edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hipkins ChrisPOINTS OF ORDEROral Questions—Obligation to AnswerCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: On a different matter?CHRIS HIPKINS: It is a very different matter. I was not aware that you were going to be ruling on the other matter but I want to raise with you an issue regarding a Minister's obligation to answer questions—the public interest test obligation that exists within Speakers' rulings for Ministers in answering questions. The relevant Speaker's ruling—I had it here a minute ago but I have been flicking around looking at the other Speakers' rulings that you have been referring to—Hon Member: You've lost it.CHRIS HIPKINS: —and I have lost it but actually I have found it again sorry. Speaker's ruling 193/3 a ruling by Speaker Wilson lists down some of the matters that could be considered in a Minister refusing to answer a question in the public interest. It is things such as privacy commercial sensitivity or national security" which sets a reasonably high bar for a Minister refusing to answer a question in the public interest.The question that I want you to give some consideration to Mr Speaker and possibly come back to the House with a further answer to because it does actually cut to the heart of ministerial accountability is whether the Government's communications calendar is a sufficient test of the public interest in refusing to answer.The illustration I will give you is the questions my colleague Jacinda Ardern asked of the Minister for Social Development yesterday about the creation of a Ministry for Vulnerable Children. The Minister said that no such decisions had been made and that she was jumping the gun to raise the matter. The Minister then announced that very thing today. That can only have happened if the decisions had earlier been taken unless there was an emergency Cabinet meeting last night to do so. Therefore the only justification for her not answering the question yesterday could have been the public interest test. I would put it to you that if Ministers can put forward inconvenience around their communications calendar as a public interest test then they could avoid answering almost any question in the House."
SpeechMr SPEAKER: That is exactly what I am saying. I am saying that those two Speakers' rulings once you look at them would indicate that former Speakers have made a decision that a matter cannot be debated simply because a breach of privilege has been lodged. When I studied the background of them they were not an attempt to stop the matter being raised in further questions. Frankly a member could lodge a breach of privilege and maybe not inform his own caucus colleagues or other members of an Opposition. How would anybody know that a breach of privilege has been lodged? So questions can continue to be asked but I do remind members of my final comment. If they continue to ask questions I think in some cases it tends to weaken the case for a breach of privilege ruling finally being made.
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I thank you for your first detailed ruling. On that second issue that has just been raised I wanted to test with you the issue of members continuing to question a Minister on an issue that they have raised a privilege complaint with you about. The issue could well be that they feel the House has been misled for example and they have raised a breach of privilege complaint with you. They could continue to question the Minister on that topic without referring to the fact that they have made a breach of privilege complaint. The complaint would still be valid based on the facts at the time the complaint was made even if Ministers then give other answers that subsequently contradict it. I just want to be sure that the lodging of a breach of privilege complaint would not then prevent a member continuing to question a Minister on the same topic.
