edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Ngati Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6675. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise the House before I call the next speaker that the Green Party has given its 5-minute call to the honourable member Hone Harawira.
Roche Denise: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6656. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill. It is a timely attempt to rein in the rapacious activities of casinos that profit from the proceeds of crime. Casinos are the beneficiaries of theft fraud and money-laundering. They are not necessarily good corporate citizens and Mr Joyce’s comments in the House during question time that the Greens were trying to stop Skycity in Auckland from building a convention centre were disingenuous to say the least. He implies that we the people of Auckland should be grateful for the casino’s largesse that Skycity Casino is a good and worthy business and completely forgets that the cost that comes with this national convention centre deal is more crime more problem gambling and more social harm and that this is what will come from the extra 300 to 500 pokie machines that the casino is demanding in exchange. 
This bill is an attempt to reduce the crime level associated with casinos by ensuring that they can no longer help the criminals. Currently there are no disincentives for a casino to do that. There are only incentives. For example in 2006 in a period of 6 months one member of a criminal drug ring gambled over $11 million—classic money-laundering—and from that exercise the casino kept $1.5 million in profit. In 2010 Herminia Lanuza was jailed for 4 years for theft. She withdrew $2.7 million from banks and ATMs around the Auckland Casino and lost the lot and it is interesting that it is the bank that is being sued for passing her fraudulent cheques. Christopher Sue was jailed for 4 years in 2008. He had a turnover of $50 million at the casino over 6 years. How do you think the casino knew that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
DENISE ROCHE 
: Sorry sir. How does one know that? The casino knew that because it tracked the money. Richard Watson stole $5.5 million from his employer over 10 years. These are just a few examples. 
In 2008 the BDO Kendalls  
Not-for-profit Fraud Survey  
found that 53 percent of all the money stolen from charities was stolen to fund gambling activity. This survey by the way was of only those people who had been caught. It calculated that the average amount stolen from community organisations was $180000 per person. That is a huge amount for a charity to lose and they cannot afford to lose it especially as they are quite correctly held to account for the public funds and donations that they receive and spend. Charities lose money to gambling. Small and medium sized businesses lose money to fuel gambling activity. These employers are good employers. They provide employment and they pay tax. 
Debate interrupted.
Robertson H V Ross: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6641. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Charles Chauvel.
Vote: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6633. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
Roy Eric: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roy Eric: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6630. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is the member calling? 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I am calling Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I did not hear you.
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6625. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Roche Denise: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6625. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to rise for the dinner break early.
Vote: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6624. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 23 
Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Tisch Lindsay: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6621. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired. The next call is a split call so I am calling Raymond Huo for 5 minutes.
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson H V Ross: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6601. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member’s time has expired. The time for this debate has expired. Can I just remind members that when they are interjecting on each other across the House and they do not have the call it is not permitted. You can interject on the speaker by all means but members interjecting on each other without having the floor—they do not have the floor—are not permitted to do so. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Foss Craig: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Foss Craig: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6589. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer to a supplementary question from Mr Hipkins. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I inadvertently answered one of Mr Hipkins’ questions incorrectly. It was one about compensation for someone who may have suffered penalty because of their missed mortgage payment. I apologise to the House. I misheard the question. I interpreted it in a different way. In fact the Ministry of Education has consistently made it clear that it would reimburse any staff member who has been financially disadvantaged by the transition to Novopay such as incurring penalties on a missed payment. Thank you.
Roche Denise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6586. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill 
: How will her Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill benefit the victims of crime? 
METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 I have read many reports over a number of years of community organisations and small businesses in particular being driven to the wall by the theft of huge amounts of money by problem gamblers who lose it at a casino. By including casinos in the Act and imposing on them the same obligation that others have to return the proceeds of crime these community groups and small businesses could look forward to having some of that stolen money returned to them. 
Denise Roche 
: What groups are particularly vulnerable to gambling-related crime? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: In 2008 the BDO Kendalls  
Not-for-profit Fraud Survey 
 found that 53 percent of all the money stolen from charities was stolen to fund gambling activity—some $180000 per person and that is just for those cases that were known. The real rate of theft from charities is much higher and many of those caught gambling with stolen— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member has answered sufficiently. Really the supplementary question was barely within the Standing Orders. The member has responsibility for only her bill not for other matters. I could have ruled the question out. I have given the member a chance to answer it but really it is not within the Standing Orders. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question is in relation to the bill and its relationship to the issues for victims— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Standing Orders provide for the member to be asked only details about her bill not her opinion on other matters to do with crime or the proceeds of crime. It must relate to only the detail of her bill.
