edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): I just thank the learned member Rino Tirikatene for his very learned question. I think it's really important that we respond to his question around prohibition orders in schedule 1 clause 3B. I can confirm for that member that no order has lapsed—the Customs Service is renewing orders under the existing Act. The pounamu order has been renewed and is located in the customs export prohibition order for 2017.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of the Hon Meka Whaitiri and the following amendment in her name to schedule 9 be agreed to:replace the items relating to regulations 19 23 27 and 33 of the United Nations Sanctions (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) Regulations 2017 with:replace regulation 21 with the following new regulation:21Restricted item: application of Customs and Excise Act 2016The provisions of the Customs and Excise Act 2016 (except sections 365 and 366) apply in relation to a restricted item as if the restricted item were goods the importation of which is prohibited under section 96 of that Act.replace regulation 34A with the following new regulation:34ASpecified petroleum product: application of Customs and Excise Act 2016The provisions of the Customs and Excise Act 2016 (except sections 365 and 366) apply in relation to a specified petroleum product as if the specified petroleum product were goods the exportation of which is prohibited under section 96 of that Act if the specified petroleum product is intended—(a)to be exported to DPRK; or(b)for use in DPRK; or(c)for the benefit of DPRK.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 6 schedules 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Customs and Excise Bill — In Committee
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you Madam Chairperson Tolley. This is just a short contribution. I've got a couple of miscellaneous points that I wish to talk to. The first point relates to clause 3B of schedule 1 which is around the—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is that mechanical or miscellaneous?RINO TIRIKATENE: —prohibition orders.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Mechanical or miscellaneous?RINO TIRIKATENE: A bit of both. I just have a question for the Minister in the chair Meka Whaitiri because this relates to the continuation of prohibition orders that have been granted under the existing Act to continue in this bill. I just want to ask the Minister—because this bill is taking quite a long time to progress through the House I'm interested in the prohibition orders that have lapsed while this bill has been on its way through the House and what is the status of those prohibition orders?I would hope that they would have been automatically renewed assuming that they are very important orders. But I'm just curious because this savings provision or this one that carries them over under this new bill only relates to those in force at the time that this bill is enacted and so I just want to seek some clarity on that particular point. I understand that the prohibition that related to pounamu which I was referring to earlier actually expired last September I believe. It begs the question: has that been continued pending the passing of this bill? If the Minister could clarify that that would be much appreciated.The other point I want to talk to is in relation to New Zealand - flag vessels fishing in international waters and that the catch of those vessels is then to be produce of New Zealand which I think is commendable that we have New Zealand - flag vessels. I know this House did quite a lot of work in terms of stamping out the slavery practices that were being conducted by some appalling overseas operators that were operating in our waters. There has been a move to bring more operators under New Zealand flag conditions so I do commend that and I see the alignment between New Zealand - flag vessels fishing in international waters by claiming produce of New Zealand.My question is in relation to the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources treaty which allows New Zealand to participate in the fishing in Antarctic waters for Patagonian or sub-Antarctic toothfish. My question relates to is that convention area of fisheries subject to the provisions of this legislation—i.e. will the catch from New Zealand operators that fish in those waters that are granted rights to fish in that area are they subject to the provisions here—i.e. that the catch that is caught in those Antarctic waters is indeed defined to be produce of New Zealand? I'd like I guess some elucidation to the committee on whether that convention area is caught or whether international fisheries areas and the convention area are two separate fisheries for the purposes of that particular provision. So some explanation would be much appreciated. Thank you.
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Thank you Madam Chairperson Tolley. I just want to answer the two recent contributors in the debate Virginia Andersen and Louisa Wall particularly around clauses 250 and 251. Just in terms of clarification clause 250 covers individuals who need long-term status—for example police constables on the Chatham Islands. Clause 251 has a 30-day limit to ensure the chief executive cannot authorise classes for extended periods; it is a safeguard against the power being used too freely. An example is a crew of a navy vessel helping with drug interdiction—for example boarding a craft. So hopefully that has addressed those two questions.In terms of the question Louisa Wall raised around clause 416(A) I can confirm to the member that there's no economic modelling being undertaken by the Customs Service at this point. However customs is working with industry on initiatives to reduce compliance costs for them and in particular for compliant traders. A recent example is the excise regulations that came into effect in February 2017. These changes reduced compliance costs for alcohol manufacturers and were strongly supported by businesses.