SpeechMr SPEAKER: I will deal with the second point first. I cannot explain why the letter was not received by the Prime Minister's office until after question time. That would be a matter for a discussion with the member who has lodged such a letter with me. The letter was received by me just prior to question time on the 17th—I think from memory at 12.47. I certainly did not have a chance to look at that letter prior to question time.In reference to Speaker's ruling 220/6 I think the other one that is also relevant is Speaker's ruling 220/5. On the face of it—on the face of the reading of those two Speakers' rulings—I think Mr Brownlee makes a very reasonable interpretation of those two rulings but I have spent considerable time looking back as to the reason and the background for those two Speakers' rulings. Speaker's ruling 220/5 was a ruling that was made by Speaker Wall in 1986. On that occasion a member had lodged a breach of privilege with the Speaker and then subsequently that member took the opportunity to attempt to debate it during his debate contribution in the House. Speaker Wall ruled that the mentioning of the breach of privilege was unacceptable and told the member to desist.The second Speaker's ruling Speaker's ruling 220/6 is a ruling made in 2011 by Speaker Smith. On that occasion a breach of privilege had been raised by a Labour member of Parliament. Contemporaneously a colleague of that Labour member of Parliament sought to also place a members' notice of motion on the Order Paper. The Office of the Clerk refused to accept that notice of motion. Consequently Speaker Smith was asked to intervene and did so. Effectively his ruling Speaker's ruling 220/6 ruled that a breach of privilege takes precedence over a members' notice of motion.I do conclude by saying that any subsequent airing of such matters that have been raised by a breach of privilege in the House through question time is unlikely to strengthen the final determination I make in finding that there has been a breach of privilege.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I have an interjection like that again on what is an important matter I will unfortunately be asking that member to leave.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No one would notice. Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the first comment from Mr Brownlee but I suspect it was not helpful to the order of the House. Can the Minister move immediately to his point of order. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I understand that on 17 August—that is Tuesday—probably later in the day the Rt Hon Winston Peters did as you advised him he should in the House and lodged a breach of privilege in relation to this particular matter such was his insistence that he was right and everyone else was wrong. Once that letter of privilege was received by you it should have triggered Speaker's ruling 220/6 which states that [Once] the matter of privilege is before the Speaker then it is inappropriate for it to be raised in the House in any way whatsoever until the Speaker has made the relevant decision on the matter." So the first question I have is: why did the Clerk then allow the question that was repeated on Wednesday and secondly why was the privilege letter not received by the Prime Minister's office until after question time on Wednesday?"
SpeechSPEAKER'S RULINGSOral Questions—Answers Amending Only by Personal ExplanationMr SPEAKER: Yesterday Chris Hipkins raised in the House the issue of Ministers clarifying earlier answers to questions on subsequent days. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has also written to me about this matter. Having considered it very carefully overnight I think they are both absolutely right. An incorrect answer to a question cannot be corrected or modified by way of clarification. I remind members of Speaker's ruling 200/3 A personal explanation can be used about an answer a Minister has given. That is always the way in which a misleading reply is cleared up." Speaker's ruling 200/4 "The normal course of action as soon as one becomes aware of an error in an oral answer is to take the earliest opportunity to explain." and finally Speaker's ruling 200/5 makes it clear that "A correction to an answer can only be taken by personal explanation …". In future an attempt to correct an answer by way of clarification on a subsequent day will not be acceptable and I want to thank the members who have raised this issue with me."
Brownlee Gerry; Hipkins Chris; Carter DavidBUSINESS STATEMENTHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): As notified to the Business Committee when the House resumes on Tuesday 23 August I intend to move that the sitting of the House be extended from 9 a.m. on Wednesday 24 August 2016 for the consideration of the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill the Committee stage of the Judicature Modernisation Bill and the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill and that the House adjourn at 11.30 a.m. for the State luncheon honouring the service of the Rt Hon Lieutenant General Sir Jerry Mateparae as the Governor-General of New Zealand. The Government will also complete the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation Bill and will look to progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday 24 August will be a members' day.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Can I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government would be willing to incorporate Nuk Korako's member's bill into the Statutes Amendment Bill that will be debated next week?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): That is a very interesting suggestion. Of course to do that now would require leave of the House so perhaps he needs to talk to one of his coalition partners.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): Can I ask whether the Government would be willing to support an amendment to that bill which would not require leave but would simply require a majority vote in the House?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The member knows well that you cannot put an amendment to the amendments that are in the bill. It would have to be there in the first place.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I wonder whether the Leader of the House could point to the authority he relies upon when stating that an amendment to a statutes amendment bill cannot be put in the Committee stage.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I will do this very slowly all right? A statutes amendment bill amends statutes. Those amendments are in the Statutes Amendment Bill now and they have been through the process of other parties all agreeing to them. We have now got a proposal from that member over there that what would be an amendment to a bill not currently in the Statutes Amendment Bill should itself be amended—utterly ridiculous. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will now proceed with the balance of proceedings.
