edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tolley Anne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9106] 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the  
Wise Up 
 newsletter from Mr Mallard which contains spelling mistakes that show the need for national standards in New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of the document? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is from the Labour Party website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just recently I would not put leave to table a document in the House from a common blog site and I do not see why I should change my view. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Just to assist you I say that the newsletter that the Minister refers to is a publication. It may appear on a website but it is a publication in its own right. The Opposition is quite relaxed about her tabling it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought then to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peachey Allan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9105] 
8. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps will the Government take to reduce red tape for creches in gyms and shopping malls? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This year we will introduce an amendment to the Education Act to remove the requirement for creches in shopping malls and gyms to comply with the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations. We know that parents expect short-term childcare centres at shopping malls and gyms to provide a babysitting service rather than an education and this Government trusts parents to make good decisions for their children. 
Allan Peachey 
: What will these changes mean? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: When the Education Act is amended services in gyms and shopping malls that fit the criteria will no longer have to comply with the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations. The criteria are that no child attends for more than 2 hours a day and that a parent or caregiver is on hand and is able to resume responsibility for a child at short notice. Centres can still choose to become licensed if that is what they want.
Sharples Pita: Ministerial Statements — Fiji - New Zealand Relationship—Recent Developments 
Sharples Pita: Ministerial Statements — Fiji - New Zealand Relationship—Recent Developments 
[Volume:660;Page:9089] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
:  
Tena koe kai te Rangatira te Kaiwhakawa o te Whare nei. Tena tatau e huihui mai nei i tenei rangi. Ana i tae tureiti mai au kaore i rongo atu ki te kaupapa e haere nei engari i te whakarongo atu. Kai te mohio kai hea te iwi Maori e tu ana. Na reira kare matou e mohio ana ka tu tenei kaupapa hai pou herenga korero mo tatau i tenei rangi erangi kei konei nga whakaaro o to matau pati nei. Kei te tautoko matou kia whakaarahia ake ano te huarahi kia taea e tatau te korero ki a ratau o Hiti kia korero i nga korero kia nohotahi kia kimihia he huarahi kia noho ataahua kia noho pai ai nga iwi whanui o Hiti. Na reira tenei matau o te Pati Maori nei e tautoko ana tena kaupapa. 
Kai a matou hoki te tono o nga iwi Maori kia haere ratau ki reira korero ai. Kai reira e tarewa tonu tena kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te Kawanatanga. Kai te reri nga manakura o nga iwi Maori ki te haere ki reira ki te korero tahi ki a ratau hoki nga tangata i reira. Engari ka tika tena korero kai te pai ki a matau kia whakaarahia anotia kia whakaturia anotia nga korero kia kimihia te huarahi kia noho ataahua kia noho pai ai nga tangata o Hiti. Hoki au ki tena whakatauki nui a te iwi Maori “He aha te mea nui o nga mea katoa? Maku e ki atu he tangata he tangata he tangata”. Kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker of this House and to us all assembled here today. Now because of my late arrival I did not hear the speeches as the matter before us progressed but I was listening. I am aware of Maoridom’s position on this matter as well. Therefore while we were unaware that this matter would be the subject of debate for us today here are the views of our party. We support the move to set up a process again that will enable us to dialogue with those of Fiji to talk the talk to live as one and to seek a way that will see the people at large of Fiji living harmoniously and well with each other. So we of the Maori Party support that strategy.  
We have the request from Maori tribes as well for them to go there and dialogue with them. That request is currently before the Government. Maori tribal leaders are ready to go there and dialogue with the people of Fiji. But we are comfortable with that statement about seeking a way to enable dialogue to resume so that the people of Fiji can live harmoniously and well with each other. I go back to that great aphorism of the Maori people “What is the greatest thing of all things? I will say it is mankind mankind mankind”. Greetings to us all. 
]
Roy Heather: Ministerial Statements — Fiji - New Zealand Relationship—Recent Developments 
Roy Heather: Ministerial Statements — Fiji - New Zealand Relationship—Recent Developments 
[Volume:660;Page:9089] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party is also supportive of the ministerial statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. ACT supports the recent developments and finds it very encouraging that talks have been re-established and that a head of mission is being re-established. 