Roche Denise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6586. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill 
: What is the purpose of her Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill? 
METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The purpose of the bill is to apply the civil forfeiture regime to casinos. Steven Joyce was wrong today to suggest that the legislation already applies. It does not. My bill will amend the definition of “unlawfully benefiting from significant criminal activity” to include casinos that knowingly and having regard to best international practice in detecting problem gambling and criminal activity derive a benefit from significant criminal activity. 
Denise Roche 
: Why did she write the amendment bill? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Casinos are widely known to profit from money-laundering and theft caused by gambling addiction. Private individuals are not entitled to retain profits from criminal activity and neither should casinos. This bill will encourage casinos to implement the best possible practices to protect against problem gambling and money-laundering and better protect small businesses and individuals from gambling-driven crime.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: How many New Zealanders have applied for a passport online since the launch of the Online Passport Renewal Service? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The Department of Internal Affairs has received 2182 online renewals in the first 10 days of the service. Online renewals in the last week have made up around 16 percent of total adult renewals. Twenty-six thousand people have checked their eligibility to apply online indicating that many people plan to apply in the near future. This is very encouraging at this early stage and I am confident that the numbers will continue to grow. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What are the benefits to New Zealanders of applying online rather than with a paper-based form? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Passport fees have been lowered and are lowest for an online renewal to encourage people to use this online service. The costs have been reduced by almost 20 percent for an online application. The turn-round with online services is also faster and although it can take up to 10 days it has averaged just 3 working days to date. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What reports has he received on New Zealanders’ satisfaction with the service? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I have received several reports including a number of comments saying the online service was very easy to use and made ordering a passport cheaper and a lot more convenient. One customer wrote saying he applied on a Saturday evening and got an email at 10 a.m. the following Tuesday saying the passport had been sent. This is great feedback and I am confident that New Zealanders are getting better public services from the Passports Office.
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fenton Darien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Acting Minister of Labour 
: When will he begin the process of consulting on the minimum wage for 2013? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Next week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I had not even called the Minister but his answer is very prompt. Such efficiency. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the Government plan to change the consultation process and the criteria that are used for determining the minimum wage; if so how? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government is looking at ways of streamlining consultation. Consultation is not a quantitative thing; it is a qualitative thing. The essence is to do the job properly and I am as an enthusiastic Acting Minister of Labour looking at all options. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will the principles of fairness income distribution worker protection and work incentives be removed as criteria for determining the minimum wage for New Zealand’s lowest-paid workers? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I said I am looking at improving the qualitative assessment and at this stage where there are matters going to Cabinet I am not prepared to get into that level of detail. 
Darien Fenton 
: If these criteria are cut back and submission processes also curtailed will there not be fewer and lower minimum wage increases in the future? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well as I said the member is dwelling in the realms of the hypothetical. I am looking at improving consultation— 
Grant Robertson 
: Where does that member dwell? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I dwell in the land of high emotional intelligence. I am most grateful too to the  
New Zealand Herald  
for those kind comments. I am looking at all those issues. The aim is to do the job right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well there you have it.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6584. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What steps has the Government taken to protect communities from high-risk offenders? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 In August global positioning system (GPS) monitoring was introduced for high-risk child sex offenders on extended supervision orders and for offenders on parole with special conditions relating to their whereabouts. There are currently 25 high-risk offenders being monitored by GPS and dependent on judicial outcomes nearly 50 offenders could be monitored by GPS by the end of the year. This technology provides real-time monitoring of these high-risk offenders allowing the department to know immediately if one strays into an exclusion zone such as a park a playground or a school so that quick action can be taken. The offenders are monitored 24 hours a day 7 days a week. This technology is significantly improving the safety of the public and ensuring that offenders comply with the conditions of their sentence. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How could GPS be used in the future to improve prisoner rehabilitation? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: From next month the Department of Corrections plans to start trialling the use of GPS to monitor prisoners on the Release to Work programme. To reduce reoffending by 25 percent we do need to have more prisoners engaged in that Release to Work programme and GPS will allow the Department of Corrections to do this by providing a greater ability to monitor the prisoners whilst they are outside the prison.
