edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to.after clause 3 insert new clause 3A.3AMeaning of acted in a way to distort proportionalityFor the purposes of this Act act in a way that has distorted proportionality means a member voting and speaking directly against the stated policies of that party from the previous election but shall not include any comments or voting of a list member on a matter specific to their approved geographic descriptor as approved by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to.after clause 3 insert new clause 3A.3ASection 3 amended (Interpretation)In clause 3(1) insert in its appropriate alphabetical order:distort and distorted mean in relation to the proportionality of political party representation varying the representation of Parliament by a degree greater than that caused by any other variation lawfully provided for in this ActA party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Bennett be agreed to.after clause 3 insert new clause 3A:3AMeaning of acted in a way to distort proportionalityFor the purposes of this Act act in a way that has distorted proportionality means a member voting and speaking directly against the stated policies of that party from the previous election but shall not include any comments or voting of a constituency member on a matter specific to their constituency.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.
Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put..Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that it consider and if it thinks appropriate adopt the amendments suggested by many submitters that constituency members of Parliament be exempted from the new power of party leaders to dismiss MPs.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry; Tolley AnneHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That's a totally and unacceptably trite explanation of these provisions and I'm disappointed. Andrew Little has been I think quite reasonable in providing a lot of information to the committee about how he sees the bill that he's brought before the House. But I would ask him if his position is correct how do we read new section 55A(2) in clause 5: The seat of a member of Parliament to whom this section applies becomes vacant if the member of Parliament ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected."? Now I can't see where the tie-back is that says there's some other provision in there that would trump this—it's absolute. So to suggest that somehow that's not the case is interesting—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report to the House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I'm always being interrupted. It's incredible.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I know.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Thursday)"
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I listened very closely to what the Hon Nick Smith was just saying and as he sometimes does he makes a very powerful compelling and logical argument. It's just unfortunate that he doesn't include all the words of the clause with which we are dealing at the moment. So clause 4 Section 55 amended (How vacancies created)" relates to the vacancies by members but it refers to where a member "ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which he or she was elected;"—go back to the beginning of that paragraph—"under section 55A" so the cessation of being a member of a party in Parliament under the rest of the provisions of the bill. So those examples that he gave—and again look it's great that members take an interest in our political history but Alfred Hindmarsh changed political parties as a consequence of the great Unity Conferences of 1913. It was by agreement. Harry Holland changed political parties by agreement and so the clause providing for section 55A would not be triggered. It would not be engaged. The creation of the National Party—a once-great political party in this country—in 1936 after their trouncing in 1935 was done by agreement because political forces do realign and they realign by political agreement. That's one thing that the honourable members opposite completely have failed to include in their calculations about the operation of these provisions. Those political judgments will continue to be made and if we are going to call on the great examples of the political history of this great country of ours can we just make sure that they are actually relevant to the provisions that we are debating. The examples the member gave are not relevant because they were changes made by agreement. Changes made by agreement will not trigger these clauses—that is another point. The provisions in this bill are not mandatory. They're not compulsory. They have to be triggered by a caucus and their leader and the party and what have you. So members need not fret about that. Political realignments will continue in this great institution of ours."
Tolley AnneNew clause 3ACHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Brett Hudson's tabled amendment to insert new clause 3A inserting new section 27A relating to freedom of members in respect of confidence votes is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Chris Bishop's tabled amendment to insert new clause 3A inserting new section 45A relating to the expulsion of Māori constituency members is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. The Hon David Bennett's tabled amendment to insert new clause 3A which inserts new section 4C(d) in the principal Act is out of order as it's outside the scope of the bill. Members that brings us to clause 4.