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Madam Chairperson Tolley. Before I start I trust that Madam Chair would be kind and generous enough to allow me to step outside of the scope of the bill just a little bit by acknowledging the Chinese New Year celebrations at Parliament last night hosted by the Minister for Ethnic Communities the Hon Jenny Salesa. The Chinese community members told me that they were very impressed with the speech by our Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. Our Prime Minister emphasised that this is the House of Representatives and this is our House. It is great for us to celebrate ethnic diversity and celebrate our multicultural New Zealand Aotearoa.Back to this bill. Theme four is about mechanics and miscellaneous provisions. In terms of mechanics the preliminary provisions include the definitions for the Act and its application to the mail and the military. It also provides for the transition between Acts. Part 6 Subpart 3 includes the general regulation- and rule-making powers including the border processing levy and provides for consequential repeals and amendments.Clause 380 covers regulations generally. This clause provides a general regulation-making power for the purposes of this Act. It also informs the interpretation of this and other regulation-making powers and the generous scope of those regulations. On the recommendation of the Regulations Review Committee the select committee amended the clause to reflect modern drafting practice. A second amendment confirms that fees and charges are recoverable in court as they are under the current Act. Supplementary Order Paper 12 would clarify that regulations could prescribe how rates of interest are to be determined as well as prescribing the rate itself.Part 5 Subpart 1 establishes the New Zealand Customs Service and stipulates who can exercise customs powers and when. The Act will levy and enable the collection of duties and other revenue and it will provide for border control including setting out the obligations of travellers and traders and the powers of customs. I recall that as a young lawyer or a younger lawyer—that's before I entered into politics—I once served as a customs lawyer on a pro bono basis. That role was of an on-call nature and most of the time was spent advising international travellers of their duties and obligations and equally the duties and obligations and powers of the New Zealand Customs Service.The bill will facilitate the authorisation of classes of suitably trained people to exercise customs powers and functions in specific limited circumstances. Currently only specific people can be authorised. Also certain clauses deal with the certificates of origin. Having said that the bill clarifies that fish caught by a New Zealand - flag vessel outside of New Zealand's territorial waters are deemed to be the produce of New Zealand. Fish caught by foreign-flag vessels take the country of origin of the vessel.Part 6 Subpart 4 is a collection of disparate provisions that do not fit within any of the topic-based themes. Some deal with enforcement matters such as giving notice and the burden of proof.
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Just to put on record this particular theme—revenue and trade—continues the provisions in the current Act which were working really well. Just to remind members that customs collects duty on imports and excise on locally manufactured fuel alcohol and tobacco and in 2016-17 customs collected $13.3 billion in Crown revenue. This particular theme is where businesses came together with customs and ensured that we had a set of very flexible business-orientated provisions. So I just want to acknowledge the many submitters that did this. This bill supports business by creating greater flexibility and certainty. Importers for example will be able to declare provisional values if the value cannot be known at the time of import. Importers will be able to seek binding valuation rulings to get certainty about their duty liability before deciding to import. Traders will be able to store business records in the cloud and offshore and traders can opt for a simpler cheaper internal process to review duty assessments. Customs must also report annually on initiatives to reduce compliance costs for highly compliant traders. The current unduly punitive additional duty regime will be replaced with a fairer more proportionate compensatory interest and late payment regime. Administrator penalties have been extended to all exports and accurate export information gives assurances to our trade partners and meets international obligations. Excise taxes imposed on tobacco fuel and alcohol—the excise system is robust but greater certainty will help business avoiding litigation and protecting Crown revenue. The bill creates a new collection point at tank farm gantries to collect excise on the increased volume of motor spirits created by blending.