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6580. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the honourable member. I say to National Party members the noise is not reasonable. I cannot hear the question. Let that person who has not missed a call at some stage cast the first stone. We have all done it. I call the Hon David Cunliffe. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear this question.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6580. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker. To the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —Minister for Economic Development: is he satisfied that the policy—[ 
Interruption 
]
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6580. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 7 the Hon David Cunliffe. Question No. 7 the Hon David Cunliffe.
Sabin Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sabin Mike: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6580. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What further announcements has she made on the Children’s Teams part of the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Today we have announced that the second children’s team will be rolled out in Whangarei. We have chosen Whangarei for the second team because like Rotorua the community both needs it and is ready for it. Work will start straight away with the community of Whangarei to bring the children’s team together. 
Mike Sabin 
: How will these children’s teams bring together those professionals working closely with vulnerable children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The children who are at risk of abuse or neglect need professionals who bring their expertise to the table and work in a coordinated manner putting the child at the centre of all decision making. I have just had a public meeting at lunchtime today on the white paper and there was someone there from Strengthening Families. She said that collaboration is one of the hardest things you can do but actually is one of the most effective for working with vulnerable children. 
Mike Sabin 
: How will the children’s teams work to better protect children in each community? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I said before these teams take this to the next level of child protection. They are working closely with Child Youth and Family but most important I think they are also working with those children who are at most serious risk of maltreatment and getting in early so that we do not see them getting hurt or being put in danger.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6589. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer to a supplementary question from Mr Hipkins. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I inadvertently answered one of Mr Hipkins’ questions incorrectly. It was one about compensation for someone who may have suffered penalty because of their missed mortgage payment. I apologise to the House. I misheard the question. I interpreted it in a different way. In fact the Ministry of Education has consistently made it clear that it would reimburse any staff member who has been financially disadvantaged by the transition to Novopay such as incurring penalties on a missed payment. Thank you.
Vote: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6567. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 23 
Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 98 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Logie Jan: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Logie Jan: Identity Information Confirmation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6565. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I would now like just to take this chance to address some of the responses to our Supplementary Order Paper 148 where the Minister in the chair justified this and said it could not be used in effect to hide discrimination because it was optional and people would have the ability to opt out of it. My concern is that discrimination happens primarily to marginalised groups. Marginalised groups are the least likely to be able to stand up and step out of what is seen as the standard pathway because of the fear of discrimination on the basis of doing just that. On that basis I really do not believe that the opt-out clause in this bill is going to protect those people. 
We have also heard from my colleague Trevor Mallard saying “Well it is an offence already. Discrimination is an offence already. This is not going to make a difference.” Well my point is that employers currently have to ask questions to find out that information and you can use those questions as evidence in taking a case of discrimination. This bill will mean those employers will not have to ask those questions and you will have no evidence that you have been discriminated against. 
I would just like to draw the Committee’s attention to how prevalent age discrimination is. The research from 2006 from the Auckland business group at the university showed that 25-year-old workers were six to 12 times more likely to be short-listed for a low-demand position than a 55-year-old-plus worker. That is six to 12 times. This is a really significant issue in our society and this bill has the potential to hide that discrimination. I do not think that is good enough. 
When Mr Mallard also said—taking an issue that is incredibly dear to my heart protecting victims of sexual abuse—“Well we have had this evidence of a school teacher going from school to school and changing identity.” I am not going to say that that is not an issue. I do not believe this legislation is the appropriate response to that issue. What this legislation does is take away a kind of simple way of carrying on abuse when nobody has taken any action. The appropriate response to sexual abuse being done by teachers in schools is to act on that abuse and to take that to the courts not to set up an alternative system that is going to undermine people’s human rights and rights to privacy. This bill does not protect fundamental human rights and I believe that the older people in New Zealand and people born outside of New Zealand deserve our care and our protection in the employment market.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6546. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for allowing me to participate in this debate on Part 3 of the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. This part deals with very important issues where we have defined what sort of penalties are in place if somebody plays with the information held within the system. We just heard from my good friend Chris Auchinvole about his personal experience of how his information was sold to an overseas company. This part defines that if an individual or a corporate sells or plays with the information that is being held they will get severe penalties. As multiple Government agencies exchange information it is critical to ensure that the fundamentals of this proposal are absolutely right. 
My colleagues and I in the Government Administration Committee have considered the bill and have suggested amendments to the bill that we believe will enhance the legislation. Members of the committee have recommended the application of higher penalties to organisations. The present version of the bill has suggested penalties for individuals and organisations that misuse the services. However the committee considered that the penalties currently being applied to the individuals as well as to organisations are unlikely to restrict organisations from misusing the services. So for instance if an organisation hacks into the service database the maximum penalty is a fine. The view of the committee is that it is unlikely to stop organisations with malicious intentions. 