The return to democracy in Fiji is absolutely crucial and the way in which we go about that as a country is very important. Not having a head of mission is certainly not productive; in fact it is counter-productive. The proposal to have a trade commissioner in Fiji is also a step in the right direction and a productive move. 
Isolation is not the answer to Fiji’s problems. It is certainly not a path that the ACT Party believes that New Zealand should go down. So the recent developments in re-establishing talks are certainly very encouraging. We should remember that Governments can do all sorts of things but that the people who suffer the most as a result of those decisions are the Fijian people themselves. We should be very mindful of the fact that the economy suffers and the people themselves suffer when dialogue ceases. 
New Zealand has a very long history with Fiji and that too should not be forgotten when we look at the Fijian situation at present. New Zealand of course at one stage had an air force base in Fiji. We have long served in UN missions with the Fijians and of course we have a long history also of fighting side by side with Fijian troops particularly in world wars. 
Relationships are crucial. We must keep the dialogue open to negotiate the challenges that the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke of and we look forward to seeing further progress in this light. Thank you.
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Fiji - New Zealand Relationship—Recent Developments 
Locke Keith: Ministerial Statements — Fiji - New Zealand Relationship—Recent Developments 
[Volume:660;Page:9088] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We support the reopening of the New Zealand High Commission in Fiji and we favour dialogue but we say that this dialogue should be not just with the military regime but with all sections of the Fijian community. It should not be seen as a sign that somehow things are getting better in Fiji because they are not. Unfortunately the longer the military regime stays in power the more it gets used to being in charge to throwing its weight around and to abusing the rights of its citizens so I do not see that this re-establishment of relations is in any way an accommodation to the regime. 
In fact just recently on 30 December three magistrates in Fiji were sacked. This sacking follows on from the decision made in July last year to get rid of the Chief Magistrate Ajmal Khan and another magistrate. The judiciary is being seriously undermined. There have also been continuing attacks on the media which have got worse recently particularly with the changes to the sedition laws that enable people to be prosecuted and imprisoned for what they write even on blog sites on the Internet. Even Fijian citizens living outside the country who return to Fiji can be subject to these new sedition laws. 
The sedition laws also allow publications websites and all kinds of things to be closed down by the regime. Opposition voices are being suppressed. Just recently the Government said it had the right to effectively cancel the pensions of dissident voices in the community. I think even General Rabuka was affected by that action. 
We need dialogue not only from New Zealand but together with the Pacific Islands Forum the European Union the United Nations etc. all combining to put pressure on the regime to return the country to democracy and to democratic elections. Sanctions are part of this dialogue—although of course they have to be finely targeted in order to affect members of the regimes. It is good that over the last couple of years we have not had cases of Scouts who want to come here being affected and things like that. The sanctions should be focused on the members of the regime not necessarily on their families. If we combine with the international community we can make some progress. Thank you.
Urgency 
Urgency 
[Volume:660;Page:9112] 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill the Judicial Matters Bill and the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill the interrupted first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill the second reading of the Inquiries Bill and the first readings of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill and the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. 
This is quite a large body of work. I know that the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill will be vigorously debated in the House. It is the Government’s wish to see this bill passed. We believe we have support for that and that must be tested in Parliament. But the reason for advancing it this week is that Parliament is about to go into a 2-week adjournment. That would mean that if we do not pass the bill in this block of time those who are responsible for its enactment would be under far too great a pressure for it to be effective on 1 April. Although ensuring there is such pressure might be the objective of the Opposition it is certainly not the objective of the Government. 
The Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill essentially brings in new corrective arrangements for young people. It is highly popular among the population in New Zealand and people are eagerly expecting it to be enacted as quickly as possible. 
The Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill needs to go through all of its stages so that those responsible for administering student loans at this very important time of the year have a degree of clarity about how that should occur. 
The interrupted debate on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is one that should be completed in order that the bill gets to a select committee before we go into that long adjournment. This bill was taken over by the Government from Mr Simon Bridges and it deals with dreadful instances of extreme animal cruelty like those that have occurred in recent times. 
The other bills need to be progressed in order for them to make sufficient progress on the Order Paper for their passing in due time. 