Carter DavidTHURSDAY 18 AUGUST 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSKenya—Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on Delegated LegislationMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome members of the Kenyan Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on Delegated Legislation led by the Hon William Cheptumo who are present in the gallery.
Wednesday 17 August 2016 - Volume 716
Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill — In Committee
11. State Housing—Sale of Housing Stock and Ability for Tenants to PurchaseDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister of FinanceState Housing—Sale of Housing Stock and Ability for Tenants to Purchase11. DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that the Government is very proud of the fact that it has sold hundreds of houses to State house tenants. We have seen people in their 50s and 60s enjoy for the first time in their lives the benefit of homeownership"?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. The tenant homeownership programme offers State house tenants the opportunity to buy the house they live in. As at 30 June 2016 over 250 State houses had been sold to tenants. Of the 134 State houses sold in the last 3 financial years 50 percent went to people aged over 40. In fact according to the data I have been presented one 88-year-old New Zealander has bought their State house in the last 3 years.Denis O'Rourke: Were any of the 1124 social houses in Tauranga being sold to Accessible Properties offered first to the tenants; if so how many were sold to people in their 50s and 60s?Hon BILL ENGLISH: All the tenants would have had the opportunity to take up the offer. I must say though that it is difficult for them to achieve ownership in the higher-value markets. We are finding that this scheme is working better in the lower-value provincial markets so it is unlikely in Tauranga that even if a tenant had attempted this they would have been able to achieve it."
9. Pukeahu National War Memorial Park—Progress and Queen Elizabeth II Pukeahu Education CentrePAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for Arts Culture and HeritagePukeahu National War Memorial Park—Progress and Queen Elizabeth II Pukeahu Education Centre9. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage: What announcements has she made about the Government's gift on the occasion of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's 90th birthday?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): Today at Wellington's Pukeahu National War Memorial Park along with the Governor-General the Prime Minister and Minister Brownlee I opened the new Queen Elizabeth II Pukeahu Education Centre named in honour of Her Majesty as a 90th birthday present from New Zealand. The category 1 building which is fully restored to the highest heritage values is now fit for modern purpose and activities for students in its classroom space as well as online research in the specialist research rooms.Paul Foster-Bell: What function will the new education centre serve?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: There have been more than 13000 students who have gone through the education programme in the last year and this new building will vastly increase that number as a place to learn of our experiences of military conflict peacekeeping and commemoration. Today junior students from the neighbouring Mt Cook School are designing their own coats of arms. Auckland's Baradene College of the Sacred Heart students along with French students are exhibiting their countries' shared World War I experiences of military discipline and the treatment of conscientious objectors. Senior Wellington College students are now able to research the stories of further pupils involved in conflicts. Paul Foster-Bell: What other progress has been made on the development of Pukeahu National War Memorial Park?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The Pukeahu National War Memorial Park has been embraced as our premier place for commemoration remembrance and nationhood thanks to the great work of my predecessor the Hon Chris Finlayson. The Government has invited several countries to place memorials within the park. Currently the United Kingdom France the US and Turkey have designed their memorials and Belgium and Canada will be next to ensure that their nations' sacrifices are commemorated at Pukeahu. This Government wants to ensure that Pukeahu provides the best possible visitor experience providing a meaningful place of reflection for all visitors all year round.
5. Climate Change Policy—Paris Agreement and Other Government Measures to AddressSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Climate Change IssuesClimate Change Policy—Paris Agreement and Other Government Measures to Address5. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What announcements has she made about the Government's commitment to the Paris Climate Change Agreement?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Today I am delighted that I have announced that the Government intends to ratify the Paris Agreement by the end of this year which is significantly earlier than originally planned. Beginning ratification confirms our commitment towards our ambitious target of reducing emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. It also supports the strong international momentum that there is to ratify the agreement this year. Because New Zealand is such a small emitter in global terms we must be part of a robust international agreement to get results on climate change. Ratification this year means we are playing our part in achieving that. Scott Simpson: What is the Government already doing to take action on climate change?Hon PAULA BENNETT: New Zealand already has a climate change record to be proud of. We were one of the first countries to have a comprehensive emissions trading scheme which we strengthened this year and more than 80 percent of our electricity is already renewable. We are also world leaders when it comes to agricultural research. We helped establish—and we invested $65 million in—the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases but to meet our new target we will have to make further changes.David Seymour: Will the ratification of this agreement erode the sovereignty of this Parliament more or less than opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership claimed that agreement eroded it?Hon PAULA BENNETT: None of the above. Scott Simpson: What are the next steps required to come up with a plan to meet the Paris target?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Ratification of the Paris Agreement although very important is merely words that go down on paper. What now matter of course are the actions that we take so we now are very clearly focused on developing that long-term plan to start reducing emissions while still growing the economy and supporting job creation. This will involve working across Government departments with the business community with consumers and in some areas I hope there will be cross-party work as well. As part of that today I also announced the establishment of a technical advisory group to look at how best we adapt to the impacts of climate change and my colleagues the Hon Nathan Guy and Jo Goodhew have also announced two new groups to look at how we encourage the planting of more forests and how we reduce emissions from livestock.
Delahunty Catherine; Tisch LindsayCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koutou katoa. I just want to take a very quick call to say that I find it ludicrous to be here after the many times—so many times. In the 7½ years I have been in Parliament this sort of bill keeps coming up. Is there nothing sacred to the House except money? What about people's time? It is ludicrous to suggest that a working person can say to their employer if they do not happen to be a friendly one that they do not have to work on Easter Sunday. It is impossible to assert yourself despite what is written into the law here if you do not have an employer that is willing to keep you on if you do not play ball. What if you are seen as a bad worker an uncooperative worker—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time for this debate has concluded.
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): This bill the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill is a sensible measure. The status quo that we have now is simply illogical and absurd. For instance if I wanted to go out on Easter Sunday and purchase a box of popcorn at the cinema I could do that because of course a cinema is not a shop; it is providing a service to the public. Whereas if I wanted to go down to the local Countdown or Pak 'N Save and do that at a more reasonable price that would be unavailable to me. Irrespective of the religion of an individual whether you are a Christian who wants to commemorate the holy day on a Sunday whether you are a Muslim who celebrates Jumu'ah or mosque day on a Friday or whether you are a Jew who goes to temple on the Sabbath on a Saturday one should be free in a country like New Zealand to observe their faith and to respect their culture. At the same time I would not expect legislation to be imposed on everybody else who wants to go about their reasonable business including opening their own private or small business staffed only by themselves; to be suppressed in doing so. For the purposes of this bill we are talking about not a public holiday—and we are talking about as the Minister pointed out simply hours in which shops can trade. So for that reason this is a very very good bill and I will be walking out the Ayes lobby in support of it.
Tisch LindsayCHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just a point: this debate concludes at quarter past 9 and for whoever is speaking at the time I will be stopping it at that point.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Chair for giving me this opportunity to speak in this debate. I respect those people who have religious belief and the previous speaker Poto Williams just now mentioned that she is going to vote according to her religious beliefs as I did during the marriage equality bill. Many of my colleagues did the same thing. But the thing is during that period there were many people from the Opposition who did not vote according to their religious beliefs so it is irrelevant for those members to bring into this debate today what is going to happen for people with religious belief. We have to see how things are progressing. The times are changing. We need to understand as my colleague Melissa Lee mentioned that we are a very diverse country now.Iain Lees-Galloway: It's not about religion at all!KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: No I am saying diversity"; I am not talking about religion. Listen to it.I appreciate one thing that the Minister is introducing in Supplementary Order Paper 179. He has mentioned that there is a choice which is very clear; whether or not the worker wants to come to work it is up to the worker. Fourteen days' notice has to be given by the employer to ensure that the worker has got choice on whether or not he wants to come to work on that day.I would like to quote one example. My office is in Papatoetoe which is part of the Indian community and there are many retailers in that area who close their shops on Mondays. There is nobody forcing them to close the shops on Monday but they do that because they feel that they have to have a break they want to spend time with their families and they have other things they want to do. On the contrary other shops are open. The competition is there but the choice is there for them as to whether or not they want to open their shops.Similarly with this bill they are given the choice and the local body has got a choice of whether they want to ask the people or not like in Rotorua where the demand is—because Taupō is open on Easter Sunday whereas Rotorua is not. People are at a disadvantage. The businesses feel the pinch and that choice is being given in this bill. I hope that with this bill when it goes through a lot of businesses will appreciate what this Government has done. Thank you."
Bond RiaRIA BOND (NZ First): I was not actually going to take another call on this bill but I felt that I had to. I am very compelled to take a call after listening to that verbal statement there. I would like to talk to the name of this bill which is the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. Clause 1 Title" states: "This Act is the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act 2015." I would like to recommend that the name changes to: "The Rights of Families in New Zealand to Spend Easter Sunday Together Amendment Act 2016". There have been eight times that similar bills have come to this House to change the Easter trading laws. At the Commerce Committee we heard from various organisations that added to the fact that this bill will erode family time. Submitters like the organisation Caritas came in and gave a very compelling submission about the fact that this bill takes away the rights of families to spend time together. It takes away the fact that families annually will book given that they can afford to time to go away on holiday. This bill will strip away the rights of those families to take that time together. It is already hard enough in today's world to make time for family. I know that from being a fulltime worker previously and I know that from owning my own business previously. It is really tough for families to find (1) the money and (2) the time. The concern from a few organisations about the fact that this would erode family time was quite evident through the submission stages. Another organisation that opposed this bill said: "We reject any liberalisation of Easter trading laws because workers deserve this special annual break to spend time with their families. … a focus on economic improvement should never come at the cost of weakening the quality and special time that families can spend together. Anzac Day Easter and Christmas remain as one of the few times when the whole country stops and takes a break." Another submitter said that a much better solution is to normalise Easter Sunday as a true public holiday like Christmas so that workers who do undertake this work are paid at least time and a half for hours worked and are given a day off in lieu. On reflection growing up in New Zealand through the last 20 to 30-plus years I saw how our communities and how our city centres changed from trading 5 days a week to all of a sudden pushing out trading to 7 days a week. Families since then have really struggled—really struggled—to find good quality time together so they can sit around the table and the mother and the father are not running off to work. In today's society some parents are working more than two jobs just to make ends meet. This bill will further erode family time. I did rise unexpectedly to take a short call motivated by Mr Bennett. I am sure that members on this side of the House absolutely understand the value of family time and we are quite concerned that the other side of the House has got no idea. Thank you."
SpeechDAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): The heart of this bill is new section 4B in clause 13 which says that shops in certain areas may remain open on Easter Sunday. But that clause in this bill has been hijacked tonight and we have just heard a lot of pious sanctimonious duplicitous and deceptive arguments from the Opposition. [Interruption] The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! There was one word in there that is not parliamentary. The member I think knows which it is and even if he does not he will withdraw and then continue.DAVID BENNETT: I withdraw Mr Chair. There are three arguments that the Opposition has put up today. One is freedom of choice. Opposition members are saying that they should have freedom of choice. Well I remember the Labour Party never had freedom of choice in terms of the marriage equality bill. It does not give freedom of choice to members of its party—Carmel Sepuloni: Yes we did.DAVID BENNETT: No it did not—it did not. It did not. It does not give freedom of choice to its members on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.Dr Megan Woods: Lies! Lies!Hon Ruth Dyson: I voted against it.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! There will now be two members on my left who will withdraw and apologise.Hon Ruth Dyson: I withdraw and apologise.Dr Megan Woods: I withdraw and apologise.DAVID BENNETT: So we know that there is no freedom of choice in the Labour Party because with the TPP it would not allow choice. We have also heard about Christianity. Well it is great to see the Labour Party talking about Christianity and listening to its Pacific communities. I did not see that when the marriage equality debate came through and the debate on euthanasia. The Labour Party was not there listening to communities then. And it is all right for the Labour Party to take advantage of the opportunities that Easter Sunday provides and say that that is important but it will not support the religious basis for that day and that is something that the Labour Party needs to come to grips with. The third thing that Labour members have talked about is around families. This is not the Labour Party trying to protect families; this is the Labour Party protecting its union mates who have told it not to support this legislation. This legislation has been hijacked tonight by debates from the left that are simply two-faced and represent an Opposition that cannot stand behind itself.
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Speaking to the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill I want to talk about the exemption clause and I also want to talk about the clauses within this bill that give authority and responsibility to local authorities. But I want to do it in the context of a discussion that I remember probably almost 30 years ago when Sunday trading hours were being changed and we had a hui in Rātana Pā. The Hon Whetu Tirikātene-Sullivan came to that hui. I remember quite distinctly that discussion and the impact that it would have on our families. Of course the majority of our people at Rātana Pā and in the Rātana Church were against bringing in Sunday trading for a whole lot of reasons. One of the things that came out of that discussion was sort of like a default position which was that at least we have got Easter Sunday on which there will be no trading. One of the points that I want to make around that is that over time our perspective around Sunday trading has altered—there is no doubt about that. We have heard members of this House talk about how this is a religious festival but it is one also that families celebrate as a day that whānau can spend together. I agree with my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway that we do not have enough of those and I agree with the discussion we have also heard that this is another impact upon families. I think it is really important that this House stands up for family values and the impact that things like this legislation are going to have on families. In terms of transferring the authority to a local authority to make those decisions members might be sitting here thinking: Well that's off my conscience now. It's on someone else's conscience now." I do not believe that that is correct. I believe that one cannot transfer one's conscience to be carried out by another body. We in this House are elected to carry that out. We have heard also how local bodies might be carrying out this decision making. I could be wrong but I do not see anywhere in this legislation where it compels those local authorities to take note of the historical decisions that have been made and the reasons why they were made and apply them to the decisions that they will make around creating new by-laws which creates as we have also heard a number of challenges. We have also heard about the protection of employee rights. We have so often seen the diminishment of workers' rights and this is another one. I do not believe for one moment that a young 17-year-old in their first job is going to be able to stand up to an employer and say "No I don't want to work that day."—Carmel Sepuloni: If they're on a 90-day trial period.ADRIAN RURAWHE: —and to come out at the end of it still having the same number of hours in that job—and still have their job. As my colleague Carmel Sepuloni has pointed out if they are on a 90-day trial they might not make it to 91 days. That is a real problem. But again transferring that authority to another—"
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I invite Mr Hudson to take the call I just want to clarify the leave that was taken previously by the Committee. I think it was probably not put quite as clearly as it should have been but just to make it clear I will seek leave again so that clauses 1 to 3 whether they stand part is put as one question. I think this was the intention that everyone agreed to informally but might not quite have been put to the Committee. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I let the member run but I do want to warn members that we are not going to have a general labour relations economic debate. We are having a specific debate on the clauses of this bill. Now that this warning has been issued I will terminate the speeches of members who do not get it.
Ross Jami-Lee; Mallard TrevorJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all questions in this debate to be taken as one debate but all questions voted on separately and for the Committee of the whole House to conclude the debate on this at 9.15 p.m.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I just want to interpret to the Committee that I am assuming that with the debate concluding at 9.15 p.m. it will effectively be a closure and we will move to all votes which will be concluded before the Committee rises tonight. Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.The question now is that parts 1 and 2 the schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part. And I just want to iterate that we now have a new question and therefore I am wiping all calls to date.
Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill — In Committee
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members I propose to put the Minister's amendments individually and then to put the other amendments as one question. This might be the calm before the storm but it appears there is a bit of unanimity in the Committee on this issue.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 as amended schedule 1 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): This will be a short call on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. The Green Party supported the bill at its introduction continues to support it and will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 192 in the name of Minister Upston which as the Minister explains just changes the location of the purpose clause. I certainly thank submitters on the bill. There were only 11 but they made quite detailed technical submissions particularly those from the surveying profession. That is largely what the bill is about—maintaining public confidence in the cadastre because of the 11000 properties that moved more than 20 centimetres after the earthquakes. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Land Information in terms of her consultation with Canterbury MPs knowing that we were all vitally interested in this issue. In terms of the changes in practice in surveying on the ground in Canterbury initially after the quakes surveyors adopted that quite practical application that the boundaries would move with the land. But then around the middle of 2014 Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) changed its approach and advised surveyors to apply the pre-earthquake boundary dimensions. Then there was some more guidance released by LINZ in February 2015 which highlighted that boundaries should not move with the land. I think this bill is really necessary because of the confusion that was occurring both in the profession on the ground and amongst the wider public about where boundaries were going to be located when the land had moved. So the fundamental part of the bill which is that the boundaries do move with the land is both a sensible and practical one and it creates a great deal more clarity. The other issue in the bill is the fact that there is not any liability for surveyors for using the interim techniques that they used as long as there has not been negligence and the like and that is also sensible. It means that those determinations of where the boundaries lie will not be relitigated. We are very pleased to support the bill and we thank officials. One of the other major issues around land of course is the new Land Transfer Bill which is being considered by the Government Administration Committee under the Hon Ruth Dyson's able chairing. One of the issues that submitters on this bill raised was that there was a need for a dispute resolution procedure. The bill has not been amended by the select committee to provide for that and it has been pointed out that the provisions in the Land Transfer Act can deal with those sorts of issues. In fact Parliament is looking to make those provisions in the new Land Transfer Act even clearer. So we accept those changes not having been made to this bill by the select committee because they properly belong in the land transfer legislation. This is a good bill and the Green Party supports it.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I want to take just a brief call in this Committee stage. I want to start by thanking the Local Government and Environment Committee for the very constructive way in which it has supported and assisted in ensuring that this piece of legislation is absolutely right for the people of Canterbury. As the members before me have outlined there were really two key aspects to this bill. The first was that the rebuild and recovery of Canterbury is one of four Government priorities. The first part of it was making sure that there were no unnecessary delays for people who were wanting to get on and do their rebuilds and progress with getting their lives back to where they had been. So ensuring that we removed some of the time barriers was one priority. The other priority was ensuring that not just those in Canterbury but those across New Zealand continue to have confidence in our legal property rights system. The member before me Ruth Dyson made a comment about the fact that perhaps it has been progressed at a slower pace than the House would have expected. When this challenge first presented itself it became very clear early on that it was important to get it right to take our time to ensure that we got it right for the people of Canterbury and I do appreciate the input from the Canterbury MPs into this important piece of work. Given that this is a bill that did have changes in the select committee stage I also want to thank the officials for working alongside the select committee members. I do want to draw the Committee's attention to Supplementary Order Paper 192. All it does is just relocate the purpose clause. I understand that was a drafting error. There is no content change just a location change. So I just want to thank the select committee in the Committee and I appreciate the Committee's support in progressing this bill further at pace. Thank you.
Macindoe Tim; Mallard TrevorCANTERBURY PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND RELATED MATTERS BILLIn CommitteeTIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): With the agreement of the whips throughout the House I seek leave for the Committee to consider the separate parts of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill in one debate with the questions to be taken separately at its conclusion.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Points of Order — Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill—Third Reading
Seymour David; Carter DavidPOINTS OF ORDERLeave for Third Reading Without Debate—Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment BillDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to save the taxpayer about 400 grand by having the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill read a third time without debate and with the vote taken forthwith.Mr SPEAKER: I hesitate to put the leave. I will put the leave on the basis that it was sorted out in Parliament yesterday. Leave has been sought for that particular process for that legislation. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Education Legislation Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Question agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Education Legislation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2016/17 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2016/17) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 12.Appropriation (2016/17 Estimates) Bill read a third time.Imprest Supply (Second for 2016/17) Bill read a second time.
4. Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill—NecessityHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Member in charge of the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment BillAirport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill—Necessity4. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Member in charge of the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill: What problem if any does the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill seek to address?NUK KORAKO (Member in charge of the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill): Travellers often do not live in the same area as the airport where they have lost property—that is the first thing—so advertising in the local newspaper is not the most effective way of communication. This bill gives airports the flexibility to better serve their customers and especially the Port Hills constituents who have contacted me about my bill and think it is a great idea. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will settle.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table dated 24/6/2016 information—Hon Steven Joyce: 24"?Rt Hon Winston Peters: —24/6/2016—information that says that the Prime Minister's statement regarding collating information did not occur before 2009 and the Minister refused to have it gathered—if you want me to read the whole thing out I will. So what the Prime Minister told the House by way of comparison between two Governments was a damn lie.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No the member will stand and withdraw the last part of that comment.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise and I seek leave to table this document.Mr SPEAKER: I will now put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular information dated 24 June. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! There is no objection. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Hon Ruth Dyson: Supplementary—Mr SPEAKER: I will have a point of order first.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I thought the question was over.Mr SPEAKER: No there is one supplementary question to go.Hon Ruth Dyson: Does he think that the advertising rules around lost property are among the most pressing issues facing New Zealanders today?NUK KORAKO: The situation here is that—I do realise there are more pressing things and they are picked up in Government bills. The other thing is that when we look at things like housing where we are still working on a very comprehensive plan for all of that—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! No the question has been answered."
3. Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill—NecessityKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) to the Member in charge of the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment BillAirport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill—Necessity3. KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) to the Member in charge of the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill: Why is it necessary for the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill to be advanced at this time?NUK KORAKO (Member in charge of the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill): I refer the member to my earlier answers as to why this bill is a positive change. The timing is not up to me. Like every other member of this House I am at the mercy of the biscuit tin. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! You will get your afternoon smoko shortly.Kris Faafoi: I think we should all stay away from the carbs. How many and which New Zealand airports did he consult—or approached him—before submitting his bill?NUK KORAKO: As I originally said in my vast experience and over the time I was in the tourism industry a number of my clients lost luggage so I actually did speak a lot to the airport authorities. Over the beginnings of this bill as I have just said Auckland Airport is one of the ones that I have actually spoken to. Kia ora.Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand there was some noise but I did ask the member what level of consultation or who had approached him before the bill not after.Mr SPEAKER: And there was—[Interruption] Order! The question was ultimately addressed. It did take some time. Auckland Airport was the answer.
2. Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill—Necessity and Potential Inclusion in Statutes Amendment BillCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Member in charge of the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment BillAirport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill—Necessity and Potential Inclusion in Statutes Amendment Bill2. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Member in charge of the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill: What recent evidence has he received if any that supports the need for the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill?NUK KORAKO (Member in charge of the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill): The evidence that I have actually received has been in the response from the many emails and even the Auckland Airport authority has actually contacted me and said what a great idea this was. The other part is that when we looked I also received an email actually from a person in Wainuiōmata and that email actually said—if I could quote: I congratulate you on producing this bill because the fact is that there are so many of my friends and relations that have lost luggage and could never ever find it through the normal channels."Chris Hipkins: Did he seek the support of MPs to include the contents of the bill in a statutes amendment bill; if not why not?NUK KORAKO: I think one important point about this one is the fact is that we have a very collegial and collective caucus and we worked very hard on a number of bills but particularly this one. I took this because of the fact of my tourism background and so yes we did actually involve our caucus colleagues and MPs.Hon Annette King: Supplementary question—Mr SPEAKER: No I have heard one supplementary question."