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you. I'm pleased to make a contribution under this new theme. We're talking about revenue and obviously a major part of customs is the collection of duty and excise through the importation of goods into New Zealand across our borders and also from the manufacture of cigarettes tobacco and the like which is collected by customs as well. I guess in terms of the forgone revenue from excise I wish to talk to the provisions around the exemptions that are granted for the manufacturing of beer for personal use. Now I include it in this theme because it's about the exemption from having to actually have a customs-controlled area in which beer is manufactured and from which revenue excise is derived. So I want to talk to this because there are a lot of home brewers craft brewers around the country who enjoy their creations and who enjoy being able to enjoy their beer for personal use. I wanted to just delve into the provision of clause 67(4)(b) which concerns the manufacture of beer wine or spirits in a private dwelling. If the individual manufactures that exclusively for [their] personal use and not for sale or … disposition to any other person;" they are effectively granted that exemption from having to fall within the Customs and Excise Act and be liable for excise and therefore the forgone revenue would be owing to the Crown. My question really relates to the situation where it's very common for home brewers to share and compare their creations with others in a non-commercial setting. It's all part of the enjoyment I guess of the creation of—whether it's a home brew or a wine or any other beverage. So my reading of clause 67(4)(b) is that it is very narrow in terms of it being only for that individual's personal use and not for sale or disposition to any other person. In my mind it's arguable whether the ability to share and compare your creations with other brewers—other like-minded people—would be actually covered by that exemption because it seems very narrow: to the individual concerned and to their dwelling in which they manufactured the beverage. So I'd just like to seek clarification from the Minister of Customs if she could explain how that scenario whereby the sharing and comparing of a personal home brew—which has no economic or commercial payment attached to it—falls within that exemption because to me it seems like this is very narrowly drafted and if customs has to apply some sort of licence to sort of stretch the provision to suit a particular fact scenario I guess it doesn't make for good lawmaking. I'm just hopeful we can get some guidance from the Minister on this particular point because I'm sure it's of great interest to the very many hundreds of home brewers and other people that are in their private dwellings—in their man caves or sheds or whatever it is—making their particular home brew creations. So I'd appreciate some clarification from the Minister on that particular point. Thank you."
Tolley AnneRevenue and TradeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members it is my view that it is now reasonable to move on to the next theme which is the debate on revenue and trade comprising Part 2 and schedule 3; Part 3 Subparts 3 5 6 7 and 7A and schedule 4; and Part 5 Subparts 2 3 8 and 9 and schedules 6 and 7.
Motions — Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—Release of Text
Tabling of Documents — Oral Questions—Requested Documents
Parker DavidTABLING OF DOCUMENTSOral Questions—Requested DocumentsHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I seek leave to table documents referred to by the Prime Minister in question time today that the Opposition requested be tabled. There are four of them and if I may describe them it might be easier to take them as one.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. We've got the description. We've got the description.Hon DAVID PARKER: No we haven't. I have not yet described the documents.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes right can we hear this in silence please.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well no because you've got to follow the Standing Orders—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. This is a point of order and I'd like to hear—[Interruption] Mr Brownlee kia tau!Hon DAVID PARKER: The first document is an invoice payment approval form dated 14 January for $21143.67. The second document is the payment advice dated 28 February 2018 in respect of the same payment. The other two documents are a payment approval document dated 3 April 2017 for $24281.33 together with the payment advice in respect of that same payment.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hudson Brett; Rurawhe AdrianBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's wonderful to take a contribution in this the debate on the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement. Regrettably though although the committee is hard working and has fine contributions from members on this side of the House this report and indeed the Budget Policy Statement are just something that this side cannot possibly support not necessarily because of what the report says in its entirety but pretty much because of what it doesn't say. So this Government when they took office came in and talked up a big game of all of the things it was going to do to help New Zealanders. They talked about a billion dollars a year in regional development expenditure. They talked about billions of dollars of investment in health and education. And lo here we have a Budget Policy Statement following the half-year update and it is conspicuous for the absence of any of those things.The Government has tried to put forward a rosy picture of life under them—particularly they're trying to paint a picture of sound or good fiscal management. But what do they do though really? They leave out the big-ticket items. They quite frankly think they can fool New Zealanders into believing they've got it all under control but really they're hiding it. The ultimate in shell games and politics they're trying to keep the public guessing to have them believe they're doing a good job. This shouldn't be called a Budget Policy Statement; it should be called a Budget Policy Snow Job" because that's exactly what they're trying to do to the public. Look at the actual evidence they have to deal with that they've tried to hide. You have a case where 29 new fiscal risks are identified in the half-year update and the Government just tries to pretend they're not there. Then when you get the Opposition raising them for their attention in committee seeking to get this stuff into the report and seeking to debate it in this House they try to make out that the risks aren't that severe. But the threshold for a risk to be noted in that update is the risk has to have a value of $100 million or greater. So what we're really talking about here is billions of dollars of risk identified by Treasury in the economic management of this new Government and they're trying to paint some rosy picture of sound fiscal management. Well as I've said it's actually a case of a new Government just wanting to try to pull the wool over New Zealanders' eyes. Well actually New Zealanders are a lot smarter than that. They can see through these smart games. They can see through quite frankly the duplicity inherent in the statements the Government's trying to put out. They can see through the snow job that this policy statement represents and we reject a rush makeover snow job on this House and on New Zealand. We simply can't support this report.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Willie Jackson—a five-minute call."
