edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Oh what a disappointment Madam Assistant Speaker I must say. In fairness to that member who just sat down Aupito William Sio I do enjoy when he gets up and speaks. It's just his tone: it's so welcoming it draws you in and just for a glimpse a fraction of a moment you believe him until you realise his stories are very much like the fisherman's tales and they get bigger and they get bigger and then you realise that all he is is just a great storyteller.It'll please the House to say that I won't take much of its time up. I'll be very brief. This is a technical bill. What I'm looking forward to as I look over at the Government backbenchers and see the whites of their eyes—who would have looked over this technical bill on the weekend and thought Oh that's OK—only a couple of minutes." And then today the chief whip of the Government would have come in and said "Righto 10 minutes"—10 minutes—and they're all thinking "How am I going to speak on this for 10 minutes?" So we're looking forward to that. We'll be watching. And what's really good in the House is that Hansard records everything and those speeches will be locked in for life as part of your parliamentary record and your history—back to the bill. This bill is at the heart of our health system and for someone who's worked over two health systems—one here and one in the UK—I must say what a great health system we do have. The trust and the confidence our public has in our health system—and really that is primarily to do with our health professionals. They are hard-working and committed. In a field I used to work in in mental health where you don't have much consumables and you don't have much technology you strip it back and all it is to do with is the health professionals. So what we need to do is make sure that that trust and that confidence are at the heart of our health system and the quality assurance.Now this bill will pass in the first reading so what I want to do is just quickly outline three key points that I think in the select committee we need to look at. The first is: how do we ensure that as much of this information that gets collated around competency fitness to practise and scope of practice is available to the public? There's a real issue around information in health being asymmetrical where it's only the provider's side that holds on to it and I think that by giving the consumers more information it provides more trust and confidence. The second is: how do we ensure in this bill that the mechanisms are in place that they will intervene quickly when there is an issue around competence scope and fitness to practise? And finally: how do we make sure the data we collect is shared appropriately to make sure those mechanisms come in at the right pace and equally shared upwards to inform workforce planning? Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker."
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Madam Assistant Speaker can we just assess for a moment here what is happening in this Parliament. We have a motion to shorten a report back on a very simple bill where we've just had three Ministers of the Crown stand up and debate a motion that Governments typically don't even want debated. We had three Ministers of the Crown stand up and debate the motion. We've had several other Labour MPs standing up debating the motion when it's highly likely it's going to go—I'll tell you right now: it's going to go through unanimously. We also had the bill which is a simple 12-clause bill that we probably would have done through a statutes amendment bill and it would go through unanimously but we're seeing here delaying tactics where the Government is chewing up House time with a motion on an instruction to shorten report-back time.So I just want to put on the record for this House that the New Zealand Government the great Green - Labour - New Zealand First Government has so few opportunities to pass legislation that they're now debating instructions that are going to go through unanimously.When it came to the select committee opportunity for other bills in this House like the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill just last week; like the extension to the brightline test which they're not giving the public an opportunity to comment on; like the issue with the Families Package last year—no select committee opportunity. But here we have the Labour Party trying to slow down the Parliament trying to chew up House time trying to filibuster their own legislation and their own instructions because they've run out of ideas. That's what's going on right now. The Government has run out of ideas. They're chewing up time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I'd just encourage—[Interruption] Order. I'd just encourage you to just come back a little bit more closely to the motion please.JAMI-LEE ROSS: Wow—I think it's pretty relevant Madam Assistant Speaker. I think it's relevant to highlight for New Zealanders that are watching this important debate which members of the Government are standing up and diligently having their say on that this is simply a delaying tactic because they've got no legislation.I say to the Government: come here with some real legislation—more than a 12-clause bill that we were going to do anyway. Carmel Sepuloni's an intelligent individual. She's a hard-working Minister we're told. Why can't she do better than a 12-clause bill that they're now filibustering? That's what I've got to say: that we are wasting House time. It's important to remind New Zealanders exactly what the Government's doing right now and I think they should do better for New Zealanders.