For those reasons the Government seeks urgency in this case. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to.
Urgent Debates Declined — Environment Canterbury Report on Performance—Establishment of Ministerial Committee 
Urgent Debates Declined — Environment Canterbury Report on Performance—Establishment of Ministerial Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9109] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Environment Canterbury Report on Performance—Establishment of Ministerial Committee 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Shane Jones seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision to establish a committee of Ministers to consider the recommendations to the Government in the report entitled  
Investigation of the Performance of Environment Canterbury under the Resource Management Act and Local Government Act 
. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and involves the administrative responsibility of the Government. The report has been received and a committee of Ministers has been established to consider the report’s recommendations. However the Government has not yet formed a view on the major changes proposed in the report. Although on occasions the release of a report may warrant an urgent debate the circumstances must be exceptional. Although the issue is an important one the time to consider this report’s recommendations will be when decisions on them are made and any necessary legislation comes before the House. In these circumstances I do not believe that setting aside the House’s business for an urgent debate today can be justified. The application is therefore declined.
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goudie Sandra: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9102] 
6. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received about serious attacks on New Zealand Police officers over the last few days? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 It is very distressing that three of our police officers have been subjected to serious attacks while doing their job to protect the public. I have personally visited two of the officers to offer my support and shortly will be visiting the third officer. Two of the officers are now recovering from their injuries at home while Constable John Connelly of Tuakau has been undergoing surgery to insert a metal plate in his head and to wire up his jaw. These officers have shown extraordinary bravery in the face of brutal attacks. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What information does she have on the number of assaults on police officers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Sadly over the past decade there has been a growing culture of disrespect towards the police which is shown by the rise in serious assaults on them from 216 in the year 1999 to 412 last year. Last year there also was a total of 2481 assaults generally on police. It is appalling that officers are being viciously attacked while they are protecting the public. 
Jonathan Young 
: What action is being considered by the Government in response to these attacks? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Back at Christmas I asked the police to provide their advice on any action that can be taken to reduce serious assaults on our officers. One option may be to increase the deterrent effect and demonstrate society’s disgust at these crimes by putting serious assaults on police on the list of “three strike” offences. However it is important to point out that offending against law enforcement officers has long been taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing under the law. This Government would prefer that our officers do not face any sort of attack. They have our full support to rebuild respect for the law. We will also consider any other suggestions they may have to improve their safety on the front line. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will any legislative or policy changes in relation to attacks on police officers also be extended to other front-line service workers such as prison guards ambulance officers Fire Service staff doctors nurses and teachers who also face violence in the course of their duties? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That would certainly be something we could consider but I think it is important to note that the police and corrections officers already have a special situation in relation to the law and assaults on them and that is because they are our front-line law enforcement officers.
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Fiji - New Zealand Relationship—Recent Developments 
Dunne Peter: Ministerial Statements — Fiji - New Zealand Relationship—Recent Developments 
[Volume:660;Page:9090] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I join with others who have expressed general support for the position that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has outlined in respect of New Zealand’s developing relations with Fiji. Clearly the position since 2006 has developed into a stalemate. We cannot go on with frequent mutual expulsion of high commissioners and diplomatic representatives and expect that that of itself will lead to progress so I welcome the initiative that the Minister has indicated in the House today. 
I also want to pick up what I thought was the thrust of comments made by the previous speaker Dr Pita Sharples in terms of the people-to-people relationship. One of the difficulties in this issue as it has unfolded over the last 3 years particularly listening to some of the Fijian communities in New Zealand is that there was not a great deal of love for the regime that preceded the current regime. The level of democracy apparent in Fiji was not in fact all that real and there were significant issues relating to corruption and other activities that people felt that the new regime—the interim regime—was at least attempting to resolve. 
It seems to me that in terms of the pathway forward the rather cautious approach that the Minister has outlined is correct. It will allow time for some of those matters to be discussed and debated and for solutions to be arrived at that derive from the Fijian people but are not imposed on them from outside. So I acknowledge my support certainly for the steps that the Minister has taken; I think that they are prudent. I think that the discussions with his Australian colleague are also timely and prudent. 