Points of Order — Members—Conduct in Chamber Moving About the Chamber
Obituaries — Hon Noel Scott QSO
Carter David; Mallard TrevorPOINTS OF ORDERMembers—Conduct in Chamber Moving About the ChamberRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you a matter of inconsistency which I would be grateful if you would give a considered ruling on because I think it could lead to a matter of disorder. On 15 February the Leader of the House the Hon Chris Hipkins raised with the House the issue of me taking a copy of a bill to a member who was having trouble with a debate. I did so to help the situation. You in your ruling that day suggested I was not being helpful. The reason I raise this is that exactly the same incident happened last night. In the House during the education amendment bill the Hon Tracey Martin was delivering a speech and realised that she was speaking to the wrong bill and immediately to be absolutely helpful the Hon Jenny Salesa took her a copy of the bill so she could continue her contribution. Incidentally the Hon Chris Hipkins was just sitting immediately next to the Hon Tracey Martin and raised no objection to it. So I just wonder whether you could give some further thought to whether such an action is disorderly because it was clearly of concern—SPEAKER: Right. I want to thank the member for his intervention. I will consider it carefully as the member would have himself.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.OBITUARIESHon Noel Scott QSOSPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 25 February 2018 of the Hon Noel Scott QSO who represented the electorate of Tongariro from 1984 to 1990. He was a Minister Without Portfolio Minister of Recreation and Sport Associate Minister of Education and Associate Minister of Employment from 1989 to 1990.I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.SPEAKER: Thank you members.
Tuesday 27 February 2018 - Volume 727
Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 15 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17 in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendments not agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017–18 Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading
9. Public Media Advisory Group—Appointments Funding and Redacted InformationMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital MediaPublic Media Advisory Group—Appointments Funding and Redacted Information9. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media: Were there any aspects of the process and then announcement of the public media advisory group that could reduce confidence in its outcome?Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media): No. The final outcomes on the Public Media Funding Commission are yet to be determined and I anticipate that they will be presented to Cabinet later this year.Melissa Lee: Is she disappointed with the way she handled the appointment process of William Earl whose name she included in the Cabinet paper even though he declined her offer of the role?Hon CLARE CURRAN: No. Mr Earl made it clear that he didn't want to be part of the advisory group for personal reasons and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.Melissa Lee: Does she think $1.4 million for an advisory group taking 18 months to advise her on whether to set up another advisory group represents value for money?Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes absolutely. This Government is committed to investing in public media—something that the previous Government had no intention of doing. It froze funding for nearly 10 years for public media. There is a lot of work to do in this area and this advisory group will do its job.Dr Liz Craig: So why did she appoint the ministerial advisory group?Hon CLARE CURRAN: Good question. This Government recognises that a well-resourced public media is necessary to tell our stories and inform our democracy unlike that previous Government which froze public funding for nearly a decade. Our commitment to public media was made clear during the election. It should come as no surprise that we're looking to reverse the damage done by the previous Government. This advisory group marks the first step in progressing this work.Melissa Lee: When wearing her Minister for broadcasting hat does she agree that when choosing between the competing demands of open government and ICT security she made the right call to proactively release her Cabinet paper in its entirety with the redactions visible to all thus providing the ultimate example of open Government?Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes. I'm deeply disappointed that the paper was released in a way that meant the redactions were reversible—absolutely committed to the proactive release of Cabinet documents.Melissa Lee: What would she rate her announcement out of 10 given she proposed the appointment of someone who had already declined her offer she released a redacted document with all of the text clearly visible and she released budget-sensitive information?Hon CLARE CURRAN: Mr Earl made it clear he didn't want to be part of the advisory group for personal reasons after the Cabinet paper went through. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.
