edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I'll just articulate some information I have in an attempt to assist the member Dr Duncan Webb. There seems to be quite a wide concern that people will be caught trading with items that would be considered dual-use goods without any knowledge. That seems to be what the major concern is.Weapons military equipment and dual-use goods and technologies are already subject to export controls in New Zealand and elsewhere under the four international export control regimes. So we believe it is reasonable to expect a person dealing with weapons military equipment or dual-use goods to know that it is a controlled activity and that they should look into how to broker these goods lawfully. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) will publish extensive guidance on its website for prospective brokers on New Zealand's brokering regime. The guidance will include outlining the circumstances in which registration and permits are required and where an exemption may apply. MFAT encourages all prospective brokers to first inquire with them to seek advice on the status of the goods they are intending to broker and whether they may or are likely to fall within an exemption. I think the other thing to note—so the first thing is if in doubt call MFAT and find out before somebody shows up at your door. I think that's probably the first piece of advice.With regard to offences under the bill they are subject to the Attorney-General's consent to ensure prosecutions are not brought lightly particularly when they involve the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The bill also does allow for civil enforcement recognising that some breaches will be minor but again I would encourage—if in doubt check it out; give MFAT a ring.
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I thank the honourable member Tim Macindoe for his contribution. I've just had some thank-you cards printed up; I may send him one just to acknowledge it. Can I just remark though too that I was a previous deputy leader of New Zealand First and I've never danced around a maypole particularly not on this particular piece of legislation.Can I refer to Mr Stuart Smith's comments that people involved in the development of products that can have a military use are encouraged to engage with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to clarify the extent to which their items may be subject to controls. It's better to check than be caught out. Not all brokering or export of such products will be prevented. The goal here is to regulate the brokering to ensure that items do not fall into undesirable hands so we would encourage those who have not done so already to contact MFAT and actually just run through that.If I can address the member from my right Deborah Russell who asked about equivalent overseas regimes and why it is that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade is the person exercising that particular power—which is not really a power but if I just describe what it is: equivalent overseas regimes" means regimes imposed by those countries which are members of the four export control regimes all of which use the same list of military and dual-use goods. The regimes are the Missile Technology Control Regime Nuclear Suppliers Group Australia Group and Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies. The judgment of equivalent regimes is based on countries who have been accepted as members of a regime after meeting various criteria and through analysis of the capability of that regime. So the secretary of foreign affairs therefore is not really exercising any particular discretion at all. It's a process that goes through and they merely get to be the person who has to ensure that that process has gone through.If we can talk about extraterritorial jurisdictions which I believe was also raised by the member there is a need to control the actions of New Zealanders and New Zealand entities wherever they act because of the cross-border nature of brokering and the need to work with other countries to prevent it. And quite rightly as that member pointed out these sorts of powers also apply to money-laundering they apply to child sexual assault and some other quite nasty things and I would suggest that the sending of weapons and other things that do harm to people is obviously one of those areas where if you are a New Zealander partaking in this sort of behaviour then we will hold you accountable regardless of where you are. Kia ora."
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. Just to try and give some confidence around the definition of brokering that has been asked for by several members: clause 5 defines brokering activity as arranging facilitating or negotiating a transaction that involves the international transfer of weapons or related items from [one foreign country to another]." The definition includes a person who acts as an agent or intermediary for persons involved in the transaction and someone who acquires or stores items outside New Zealand. Persons who provide services that are merely auxiliary to brokering activity are excluded. The purpose of regulating brokering is to prevent the movement of arms and military items to illegitimate users and undesirable destinations. It was considered appropriate to regulate those who have knowledge of the destination and end use of the weapons and related items. In a brokered transaction that would most likely be the broker including a person who acts as an agent or an intermediary.Clause 5 of the bill has a definition of brokering which means "arranging facilitating or negotiating a transaction that involves the international transfer of weapons or related items from a place outside New Zealand to another place outside New Zealand" and includes "acting as an agent for a person involved in the transaction or as an intermediary between 2 or more persons involved in the transaction".The member who just contributed Stuart Smith mentioned boots and that he felt that the list that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade put together around dual use was rather diverse and possibly very wide and he suggested that boots for example might be included because they have dual purposes. I have some confidence—I haven't been through the whole list—that boots are not included on the list. I'm not sure the last time that a terrorist act was committed with a boot although there was a shoe on a plane—there was a shoe on a plane. I would suggest that it would be the chemicals inside the shoe that are probably on the dual list. So I think therein lies the distinction. There needed to be another body of something to be added to that particular thing.Goods either have to be military or on the dual-use goods list and items such as boots—oh there you go I've had it confirmed. They are not on the list. They must be identified as military. Thank you."
