edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment BillText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill[Sitting date: 13 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes it is Mr Speaker. I think it is completely unreasonable when members take the opportunity to seek leave of the House to introduce a bill that has not been seen by other parties in the House. There could be no other option than to decline it. [Interruption]
Carter David: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment BillText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill[Sitting date: 13 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Woods Megan: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment BillText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill[Sitting date: 13 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill a member’s bill in my name and for that bill to be set down for first reading today before Government order of the day No. 1.
Urgent Debates Declined — AgResearch—Disestablishment of Jobs Trans-Pacific Partnership—Conclusion of NegotiationsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — AgResearch—Disestablishment of Jobs Trans-Pacific Partnership—Conclusion of Negotiations[Sitting date: 13 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7122. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedAgResearch—Disestablishment of JobsTrans-Pacific Partnership—Conclusion of NegotiationsMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Clark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the announcement about the disestablishment of jobs at the Crown research institute AgResearch. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The announcement on 24 September was that AgResearch was consulting on a proposal to disestablish jobs and that the decision on the proposal will be made at the end of October. The announcement of a consultation process on a proposal does not warrant the setting aside of the business of the House. Therefore the application is declined.I have also received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government’s announcement that it has concluded negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. I understand that the text of the agreement is to be released to the public. Before the agreement is ratified it will be subject to the parliamentary treaty examination process set out in Standing Orders 397 to 400. I understand that legislation is also required to give effect to the agreement which will again give opportunity for parliamentary debate. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is a significant agreement which should be debated by this House. There will be opportunity for parliamentary consideration of it in the future with the benefit of the text of the agreement and the national interest analysis. I am not convinced that at this stage the business of the House ought to be set aside to debate the matter.
Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment BillText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill[Sitting date: 13 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 13 October 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Points of OrderLeave for Introduction and First Reading—Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment BillDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill a member’s bill in my name and for that bill to be set down for first reading today before Government order of the day No. 1.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes it is Mr Speaker. I think it is completely unreasonable when members take the opportunity to seek leave of the House to introduce a bill that has not been seen by other parties in the House. There could be no other option than to decline it. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No I do not need any assistance at all. Order! I do not need—[Interruption] Order! I realise it is the first day back and there is a level of enthusiasm amongst members to engage but I am not going to allow a free-for-all with interjections across the floor. Leave was put it was denied and that is the end of the matter.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6619. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 22 October 2015 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).Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6613. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.
Tisch Lindsay: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6650. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Adrian Rurawhe—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6649. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Jan Logie—5 minutes.
Hayes Joanne: Māori Purposes Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes Joanne: Māori Purposes Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6632. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to stand to take a very short call to support the Māori Purposes Bill which is in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell the Minister for Māori Developmentin its first reading today. It is always difficult when you are the third-to-last speaker in the House on a bill. Much of what has been said about the Wī Pere Trust has been articulated right throughout this House on this day. There are many views about it. As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee I look forward to the bill coming to the select committee.Wī Pere was a very good leader. He was a very staunch supporter as we have heard of Māori land and especially that land around the East Coast. Yes he did have some trouble with the mortgage and that and the Bank of New Zealand did take a mortgage out over the lands but he did pay it back and I think that was the test of the man. He was a leader who walked the talk back in those days. He talked it and he walked it and I think that he leaves a very good legacy behind him.I am going to end my contribution there because as I said I look forward to the select committee process. I look forward to hearing the kōrero from the whānau of the Wī Pere Trust. I totally support the bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.
Tabuteau Fletcher: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6615. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): New Zealand First would like to stand up to oppose this proposal from the Minister of Finance. I would like to acknowledge a lot of what was spoken to by the previous member Grant Robertson. This is a truncated process and essentially undermines democracy. It undermines democracy and a longstanding process that has been accepted by the members of this House over decades of practice and participation.It should be noted especially coming from New Zealand First that smaller parties with only one member on such select committees are compromised entirely by this truncated process as we are unable to fully engage in this process in a meaningful way. We must make the very tough decisions of either contributing to the conversation and forgoing other work that we are obligated to do for this House in representing the people of New Zealand or we choose to represent the people of New Zealand in other business and we forgo our representation on this select committee for example. That is not acceptable. It is not a decision that should be forced on smaller parties.I would just like to end our opposition by voicing the fact that yet again this is another example of the Government taking an unwarranted opportunity to truncate a democratic process and take away essentially the voice of New Zealanders in terms of a contribution to a good fair and meaningful select committee process. We certainly cannot support this.