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'll keep my contribution brief as well at the risk of repeating some of the very important points that previous members have made. The one thing I will say though is that many of us on this side of the House have stood up previously and spoken about the important work that the Families Commission now the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) has done and the fact that this bill if it were to go through which it probably will will actually disestablish that entity. We've also talked about the staff and the people who've been involved in this process and the importance therefore that the process is followed well.That being said of course the role of select committee is vital. It's often been described as the engine house of Parliament where detail is nutted out about the legislation and where members of the public have an opportunity to contribute. So I just want to highlight that this is not something that we take lightly. However it is an issue of balance. Firstly as other members have pointed out our hand is being forced to a large extent. This is something that could have been dealt with by the previous Government but was not and therefore we have to be mindful of the fact that the process has in effect already started. There are a number of contracts and projects that have already been transferred out of SuPERU to other ministries and staff as well so this is something that is time bound and that is why going back to the substance of the motion I'm standing in support of a truncated select committee consideration period because we have to get this done by a certain time frame so that there's some certainty for those involved and because in effect the process has already started.The final point that I will make before I resume my seat is that this is a very straightforward bill. The entities and potential submitters who have a stake in this can quite easily be identified and so can be invited to provide submissions on this bill which of course is incredibly important but it is not a bill that is likely to elicit a huge amount of submissions so it can be done in that short period that we are talking about when this bill goes through select committee. That's the final point that I wanted to make so thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. I was tempted to just sit there but I do stand with some reservation simply in fear that if we do not speak to this motion the other side of the House will simply portray this as something that it is not. So I feel it's upon myself to come and stand and speak in support of the Minister for Social Development and her motion and to congratulate her on bringing this forward because this Government simply has no choice.A shortened time frame should ensure that this bill is passed in time for the financial year. It is a little bit rich for the other side of the House to suggest that this is not needed. That was certainly the indication that we got when the motion was moved by the Minister. It is indeed needed and in many respects it is needed because of the actions of the previous Government. It is no secret now that this decision was brought to the previous Government in July 2017. If this issue was so important and if this is something as has been said today that was their idea—they're certainly pleased to be able to say that and it's in fact all that has been said on the other side of the House—why on earth was it not actioned in July 2017 in order for it to be in place in November last year? Yet again this Government comes forward and tidies up something that wasn't finished by the previous Government. In fact it was only last week that we were discussing the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill another example of something that could have been done last term and was not. In specific reference to this motion here it is very important to note that at the moment the process of disestablishment is already under way. The staff within the social policy evaluation and research unit need that certainty and if we went through the full process of the vital select committee process that may add unnecessary uncertainty to those workers. So I do support the Minister in this motion and I ask that the other side of the House do so as well. If it is indeed such a good idea as they've told us and if there is such a need to get this underway let's do so.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Madam Assistant Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Before I call the honourable member I just want to encourage against repetition in this debate as well. Relevancy and lack of repetition are key elements of this debate so I encourage the member in her contribution to be mindful of those two aspects. I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): Tēnā koe Madam Assistant Speaker. I just want to make a short contribution here. In saying how New Zealanders value democracy I want to allay the fears the public may have certainly stirred up by that side of the House around a truncated process to make sure that work has already taken place to date. What we are simply doing here is actually an administrative function that will see it fit within a certain time frame. The public are well aware the employees and staff of the social policy evaluation and research unit are well aware—and to the point made by the Minister for Social Development—to give them confidence and certainly some certainty around their particular job is important. My contribution is to make sure we allay the fears of the public who may see democracy being sidestepped if you like in the House. But we make a very clear point that it is administration and it is actually finishing the job that the former regime were unable to do because they acted with the strength of a hairless Samson. And that's simply not good enough. We're making sure that we get this job done. We can do this by making sure we have a truncated process.So my only contribution is simply to allay the fears of the public that we are sidestepping democracy here—no; in fact we are making sure we stick to a good administrative time frame that not only sits well with the financial years but also allows this aspirational Government to achieve for the future of New Zealand.