Little Andrew; Tolley AnneHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I will just respond to just the last clutch of speakers. I say to the member who's just resumed his seat the Hon Alfred Ngaro that I agreed with his proposition that the Minister in the chair is a reasonable person and he listened very carefully to the submissions that that member indeed made. The reason why I don't support that particular proposed amendment is that it is totally unnecessary. The Electoral Commission's role is to ensure that the electoral processes—the means by which members make it to this House—are conducted properly and in accordance with the law and the institutions that we have. They report on those matters and those means in their report to Parliament on the conduct of elections and Parliament in fact scrutinises what the Electoral Commission has done from one election to the next.The Hon Gerry Brownlee says that we need the containment of leaders' powers—if I summarised his argument. With all due respect to the honourable member I think he has conflated two propositions I put yesterday: one in relation to the Bill of Rights 1688 which was frankly a charter of anti-Catholicism; and the other was the origins of the Magna Carta which was about the aristocrats taking control at the expense of the peasants and the poor people. They were two different things and several hundred years apart but we refer to both of those documents now with some considerable glee because they contain propositions which taken out of their historical context look pretty good so we embrace them.But does there need to be any greater containment of leaders' powers and does this proposed amendment provide that containment? No it doesn't. The Hon Nick Smith says that we are in new territory we are in uncharted waters and this is a new law. Of course he is wrong on that—could not be more wrong. We've had this legislation on our books before. Previous legislation had a sunset clause and it's gone. Now this Government is putting it back in place. I think it is important for members when they are making their submissions to at least be accurate particularly if you've had 28 years of experience in this House. I think we are entitled to look to those experienced and senior members to be exemplars when it comes to the accurate statement of facts and not sort of make things up.So the Government is not supporting these amendments. They are unnecessary. There are checks and balances on all of these processes throughout and of course the ultimate—as Donna Awatere Huata found—was to go to court and test the justiciable aspects of these processes.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before I call the next member I just remind the Minister and other members that all members of this House are honourable and there are a number of rulings around suggesting that people aren't telling the truth.
SpeechHon David Bennett: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I'd just like clarification of your ruling because you had three points which you raised around the integrity of this House and I fully support those points. I'm on the wrong side of points one and three: point one where I was abused as the Speaker left the House and point three where unparliamentary remarks were made by the Speaker against a member. I have no course of action to take at this stage. There's no way I can go to the Speaker and have a reasonable conversation with him. This House and he should uphold those rights as a member of Parliament.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK OK—thank you. There is an opportunity for the member to facilitate what needs to happen. The correct way when you're questioning the Speaker is by a motion on notice. There is no other way to question the integrity of the Speaker. Now the matter is finished. We are moving on with the debate. The Hon Gerry Brownlee has 36 seconds.
Smith NickHon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Are you going to relitigate what I've just ruled on?Hon Dr Nick Smith: I'm going to raise a point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Is that point of order in regard to—Hon Member: You don't have a discussion about points of order.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I can ask that because we are setting aside the business of the House to deal with this. So I am within my rights to ask whether the member is going to relitigate a ruling I have made.Hon Dr Nick Smith: The point of order I wish to make is that your role as Chair is to uphold the conventions in respect of the House. Those conventions have been such that in my 28 years there has never been an instance where the Opposition has recalled the Speaker and governing parties have voted that down.Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes there has. Hon Dr Nick Smith: The convention—no. Well—Hon Chris Hipkins: There has. I moved it and you voted it down.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well I'm happy to—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! We're hearing a point of order. Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is a very unusual step to take. That is against the conventions of the House—that's my first point. My second point is that for there to be respect for the presiding officers of the House the respect needs to be mutual and I believe the words that Mr Bennett—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Oh be careful with what you say Mr Smith.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well what are you threatening me with—not being able to raise a point of order?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I'm just saying be careful with what you say.Hon Dr Nick Smith: All I'm simply saying is that if what David Bennett said was correct about the comments of the Speaker that brings the Speaker's office into disrepute and he's entitled within this House to raise that with him.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And that's—Hon David Bennett: Point of order. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No the member will resume his seat. We've already had this discussion. I have suggested a pathway forward for Mr Bennett which is that he should avail himself of going to speak with Mr Speaker. He should avail himself of that.