It may well be that if there is a discussion with the commodore in Hong Kong in the next month or so in the vein that the Minister has described then that will also lead to more progress. I think this initiative is a good step forward.
Carter Chris: Ministerial Statements — Fiji - New Zealand Relationship—Recent Developments 
Carter Chris: Ministerial Statements — Fiji - New Zealand Relationship—Recent Developments 
[Volume:660;Page:9088] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 The New Zealand Labour Party supports the Government’s efforts to strengthen the diplomatic capacity of our Suva mission and to use diplomatic channels to try to make progress on the outstanding political issues involving Fiji New Zealand the Pacific Islands Forum and the Commonwealth. The links between the people of New Zealand and Fiji are strong. They are based on geographic proximity a shared Commonwealth history and strong people-to-people links particularly of the large number of New Zealanders who were born in or who have family in Fiji. The Labour Party wants to resolve the problems that followed the overthrow of democracy and its replacement by a military regime. We support dialogue that seeks to achieve that objective. However dialogue between New Zealand and Fiji must be a two-way process. 
Issues of concern in relation to Fiji have become worse over the last 2 years. To summarise there is no clear timetable or commitment to restore the right of Fiji’s people to elect their own Government in place of the current military regime. There has been direct interference by the administration in the independence of Fiji’s judiciary. There has been continuing censorship of the media. There are overt restrictions on people’s freedom of speech. There have been arbitrary arrests killings and beatings of people in police cells as reported recently by Human Rights Watch Amnesty International and other respected non-governmental organisations. Labour believes that if sanctions are to be lifted then these issues will need to be addressed and responded to positively by the current regime in Fiji. 
Concessions made by New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Forum cannot send the message to the wider Pacific region that the overthrow of a democratically elected Government by force does not have serious consequences. Should the Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully meet Commodore Bainimarama in Hong Kong in March we believe that he will need to give a strong message that a clear pathway towards the restoration of genuine democracy in Fiji is fundamental to improving relations between our two countries. 
Labour strongly desires the restoration of a positive relationship with Fiji and engaging in dialogue is important in achieving that. Success in achieving it however requires a positive response from the interim Fiji administration.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9072] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9072] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Question agreed to.
Blue Jackie: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Blue Jackie: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9063] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the second reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. The Government needed to bring this bill to the House because of a serious concern about the financial sustainability of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). National would like to thank the ACT Party for agreeing to support the bill through all its stages and the Maori Party for getting the bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
There has been a growing gap between ACC’s assets and liabilities. ACC’s 2008-09 annual report stated a loss of $4.8 billion on top of a $2.4 billion loss for the year before and it shows that the accident compensation scheme is currently financially unstable. ACC’s liabilities have grown from $9.4 billion to $24 billion in just 4 years. Its liabilities now stand at $13 billion more than its assets—the equivalent of more than $3000 for every New Zealander. The Government could not stand back and do nothing. We could not stand back in denial and think that everything was fine. That was unacceptable. Indeed ACC chairman John Judge stated that if this trend was allowed to continue the scheme’s very existence could be under threat. Under the current law one option would have been to hike up all levies. However it was the view of the Government that would be too hard for New Zealanders. It was clear that accident compensation could not continue in this way and that there had to be changes and strategies to tackle the huge increases in claims costs from greater claim numbers deteriorating rehabilitation rates and unfunded scheme extensions. 
This bill is about securing a financially sustainable 24/7 no-fault accident insurance scheme for New Zealand. There are a number of amendments that have been made to help accident compensation get back on a more sustainable path. These amendments will also make the scheme affordable sustainable and fair. Importantly none of these changes will apply to current claimants or their entitlements. We are looking to the future. However disentitlements for criminals will be retrospective. On the recommendation of the committee entitlements for dependents of offenders are more clearly defined. Other changes to the bill include pushing out the full funding date from 2014 to 2019; reversing 2008 income compensation extensions covering casuals part-timers and non-earners; abatements for holiday pay; reversing vocational rehabilitation changes; a 6 percent hearing-loss threshold; reversing entitlements for wilfully self-inflicted injury and suicide; strengthening disentitlements for criminals; allowing safety incentives for employers and vehicles; and financial reporting. This Government is acting in a responsible manner to ensure that New Zealanders have a sustainable 24/7 no-fault accident insurance scheme. I commend this bill to the House.