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'll stay relevant and then sit down at that point.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): That would be great.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Ha ha! Thank you very much. I acknowledge humour when I hear it.The decision to truncate a select committee period should never be taken lightly but it is an operational matter as to why we have taken this decision. The select committee process is one of the most important in the legislative process to enable the public to have their say. But I would point out to the Hon Louise Upston who was showing some discontent with the decision to truncate the period down to two months that the truncation has been forced essentially by the inaction of the previous Government. In order for us to have this piece of legislation in force to disestablish the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) by 30 June this year—I guess in layman's terms we have to get our skates on. In order to do that the Minister in charge of the bill has asked that the public be given or the select committee be given that two months.I would also like to point out in terms of the time frame the previous Cabinet made the decision I believe in July of last year to disestablish SuPERU by 30 June this year.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Don't you want to talk about cartels?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Oh look I'm happy to take the opportunity to talk about a myriad of things.Because the previous Government had made that decision in July last year and wasn't able to get the legislation to this House before the previous Parliament was dissolved that's why we're here asking for this piece of legislation to have a truncated select committee process. So I find it just a little bit rich of the member who was shaking her head earlier in this debate to say Why are we doing this?" when this timetable was essentially forced upon us to make sure that SuPERU is disestablished within the time frame that the previous Government has set.There are some practical reasons for that in terms of doing it within financial years and to have some certainty—which I think is important—for those employees who are still working within SuPERU. So on that note seeing that the member showed some discontent with that time frame I'd just like to push some of that responsibility back to the previous Government as to why we're asking the select committee to take a truncated amount of time to consider this bill for operational reasons."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move That the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill be reported to the House by Monday 30 April 2018 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).Bringing forward the report date for the select committee is important to ensure that the bill is passed in time to allow the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) to be formally disestablished on 30 June 2018 the end of the current financial year. The timing of disestablishment is administratively easier both for SuPERU and for the various agencies taking over its functions and will support a smooth transition to the new operating arrangements. It also saves unnecessary costs by avoiding the need for a further round of accountability documents and associated reporting requirements.I do want to make the point that the Opposition at this very time are shaking their heads at this motion but it is the responsible way forward. The previous Government made the announcement that this entity would be disestablished. Public confidence can be affected when an agency has announced that it will be disestablished. There are also issues with morale for anyone working for that agency or entity if a public announcement is made that it's going to be disestablished and then that disestablishment doesn't happen in a timely manner. This Government is doing the responsible thing. We also need to be cognisant of the fact that functions of SuPERU have for the most part been transferred or wound down and staff capacity has dropped significantly as a result.The social development spokesperson on the other side continues to shout as I deliver this speech and I need to remind that member that they made the decision initially to disestablish the Families Commission. On this side of the House we had to draft the legislation because it hadn't been done when we came in and now as I said we're doing the responsible thing by disestablishing in a timely manner after functions have already been transferred to other agencies and after staff have already been released from SuPERU to other agencies.Sticking to this time frame for disestablishment by requiring an earlier report back from select committee provides a degree of certainty for SuPERU staff and members of the SuPERU board about their own next steps. I recommend this motion to the House.Hon Kris Faafoi: Madam Assistant Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Before I call the honourable member I just want to say that this debate is about the specifics of the motion and I want to urge participants in this debate to stay close to the specifics not talk about the bill and then we will all be happy. So I encourage complete relevance.