8. Provincial Growth Fund—AnnouncementsJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentProvincial Growth Fund—Announcements8. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What announcements has he made recently pertaining to the Provincial Growth Fund?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): This will take so long to answer.SPEAKER: No it won't.Hon SHANE JONES: Sir in the interests of serving the public interest I have to be expansive. Ah yes; well $61.7 million was announced as an investment in the regions. It covers the packages for Northland Gisborne Hawke's Bay Manawatū and Whanganui. These are initiatives that the regions have brought forward. They lay neglected under the old regime and they've felt the love from my good self.Jenny Marcroft: What has the reception to the Provincial Growth Fund been like?Hon SHANE JONES: Rapturous. Starting with a Mayor Cole on behalf of the entirety of the local government fraternity amplified by a certain Mr John Carter and also I received a personal congratulations from the new director of Far North Holdings Mr McCully. Jenny Marcroft: What can we expect in the coming weeks and months?Hon SHANE JONES: I'm expecting that work will take place very soon in terms of the Wairoa-Napier rail upgrade which will take trucks off the road which will give a shot of fiscal adrenaline into the neglected KiwiRail business. I'm also expecting to name the members of the working group who will lead the work in terms of the upper North Island supply chain study with a particular focus on Whangarei. I will be visiting other priority regions and I'm overwhelmed by the number of Opposition members who have encouraged me to go to their provinces.Hon Steven Joyce: Can the Minister please confirm that the largest project announced last week is a roundabout not far from his home in Northland?Hon SHANE JONES: I can confirm that the $9 million roundabout in the north is taking place in contrast to the 10 bridges.
7. Employment Minister—Regional Meetings and Statements on WorkHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of EmploymentEmployment Minister—Regional Meetings and Statements on Work7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Employment: Does he stand by all of his statements?Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Yes—obviously in the context they've been made in and particularly in the area of the regions. Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he told the House on Thursday that Dignified work is about job security" was he saying that the thousands of Kiwis who have their own small businesses who have no security other than their ability to persuade people to buy goods and services day in day out are not engaged in dignified work?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the gig economy provide dignified work?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I'm very clear about where we stand in terms of the economy. I described dignified work previously as work that is about job security—about knowing you've got a job three months down the track six months down the track. Dignified work is also about investing in employers investing in communities and investing in regions which is what the previous Government failed to do in nine years. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Would he describe his work as dignified given he clearly has little job security? SPEAKER: Kiritapu Allan.Kiritapu Allan: When the Minister said that he was going out into the regions to meet with those communities what does he expect to achieve? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora thank you for the question. This is an opportunity to listen to and discuss with these communities employers service providers sector leaders and rangatahi about what their hopes and aspirations are and how these form the basis of strong proposals that will attract funding support. I was very pleased to begin the regional engagement with a visit to an initiative in Whangarei last week where I saw some amazing work going on. The next stage in the process is for communities to submit proposals which will be assessed by the agencies. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Minister regard dignified work as taking a job that's depended upon an underhand deal with another party member? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the Manukau Courier that one of the solutions to the "crisis in New Zealand employment" is to "fund and resource and target some of our community organisations directly—not with crumbs but with real funding and resourcing"; and if so what extra resources beyond the $50 million allocated in National's last Budget will he commit to deal with this crisis?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely I stand by my comments in terms of the Manukau Courier. Of course there's a long way to go in terms of the funding and we have just made a start."