English Bill: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEnglish Bill: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6613. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I move That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 22 October 2015 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).There are a couple of reasons for moving this motion. The first is that the proposition has already had extensive and thorough scrutiny from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee as part of the parliamentary treaty examination process and that committee reported to the House last month. I would have to say that that inquiry was held in a constructive and positive atmosphere and I think that members of the committee noted the efforts of officials representing New Zealand and their efforts to achieve a truly modern multilateral institutional framework for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank—not a bad effort for a small country that will hold only a fraction of the capital.I may say that in that respect our fleeting moments of influence are probably now over in respect of the bank. That means that a foreshortened select committee hearing will not foreshorten the opportunity for Parliament or the public to understand the nature of the bill. In a technical sense the earlier date will allow New Zealand to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank as the articles of the agreement enter into force and that will enable us to continue to play a constructive and effective role as the bank begins its operations at the end of the year.I think that is consistent with what has been an effort across almost 50 countries to expedite this bill. It is a small part that we can play to get it through the select committee by 22 October.
Macindoe Tim: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6612. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is clearly a very significant initiative that has enormous potential to be of great benefit to New Zealand’s future economic growth and therefore I have great pleasure in supporting the measure. I thank most members in the Opposition parties for their support of the measure.
Yang Jian: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYang Jian: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6610. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to support our involvement in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. When I was listening to the speech by the New Zealand First member I got the strong impression that everything Chinese is bad everything Asian is bad—that is the impression.The world has changed. China is the second-largest world economy and many of the fast-growing economies in the world are in Asia. So this is the reality. Look at our trade with China. China is our second or first trading partner. In the 1970s our trade with Asia accounted for about 10 percent of all our trade but today over 40 percent of our trade is done with Asia so that is how important Asia is to us.It is clear that Asia needs that infrastructure. According to a 2009 Asian Development Bank report we need about US$8 trillion for Asian infrastructure so that is why we need to help Asia. To help Asia is to help New Zealand simply because Asia is so important to us. Our contribution is very small but symbolically it is very important so I am very pleased—I am very pleased—that New Zealand is the very first OECD country to sign up to this China-led initiative.It is good for us because as many members have mentioned we have many firsts in our relations with China and this is another first. It is important for us to strengthen our relations with China and with Asia simply because we are so close to the region economically and also culturally and in terms of people-to-people relations. So I support the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill wholeheartedly and I think we are doing a good job for New Zealand. Thank you.
Borrows Chester: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6608. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A Green Party 5-minute call—Dr Russel Norman.
Borrows Chester: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6603. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take the member’s point of order. The member who has just resumed his seat should be a little bit more discreet in respect of that but making a comment about a party is different from making a comment about a particular person.
Tabuteau Fletcher: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6603. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I took offence. He called New Zealand First—he implied—I do not want to say the word again it was so offensive.
Bennett David: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6602. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): When it comes to the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill I just want to take a short call. This bill is in regard to the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which is basically an equivalent of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. It is led predominantly from the Chinese economy rather than through the Asian Development Bank which is led by the Japanese economy and the World Bank led by the US.When we look at this proposal members have spoken about the hard work that officials undertook in negotiating it. I would like to congratulate those officials as well. I know that earlier in the year at a conference they were especially well-thought-of as being leaders in the negotiation with the Chinese and the Singaporeans to deliver the structure of this bank that has enabled many other countries in North America Europe and through Asia to feel comfortable to be involved in it and I think those officials need to be well thanked.It is good to see the Labour Party will be supporting this bill as well so that is good to hear. We know that the New Zealand First Party will not be supporting it. If it is consistent in its arguments then it should stand up in this House today and withdraw funding from the World Bank and withdraw funding from the Asian Development Bank which are both banks that essentially do the same thing. In fact this bank will actually be delivering finance to our region and to the South Pacific which is actually more important than probably the World Bank for us and the Asian Development Bank has had issues in doing that. So I would like to see consistency from the New Zealand First Party rather than bigotry against certain countries because of race.This is a good bill and is something that is needed. [Interruption] Do we hear there is something against that from the other side? Well I would like to hear your reason why you will not withdraw from the other ones. Thank you.
O'Connor Simon: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6594. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent reports has he received on smart electricity grid development in New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): I recently received the first year-end report from the Smart Grid Forum which was established last year by the Government to help to understand and advance smart meter electricity development in New Zealand. It is a forum that brings together academics industry consumers and officials. It found that the Government’s market-led approach relying on consumers and customers within a competitive market provides the necessary focus as well as the agility to help exploit smart grid technologies. The forum did recommend measures to help consumers understand and compare new technologies and also a way to monitor and report on the risks of transitioning to a smarter grid. I will be looking at ways to implement those recommendations.Simon O’Connor: What will be the focus of the Smart Grid Forum’s future work?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I have asked the forum to continue its work and I have sought its views on two issues in particular: first how New Zealand is progressing relative to other countries and what might be done to accelerate developments and second how smart grid developments might help to meet our emissions reduction targets. I want to thank the forum for its work to date and I look forward to continuing working with it. There is no doubt that in the future our electricity system will look very different from how it looks today. New technologies are already giving consumers greater choice. We need to ensure that we capture the benefits of technological advantages in New Zealand.
Clendon David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClendon David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6592. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.DAVID CLENDON (Green) to the Minister of Corrections: How many Specific Deductions were issued to SERCO and then withdrawn since SERCO took over management of Mt Eden Corrections Facility; and what is the amount of each of those withdrawals?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Since Serco took over the management of Mt Eden Corrections Facility in 2011 I am advised that Corrections has issued a total of 55 performance notices to Serco. Seven have been withdrawn and the total amount of the withdrawals is $275000.David Clendon: Does the Minister approve of Corrections’ decision to excuse the $100000 fine that was imposed when Serco failed to take back razors that had been issued to inmates; if so why?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: That is not part of the fines that were actually withdrawn as part of the seven that I referred to in the primary answer.David Clendon: I seek leave to table a reply to an Official Information Act request from Corrections which shows a specific deduction to the tune of $100000 withdrawn in the 2014-15 year around the issue of safety razors.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act reply. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.David Clendon: Given that at least 14 performance notices were issued in the 2014-15 year alone why have none of these doubled as a final notice so that the contract with Serco can be terminated?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Those notices that have been issued are still subject to a reply. It would be imprudent at this point to issue any of those types of final notices while there is due process required in those circumstances.David Clendon: Does the Minister still have confidence in Serco?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: My confidence in Serco as I have already said in this House is dependent on the review that is currently taking place by the chief inspectorate into the incidents at Mt Eden prison.
Smith Stuart: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Stuart: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6592. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Social Development: What is the Government doing to support sole parents off benefits and into study?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): In July we aligned the accommodation supplement and the accommodation benefit. This means that sole parents who take up full-time study are now eligible to receive the same rate of accommodation support that they would on a main benefit. I am pleased to report that 598 applications have been approved in just the first 2 months and the majority of these students are now receiving between $60 and $225 per week depending on their circumstances. Previously the maximum they could receive under the student support system was $60 a week.Stuart Smith: What are the benefits of tertiary education for people on benefits?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Each year we see approximately 20000 clients exit a benefit to take up full-time study. Research shows that those completing level 4 qualifications or above were between 9 and 19 percent more likely to get work within 5 years of starting their study. Beneficiaries who completed levels 1 to 3 qualifications were 5 percent more likely to be employed within that same period. We also know that on average beneficiaries with a tertiary qualification spend 6½ years fewer on a benefit. This Government is focused on providing a range of options to improve the employment prospects of young people in New Zealand.
Mark Ron: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6589. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Ron Mark: Does he stand by his statement yesterday: “There was a process and that Red Peak like all the other flags went through that process. I’m not the head of the committee.”; if so why is he now considering a fifth design?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question the answer is yes. In answer to the last part of the question in an act of conciliation and the like I have tried to say to the Labour Party that if it wants to actually honour its election pledge and actually go out there and back a fair and even process—in other words man up to the words that it went—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been answered.Ron Mark: What has persuaded him to corrupt the process that his Government passed into legislation in this House?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely nothing. But I am known as a person who is reasonable and fair and if the Labour Party wants to come around and have a nice cup of tea and talk about how there could be a fifth flag on the ballot paper and then run a fair reasonable process—because its members privately go out I am sure and tell people that they want a change of flag—then I am happy to do it.Ron Mark: Does he consider the Red Peak design his saviour for his failed flag change project?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the process that we are going through of considering whether the New Zealand flag should change is actually a good one. I think it is an issue about national identity and national pride and about whether we as a young multicultural country at the bottom of the world want to demonstrate to the world that we can have a new iconic flag that represents who we are. You know I understand that some political parties take a different view on these matters.Ron Mark: On a different statement does he stand by the statement he made in the House when he announced the deployment of troops to Iraq that “The deployment will be reviewed after 9 months and will be for a maximum 2-year period.”; if so can he tell the House why after less than 5 months he is now considering deploying an extra platoon of infantry to Iraq?Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions the right honourable Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no knowledge of that at all. We made a commitment that we would have around about 150 people or slightly fewer than that in Iraq and as I understand it that number is going to be consistently maintained.
Ross Jami-Lee: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6587. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government helping New Zealand businesses to grow their exports?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): This morning my colleagues Murray McCully Tim Groser and I launched the updated export markets work stream of the Business Growth Agenda. The report lays out an ambitious trade development programme over the next year to strengthen existing relationships in China and the EU while also making the most of significant opportunities in South-east Asia and Latin America. As part of our trade strategy we will be working closely with industry to develop a longer-term policy for other key and growing markets. The updated export markets work stream sets out an ambitious programme for further growth not just in the economy generally but also in investment and importantly in jobs.Jami-Lee Ross: What is the Government doing to strengthen our relationships with South-east Asia China the EU and Latin America?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As part of the 40th anniversary of the ASEAN - New Zealand relationship we are working hard on a new strengthened framework with South-east Asian nations to mark this milestone event and further raise our exports in this growing part of the world. In China we are working on an upgrade to our free-trade agreement. We are pursuing the launch of a free-trade agreement with the European Union while also continuing negotiations on the multilateral Trans-Pacific Partnership and the ASEAN Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreements. In Latin America we are developing a new partnership with the Pacific alliance countries a trade bloc that consists of Mexico Peru Colombia and Chile. As part of that commitment Minister McCully announced that next year we will be opening a new embassy in Bogotá the capital of Colombia to grow our presence in South America and serve as a base for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and Education New Zealand in that region.Jami-Lee Ross: What other measures are contained in the updated report to help grow New Zealand’s exports?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The export markets update contains a total of 23 new projects. Alongside the ambitious trade strategy I have already mentioned the report sets out the importance of maximising the benefits to exporters of existing trade agreements like the new Korean free-trade agreement; developing the world’s most efficient and cost-effective border management system to support trade and people flows; to grow New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s portfolio of companies; to grow international education and tourism further; and to develop and grow our international marketing brand. These are all designed to increase economic activity and job growth in the New Zealand economy.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Oral Questions—ConductText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Oral Questions—Conduct[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6582. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I first address the points raised by Chris Hipkins. With regard to tabling the point that I am making in that ruling is that I will be asking the member who seeks to table whether they have done some work to ascertain public availability. There will be occasions when an answer is given that to the best of their knowledge it is not publicly available. That will be perfectly acceptable.With regard to the point about ongoing provocative answers if the member had listened I said quite clearly that I will be the sole adjudicator as to the length of answers but I am equally saying to Ministers answering questions that once the question is answered that is sufficient. To go on and then add provocative words is unhelpful it leads to disorder and I will be dealing with that more severely than in the past.With regard to the point raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee I looked at the transcript of Hansard. I then watched the proceedings as available via Parliament TV. I could hear no interjection at all delivered by any member so if it was it was not available for me to adjudicate. If there was an unparliamentary remark on this occasion I think that that member may well get off very very lightly. If it is an interjection that occurs in the back half of the House it is often heard by members who sit in the back half of the House. It may not necessarily be picked up by Hansard. It may not be picked up by me in the position that I sit. But if the members study that ruling carefully the final paragraph said that there had been on occasions some very unparliamentary comments hurled across at various members. That will cease or I suspect that members who persistently do that risk being named in this House.
Brownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Oral Questions—ConductText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Speaker’s Rulings — Oral Questions—Conduct[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6582. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Also on the day in question there was a very audible derogatory comment from a member directed at yourself Mr Speaker so I presume that you have considered the tapes—listened to the tapes—and will be aware of that comment. Is it your intention to leave the matter with the warning that you have given the House today or should it be taken somewhat further? I realise that if there was a privilege case to be brought it should have been brought as soon as possible but given the severity and the ridiculous nature of the comment—two almost contradictory things—it was decided certainly on our side to leave your consideration to the undertaking you had given to the House last week.
Hipkins Chris: Speaker’s Rulings — Oral Questions—ConductText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Speaker’s Rulings — Oral Questions—Conduct[Sitting date: 15 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6581. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are just a few things out of your ruling that I would like to ask for clarification on and that is first of all around the tabling of documents where you have indicated that the onus is on the member to ascertain whether a document is publicly available before it can be tabled. I just want to get some reassurance from you that a best endeavours approach is the right way to go because it is not always possible for members to search every available website to see whether something is available. If they have received it under the Official Information Act for example it may or may not be publicly available and a best endeavours approach should I think be taken to that.The second is around interjections. I think that there is a challenge here in the ruling that you have made. One is that often long lengthy answers or provocative answers will actually elicit disorder amongst members of the House. And if you are indicating that disorder stemming from that therefore gives Ministers licence to go on even further or to be even more provocative in their answers then I think that that is actually going to lead to more disorder in the House not less.
Vote: Land Transfer Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Land Transfer Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6561. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transfer Amendment Bill and the Tax Administration Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 108New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bills read a third time.
Parmar Parmjeet: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParmar Parmjeet: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6564. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). Since the validity period of passports for adults was reduced people have been very keen for it to be changed back so this bill is in response to that need. This bill is going to extend the validity period of passports from 5 years to 10 years for citizens aged 16 and over. We know that the reason for reducing the validity period of passports was security and it was not just us; other countries also took such measures but since then some countries have gone back and increased the validity period of their passports. It is the right thing to do to increase the validity period of our passports from 5 years to 10 years.A passport is a travel document and people travel for various reasons. Those who travel for business reasons travel quite often and it adds extra work inconvenience and expense to renew a passport every 5 years. Given that we are a very multicultural country—one in four people in Auckland is born overseas—people have extended families overseas and they visit them quite often. Sometimes there can be an emergency in the extended family requiring travel. The 5-year period is seen to be too short. I say this taking into consideration that with technology we can renew passports online—filling in forms etc. can be done online—but still this 5-year period for passports is seen to be too short. So I support extending the validity period of passports from 5 to 10 years and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a second time.
Naylor Jono: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6562. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to rise and take a short call on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). This is good sensible policy that is responding to an ever-changing world. As we have just heard from the previous speaker Poto Williams there were very good reasons to reduce the validity of passports from 10 to 5 years but now that we are able to extend it back out to 10 years again that makes a lot of sense. I think that for a significant number of New Zealanders this will be very much welcome news. Although some people may get to use their passport every year for a holiday I know that for many New Zealanders an overseas trip is something that perhaps might happen only every 5 or 6 or 7 years. For those people to perhaps have to go to the expense of getting a passport only to find it has expired the very next time they want to go overseas certainly would add a fair amount of cost to them for an overseas trip that is not going to occur very often. Technology has moved forward as again other speakers have referred to—we have got the SmartGate ability with our new passports and that kind of thing.For anyone who was considering perhaps extending the length of passports for people under the age of 16 there are clearly really good reasons why we would not do that. I experienced that a little bit myself earlier in the year when we went to go through the SmartGate with my two boys and neither of them were actually able to go through the SmartGate because their faces had changed through their teenage years to such a significant level that actually the face recognition software did not recognise them. So given how quickly young people can change it is obviously a clear reason. Interestingly enough though it still accepted me even though I had considerably less hair than the last time my passport photo had been taken. So it is obviously able to accommodate some things like that but just not some of the changes that young people will have as they go through those early phases of life.So I am absolutely pleased to be able to see as I said good sensible policy coming through good practical responses and an ability to provide good services for New Zealanders with regard to their passports. I commend this bill to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6561. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): When we were last on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) the next split call went to the Labour Party. Does it wish to take the 5-minute call?