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. The purpose of this bill is of course to disestablish the Families Commission. I thought it fitting that I talked to a former Families Commissioner. After all it is quite hallmark what we're doing here today. He said that what counted—and this is what every Families Commissioner knew over the years—is that if we keep family we keep whānau and we keep them all at the forefront of what we do then we will build a great nation build a great family—build a great nation. At the same time they knew and they discovered over the years that there were significant and tough challenges that we would face as a Government—a Government of any hue. They came across one particular discovery which he recalled to me. He termed it the Masterton discovery. Dozens and dozens and dozens of Government-funded agencies were found out there in Masterton serving the bottom 2 to 3 percent of struggling families. They all knew who the top 12 to 15 families were in Masterton but the agencies couldn't talk to each other. This is a familiar narrative that of course led to the birth of the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) and then to social investment. So did we as a National Party Government sit on that? No we didn't. We went from SuPERU to the Social Investment Agency and we've been defined we've been targeted and we've been intentional. This is exactly what we've done and what we've followed through on and it's now this Government's challenge. They need to decide whether they are on or off with social investment. Are they willing to admit that the model is actually much bigger than us all? And are families and their lives—Masterton families' lives if we want to use that example—more important than political ping-pong? That's this Government's challenge.Thank you to all those who served in the Families Commission. Time has moved on. Social investment is what we need.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. It's great to hear from Government members how important it is to be tidying up loose ends. Well I think the emphasis needs to be on the word loose". But it's good to be here to speak on another National Party piece of legislation the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill.Kieran McAnulty: You've said this speech before.SIMEON BROWN: Well I have. I have given this speech so many times because this Government has run out of ideas and they're still in their first six months in Government. So I'm really glad to hear that. It is great to be here again progressing our legislation and I'm sure that we'll continue doing some more of that over coming weeks.I've been hearing a number of members on the other side of the House talking about the term "social investment" and how they could use this term or that term to rename it. But I think at the end of the day that's just semantics. What it comes down to is the work that has been done by the previous Government—the work that we're very proud of in terms of helping those and investing in those who need support most in terms of turning lives around and ensuring that we support the families and whānau up and down this country who need the support of our Government. We could argue the semantics of these words but what is actually more important is the work that is being done by many people up and down this country and the work that we should be recognising here in this House.It's a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill. This bill will be achieving some greater effectiveness and efficiencies in the provision of social science research and advocacy in the interests of families across this country. The National Party is pleased to be supporting it and we look forward to seeing it progress through the House. Thank you very much."
Hayes Jo; Williams PotoJO HAYES (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I just want to echo the sentiments that have come from this side of the House on this bill. I just want to say how great it is that the Labour-led Government has prioritised the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill a National-led Government bill that prioritises really a social investment approach. It's great that Labour are starting to see the light through the eyes of the National-led Government. I think it's great that that's what's happening today with this bill.I think it also signals that the Labour-led Government is running out of ideas it's running out of policy and it's running out of all of those things that a Government's supposed to have. But—thank God for this side of the House—it has got plenty of work coming before it.I just want to comment on a few of the things that have been said here in the House. The first one is around the Families Package that it was a Labour initiative. It wasn't a Labour initiative; the Families Package came from this side of the House and we had a very strong families package and at the end of the day we were putting more back into the pockets of those middle- to low-income families through our families package. So you know if people are out there saying that it was a Labour-led initiative it's a load of bollocks.So as I stand here and I'm very pleased that this Families Commission Act Repeal Bill has come through—you know at the end of the day it does tidy up just a loose end of disestablishing the social policy evaluation and research unit from the Families Commission so that this repeal bill can actually go ahead and make it all pretty much smooth running from here on out. So without any further ado obviously this side supports the bill—we would because it's our bill that the Government has taken up. So without any further comments I support the bill. Kia ora.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Marja Lubeck you have five minutes.