4. Schools—Teacher SupplyJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationSchools—Teacher SupplyJAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Prime Minister Mr Brownlee—please let Jan Tinetti ask her question. Start again please.4. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received regarding the underlying cause of teacher shortages?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I've received a report from the Ministry of Education showing that the number of people enrolled in teacher training dropped by a massive 40 percent between 2010 and 2016. That's a drop of around 5700 teacher trainees per year meaning thousands fewer early childhood teachers thousands fewer primary teachers and thousands fewer secondary school teachers are being trained.Jan Tinetti: What are the consequences of this decline?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's left an immediate shortage of teachers which we are currently dealing with but more worryingly a ticking time bomb for schools as a significant cohort of baby boomer teachers start to retire over the coming years and we simply do not have enough teachers being trained to take over from them. It is a shocking failure to plan for the future on the part of the previous Government.Jan Tinetti: What action has he taken to begin to address these shortages?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the first things the new Government did was announce a $9.5 million teacher supply package right before Christmas to deal with some of the most immediate areas of concern. We have also started to deal with teacher workload issues including by scrapping national standards which have been a complete waste of time. We've moved to give teachers and principals more say over how their profession is governed and we've started the ball rolling on a long-term teacher workforce strategy—something that is long overdue.David Seymour: How is it that no partnership school ever reported a shortage of teachers despite having the same funding per student as equivalent State schools?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well it could have something to do with the fact that they didn't have to report and they didn't have to employ qualified teachers.Hon Nikki Kaye: Why did he slash—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Mr Seymour has just lost any further questions he had this week. Of course he only had one. [Interruption] Because he interjected—that's why. And the member's lost one for her party. The Hon Nikki Kaye—starting again.Hon Nikki Kaye: Why did he slash the voluntary bonding payment for Auckland teachers from $17500 to $10500 and what does he think the impact of that will be?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: You cannot slash something that didn't exist in the first place. I am aware of the campaign election promise made by the National Party which they had not budgeted any funding to pay for and had not gone through any process to put it in place.
1. Economy—Government Policies and ReportsPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSEconomy—Government Policies and Reports1. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the health of the New Zealand economy in the final quarter of 2017?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): On Friday Statistics New Zealand released retail sales data for the December 2017 quarter. It showed retail sales were up 1.7 percent after adjustments for prices and seasonal effects. This was higher than economists' expectations. The rise was led by more people eating and drinking out away from home obviously in good spirits as they celebrated the end of 2017 and looked forward to the new year and new beginnings.Paul Eagle: How did economists react to the larger than expected growth in retail trade? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: ANZ economists revised forecasts for the December quarter up to a rate of 0.7 percent and an annual rate of 3.1 percent following the figures. Meanwhile Kiwibank economists said the retail sales data looked supportive of respectable GDP growth. However I would caution people against getting ahead of themselves due to other growth indicators for the December quarter being mixed. For example dry weather conditions hampered dairy production during the three months which may have had an impact on primary production output. [Interruption] Paul Eagle: How will the new Government's policies—SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! A little bit of tolerance for the member today. The member will resume his seat. Ms Bennett we had I think five people interjecting from your side and two from the other. If we want a strict interpretation we'd have one but waving your arms at me is not a way to get it. Paul Eagle: How will the new Government's policies help support economic growth? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Treasury forecasts growth in the current year to June 2018 of 2.9 percent rising to 3.6 percent in 2019 and 3 percent in 2020. Treasury the Reserve Bank and other forecasters including the international credit ratings agencies all acknowledge that growth over the next four years will be supported by the coalition Government's domestic policy programme to raise wages lift activity in our regions and become a more productive workforce. The Government's progressive stance on trade will also help drive growth as we continue to seek deals like the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership which will boost exports and lift incomes.
