry out audits of issuers. It will require the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants to regulate auditors as a specialist profession rather than as chartered accountants. It also provides for the Financial Markets Authority to be responsible for auditor oversight in monitoring and reporting on the adequacy and effectiveness of the institute’s regulatory systems. This should assist to promote in respect of issuer audits quality expertise and integrity in the profession of auditors and to promote the recognition of the professional status of New Zealand auditors in overseas jurisdictions. 
We note that a report by the Registrar of Companies identified that audit failure was a contributing factor in the finance company collapses. Without putting too fine a point on it this whole issue of financial company collapse is of particular concern to us in the south—and to my constituents of Te Tai Tonga. I have spoken out about the concerns we in the Maori Party have with South Canterbury Finance falling into such a position to result in a massive Government bailout funding that could have been much better spent on reducing poverty. I have challenged the board and management of the company—the people who caused the mess—to take ownership and work towards creating solutions. But I am also ready to note the widespread issues of ownership and responsibility that we must consider around the finance company collapses—including as this legislation highlights the role of the auditor. 
Auditor quality is a core element of financial market confidence and by logical association a core element in restoring investor confidence. It is essential that the practitioners who carry out financial sector audits have the necessary skills and experience to carry out the work to a high standard. So we are of course supportive of the need to have the means by which to report on the adequacy and effectiveness of those systems and to take action in respect of those systems that are inadequate or ineffective. The bill is consistent with the party’s emphasis on improving the performance of Government bodies and professional bodies. It also assists to restore the confidence of New Zealand investors in securities. We will support this bill at its second reading.
Henare Tau: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:18066] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tolley Anne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Tolley Anne: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17997] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Before I start I congratulate you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson on your elevation. It is nice to have you back in the Chair. I move  
That the Government Administration Committeeconsider the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
 and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 July 2011. 
Motion agreed to.