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): What a very good place to start: loose ends. The member who has just resumed her seat Tracey Martin said that this was the Government tidying up loose ends from the previous Government. Well actually what I would describe it as is loose beginnings because I don't think there is a single piece of legislation that we have got through apart from that one that we've just had that wasn't the work of the previous National Government. This is certainly an example of both an extremely busy National-led Government and an extremely quiet Labour-led Government who can only see their way clear to progressing the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill because nothing else is coming through the pipeline. But obviously we support it; it was our work. It's the tidy up of a body of work that will improve social policy in this area.I want to just make a couple of quick points firstly about the term social investment" which was referred to both by the Hon Peeni Henare and the Hon Tracey Martin and that I think reflects a sad lack of understanding about the term "investment" as if this was some kind of pecuniary thing. Actually what we were talking about was investment in people; not in dollars—and in people who needed that help the most. And I hope in whatever review that the Minister for Social Development wants to embark on and whatever changing nomenclature that the Government will implement that that core goal of what we call social investment—that is the target interventions to those individuals children and families who needed it the most in order to live healthy lives independent of the State—is not lost.I'd also like to quickly touch on the Dunedin study which was mentioned by the Hon Tracey Martin in the context of that perhaps being at risk—of undermining its funding. Nothing could have been further from the truth and I can say as the National member of Parliament based in Dunedin that would never have happened on my watch. That is one of the world's leading social inquiries it has been going for 46 years this year and it will go on in perpetuity. But I do encourage Tracey Martin to consider going to the Minister of Finance at Budget time and saying that she would want one of her programmes to be budgeted in perpetuity; it just doesn't happen. Every programme however worthy—as the Dunedin multidisciplinary study is—is certainly subject to periodic budget scrutiny.I note there is a shortened report back not in fact because this has been well consulted on but actually because the Government is so desperate for work that they need to get the second reading committee stage and third reading out before the Budget because they're worried about running out of work. So we'll probably let that one go through to the keeper whether or not we support it. We certainly support the bill."
Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): I want to acknowledge my honourable colleague across the way because the Hon Peeni Henare is a great orator in this House. He's given many speeches in the House that have been articulate that have been charismatic that have been passionate but I have to say that speech had none of that. Why is that? Because he was swallowing a tuna that he did not catch. This tuna he did not catch and so it was like a dead rat that he's had to swallow. And why is this? Because this bill is a bill that came from the National-led Government.All the things that he talked about—social investment—it was amazing. It's almost like he read the copybook that came from our caucus that talked about social investment and the importance of it. He went on and on but I have to tell you when I looked across the way—and I've seen this orator speak. When he's spoken he's captured the attention of the people. That speech was not one of them. Why? Because he knows he's had to swallow the tuna that he did not catch. But he knows that this is a good tuna. Why? Because this tuna has all the elements of doing the right things.Let's see where this tuna actually came from. In 2002 the Hon Peter Dunne what did he do? He had an agreement. There was an agreement with the Labour Party of the day that they would actually form a Families Commission. The intent was to provide research to provide data to provide evidence that would ensure that their policy which focused in the right direction with fiscal accountability would truly make a difference. So none of us ask the question: why? This is the issue—the question is: how? So we're here today because under a National-led Government we talked about the disestablishment of the social policy evaluation and research unit and the Families Commission because we wanted to put it in a place that would truly make a difference. So we stand here.We enjoy the fact that the Government of the day are struggling to make their speeches because they know that their speeches are written exactly here from this caucus when it was the National-led Government which truly made a difference. They are sounding like us. This is what they're saying: we want to make a difference for our families; we need to have the right data; we need to talk about social investment; we need to have an agency. Mr Assistant Speaker I'm going to tell you this: it's as if they were sitting inside the caucus room themselves and they wrote their speeches by listening to us as we spoke. But you know we criticise a little bit but we support the fact that—we will support this bill because they support this bill.I'm proud to say that in this bill—one of the things I'm proud that will continue on is the Growing Up in New Zealand a longitudinal study that started under a National-led Government to ensure that we had the right tools in the right place to make the right difference. I don't need to speak too much. We support this bill into the House.