Peachey Allan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peachey Allan: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9061] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I have some questions for Labour and for the next Labour speaker to answer. These are questions that so far in this debate neither Labour nor the Green Party have addressed. Why does Labour not want to save the accident compensation scheme? Is it because accident compensation was a National Government creation? Is that the reason? Or is the only explanation that Labour’s mismanagement of accident compensation for the last 9 years is an example of its lack of commitment to a sustainable accident compensation scheme? What are the answers to those questions? I shall listen to the next Labour speaker with interest. 
Why does Labour not want accident compensation to be financially sustainable? Why does Labour not want to make accident compensation more affordable for current and future generations of New Zealanders? The Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill which the House is currently debating makes a number of sensible changes that are necessary if accident compensation is to be saved. I will repeat my first question. Why does Labour not want to save accident compensation? Why is the Green Party part of that conspiracy? Do Labour members opposite and their Green counterpart not understand that the Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC’s) annual report showed a $4.8 billion loss in the 2008-09 year? That was on top of a $2.4 billion loss in the previous year. 
What is it about the word “sustainable” that Labour and Green members do not understand? Does the Labour Party not care that the accident compensation scheme’s liabilities have grown from $9.4 billion to $24 billion in just 4 years? Liabilities have grown from $9.4 billion to $24 billion in just 4 years. Do Labour members not care that the scheme’s liabilities now stand at $13 billion more than its assets? Do Labour members not care that the scheme’s debt is the equivalent of $3000 for every New Zealander? The reality is that the Labour Party and its Green friends are in denial about the changes contained within this bill which are required to secure a financially sustainable 24/7 no-fault accident compensation scheme for New Zealand. I await the answers to those questions.
Wong Pansy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wong Pansy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9052] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I withdraw the statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister accused the other side of a cover-up I think she should probably withdraw and apologise for that and I ask the Hon Pansy Wong to do so. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I am happy to do that but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will resume her seat. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I apologise and withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is piling sin on sin here. When I ask members to stand withdraw and apologise they do just that and nothing else. I am deadly serious about it. I now ask the Hon Pansy Wong to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Let us have one standard for all. When all those members call out about me making things up— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is very lucky I am choosing to ignore that.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9051] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that points of order are meant to be raised at the time when an event has happened but it has only just been brought to my attention that during question No. 10 the Minister of Women’s Affairs said that she or the Government had not instructed a cover-up like Labour had done. Obviously we take deep exception to the idea that our party or any party in Government orders a cover-up. If we are going to be able to question this Minister and put down proper questions we do not want these kinds of replies from her. It is a question of integrity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member’s point. I must confess that I did not hear that comment in the Minister’s answer. As the concern has been raised the only thing I can do is ask the Minister whether she said that.
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kaye Nikki: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9050] 
11. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What progress has been made for Youth Parliament 2010? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 The planning is coming together for this year’s Youth Parliament. It will be the fifth one since the event began in 1994 and it will involve the talents of 122 Youth MPs and 10 budding press journalists who will work in select committees and debate in this very Chamber. Selections are now open and I encourage young people to get hold of their local MPs. 
Nikki Kaye 
: How will this year’s Youth Parliament differ from those of previous years? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It will be value for money. In 2007 this event cost taxpayers nearly $430000. In 2010 it will cost $110000 which is a quarter of the previous Youth Parliament budget.