The Government Administration Committee has recommended the imposition of fines that are likely to have severe financial repercussions on those organisations and that could deter them from misuse and says that these should be applied. The committee also recommended that a specific time period be inserted into the legislation that prescribes the length of time electronic identity credentials photographs records of usage history status information and technical codes are retained after their cancellation revocation or expiry of data. 
Before I conclude I would like to thank the officials for their help during the select committee process. I hope this will be a bill that will help to safeguard the database we have in electronic form.
Tisch Lindsay: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now come to the debate on Part 2 and schedule 1.
Macindoe Tim: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.
O'Rourke Denis: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6528. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 I will comment only briefly on Part 1 of the Electronic Identity Verification Bill. I note that it is intended to regulate the operation of the Electronic Identity Verification Service to give individuals using the internet the option of using a secure channel to verify their identities and to access services from approved Government and non-Government agencies. 
I myself like I guess thousands—probably tens of thousands—of New Zealanders use the igovt service. I find that it is a service that is secure very efficient very usable and a good means of doing business on the internet which of course does need to be secure and also needs to protect the privacy of individuals. That is the sort of service that we need in the country to be extended to other agencies and that is in fact what the bill does and intends to do. It is therefore one that New Zealand First enthusiastically supports. It is the way of the world these days and it is what is expected of the Government by the public. 
 The provisions of the bill will expand the service to all members of the public and will allow more agencies to use the service to identify their clients. As I have already indicated I think privacy is an extremely important aspect of this and one that I believe with the safeguards that have been provided in the bill is well catered for in the way that this bill has been put together. The Privacy Commissioner also of course has an appropriate role. 
Later I will have some comments to make on some aspects of that—in particular some comments to make later about penalties but that can wait until I think Part 3 of the bill. For the time being I wish to record New Zealand First’s overall support for the bill—indeed enthusiastic support for the bill—which is one that will be applauded by most members of the public especially those who use the internet a lot.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Electronic Identity Verification Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6526. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 First of all I would like to congratulate the House and wish it a happy Diwali. Today is the actual day of Diwali which we also celebrated last week in Parliament. The Sikhs celebrate today’s date as Bandi Chhor Divas so I wish all the Indians all over New Zealand a happy Diwali. 
I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Government Administration Committee the Hon Ruth Dyson and other members of the committee who have worked during the select committee process. The purpose of this bill the Electronic Identity Verification Bill as we have shared in the second reading is to simplify and enhance service to ordinary New Zealanders. The bill will endeavour to do so by simplifying the interaction that an individual has with Government agencies. 
The bill seeks to ensure that participating agencies achieve a higher degree of confidence in the individual’s identity. This confidence is to be achieved by providing New Zealanders with the option of verifying their identity electronically. The bill provides the necessary legislative parameters for the igovt Electronic Identity Verification Service which provides easier and more secure access to online Government services. 
Once fully implemented the service will be able to be used by all New Zealanders for a wide range of online transactions offered by the Government and private sector agencies. Using igovt will allow people to avoid repeatedly having to provide physical documents to multiple agencies in order to use online services. Currently for these kinds of interactions agencies usually require people to provide several documents as evidence of their identity but the bill ensures that the process is much easier while still having appropriate control and a safeguard. The Government is committed to providing people with the facilities for this modern age and I hope this bill will be a step further. Thank you.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6524. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6524. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6524. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6524. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 136 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to.
Chauvel Charles: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6519. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 When the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act was originally passed it made one or two significant changes to the way in which the legal profession was run in New Zealand. First of all it recognised and conferred particular recognition on a class of practitioners who were not lawyers but who were registered conveyancers—people who had gained some expertise in the art of conveying property and in satisfying the legal requirements in New Zealand that would be required in such circumstances. The policy background here was to introduce some competition into the system so that the virtual monopoly that had been enjoyed by lawyers previously on this important type of work might be interrupted and prices might come down. 
The lawyers and conveyancers legislation went further. It allowed law firms and firms of conveyancers to do something that had not been permitted previously. Previously there had been a requirement that these entities operate only as partnerships and that they not be able to limit their collective liabilities. Basically every act or deed done by one of these firms would be something that would result in liability for every partner in the firm and would not be able to be contracted out of. The legislation allowed for the incorporation of these entities. It sought to preserve the liability regime that I have described but basically looked at ways to make them more bankable for want of a better way of describing it. 