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Kia ora. Thank you Madam Chair. Just to address or try to address some of the questions raised by the honourable members: in the first instance if I can just pick up on Mr Simon O'Connor's question with regard to the order of the purposes: (a) regulate the brokering of weapons and related items; and (b) support New Zealand's commitments under the Arms Trade Treaty." Mr O'Connor requested an explanation as to why they were in that order—for example he suggested that that order should in fact be reversed because in his view this bill was here in reality to merely enforce the Arms Trade Treaty. My response to Mr O'Connor's question is that in the first instance we tend to give items priority that affect New Zealand and what we are doing inside a New Zealand context. So when we regulate we regulate inside the New Zealand context and that is why clause 3(a) is "regulate the brokering of weapons and related items". In the second instance this is a supporting mechanism for a trade treaty and an arms trade treaty as Mr O'Connor quite rightly pointed out but we would always put first what it is that we are doing inside our own nation because obviously the members of this House are here to serve this nation in the first instance.If I go on to Mr Parker's questions—and Mr O'Connor's I think also; actually I think every member has asked for a greater understanding of dual-use goods—dual-use goods are those goods that are included as we have heard in New Zealand's Strategic Goods List (SGL). That is available online Mr O'Connor if you'd like to Google it with "strategic goods list" and then possibly put "NZ" at the end of it. You won't get Singapore's; you'll actually get ours. That is maintained by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade under the regime established by section 56(2) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996. This will be covered by section 96 of the new Customs and Excise Act should Mr O'Connor wish to look it up. In short it's called the SGL and the SGL includes dual-use items listed by four international export control regimes that New Zealand participates in. The list is updated yearly for those who asked when it was to be done. As an example of the types of things that you will find should you go to have a look at the dual-use goods: nuclear reactors are on the dual-use list; chemicals of many different sorts because they have two purposes Mr O'Connor. You can either make them to harm someone or you can use them to actually create something that helps people. Control rods: a variety of control rods are actually on that list. Cryogenic heat exchangers would be another example of something that is on the dual-use list.There are some other questions that I do have from members. I will continue to try to get that advice for you as the debate goes on but I hope in the first instance that has given some confidence to Mr Parker and to Mr O'Connor that there is nothing untoward nothing scary with regard to the piece of legislation. I hope that they have a clearer understanding of the two issues that they raised."
Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — Second Reading
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill 2016. This was a very sensible piece of legislation. It sought to do very sensible things: to rewrite the Social Security Act 1964 to make it clearer; to deal with some of the inconsistencies; and to make sure that some of the sections which had been amended as many as 286 times made sense to members of the public. The Government was doing a good job of it and then today we get landed with this: a 501-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) dumped on us a couple of hours before the second reading—[Interruption]DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Come on.NICOLA WILLIS: And so we ask ourselves—we ask ourselves: what is so important in this SOP that means that there should be no departmental disclosure statement that means there should be no regulatory impact statement and that means there should be no public scrutiny—that there should be no select committee process? We ask ourselves: what is in this SOP that's so important? Let me answer that question.The really important thing that this SOP has in it is removing something that members on the opposite side of the House say is a terrible awful thing and that is this principle in the bill on social investment. The principle in clause 4(e) reads this way and I challenge members opposite me to explain to the member of the public why it is bad to say a principle of this legislation should be to help achieve the best possible outcome for people at risk of long-term welfare dependency" and "MSD may identify appropriate assistance support and services under [that] Act for [these] people." Now members opposite us oppose that principle and so they land on us an SOP that seeks to overturn what is the most sensible policy for ensuring that people are not trapped in lives of long-term welfare dependency. So we ask ourselves: what is it that will come into this bill instead of such a sensible principle? Is it the things that the members opposite have been talking about—things like making sure that people shouldn't have to name the father of their child? Is it things like ensuring that people in the public shouldn't have to face too many obligations when they are seeking welfare? Well we don't know because it's not contained in this bill and it's not contained in this SOP. But I think we would be right on this side of the House to fear that a Government that will land an SOP this big without scrutiny may also seek to remove some of the fundamental principles of this Act in due course which require people to be in work which say that being in work is a good thing that say that paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being and that say that that should be our priority. That's why the principle of social investment was in this bill: because it allows those things to happen.On this side of the House we proudly support those principles and we oppose Government members landing SOPs like this that do not further the bill that are not for the betterment of New Zealanders and that defy common sense. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."
Tolley AnneDEPUTY SPEAKER: Good evening everyone. The House is resumed. When we broke for dinner we were on the second reading of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. Simon O'Connor had the call and he has three minutes and 51 seconds remaining to speak if he wishes to take it. He is not calling.
Upston LouiseSOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION REWRITE BILLDischarge and Referral to Social Services and Community CommitteeHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Have you called that next Government motion sir?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes. I have announced it yes.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Great. The Government has taken a very hard line today about legislative mishaps as indicated in the debate we just had on a three-page bill that is being referred to a select committee. This is one of two Supplementary Order Papers that's been tabled—Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'll hear this point of order first sorry.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —today and it deserves full legislative scrutiny so that there are no legislative mishaps. I move That the order of the day for the second reading of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill be discharged and that the bill be referred to the Social Services and Community Committee for further consideration.
Young Jonathan; Rurawhe AdrianJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I seek leave for the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill to proceed forthwith through all remaining stages without debate and on one vote.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. I call on Government order of the day No. 4—[Interruption] Apologies to the Minister. I need to amend the vote. The Ayes were 63; the Noes were 55.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am very pleased to take a call on this debate around the shortened select committee process. Mr Parker got up and said that he wanted to get through this with speed and haste because it was so important that we clear it up immediately. It was a small technical amendment; we need to get it done—let's do it. But speed and haste from that side of the House is not happening today. We had to sit here today and listen to all of those Government speakers get up and pontificate for 10 minutes each. They stretched it out as long as they could—so speed and haste but not today.So while we had to listen to them all speak for 10 minutes today we are not going to give the public that same allowance. We're going to truncate that process because while we all have to sit here and listen to them talk for 10 minutes we're not going to give the public of New Zealand that same allowance. We're not going to give the public any time to actually have their say and they're the people we want to hear from. We don't want to sit here and listen to these Government MPs stretch out their speeches for 10 minutes; what we want to do is hear from the public of New Zealand and if we're going to have a select committee process let's do it right. As my learned colleague said earlier let's do it right. You do it or you don't do it at all. It is so important that we hear because we heard from all of the Government speakers today that we must do this properly we must get these mistakes corrected in the select committee process and that if we're going to do it we have to give them the full process. It's not fair to have to listen to these guys for 10 minutes but not give the public that same allowance.I think it is only fair and I call today for one of two things to happen. Either we allow for the full select committee process and we are fair to the people of New Zealand—to have the proper process happen—or we do what Mr Scott Simpson said earlier which is let's get this done today. We can do the whole thing today. It's a small technical mistake. It shouldn't have happened; it did happen. We all agree that it can be fixed today—and we could do that. But they didn't want to do that. So what they've said instead is we're going to have a truncated select committee process whereby the public are cheated out of the chance to have their say and that's not fair. Let's do it and do it right or as Mr Scott Simpson said let's just get it over and done with today because it is a very small technical amendment. We don't need to be wasting all of this time and money as I said earlier. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you sir. I will definitely try not to replicate what previous members have said. Can I say that my concerns around this process are: I asked a question in this House that permits that are to be protected by this Government—that we would not see any surprise legislation come in that would change those conditions. I would say that either my choice is that we see this bill which is agreed on both sides of the House—Hon Scott Simpson: Unanimous.JONATHAN YOUNG: —unanimously proceed through all remaining stages without debate and be voted upon or that we go to a full select committee process. What this bill is dealing with is consent applications specifically for extractive industries whether it's fishing or whether that's petroleum exploration. My concern—why I asked the question last week—is that when this Government say they will protect permits my question was that they will not enter any further conditions. My concern is that in a very short select committee process that doesn't put out the full intent or give opportunity for full community and industry discussion we could—and I hope not but we could—have a Supplementary Order Paper land in this House in the committee stage that changes those conditions. That's the reason why I asked that question last week.We know that the Minister said that she believes in democracy. Well democracy needs to have its full opportunity for expression and that is a full committee process. Or if it's indeed true that we have total agreement across this House regarding this simple error; that we agree to see that change—and I've read it and it's very simple. New clause 52A in the bill is a very simple addition to the Act that we could actually agree across this House and across benches to support now. It would align this bill with the Environmental Protection Authority and that's the way that I would prefer to see it—either that process or a full process through the select committee process so that we don't get hijacked.Look I hate to have this suspicion but it's possible and when I asked for that assurance last week it was not given to me. So that is my concern and I wish to express it to this House and to those who are listening tonight. Thank you.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Well it is a pleasure to actually have a say on this. I think truncating a select committee process is a serious matter actually and it is quite a confused argument we're getting from the Government: that this is a serious bill and it needs to go through all the processes but then saying on the other hand that it's such a short bill that it doesn't require the full select committee process.We often deal with bills in this Parliament that are—in the case of the original Act that it seeks to amend—700 clauses 250 pages. There are far bigger ones than that and quite small bills. Often members' bills can be even half the size of this one and that's quite a feat but quite small. Yet the select committee stages are all the same length. You can seek an extension which is a very wise part of the way Parliament works so that if there are more submissions coming in or its too complex to deal with—and I think a good example of that would be the euthanasia legislation the End of Life Choice Bill which is before the Justice Committee. That sort of bill can and will seek extensions because of the time taken to collate and organise those submissions then to hear them—those that wish to be heard. On this piece of legislation that process is going to be truncated so much that the people that could and perhaps should submit on this won't have the opportunity to do so. I think that is the very case in point.I'm going to go back to my colleague who just took his seat Simon O'Connor and I think he made some very good points. What is behind this? It really does make one suspicious when they speak with different tongues as it were—Hon Scott Simpson: Forked tongues.STUART SMITH: Forked tongues—indeed. To have them saying that I suspect it is absolutely the case that we're going to see a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) come in that is not related to this so this is a Trojan horse. I would love to hear—Hon Andrew Little: Trojan horse? We are talking Greek.STUART SMITH: —someone from that side actually have the courage to talk now. Stand on your feet and have a chance—when I take my seat Mr Little you'll get your chance. Stand up and give us an assurance there will be no SOP put forward on this bill. That's all we want to hear. Do that and we might be relaxed about it.This is a Government that said it would be transparent and yet we're seeing time after time the opaqueness of—I don't know what; black walls I guess. This is just absolutely a Government that doesn't—Hon Andrew Little: Opaqueness of black walls?STUART SMITH: Yes read your literature Mr Little.Hon Members: Stone walls.STUART SMITH: Yes indeed. Well I wish they would stonewall. Let's have a full select committee process or take Mr Simpson's advice and go through a very much truncated process and let's deal with it today. You guys on that side should really just stand up and get on with the job and let this pass right through its processes this afternoon. Thank you.
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): The previous speaker Scott Simpson obviously hasn't been listening. The Minister for the Environment and also the chair of the Environment Committee Deborah Russell set out very clearly the benefits of it going to a select committee. Unlike the Opposition this Government believes in democracy. It believes in select committees. It believes in the opportunity for the public to make submissions. It believes in the process of select committees being able to improve legislation having heard public submissions and considered them. That is why it is going to select committee. That is why there is a truncated process—because it is a small bill it doesn't need a long select committee process. But just ramming it through the House as Mr Simpson is proposing suggests that there is nothing to be gained from public submissions. Generally bills are improved by having the public comment and the select committee listen and consider those comments. That is why we believe in democracy rather than as National is suggesting—by going on and on in the House. What Mr Simpson also failed to realise is in relation to the current application by Tamarind because this Government—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! We must stick to the substance of the motion—[Interruption] I just need to remind the member that this is not about the select committee process; that is agreed. It is about the report-back date.Hon EUGENIE SAGE: My apologies Madam Assistant Speaker. But the report-back date has been truncated in order to allow for some consideration but not for the bill to take unnecessary time.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I will say to the member Deborah Russell who has just taken her seat that this is a very small bill—the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill—but she managed to exsanguinate every possible Government argument to support this bill and I thought that was not a bad effort seeing as it was a pretty poor argument.One of the main purposes of an Opposition particularly when it comes to select committees is to hold the Government to account and to go over the legislation with a fine-tooth comb to make sure—even though the Opposition may not agree with the legislation that it's looking over in select committee it needs to make sure it's fit for purpose. That means making sure there are no mistakes no unintended consequences in those bills and that means calling people in to submit on it and hearing their submissions ensuring that the Parliamentary Counsel Office has got the drafting right going through the revision-tracked versions etc. etc.Now it is a 700-clause bill 250 pages—as we've heard ad nauseam; I'm not going to go on too much about that. But we had that select committee process and two of the loudest wailers in this whole process this afternoon are David Parker and Eugenie Sage both of whom were on that select committee. So if it's such an obvious and poor mistake and it should have been found why didn't they find it? It's really an admission of their own guilt.Another point was made earlier about what this bill is about and the Resource Management Act has been referred to several times in here and how they're going to amend it. It makes one very suspicious. We saw a motion before to debate at the end of this reading and to go through all the other processes without debate and that was voted down. Why would they want to take this on? Perhaps this is a Trojan Horse for a Supplementary Order Paper that we are unaware of. And this is the so-called transparent Government which is really a joke when we've seen so many examples of it being anything but.I'm going to finish with a quote from Craig D Lounsbrough which is on transparency or the lack thereof: To be found is to be exposed." so it's little wonder that the Government is so lost. I support this bill. Thank you."
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'm very pleased to take a call on this the first reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. I listened very carefully to Mr Parker earlier. He was very concerned about the costs of this legislative process and what these costs were incurring and how terrible that was and saying that we'd made a mistake and wasn't it terrible that all of these costs are being incurred. So if the Minister is so concerned about these costs that he spent quite a bit of his speech talking about these costs why is he putting this bill through as stand-alone legislation? Why are we not seeing this as a statutes amendment bill? Why are we not seeing this as a truncated process—as we earlier said it should be but were voted down? I suspect that the answer to this is that the Minister isn't so concerned about the costs of the legislative process when he gets to have political point-scoring out of it. When it comes down to it if it's going to cost money he doesn't mind as long as he gets to put the boot in. So his concerns about costs are absolute tosh. Mr Parker is enjoying his time today up on his high horse over a very small technical drafting error that was overlooked in what was a massive piece of legislation. Mr Parker should perhaps be a bit more careful because when a small drafting error occurs in some of his massive legislation that I presume is coming—we haven't seen it yet; maybe it will come—as it does happen from time to time we will be all over that like a rat up a drainpipe because we have been listening today to speech after speech of members trying to take up their full allocation of time wasting this House's time and the public's money on a bill that should always have been put into a statutes amendment bill. Can I just say look this is a very small technical amendment. If someone wants to put in a marine consent requiring a board of inquiry process accidentally now the costs currently fall on the Crown. It was a mistake. It was a drafting error in the legislation. It was always the intention for the applicant to wear these costs. If you want to apply right now for a marine consent to lay an underground cable or pipes under the seabed for private benefit those costs do fall on the Crown. It was a mistake. It was a small drafting error that we are here to correct today. This bill will align this board of inquiry process with the existing Environmental Protection Authority process as well as with the Resource Management Act. It is a very sensible change. It needed to happen. Why we had to have a long process of speeches and select committee and more speeches is beyond me because it is costing the taxpayer money which Mr Parker said that he didn't want to do. So in saying that I commend this bill to the House.
Young Jonathan; Williams PotoJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I'm very pleased to stand in support of this bill. Indeed the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill which went through the last Parliament through the select committee process as we understand 700 clauses 250 pages of legislation was an incredibly significant piece of legislation that is probably one of the most complex bills that came before the last Parliament; certainly a very broad bill with very very many submitters. So for a situation where there was an error in drafting to get through that committee the Local Government and Environment Committee—I guess you know in many regards a committee made up of different parties—it's important for us right now to rectify that because as the previous speaker Eugenie Sage said the change is to ensure that the process that confers a private benefit or marine consent results in a private rather than a public cost. I think everybody across this House understands and supports that principle.So we are very pleased and happy to support this bill—a very minor adjustment as previous speakers have said. Perhaps a statutes amendment bill would have been the right vehicle that would take far less time in the parliamentary process to correct this change. So with that I'm happy to support and commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Angie Warren-Clark. This is a split call as I understand it.
Allan Kiritapu; Williams PotoKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Whilst I thoroughly enjoyed the contribution from Todd Muller the man from Te Puna I do just want to draw the House's attention to the comment made in respect of my senior colleague the Hon David Parker. A comment was made in that member's remarks to this House that he was the self-professed brains of this Government. I haven't heard that statement made by that member and I felt that it was an inappropriate articulation of that member.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I don't think that's an appropriate point of order.
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Seven months—seven months we've sat in the Environment Committee reflecting on I wonder what this Government is going to prioritise in terms of the environment?" Seven months we've sat there. We've had inquiries on plastic bags. We've had fantastic should-be inquiries on plastics in the ocean and we reflect every Wednesday "I wonder what we're going to get when this Government finally fronts with their priority?" Well here we go. It is the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. This is it. For those of you watching at home this is it. One page—one page only that simply changes a single section that enables the Crown to essentially get cost recovery from any party that's a party to marine resource consent.That's it—a single drafting error. These things occasionally happen. We had as you've heard the speakers on this side an extraordinary piece of legislation that had 700 pages 250 substantive clauses and there was one line that was omitted. Here we have it: one page—minor change full stop. We sit here on this side saying "Yep that has clearly been omitted." We didn't pick it up through the select committee despite having the self-professed brain of the House David Parker pour over every single line. Somehow it managed to get through the keeper.Hon Scott Simpson: You mean it slipped past him?TODD MULLER: It must've slipped past him Mr Simpson. It did. But here we are suggesting that we spend a few minutes reflecting in unison on the importance of this process in terms of acknowledging it needs to be done and agreeing between us that let's get it done. We've had this fantastic suggestion from Mr Simpson that we have this conversation today none of us are in disagreement everyone can read the clause and it all makes sense. Let's pass it. Let's get on with it and move on to more substantive—Hon Scott Simpson: Let's do it.TODD MULLER: Let's do it even. Let's move on to more substantive pieces of legislation which one assumes now we're into month eight isn't going to be the signature policy of the Labour - Greens - New Zealand First Government but hey it may be. But either way let's support it here today get it done and actually show New Zealand that occasionally the Government can agree with the Opposition and be efficient in terms of the legislative process. I support this."
Clark DavidAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 7 to MinisterHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer given in question time today.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is none.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Today in question time in response to a supplementary question following Question No. 7 I said that a detailed business case relating to the Dunedin Hospital rebuild would be presented to Cabinet in the middle of next year. It is currently my intention to take a detailed business case to Cabinet this year.
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Parker DavidTARIFF (PACER PLUS) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I move That the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The question was put That the date by which—(a) the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill be reported to the House by the Finance and Expenditure Committee be extended to 21 June 2018; and (b) the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill be reported to the House by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee be extended to 31 July 2018; and (c) the Trusts Bill be reported to the House by the Justice Committee be extended to 5 September 2018.Motion agreed to.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I am briefly responding to the reason why an extension is sought for the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. The last speaker is correct that underlying the timetable is the date for the coming into effect of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) agreement. When the bill was originally introduced there was doubt as to when it was going to come into effect. That is beyond the control of the New Zealand Government because it depends on the ratification moves of other countries. As events have unfolded it's become clear that we have a little more time. There is a need to get it right not just in respect of overseas investment in existing homes but also in respect of foreign direct investment into forestry. Because of the greater knowledge we now have as to the date when other countries will be likely to ratify the CPTPP we can allow the select committee that additional period of time to finish its business.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I seek leave to correct the statement.SPEAKER: Yes.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: To put it precisely the people who were in the room were of a view that the Business Committee should support those changes. The Business Committee of course did not consider that formally or make any determination because it was not able to.SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: What I'm going to do is ask Iain Lees-Galloway to very carefully consider the comments that he did make on reporting back from the select committee because it's certainly not consistent—the member indicated that the committee had agreed but that there was not a majority. The matter was not put to the committee. I think the member might want to correct his statement.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): It wasn't my intention to participate in this debate but I do need to correct a statement made by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. It is not true to suggest that the Government has been making threats about not supporting changes that the Opposition members want to make to their select committee membership. Those changes are of course made by the Business Committee under the auspices of near-unanimity and of course when we cannot achieve near-unanimity the Business Committee cannot make such a determination. The members who were present at the Business Committee agreed to the Opposition's proposed changes to select committee membership but unfortunately due to the failure of the National Party to show up we were not able to make that determination. The Government is not—SPEAKER: OK. Order! Order! I'm now going to—after having sort of two and a half speeches mainly not on the motion before the House—require all members to speak only to that motion now.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Thank you Mr Speaker. I just want to conclude by saying I agree with the Leader of the House that this is not a habit that the House should get into. These are matters that can easily be dealt with in a constructive fashion at the Business Committee and we look forward to the resumption of normal business at that committee as soon as possible.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I should thank the Leader of the House for his gentle lecture at the conclusion of his comments. There are a number of ways you could look at these sorts of things. Firstly the Business Committee is something that does its work behind closed doors and you know it would be kind of odd that we don't have something in front of the Parliament during what I understand is Transparency Week" where there should be a greater look and a degree of scrutiny at everything the Government is up to.What sits behind this of course is a totally dysfunctional legislative programme being run by the Government. Take for example the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. Well there are some very relevant points here. Firstly this is the third time the Government has sought to extend the period for report back of that bill. We know why it is—we know why it is. It's because foreign investors are running from this country at a rate of knots. So you get the housing Minister coming in here today saying that the private sector can't function properly in the housing market because of a lack of finance. So the Government is stepping in alongside the finance Minister who's confirmed that yes the Government is going to borrow an extra $10 billion to try and facilitate some of these things. So there's never you would say the scrutiny on some of these provisions that perhaps there should be and maybe the House does need to from time to time take a little moment to work out whether or not the way the Government is operating its legislative programme is to the betterment of all New Zealanders.We have no particular desire to see relatively straightforward matters that can be dealt with by the Business Committee not done so or for the Business Committee to be rendered ineffective. But I do have to say that perhaps the threats that came through during the last week about not supporting some of the select committee changes that are consequential to a previous Business Committee agreement sort of indicate an attitude that the Government takes that the Parliament belongs to the Government. It doesn't; it belongs to parliamentarians and it is incumbent on the Government to get the votes for every stage they want to put a piece of legislation through.Also if the Parliament is to grant leave for particular actions then quite clearly there has to be that support. I was a little concerned to hear that when you've got a Government that forms I think now 62 or 64 or 63 seats—whatever—and then an Opposition that sits at 58 seats that apparently if they get together that's near-unanimity but if there's a sort of hint that there might be some kind of new near-unanimity declared from this Speaker I hope that's not the case."
Hipkins ChrisBUSINESS OF SELECT COMMITTEESReporting DatesHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the date by which—(a) the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill be reported to the House by the Finance and Expenditure Committee be extended to 21 June 2018; and (b) the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill be reported to the House by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee be extended to 31 July 2018; and (c) the Trusts Bill be reported to the House by the Justice Committee be extended to 5 September 2018.This motion extends the report-back date for three bills that are currently before select committees. It extends the report-back date for the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill to 21 June 2018 it extends the report-back date for the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill currently before the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee to 31 July 2018—SPEAKER: Order! Can members not have conversations in the aisles now.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —and it extends the Trusts Bill report-back date a bill currently before the Justice Committee to 5 September 2018. In all of the cases of these extensions the chairperson of the relevant committee has written to the Business Committee via the Speaker requesting this extension and in all cases the Minister in charge of the bill has agreed to that extension. Normally this would not be a matter that would need to come before the House but at the meeting of the Business Committee that these requests were presented to the Business Committee was unable to meet the requirement for near-unanimity. Near-unanimity has been interpreted in recent times as effectively a supermajority of the members of the House—which basically means Labour and National normally—and without the National Party present at the meeting that test is unable to be met and therefore matters that normally would be determined by the Business Committee will have to be determined by the House until such time as that changes.I hope that this won't become common practice in the House and I hope we won't have to do this regularly. I hope that the Business Committee will be able to resume its normal functioning.I would make one plea of the members opposite and that is that on occasion—I spent nine years sitting on that side of the House and on many occasions I found that I disagreed with the proceedings of the House. I was a member of the Business Committee for most of the last six years that the Labour Party was in Opposition and whilst I disagreed very vigorously with some of the rulings that we were subject to I never—and the Labour Opposition never—sought to stop the Business Committee from functioning and conducting the affairs of the Parliament as it should. I simply leave that as something that I hope the members opposite will reflect upon.
Obituaries — Katherine O'Regan QSO & Tony Steel
Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 8 MAY 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.OBITUARIESHon Katherine O'Regan QSOTony SteelSPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 2 May 2018 of the Hon Katherine O'Regan QSO who represented the electorate of Waipā between 1984 and 1996 and was a list member for the National Party from 1996 to 1999. During her membership of the House she was Minister of Consumer Affairs and Associate Minister of Women's Affairs Health and Social Welfare.I further regret to inform the House of the death on 4 May 2018 of Tony Steel who represented the electorate of Hamilton East from 1990 to 1993 and from 1996 to 2002. He was chairperson of the Education and Science Committee from 1996 to 1999.I desire on behalf this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former members. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for their memory.Members stood as a mark of respect.
Thursday 3 May 2018 - Volume 729
12. Regional Economic Development Minister—StatementsHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentRegional Economic Development Minister—Statements12. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by all of his statements in regards to the Provincial Growth Fund; if so will he guarantee that none of the projects funded will have outcomes considered fanciful"?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): To the first part of the question yes; and in so far as the word "fanciful" is used it's been misapplied in a form that's inversely related to my ministerial temperament.Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does it comply with the Standing Orders to answer in riddles?SPEAKER: And it's part of the responsibility of the Opposition to solve them.Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said last week "I realise that we have the Westminster system. After the next election if I don't get what I want we're going to have the Axminister system." who specifically was he threatening?Hon SHANE JONES: In the life of the first citizen of the provinces there is great hyperbole and theatrical language from time to time.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think threatening officials is a laughing matter?Hon SHANE JONES: Both officials and members of the House are aware of how seriously I take my role as New Zealand's first citizen of the provinces. So from time to time the member is reading far too much into the language of a colourful hard-working rhetorical advocate.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister think that the Cabinet Manual specifically paragraph 3.22(f) which says "Ministers should exercise a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with officials. Ministers must respect the political neutrality of the public service …" applies to him?Hon SHANE JONES: In deference to the Cabinet Manual I can assure you unlike other parts of my life I express and practise great fidelity.Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he said in relation to the Wairoa mayor "I felt pretty stink that I as the provincial champion couldn't even deliver for him." how much did he think the responsibility for the lack of delivery lay with him?Hon SHANE JONES: When I met with the Mayor of Wairoa he described me as the first Minister since the days of Helen Clark to have ever shown that quality of affection and attention to Wairoa.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he aware that there is a fine line between being a bit of a character and being a joke and which side of the line is he on?Hon SHANE JONES: I could not describe it better than the New Zealand Herald who have described me as part jester part genius and in 2020 they'll see the latter and not the former."