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dean Jacqui: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9047] 
9. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What steps is the Government taking to improve the efficiency of processing resource consents? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Government is introducing financial incentives for councils to process resource consents in a more timely way. The policy will work by requiring councils to discount their Resource Management Act fees when they breach the statutory timelines and by increasing the discount in relation to how late the consent is. Today the Government released drafts of the incentives and the rules of the policy so we can consult local government businesses and others so that the regulations can be in place on 1 July. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Is the Minister aware of the huge frustration for thousands of New Zealanders who get penalised if they pay their rates late but have to put up with councils completely ignoring statutory timeframes on their resource consent applications? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I acknowledge that there is huge frustration and a high cost to the New Zealand economy from inefficient resource consent processes. I note that in 2000 21 percent of consents were late or required extensions and this figure got progressively worse until 2008 when 59 percent of consents were taking longer than the statutory 20 working days. I am confident that this policy change will reverse this trend and get resource consents processed more efficiently. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: In relation to the call-in decision recently announced over the Mackenzie Country agricultural project how does he believe that consent allocation process will be efficient given that the organisation designed to deal with call-in has not been fully developed or revealed to the public? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Environmental Protection Authority was established as part of the first phase of the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms. The Environmental Protection Authority is perfectly able to function and to deal with the management of boards of inquiry and to deal with national consenting. I am very confident that when consents go through the national process they will not take as long as they did—in some cases over a decade—during the term of the previous Government.
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bridges Simon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9044] 
7. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What steps is the Government taking to curb animal cruelty offences? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 This afternoon a major step will be taken with the first reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This legislation builds on the very good work by the member asking the question Simon Bridges and will substantially strengthen the penalties for animal welfare offences. It sends a clear message that animal cruelty is unacceptable and complements the other animal welfare initiatives that this Government has under way. 
Simon Bridges 
: What are some of the specific measures in the bill aimed at reducing animal cruelty? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The bill is significantly wider than the original member’s bill. Its key measures include substantial increases in maximum sentences for animal welfare offences the creation of an entirely new animal welfare offence of “reckless ill-treatment” the toughening of a number of measures around the forfeiture of animals and the ability to disqualify people from owning animals. I would certainly hope that all parties in the House support this legislation to the select committee this afternoon. 
Sue Kedgley 
: When he says that all acts of animal cruelty are unacceptable does he consider institutional acts of cruelty to animals to be unacceptable such as the practice of keeping pigs and hens in cages or only individual acts of cruelty which are covered in this bill? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: As I have explained to that member on numerous occasions both inside this House and outside this House the issue of farming methods is covered by animal welfare codes and they are developed under the Act by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.
Hughes Darren: Business of the House 
Hughes Darren: Business of the House 
[Volume:660;Page:9035] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Business Committee also agreed for a new process around members’ bills being drawn from the ballot; I know the Leader of the House sought leave for that process yesterday. If that leave had been sought on Tuesday night we could have had a ballot in order to assist with next Wednesday’s members’ day for which there are not very many items on the Order Paper. The Leader of the House may be thinking that urgency might be needed so as to use that day as a Government day because there is not enough work for a members’ day. However the Opposition would be happy if he wanted to seek leave to have a special ballot called next week and for any bills that were drawn for a first reading to be set down for the next members’ day next Wednesday so it can be a members’ day and enough bills will be available to debate. We would have no problem if he wanted to do that.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:660;Page:9035] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week it is the Government’s intention to complete the remaining stages of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill and make progress on other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday 24 February is currently set down as a members’ day. As agreed at the Business Committee Gareth Hughes will make his maiden statement on that day at approximately 5.45 p.m.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the House 
[Volume:660;Page:9035] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is a very generous offer. I think it is a wise offer and on that basis I seek leave of the House for there to be a ballot for the members’ day—a one-off incident because we will get back into a normal cycle—next Tuesday so bills might be available for next Wednesday although I understand there is enough on the Order Paper for there to be a full members’ day on Wednesday. I thank the member and I seek that leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Delahunty Catherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:9040] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou katoa—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member—[ 
Interruption 
] The Hon Annette King knows better and she and the Hon Chris Finlayson will please cease the debate they are having across the front of the House because I want to hear Catherine Delahunty—and I am sure members of the House do too.
King Colin: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading 
King Colin: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:9085] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. In doing so I must first of all congratulate my colleague Simon Bridges the MP for Tauranga; the Hon David Carter the Minister of Agriculture; and of course the National-led Government on doing something meaningful after a period of 10 years on the issue of animal welfare. 
We have heard a range of debate and I am delighted to see the agreement here around the House. Although we do have agreement I venture to say that if we were to decide on animal welfare at the extremes of the situation we would find that our views would be considerably divided. I make that point because when we look at animals we see that we have different regimes of treatment. I was just thinking that many of us would have a cat inside the house and we would not like to have our cat outside the house. Some of us have our dogs inside the house; others would not have their dogs in the house. 