 There are a couple of sensible machinery amendments in Part 2 of this legislation that are consequent on those changes. They relate to the position of the estates the wills and the trusts of those who have become involved in conveyancing law firms that are incorporated as a trustee of a trust in which each beneficiary is a relative of one or more of the trustees and each trustee is a conveyancing practitioner in the case of the registered practitioners or is a lawyer actively involved in the provision of the body corporate of regulated services. They are sensible changes. There are also changes to the disciplinary regime that applies to lawyers. Applications for a review by the legal complaints review officer of a particular decision or action of a standards committee will have to be lodged within a 30-day working period commencing on the day after a copy or notice of the decision or action is brought to the applicant’s attention. We have always said that we support these amendments. They are sensible. It is just a shame that although we will be voting for this part because of the provisions that are contained in Part 1 to which we take strong exception we will be voting against the bill as a whole. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 136 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6519. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6519. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to.
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6518. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Charles Chauvel to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to delete clause 4(b); 
to replace the title of section 119C in clause 6 with “Royal prerogative power and appointments under section 119 unaffected except as provided for by this section”; and 
to insert after section 119C(2) in clause 6: 
(3)When a candidate is to be considered for appointment to the office of Queen’s Counsel whether under the royal prerogative or otherwise the requirements of the Lawyers and Conveyancers’ Act (Lawyers: Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel) Regulations 2008 and any guidelines issued under regulation 5 of those regulations shall continue in effect with necessary modifications until amended replaced or revoked by a further Act of Parliament.
Blue Jackie: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Blue Jackie: Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6512. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the Committee stage of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. I was not part of the select committee that listened to the submissions the Justice and Electoral Committee. In fact I think there were about six submissions and the select committee listened to the debate—the pros and the cons. Essentially Part 1 restores the title of Queen’s Counsel. That seems to be one that has been welcomed by the profession. I took the time to go to the Bar Association’s submission. It summarises and quite clearly states that “The Bar Association supports the intentions of this bill because it restores the historical status of the rank of Queen’s Counsel in New Zealand.” The interesting thing is that the New Zealand Law Society made the comment that the changes were largely policy-based in that the revert back to Senior Counsel had been policy-based and ideological and not a response to any call for pressing change. That was very interesting I thought. 
I think it is important that the select committee did listen. It listened very carefully to the debate—the pros and the cons. Part 1 specifies in new sections 118 to 119C the reinstatement to Queen’s Counsel which certainly does provide a recognition of seniority of a certain standing of practice in this country. It also allows for independence of that practitioner. I think that new sections 118 to 119C specify quite clearly the position of a barrister sole the eligibility criteria and so forth. I think this is not a retrograde step. This is one that is going to restore the profession’s standing in the eyes of the public and that can only be a good thing. Thank you.
Tolley Anne: Urgent Debates Declined — Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tolley Anne: Urgent Debates Declined — Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6504. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On behalf of the member who left the House he left before you had even enunciated what the letter was about so he would have had no idea as to what was going to be put before you.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6504. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can assure the honourable member I have been in touch with no one—no member of this House or any staff member of any member of this House—in respect of this application. Well I cannot speak for any—but I would be very surprised if anyone in my office had. I understand the member’s concern but I can absolutely assure him that I certainly have not and I would not think any member of my office has.
Chauvel Charles: Urgent Debates Declined — Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Urgent Debates Declined — Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6503. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask you to investigate whether or not the confidentiality and security of your decisions as to rulings on these matters has in any way been compromised. The reason I ask that and I am doing it sincerely is that almost the moment you got up Mr Speaker the responsible Minister the Minister for Climate Change Issues left the Chamber—well before you gave your decision. I think all of us who expect that these matters will be awaited in terms of your rulings ought to stay in the Chamber and wait for those rulings when it is a matter that concerns their portfolio unless they have by some means come to prior knowledge of those rulings. I would hate that to have been the case here.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal 
[Sitting date: 13 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6503. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the decision of the Government not to sign up to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. The release of the Government’s decision is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House though is a high one. The business of the House should not be set aside just because a ministerial announcement has been made even though it may be important. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. As the authentication for the application notes further decisions are required. Cabinet will set a formal target for New Zealand’s future emissions track through to 2020 once the final rules on crucial technical issues including access to international carbon markets are known. I do not think I would be justified in giving priority to this particular decision over other business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.