State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill — First Reading
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): I rise to take a brief call. It's the first time this year that I do stand to speak to address the House on the passage of a bill and albeit being brief in the last call as a speaker for the National Party this afternoon it's to address the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill. It is an omnibus bill which in other words is the combination of a number of other Acts wrapped into one to be considered for amendment.It is interesting to note as has been noted by previous members colleagues of mine from this side of the House that this was work that was already underway through the State Services Commissioner reviewing the processes and is now formally being addressed under this bill. Also it's been noted that National has been somewhat a little bit surprised by this bill appearing on the Order Paper. It didn't appear to be a matter that was of any regard or note during the campaign. However with the matter now being brought before the House by this Government notably the purpose is to provide for greater integrity and accountability in the management of the State services.By going through this first reading by taking this passage it's noted that it's actually a pleasing change to that pathway that's been taken with a number of pieces of legislation before the House in recent months. One would question whether that pathway was in fact a pathway of transparency integrity and accountability. So it is pleasing that this is a bill that's not being rushed under urgency that views and submissions are appropriately being taken into consideration and that enforcing that pathway of integrity and accountability it will go before a select committee for due consideration.I will speak briefly to summarise what this omnibus bill will address. It is about a single integrated approach in the State services across the dimensions of the Crown Entities Acts and the State Sector Act. It's been noted that it amends section 117 of the Crown Entities Act and that it requires the board of a statutory entity to obtain the written consent of the State Services Commissioner before finalising the terms and conditions of employment of the chief executive.Notably the previous speaker the member across the House Paul Eagle spoke of his experience of being the chair of a review committee for a chief executive and in the appointment of a chief executive. My time is short but it's simply to share having been in a similar position also that this piece of legislation will encompass and wrap up and ensure that there are standards of consistency and that in those standards it provides that level of integrity and accountability. We would certainly urge and encourage the Government to maintain that pathway in addressing all other matters that come before the House.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill and I am looking forward to going through this in the Governance and Administration Committee which is a hard-working and very competent select committee—not to say that the others aren't of course.I want to take this from a personal perspective as an employer as a company director as a former chairman of a board and from my experiences around remuneration of key staff particularly chief executives. I think while the bill—and the main part that we're talking about here is amending section 117 of the Crown Entities Act to require the board to consult or seek written consent from the State Services Commissioner before finalising and agreeing the terms and conditions of employment of a chief executive. It is an international market that we work in like it or not and the role and the relationship between the board—particularly the chair of the board and the chief executive—is really important. While it would be quite good to limit pay significantly with that comes some risks and the risks are quite squarely on the board.I think why the boards often go over the top is a lack of their own confidence in their own ability perhaps or particularly when it's an existing chief executive and they're renewing their contract it's just something that they need to test the market a little more on I suspect.But that may be the market. We have had the example given by the Hon Tracey Martin of Adrian Orr who is soon to take up the role of Governor of the Reserve Bank at a significant pay cut. We would be at great risk if we were going to rely on the altruism of candidates for chief executive roles if we want good performance. There is no doubt that top performers do make a significant difference to any entity that they head up.The point put out by the Hon Clare Curran—not Clare Curran sorry; it was a Green MP—which was really a wild diatribe on the Karl Marx writings is not I suspect what we actually should be talking about. We need to talk about people getting remunerated for what they deserve for that job and I think this is a very good bill actually but it's on the work that we started—while you would've thought it would've come from Karl Marx from one of the previous speakers. So it is with that that I commend the bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll just remind the member sitting in the front seat that you can't actually move seats to take part in the contretemps across the House to take advantage of an extra position.
Yang Jian; Tolley AnneDr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. This bill attempts to provide for greater integrity and accountability in the management of our State services sector. It attempts to clarify and also to streamline the roles of the State Services Commissioner. At the moment most Public Service agencies are already consulting with the commissioner and also have regard to the commissioner's recommendations and this bill attempts to make it a cross-agency practice—a more standard practice. So for that reason we will support this bill to the first reading.While we support the bill we need also to be careful in approaching these issues to make sure that the bill itself won't be used to target some specific CEOs like a witch hunt about a few CEOs. Also we need to understand that public agencies often are large organisations. They often compete with the private sector and so on the one hand we need to make sure that we are able to get the very best candidates; on the other hand we need to respect the taxpayers' expectation—that is taxpayers' right to expect transparency around issues like salaries. So how to balance these various factors is something we need to be very careful of.To proceed to the Governance and Administration Committee—which is a very capable select committee—is the best way to go forward so I support the bill. Thank you.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next speaker has a split call and I will ring the bell at one minute. I call Kiri Allan.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand in support of this omnibus bill which amends the Crown Entities Act 2004 and the State Sector Act 1998 to provide greater integrity and accountability in the management of State services. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the select committee—the hard-working select committee—that will be looking after this bill. I hope that we have detailed deliberations during the select committee process. I would like to agree also with the previous speaker Tracey Martin who mentioned that we have got hard-working State services people who work hard for the betterment of our economy. Treasury has cautioned that these public agencies are large organisations and are competing with the private sector for top-quality candidates. We have to understand that in today's competitive world the best people are taken for the best jobs. They want to make sure that we in the public services sector can get the best people to take those agencies forward. Sometimes the best candidates for a position might not be available for a Public Service role due to the competition with the private sector which is a very important aspect that we have to understand. This bill will try to help those issues and I hope that once we go through the select committee process we will be addressing some of the issues that are being raised. With these words I support this bill.
Thursday 1 March 2018 - Volume 727
11. Defence Force—FundingHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of DefenceDefence Force—Funding11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I've said some pretty outrageous things in my time so I'd have to say yes mostly except for those things that I've changed my mind on.SPEAKER: I just want to remind both members that we're talking about ministerial statements.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he stand by his ministerial statements?Hon RON MARK: Yes I do.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister stand by his statement We need a massive injection of funds. We need to be out to 2 percent of GDP in relation to defence expenditure."?Hon RON MARK: If I recall correctly that was a comment that was made about New Zealand First's policy and that was a recognition that New Zealand First has not resiled from its policy. But I think I went on to explain that the Government's policy is something different.Hon Mark Mitchell: In light of that answer is the Minister committed to the Defence Capability Plan 2016?Hon RON MARK: That's a very good question and I thank the honourable member for that. One of the things that we are very proud of is that this coalition Government has agreed to the commitment to uphold the previous Government's commitment to a $20 billion spend on the capability plan. We just intend reviewing that plan to ensure that it's still set right and that it's on target and we will achieve those goals and objectives that we set.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does the Minister expect our New Zealand defence forces to reduce personnel costs?Hon RON MARK: I don't expect anything in that vein and I would at this stage be talking to my coalition partners around funding. As the member knows we're in that Budget round process. New Zealand First is committed to providing the men and women of our defence forces with the resources they need to do the job—sorry the Government is committed to providing our men and women with the resources they need to meet their commitments internationally that we send them to do.Hon Mark Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand defence forces under the new Government are moving into a position where they have to moderate demand for strategic initiatives?Hon RON MARK: No I'm not aware of that at all."
10. Mycoplasma Bovis—CostHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of AgricultureMycoplasma Bovis—Cost10. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Yes.Hon Nathan Guy: When he said in the House on 14 February that industry hadn't been approached for financial assistance to deal with the M. bovis cattle disease is he now aware that industry has been formally approached to fund about $11 million in operation costs?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of discussions that have taken place. I'm aware that there are figures on the table. They are subject to a Cabinet process and I'm not in a position to comment on them.Hon Nathan Guy: With just 30 days to go until an eradication decision is reached by him on M. bovis what advice has he received on the likely costs of full eradication?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I've seen a number of costs that have been bandied around. None have been confirmed and until we have accurate information on the likelihood the risks and the extent of the disease and its possible eradication I'm not in a position to comment on them. They will be before a Cabinet process and we'll be sharing those decisions with industry so that they buy into what we will be doing.Barbara Kuriger: In light of information from the annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries at today's Primary Production Committee what is the Minister's delegated financial authority in respect of biosecurity?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There's a vote for primary industries and within that there are appropriations across a large number of areas and responsibilities. They will not change. We are having business units as announced before Christmas. They'll be set up they'll be focused to achieve a lot better outcome than had been achieved by the previous Government in the areas of biosecurity and food safety where that member oversaw a system that you could drive a boat through—a boat full of cars full of marmorated stink bugs. We're going to change that. We have turned them around and we will turn them around.Barbara Kuriger: It wasn't the answer I was wanting so the next question is: how has the Minister exercised his delegated financial response to the ongoing Mycoplasma bovis crisis?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I've had the benefit of some support from the Associate Minister of Finance—he believes so far very well.
9. Earthquake Commission—Resolution of Outstanding Christchurch Earthquake ClaimsDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake CommissionEarthquake Commission—Resolution of Outstanding Christchurch Earthquake Claims9. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What steps has she taken to speed up the fair resolution of outstanding claims relating to the Christchurch earthquakes that occurred seven years ago?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): Yesterday I announced the appointment of Dame Annette King as the interim chair of the board of the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and Christine Stevenson as an independent ministerial adviser to speed up the resolution of outstanding claims in Canterbury. Both Dame Annette and Christine are committed to speeding up these claims because after seven years people need to be able to get on with their lives. They will bring a fresh set of eyes to the challenges in Canterbury and following a meeting with the EQC chief executive I am confident that by working together progress will finally be made.Dr Duncan Webb: What work will the independent ministerial adviser undertake?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Today I have released the terms of reference for the work of the independent ministerial adviser. This work focuses on improving the management of claims what constraints there are and how we fix these. These are crucial areas of focus that I believe will make a difference to processes at EQC and for the people in Canterbury. I'm expecting to be able to be kept closely informed of progress on this work and to report back in four to six weeks.Dr Duncan Webb: What other work has she commissioned?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Alongside the changes I've already discussed I've asked Treasury to lead an independent accelerated audit of claims and liabilities and responsibilities on remaining claims. When seen as a package these changes all come together to ensure remaining claims in Canterbury are resolved fairly and swiftly because people simply cannot wait another seven years.
3. Economy—Minister of Finance's Trip to South Korea and SingaporeKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceEconomy—Minister of Finance's Trip to South Korea and Singapore3. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What discussions did he have on economic issues on his trip to South Korea and Singapore?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In South Korea I met with the economic adviser to the President and the Vice Minister of Strategy and Finance—Hon Steven Joyce: Where are the slides?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and in Singapore the Ministers of finance and national development and the secretary of the National Trades Union Congress. I know you're jealous Steven. In addition in both countries I met with investors who have interests in New Zealand or have expressed some interest in doing so. A feature of the discussions was the close alignment of this Government's programmes with the priorities of our partner Governments. In South Korea this was evident in their shift to a people-centred economy and in Singapore in the planning that they are doing around the changing nature of work. Kiritapu Allan: What specific policy approaches did he discuss in relation to the economic implications of the changing nature of work?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Singapore has developed a sophisticated plan to support businesses and workers—Hon Steven Joyce: This is like What I did in my holidays". This is great! The new innovation: "No really I did do some work." Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —through the disruption of new technologies and the changing patterns of work. You're going to have a changing pattern of work Steven—that's right. This included many elements similar to this Government's plans around the future of work such as more funding and innovative opportunities for training and retraining and long-term industry planning all of which is backstopped by a tripartite approach to these issues.Kiritapu Allan: How will this feed into the Government's approach to these issues? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Building on the outcomes of the Future of Work Commission this Government is focused on ensuring that the economy is prepared for the impact of rapid technological change. That's why among other things we have invested in the fees-free initiative it's why we are rolling out a range of youth employment programmes and it's why we are backing more innovative approaches to lifting productivity such as high performance engagement. We are also committed to a tripartite approach to these issues. I have already met with the chief executive of Business New Zealand and the president of the Council of Trade Unions to explore how we can further develop this and we will have more to say in the near future about this approach."