I have also heard today that judges are the problem but I am of the view that this bill improves the law. The problem has not been entirely with judges. The problem has been in what somebody taking a prosecution faced in that a very high threshold had to be met. That high threshold meant that going for a prosecution often meant the prosecutor failed. So for the very point of being able to get a conviction prosecutors settled for the lesser of the penalties—that is for the ill-treatment of animals as an offence. That often made things look very very distorted. In principle the threshold to show there was wilful ill-treatment of animals was set too high. So to get a conviction at any level there was an attempt to go for the penalty for the ill-treatment of animals which was a lot less serious. The penalties were not progressive enough and on that basis this bill is very very clever; it introduces another category: the category of reckless ill-treatment. I believe that that is very important and something that should not be overlooked. I am sure that as we go through this bill in the select committee and as we consider submissions there will be situations that take issue with that. 
Debate interrupted.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:660;Page:9035] 
Thursday 18 February 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week it is the Government’s intention to complete the remaining stages of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill and make progress on other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday 24 February is currently set down as a members’ day. As agreed at the Business Committee Gareth Hughes will make his maiden statement on that day at approximately 5.45 p.m. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Business Committee also agreed for a new process around members’ bills being drawn from the ballot; I know the Leader of the House sought leave for that process yesterday. If that leave had been sought on Tuesday night we could have had a ballot in order to assist with next Wednesday’s members’ day for which there are not very many items on the Order Paper. The Leader of the House may be thinking that urgency might be needed so as to use that day as a Government day because there is not enough work for a members’ day. However the Opposition would be happy if he wanted to seek leave to have a special ballot called next week and for any bills that were drawn for a first reading to be set down for the next members’ day next Wednesday so it can be a members’ day and enough bills will be available to debate. We would have no problem if he wanted to do that. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is a very generous offer. I think it is a wise offer and on that basis I seek leave of the House for there to be a ballot for the members’ day—a one-off incident because we will get back into a normal cycle—next Tuesday so bills might be available for next Wednesday although I understand there is enough on the Order Paper for there to be a full members’ day on Wednesday. I thank the member and I seek that leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9032] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9031] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9031] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9030] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to.Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 4A are ruled out of order as having impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates and the amendments were not lodged within the 24-hour deadline—Standing Order 320(1). 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lynne Pillay to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(2) Section 208 is amended by repealing paragraph (g) and substituting the following new paragraph: 
“(g) the principle that— 
“(i)in the determination of measures for dealing with offending by children or young persons consideration should be given to the interests and views of any victims of the offending (for example by encouraging the victims to participate in the processes under this Part for dealing with offending); and 
“(ii)any measures should have proper regard for the interests of any victims of the offending and the impact of the offending on them:”. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lynne Pillay be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
9ANew section 269A inserted 
The following section is inserted after section 269: 
“269A Chief executive to ascertain whether victims wish to be informed of progress in implementing decisions recommendations and plans 
“(1) This section applies to any action or steps to be taken or completed by the child or young person in respect of whom a family group conference was convened— 
“(a) under any decision recommendation or plan made or formulated by the family group conference and to which agreement is obtained under section 263; and 
“(b) by way of penalty or reparation for an offence. 
“(2) The chief executive must take reasonable steps— 
“(a) to ascertain whether the victim of the offence wishes to be notified of the child’s or young person’s progress in taking that action or completing those steps; and 
“(b) if so to ensure that the victim of the offence is notified from time to time of that progress. 
“(3) The chief executive’s duty under subsection (2) 
must be performed by another person if that other person— 
“(a) was nominated for the purpose by the family group conference; and 
“(b) has agreed to perform that duty.” 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) from subclause (2);  
to omit subsections (1A) and (1B) from subclause (2); and 
to omit subsection (2A) from subclause (2).
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9030] 
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 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit subclauses (1)(a) and (b); 
to omit from subclause (1)(c) “a child or”; and 
to omit subclause (2).
Blue Jackie: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9030] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
McClay Todd: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
McClay Todd: Children Young Persons and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:660;Page:9028] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.