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transfer Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Land Transfer Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6554. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call David Seymour—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Land Transfer Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Land Transfer Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6553. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Eugenie Sage—5 minutes.
Scott Alastair: Land Transfer Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: Land Transfer Amendment Bill Tax Administration Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6547. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): In responding to Dr Clark’s comments and his reasons to perhaps postpone the passing of this legislation as far as—and rending handwriting as some sort of impediment to slow the progress of this bill down just demonstrates his attitude to what is simply work. If it is too hard just do not do it. I suspect that that is his attitude to work—if it is too hard do not do it. This bill will pass whether some articles need to be handwritten or not.This bill is around gathering information relevant information and the information that relates to people owning their own homes is not relevant. It is not relevant. We are after real information on who is buying and selling property with a view to making a profit. This bill is supporting what is already legislation which is about taxing people who buy a property with the intention to sell for a profit. That is all it is doing but this bill is the gathering of the information. So what we are going to end up with is real information real facts and real numbers around who is buying and selling property in New Zealand. It is not going to be made up. It is not going to be created or sought from a friendly real estate agent. It is not going to be statistically incorrect—that is Mr Twyford’s plan to gather information. He just makes it up. He asks a friendly real estate agent and blames the Chinese—anyone with a Chinese name—for housing speculation. This bill allows us to gather real data so that we can make informed decisions and reinforce the existing legislation around taxing property speculation fairly.This bill is part of a suite of legislation that exempts the family home. There is simply no point in gathering information regarding the family home given that the family home is an exemption to the taxation rules. This is a very good part of a comprehensive suite of legislation dealing with offshore ownership of property and I commend it to the House.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6540. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have said to the House I will review the tape. I think that is the most appropriate way forward and after reviewing the tape I will then decide whether any further action is required.
Joyce Steven: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeJoyce Steven: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6540. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just feel the need to respond to the comments from colleague on the other side of the House because she is incorrect and she has misheard. I think for the benefit of the House I would like to make the point that the comment I actually made was in reference to Mr Mark and it was “sweary bear”. That was what I was saying which I have said before. So please—I did not make the comment that Tracey suggests I did.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6540. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need any further assistance—[Interruption]. I do not need any further assistance but I thank members for offering their assistance. I normally certainly take the time to go very carefully through the Hansard and review the situation to see some of the rulings that I have made. On this occasion I will look at the tape—I do not normally bother—but I am aware of a very unsatisfactory remark that was made across the House which I did not hear at the time but if I had heard it would have led to a very severe reprimand. There is a lot of interjection occurring from the House particularly in the far corners of the House which may get picked up on the microphones and get displayed publicly via the TV system that are not heard by me as Speaker. I think members need to be aware of that but I just warn all members that some comments made in the heat of the moment and some of the language used in the heat of the moment is totally unparliamentary and it must cease.
Brownlee Gerry: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6540. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think it may be a good idea if you were able to look at the tape. I know that you do regularly have a look and see just how things are going and how members are faring. I would also ask you to listen very carefully to that tape and perhaps indicate to some others in the House how you feel about it because there was most certainly an unparliamentary remark made that was addressed to you. I accept that it is your choice to act on that or not but I think there have been a few fractious moments and perhaps Ms Martin’s idea is not such a bad one.Hon Members: Point of order.
Martin Tracey: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6539. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you to reflect on an incident that happened here today with regard to my colleague Ria Bond. I would like you to have a look at the way that Ms Bond was treated by the House during her attempt to ask questions that she has every right to askand also about some of the sexist remarks that were made by Mr Joyce in particular with regard to a comment about “sweet pea” and so on and so forth. If you could have a look at the tape and perhaps just reflect on how in the future we may be able to treat woman with more dignity in this House.