Bennett DavidHon David Bennett: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance because I do not have the faith in going to see the Speaker and I wish to find another remedy—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Sit.Hon David Bennett: —than having to visit him.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The member will sit. Once again I am having to rule on a point of order that discusses the integrity of this House and its presiding officers. I will not—I will not—accept that. If this is a chance for me to make a bit of a statement about this there are three basic principles with which this House operates. The first principle is that every member is honourable the second principle is actually the integrity of the process that we engage in and the third principle is the regard in which you hold the Chair or the Speaker to be impartial and to rule fairly. Now any of those three aspects that are out of balance cause disorder. What you are implying Mr Bennett could actually throw this House into gross disorder. I will ask you to withdraw and apologise. I have given you a course of action to take. You have raised a matter which is not a matter for this House as it was a discussion that was not had as a part of a debate.Hon David Bennett: Point of order Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I haven't finished my ruling Mr Bennett. I urge you to take that course of action. That's my ruling. I'm moving on.
Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — Speaker Recalled
Williams PotoNew clause 3A (Functions of Electoral Commission)CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We now come to the debate on new clause 3A relating to the functions of the Electoral Commission as set out in section 5 of the principal Act.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the next call—I waited until the member finished his contribution—we are debating proposed new clause 3A on the definition of integrity. If members are not going to be relevant to that clause then whoever's in the Chair will be obliged to take and accept the closure motion.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I don't think it is at all possible to speak to the definition of integrity" without giving some examples of how people have acted with a great deal of integrity during their parliamentary career. The fact is that we only get these five-minute calls. So far today I haven't seen anyone given an extension on their five minutes apart from where one member was interrupted by the Chair. I think in that event then maybe for the flow and follow of an argument it's not unreasonable that most of that time might be taken up by giving examples of integrity. I did just that. I named four members of Parliament who are well-known historically for having demonstrated high levels of integrity who frankly would have been slung out of this Parliament had this law been in existence at that time.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member but I have made that ruling. And as I said I encourage members—it is quite a narrow debate on new clause 3A on the definition of integrity."
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Mr Chair. If you could bear with me for just a moment I just want to seek some guidance from you. The Minister in the chair Andrew Little stood and took a call and directed some comments directly at me. I'd like to be able to address those.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Is this a point of order?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So what's your point of order?Hon MARK MITCHELL: So my point of order is that the Minister in the chair in his last call addressed some points directly to me about some issues that I had raised. I haven't had the opportunity to respond to those. I'm seeking your guidance in terms of whether I can during my call.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well members can seek a call during this debate. The Minister did not address you directly; he addressed the committee. If you're saying that you took offence or you want to address something there are rules within the Standing Orders that set out the procedures for members to take should they wish to address issues to the committee. So are you now—Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. I'm on my feet OK? You stood. I thought you were seeking a call. I gave you the call; in fact you had a point of order. Are you now seeking a call?Hon Mark Mitchell: I am now seeking the call. Thank you Mr Chair. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh well that's just not fair against the rest of us really!Hon Mark Mitchell: Ha ha! I was actually just seeking the Chair's guidance.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well actually that's not correct. OK so when the member stood he was actually taking a point of order. That is not what he said—he stood as if he was taking the call; that's why I asked.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I'm not relitigating your ruling at all but the point that was being made by my colleague was that essentially there are a lot of amendments on the Table for a bill that is to say the least challenging not only to many members of the Parliament itself but many of us would contend to the integrity of the electoral system—despite its name—and to the loose constitutional arrangements of New Zealand that ensure a high degree of freedom particularly freedom of speech. We have been informed by members of the media that the Government has told them that this bill will be read a third time later today recognising today is actually Wednesday.Hon Members: What?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Points of order are heard in silence thank you.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That I think is potentially an attack by the Government on the integrity of the Chair the integrity of the Speaker and the presiding officers. I would like to get some indication of whether or not there is some agreement among the presiding officers about how long this debate is going to go for. Is it a debate that is going to be unnaturally curtailed because the Government has a desire to get it through by a particular period at a particular time? Because I don't think—you know I wanted to raise this before. I didn't because I don't want to be seen to be unnecessarily interrupting things but it's an important bill possibly the most important bill in a constitutional sense that this Parliament will deal with.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The short answer: no.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Hon Gerry Brownlee: You can't have a point of order apparently in the middle of the vote. So be consistent. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It's completed.Hon DAVID BENNETT: It's a completed vote. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And by the way points of order are held in silence.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Mr Chair this is a very serious bill that we are discussing today and I've put up a very serious amendment. Only a matter of minutes ago I brought a point of order to your attention—that as the mover of that clause 3A amendment I would like to be able to speak on my very own amendment. Part of democracy would necessarily be that the person who moves the amendment should speak on it. That opportunity was not afforded.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That point of order has been dealt with and it finished there. I advised the member of that at the time. That ruling cannot be relitigated. I want to remind the member that he did in fact speak to his tabled amendment on the last sitting day that this bill was considered in committee. So on both counts he's incorrect. I am not going to entertain the idea that those rulings can now be revisited. They cannot and any further attempt to do so will result in a serious consequence.
Dyson Ruth; Rurawhe AdrianHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I move That the question be now put.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We are in the vote and you will wait to the end of the vote.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you Mr Chair. I see that you were looking on the other side of the Chamber. I have an amendment in new clause 3A—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): What's your point of order? Hon DAVID BENNETT: —and I request to be able to speak on my amendment in this committee at this time without a closure motion being addressed. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That is completely out of order. Please sit down.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put. [Interruption]SPEAKER: No. The issue is absolutely clear.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I want to make a few comments in support of the motion moved by Dr Nick Smith that it be an instruction to the committee of whole House that we can in fact consider the difference between someone who is elected off a party list and someone who is elected directly by their constituency at the time of the general election in relation to the powers that are conferred should this bill become an Act in the party structures that make up this Parliament or have representation in this Parliament.It's very interesting I think to note that there are members of this Parliament who were returned from their constituencies with a party logo attached to their campaigns but who have in those same constituencies a majority for another party on the party list vote.You could go through numerous seats held by members in the governing parties where the member won the confidence of the local electorate but the party did not share that confidence and in fact the Opposition won the party vote in those seats. That I think more clearly demonstrates the public's differentiation between the two types of elected member than anything else. So all that this motion asks is that the Parliament can in the committee stage of this bill consider whether or not there should be a provision in what we expect would become law for a different treatment for constituency members of Parliament. If a member of Parliament is elected from a constituency they've campaigned on a policy platform and to ignore that—[Speaker stands] Hang on.SPEAKER: No no. Don't hang on. You sit down.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh you're going to rule—all right.SPEAKER: Yes. I'm not quite terminating the member's speech yet but I'm warning him that he's getting very close.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This will be one of those occasions when perhaps your diligence in listening to what members are saying is far more acute than perhaps other times which is not particularly useful for speakers on their feet!So I say again: if the majority of this House decides that this is an instruction to the committee that should not be made then I think it has to be clear that that majority is made up largely of members who are not elected from constituencies and I think that is quite a problem. It would leave open the suggestion that somehow there is no need for constituencies in the future.SPEAKER: Order! Order! I haven't heard any new relevant arguments from the member. I think we had an eloquent exposition of the issues from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the member has not added to them. In fact he's been much less relevant than he should have been so his speech is terminated.
Wednesday 8 August 2018 - Volume 731
Patents (Advancement Patents) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Patents (Advancement Patents) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
12. Canterbury Recovery—Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance TribunalSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of JusticeCanterbury Recovery—Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal12. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Justice: What advice if any has he received on the need for the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I and I suspect other Ministers in this Government have been inundated by correspondence from literally hundreds of Cantabrians who are concerned that eight years on their insurance claims are still not settled and have been caught up in a log jam and they want action.Stuart Smith: Why weren't homeowners the Earthquake Commission Southern Response or other industry specialists consulted as noted in the regulatory impact statement?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government made a commitment about establishing a means for the thousands of Cantabrians who are still waiting for their insurance claims to be processed took appropriate advice and we are now acting on the promise that we have made in getting an earthquakes insurance tribunal established.Stuart Smith: How effective will the tribunal be given its stated purpose of dealing with only simple cases when the regulatory impact statement makes clear that the vast majority of remaining claims are complex?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: One of the challenges that seems to have existed is that those who have gone to court and taken litigation so far are up against the giants of the insurance industry who can expend any resources frustrate any claim or any of the litigation on any claim and this is a process of allowing those parties to come together in a relationship of greater equality with the assistance of the State so they can get their insurance claim sorted out.Stuart Smith: Supplementary?SPEAKER: No. The team's supplementaries have all gone.
11. Health Services—National Bowel Screening Programme ReviewDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—National Bowel Screening Programme Review11. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What confidence can the public take from the review of the National Bowel Screening Programme that was released this morning?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The independent review of the National Bowel Screening Programme confirmed the safety and value of the programme. The review found that despite some issues with the pilot programme overall it performed well and the national roll-out of bowel screening is progressing well. We know that screening programmes save lives and this review should give the public confidence that it is safe and effective.Dr Liz Craig: So what are the key recommendations of the independent review?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The report makes a wide range of recommendations including strengthening project management and reviewing IT governance; greater clinical oversight and refining the governance of the programme itself; ensuring a workforce development plan is in place; and a greater focus on equity of outcomes including increased engagement with Māori and Pacific peoples. These recommendations and others contained in the report will help strengthen and improve the National Bowel Screening Programme as it is rolled out nationwide.Dr Liz Craig: Has the Ministry of Health committed to implementing these recommendations?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Government is committed to making bowel screening a success. Once the National Bowel Screening Programme is fully implemented it is estimated that as many as 500 to 700 cancers each year will be detected early when they are easier to treat. This will save lives and improve the quality of life for many New Zealanders. The Ministry of Health has accepted the recommendations and it will publicly report on its progress early next year and again a year later.
6. International Education—Government Policy and Post-study Work RightsHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of ImmigrationInternational Education—Government Policy and Post-study Work Rights6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Yes in the context in which they were made or actioned.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe the material drop in first-year international student visas granted in the past year and in particular the 20 percent drop in Chinese first-year student visas is being driven by the proposed changes to post-study work rights?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: On behalf of the Minister no because they have not come into force yet. I'd also like to point out that while there has been a drop in new students studying lower-level courses there was a 10 percent increase in the most recent financial year in Chinese student visas granted for study at university level.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer does he then accept that the changes to work rights being consulted on will when implemented have a further significant negative effect on the numbers of international students studying in New Zealand.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No because we want to make sure that we have international students studying at a higher level here in New Zealand as opposed to the bums on seats" approach taken by the previous Government. I would caution the member for using some of the data that have been used for scaremongering around their sector to talk about the possible detrimental effect to the sector. One of those I understand said that there would be a decline in the number of student visas issued by more than the number that is actually issued at all.Simeon Brown: Does the Minister consider one-year level 7 graduate diploma courses to be "low-quality international education courses" as described in the coalition agreement and will he be cutting their visas this afternoon?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member will have to wait about an hour and a half to find out the exact details when the Minister of Immigration makes the announcement. But it is very clear that this coalition Government wants to make sure that the nature of international students coming to New Zealand are studying at a higher level to ensure that there is a match of skills that our economy needs not the approach that the previous Government took which was volume and not quality.Simeon Brown: Will he heed the calls from the National Party and the international education sector to reverse his proposals affecting level 7 graduate diplomas which will cost the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand sector $40 million per year in what are not low-quality courses?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: On behalf of the Minister unlikely and you'll have to wait an hour and a half for the decision."
5. Family Court Inquiry—Independent PanelDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of JusticeFamily Court Inquiry—Independent Panel5. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made about the Family Court?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Last Wednesday I announced an independent panel to examine the changes made to the family justice system in 2014 by the previous National Government. Three people have been appointed to the independent panel: former Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan and family law experts La-Verne King and Chris Dellabarca who will be supported by an expert reference group.Dr Duncan Webb: Why has the independent panel been established?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The 2014 changes to the Family Court were meant to help people resolve parenting disputes without having to go to court but in fact the opposite has happened. Prior to the reforms 30 percent of applications were without notice; following the reforms we're now seeing 70 percent of applications without notice. This is clogging up the court and prolonging the stress of all parties concerned.Dr Duncan Webb: What approach will the panel take to examining the changes made to the family justice system in 2014?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I've directed the panel to take a human rights approach when considering improvements to ensure that the welfare and best interests of children are paramount when settling disputes about their care. The human rights approach means that everyone's perspectives will be considered including survivors of family violence who at the moment are saying they're not heard as well as men who say that they're not being given the opportunity to participate in the parenting of their children as they should do. Talking with children who've experienced the Family Court system will also be vital for establishing how the system can work better for those who need it most.
2. Economy—Innovation in BusinessKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceEconomy—Innovation in Business2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the need for innovation in the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): KPMG's 2018 New Zealand CEO outlook survey showed that a key concern for New Zealand CEOs is the challenges associated with digital transformation; 64 percent of those surveyed agreed that their organisations are struggling to keep pace with the rate of technological innovation in their sector and only 26 percent are confident that their existing leadership team is fully equipped to oversee the radical transformation needed within their organisations. This is a consistent message I've heard from business leaders across the country: that innovation and adaptability are key to being successful in the modern economy.Kiritapu Allan: What is the Government doing to help drive innovation in the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker I'll just pick a couple of examples in light of your admonition yesterday. We're making investments to help Kiwi businesses drive innovation through our R & D tax incentive. Budget 2018 allocated a billion dollars for this initiative which will help hit this Government's target of lifting research and development spending to 2 percent of GDP in 10 years. We have also assembled the Future of Work tripartite forum bringing together representatives of business workers and Government for exactly this reason. It's an opportunity for all affected parties to discuss how we best adapt to technological change. Finally—just one more Mr Speaker—we announced the micro-credentials programme last week to help employers access the skills they need by working with providers to deliver short courses so learners and workers can upskill in this time of rapid change.Kiritapu Allan: How do these initiatives fit into the Government's wider economic strategy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: These policies are part of our plan to transition the New Zealand economy away from economic growth driven by housing speculation and population increase. We need to increase productivity work smarter and lift our products up the value chain to remain competitive in a 21st century economic environment. We are working with business to help them adopt new technologies and further roll out digital infrastructure. Through this Government's initiatives we are partnering with New Zealand businesses and workers to make this a reality. We have a plan to transition towards a more productive sustainable and inclusive economy and we're getting on with the job.
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to be speaking on this member's bill the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill. I'd just like to acknowledge my colleague Hamish Walker and his emotional poetry that he displayed in this performance. I'd also like to acknowledge all of the foster parents in New Zealand. You are doing a great service to our community and to this Government and for the National Party you are a priority to us.This bill gives equal access to a great scheme for foster children under 18 years of age. We should help foster parents where we can because they are doing a tremendous service in helping to bring these kids up—many of whom are coming up from very tough circumstances. The current process for applying for a KiwiSaver account is cumbersome and this bill seeks to streamline that.KiwiSaver is a great initiative—Kieran McAnulty: Thank you Labour.DAN BIDOIS: —that's why the National Government kept it in place. And yes I would like to acknowledge that this was a Labour initiative but this is what the National Government does. We keep good initiatives in place regardless of where they come from. We don't get rid of things that are going well just because of ideology and that is what this Labour Government is doing with charter schools national standards tax cuts and the 90-day bill.This will probably affect about a hundred foster children in my electorate give or take. This will give these people a leg up in a life that they've clearly started out behind in. We should be giving at a minimum the same access to these children that other children have as well but we do need to do more to provide more support and make it easier in particular for foster parents when they're taking and shouldering the burden of our society.I've talked to people in my electorate who actually do this—foster children—and I'm just amazed at the level of burden that they shoulder individually. I do want to mention a particular man that I've met in my electorate and his wife who over a period of well over 12 years have taken on board many foster children. And they often feel like the world is against them—that that level of cumbersomeness not just in KiwiSaver but in a whole range of processes with respect to the way they are able to provide care for foster children—they just feel like you know What is the point?" at times. We need to make it easier for these people to be able to do their job and also to contribute to these children's lives.The current processes for KiwiSaver for these parents are far too cumbersome. It has to go to the CEO of the Ministry of Social Development at present and none have gone there at this stage as I understand because of how cumbersome it has been. So I would certainly support this bill as a priority because as I said of the number of people in my electorate who take on this burden. I would strongly commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. So are we awake New Zealand? Are we awake? It's been a very testing hour hasn't it as we've navigated through some of the challenges of the Companies Act particularly for companies who are wanting to establish themselves under the operating framework if you like of a cooperative. Can I acknowledge please actually with some humility the feedback that I've had as members have spoken on this bill. As I said when I first opened this is a small technical amendment but it does have quite a significant import for companies who wish to structure themselves in a way that is more like a cooperative.The level of support and perspective that has been shared around this issue over the last half hour is very gratifying particularly from Minister Faafoi. Thank you for your support. I think the issue that the Minister raised around the official's concern with respect to retrospectivity—I am very sure that we're going to be able to find a way through that point. My colleague Andrew Bayly who's no longer here with us spoke about the support that this has received from both the Co-operatives Association but also companies like Zespri and others who are not actually cooperatives in the true sense—they are companies under the Companies Act—but wish to be structured as some.I think some of the distinctions in this bill perhaps have been lost. Kieran McAnulty's fantastic speech around the glory of cooperatives possibly overlooked the fact that this bill isn't about cooperatives. Actually it's about companies who want to act in a more cooperative way. But in the spirit of the goodwill that has flowed on this particular bill I'm not going to be too picky.Thank you for the support. I think we've got a fair direction and I look forward to the conversations with colleagues in the Primary Production Committee. I too of course commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Ever since the Otago cheese cooperative in 1871 the first in the Southern Hemisphere cooperatives have been a big and important part of our economy. I understand recent figures are that total revenue of the top 30 cooperatives in New Zealand is $42 billion so it's a substantial part. Reading the latest cooperative magazine there's an article about how they can drive sustainability throughout the economy. It acknowledged the work of Zespri Fonterra and the likes which we've heard mentioned in this debate.I'd like to acknowledge the member who's had his bill successfully drawn; I'd like to congratulate him. Look the Green Party's going to be supporting this bill. We support cooperatives. It's been enshrined in policy ever since the earliest days—to make it easier to reduce some of those barriers or uncertainties for cooperatives. It's been a good year for them with the recent bill dealing with the mutuality issue I think passing in the last couple of months. But this bill is dealing with the uncertainty around sections 53 and 36 of the Companies Act; around how those dividends are paid out and how it relates to the constitution. Why I think it's important to clarify it is because we do want to encourage that flexibility in constitutions and dividend payment regimes so those cooperatives can do fantastic innovative more flexible approaches to the enterprises. We absolutely support that.You would have hoped the jurisprudence would have at least resolved some of those uncertainties. It's apparent that it hasn't resulted in that and that's why we think there's merit in having the select committee hear the issues and ultimately resolve them.I won't speak for long because I'd wager more words have been spoken in this debate in the Hansard than all the words contained in the bill itself. Of course I wouldn't be a good Green MP if I didn't point out this could've been addressed over the previous nine years through various mechanisms. But look it's a good day when we're reducing uncertainty for businesses supporting cooperatives and supporting innovation flexibility. That's why we're supporting it tonight.
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Well you heard it there first. You heard it from the New Zealand First MP—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can hear everything.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Excuse me Madam Deputy Speaker—we heard it here first. We heard that New Zealand First wants to create some sort of dry share so that foreign investors won't receive a dividend from an investment that they might make in New Zealand. That's what—in jest maybe tongue-in-cheek but it just demonstrates the attitude that comes from the 5 percent party that controls the other 49 percent.Hon Kris Faafoi: Pretty crucial 5 percent though eh?ALASTAIR SCOTT: So that is the policy that comes from New Zealand First dangerous as it is. Now I would like to commend Todd Muller Mr Foifoi. Mr Foifoi I would like to commend—Hon Kris Faafoi: Foifoi? He was a league player!ALASTAIR SCOTT: Mr Muller for his—Mr Faafoi—for his luck and good fortune in drawing this bill from the ballot. It is a good bill. It clarifies a number of things—[Interruption]DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just stop this while there is this member on their feet.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. But I would like to agree with Mr Faafoi when he talked about the language that's used in perhaps the explanatory note and elsewhere talking about wet" and "dry". Mr Faafoi eloquently explained the difference but this does not just apply to dairy farmers. This legislation applies to companies not just co-ops. So this enables clarification for all companies to determine who receives what dividend across any particular share. Others have already explained the apparent contradiction or confusion between section 36 and section 53(2) so I don't need to go into the detail other than to say that section 36 is a positive and then 53 is slightly ambiguous and then brings in some negatives brings in the words unless (a) (b) or (c) applies.As we know the Companies Act can have a whole bunch of quite confusing language and I would encourage the select committee to look at the language that's used in the proposed amendment. In the amendment there are some double negatives there already. So I encourage the select committee to look at that to try and make it as simple as possible for the layman to understand.It is a good clarifying piece of legislation. We're always going to be looking for improvements in the Income Tax Act because it is so vast it is so technical that there will always be opportunities to improve it because of the complex nature of the Act. So I do commend Mr Muller for doing what he's doing by bringing this member's bill to the House. I do also appreciate the support—though I'm sure Mr Muller will say so himself—from across the House on this bill. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."
Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill — Third Reading (continued)
Dyson Ruth; Rurawhe AdrianHon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I regret I haven't consulted with the other parties in relation to the point of order I'm just going to make—I was engrossed in the speeches actually. This has been a very powerful contribution from all the speakers tonight and I am seeking leave for the House to rise early in order for the next speaker not to have a broken speech—so just for the dinner adjournment a couple of minutes early. I so seek leave.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Sitting suspended from 5:55 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Martin TraceyAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 10 to MinisterHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave during question time today.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Kia ora thank you. During question No. 10 of question time today Chris Bishop asked a question with multiple parts: Can she confirm the following: Cabinet appointed her as the sole appointing Minister for the Government inquiry into the appointment of a Deputy Commissioner of Police; she appointed the inquiry member from a shortlist of at least five names; the Gazette notice appointing the member is in her name and her name only; and the Minister of Internal Affairs has never been an appointing Minister for [an] inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013?" After checking the Hansard I can see that I incorrectly answered the first part of the question no. This should have been answered yes as Cabinet did appoint me as the sole appointing Minister for this inquiry though as I said earlier during this question the appointing Minister is a technical term that describes the Minister charged with confirming and carrying out the will of Cabinet such as publishing the Gazette notice and sending out the appointment letter. Kia ora."
Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill — Third Reading
Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill — First Reading
Tabling of Documents — Waiteti Marae Visit — Order of Service
Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill — Discharge
Personal Explanation — Marae Visit — Member's Lack of Involvement
Speaker's Observation — Hon Koro Wētere — Statement from Family