Tirikatene Rino; Williams PotoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you Madam Chairperson Williams. I'm pleased to continue my contribution on the Customs and Excise Bill. Hopefully I can finish it off before you have to report progress but nevertheless I thank the officials for their patience. This is a very wide-ranging bill. It's some 400 pages. I know this theme we're looking at the powers and obligations but I wanted to just take a step back because what we're doing here is updating and modernising our Customs Service. It's a very important part of the Government in terms of the work it does on the border for us in terms of processing travellers and goods and protecting our borders especially. It's a very high performing organisation and it's a very proud organisation with a very proud history. It's New Zealand's oldest Government department. It actually set up shop on the shores of Kororāreka—up in Russell there—one week before the Treaty was signed. So they were on the ball even way back into those pre-Treaty days.This is an updating and modernisation bill for the Customs Service and it covers a wide range of powers. What I wanted to do I guess is start with some questions to Minister Hipkins focusing on some relatively administrative provisions first of all before delving into some of the more technical aspects of the bill around powers. I just wanted to start off with a central role in the Customs Service which is the role of the chief executive which also carries the title of Comptroller of Customs. I just wanted to seek some clarification or an explanation from the Minister as to why we have the term comptroller" in addition to "chief executive"? Throughout the bill it's referred to—obviously the powers are conferred on to the chief executive and then we have an explanation later in the administrative clause 248 which talks about how the—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Sorry to interrupt. The time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill with amendment and progress on the Customs and Excise Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m."
Williams PotoCUSTOMS AND EXCISE BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 22 February.Powers and Obligations (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): When we were last considering this bill we were debating the theme powers and obligations. Rino Tirikatene had the call. He has 4 minutes and 30 seconds remaining.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I think it's worth pointing out after the last two contributions in the House that this was a bill brought to the House by the previous National Government. We were very happy with that and we continue to support it here today with Minister Chris Hipkins' amendments which we voted for.Now I know that Tracey Martin likes to put the slipper in all the time at every opportunity she gets but I think in this case she's pulled out the speech from the bill that she was talking on earlier this evening which happened to be the wrong bill and has read the wrong speech for the wrong bill one more time. The reason that we're here tonight spending so much time on a bill that the Opposition is supporting is because of the dysfunctional nature of the current Government—the accidental nature of the current Government—where their members need to come to the House to talk for their Minister because they can't sort out these things in any other forum.For Mr Strange to come to the House and start saying he wants to know about how the data is going to be dealt with simply indicates that when he went to knock on the Minister Chris Hipkins' door it was locked he was too busy—no time for the backbench in the Labour Party. And so we come down here and find ourselves with member after member standing up asking questions of a relatively trivial nature for a bill that has widespread support across the House.Now of course another reason for that could be because the Government has an exceptionally light legislative programme—an exceptionally light legislative programme. I think it would be interesting if this evening we had got as far as the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill. But no the Government wants to spend a lot of time talking about a bill that the vast majority of the House supports because quite clearly a bill in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter from the Green Party does not have unanimous Government support let alone cross-party support. They're all saying Oh no that's not true." but how else do they explain the extraordinary spectacle of so many Labour Party backbenchers being forced to give long speeches—because five minutes is a huge effort from anybody in that party asking questions of an exceptionally trivial nature and wasting Parliament's time? Well I think the answer simply is that the Government is not organised to progress its legislative programme in a timely fashion.And I have to say while we're on that why don't we get to the international treaty examination of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus? I've never seen that sort of debate called for in this House outside of extraordinary hours in the whole time that I've been in this Parliament. It simply demonstrates the dysfunctional nature of the current Government and also I have to say the inability of the people responsible for the legislative programme to put cohesive strong legislation on the Order Paper.We are supporting this bill. There was no need for this nonsense in here tonight. It is simply a convenience for Mr Hipkins' inability to get a programme running."
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Madam Chairperson Williams—just a quick call on the commencement the title and just a summing up generally on the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Just to support Minister Chris Hipkins' statements—I mean I sat through the select committee with regard to this bill and the Opposition members who at that time were Government members had a lot of say about this bill with the 2000-something submitters that came who requested the amendments that have now actually been happening with regard to this particular bill.I'm going to have to disagree slightly with the Minister. While the Minister says this is a good bill I would have to say this is a good bill now. And I hope that we're going to hear at some stage this evening from some members who were in the 51st Parliament who were sitting on the Education and Science Committee and argued against the changes that have made this a good bill now because they were so articulate on why the things that have now been removed that submitters asked us—and let's be clear we're here to represent the voice of the people of New Zealand the voice of the public of New Zealand and when you get that many submitters who come in to tell you that actually the Parliament the Government had got it wrong in the first drafting of this bill its behoves us to listen. It not only behoves us to listen; it behoves us to actually interact because those 2000-odd submitters are currently sitting watching waiting to hear that the people that they have asked to represent them give enough of a damn that they actually participate in the debate.So I'll wrap it up there because I'm aware that there are many other members who wish to speak but just to say that this is a good bill now and it is because the Government of the day—the Government today—listened and took on board all those voices from the education sector and from the public out there and particularly the wānanga. All they'd been asking for was a level playing field and an opportunity to have the Minister balance his view and who he consulted with when they applied for the use of that term. So I'll leave it there but I thank the Minister in the chair for finally listening and bringing this piece of legislation to the House—much improved from when it first came.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'll just make a very brief contribution in response to that matter. I think it'll be fairly obvious when institutions or providers have committed fraud. They're now being picked up by the fairly rigorous checks put in place by the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. That is why we've seen so many providers in recent months basically being cracked down on including some of them having their registration cancelled by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority because they are basically undertaking very underhand practices that could be described as academic fraud. They're being cracked down on and that's a very good thing. In response to Mr Brownlee no I don't condone people falsifying records. Hon Gerry Brownlee: No you can't talk to a point of order afterwards.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't condone people falsifying records Mr Brownlee whether they be in schools or tertiary institutions.
Macindoe Tim; Williams PotoHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Can I just seek your explanation? Are you saying that it is the time of the debate or the quality and the relevance of the debate because if it's the latter we've heard nothing of any relevance whatsoever.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. Part 2 of this bill is actually the substantial part of the bill. So I'm prepared to listen to more debate on Part 2.
Williams PotoCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I take another call I just want to say that I think that we haven't been going for an hour yet. I'm still encouraged by the breadth of the debate so I won't be taking a closure motion at this stage.
Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I move That the question be now put.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Madam Chair Williams. It's a pleasure to take a very very quick call on the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its committee stage. I've got a question for the Minister: why are we here extending the debate on a bill that we all agree on? We all agree on this bill and there are Ministers down here in the Chamber asking other Ministers minor questions like What is the definition of the term 'university'?" Well I really want to know what the definition of the term "university" is. Or the other comment was "when and if we pass this bill". Well we are ready and we are willing to pass this bill and get on with it. So that's a very quick call. I don't want to take up the committee's time but let's just get on and pass this bill. Thank you."
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Madam Chairperson Tolley—part two of my attempt to speak on Part 2. I'd like to touch on three matters: clause 16 clause 17 and the Hon Paul Goldsmith's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 17 in so far as it relates to Part 2. Clause 16 which inserts the catch-all words conditions that the Commission considers [are] reasonably necessary to enable the Commission to effectively monitor the performance of organisations and the tertiary education sector generally."—this is a good amendment to the Education Act 1989 and it gives of course the Tertiary Education Commission the tools that they need to hold organisations and industry to the high standards that we all expect. The name of the game here of course is increased monitoring and compliance.Clause 17 amends section 159YD of the Education Act so that institutions that receive funding under section 159YA are no longer excluded from the requirement to keep records relating to the funding and to make those records available for inspection by the commission. This may sound like a small clause to highlight but it's indicative again that this bill of National Government origins ensures that the public entities like these are being held accountable for the public funds that they receive. No one will be excluded from keeping records and making them available for inspection so it's one rule to cover them all.That's why it's so strange that the Government may not support tonight—I hope they do—the Hon Paul Goldsmith's amendment. It too is one rule to cover them all. I'll switch to SOP 17 now. We can see no reason why the Government has removed a clause other than pure political ping-pong. Really! The Government of the day wants to remove the clause that ensures private providers of tertiary education receive equal funding to public providers of tertiary education. This of course fails to recognise how private institutions contribute to the education sector and contribute well. If private providers are delivering results being monitored and being accountable for their funding—which ironically is what the bill is trying to do here tonight—what is the problem? "Private" is not a dirty word so I urge all parties in the House tonight to support the SOP in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith."