edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
7. Question No. 7—HealthMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made to add capacity to district health boards in Auckland?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): On Friday I accompanied the Prime Minister to North Shore Hospital to announce funding for a new elective surgery block. Planning work is well advanced for the new Waitematā District Health Board (DHB) facility which will include four new operating theatres and 120 new beds. The project is expected to cost more than $200 million. Auckland is facing significant population growth and this major new development will help service not only the people of Waitematā and the North Shore but the wider Auckland region.Willow-Jean Prime: What further capital investment has he announced in the northern region?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: At the same event on Friday I announced $24 million for the new endoscopy and cardiac care capacity that will be built at Northland's Whangarei Hospital. The prevalence of cardiovascular disease in Northland contributes to the greater life expectancy gap between Northland and the rest of the northern region and between Māori and non-Māori. The new cardiac catheter lab will mean fewer avoidable deaths through improved cardiac care for Northlanders and represents a significant opportunity to improve equity of outcomes.Marja Lubeck: How do these announcements align with the just released Northern Region Long Term Investment Plan (NRLTIP)?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Northern Region Long Term Investment Plan highlights the poor state of many of our DHB facilities. It provides a good picture of long-term demand and demographic pressures. Friday's announcements will add significant new capacity in Auckland but as the NRLTIP confirms more will be needed. While future capital announcements may not always align exactly with the northern region long-term plan it will play a useful role as we plan to meet future health needs.
6. Question No. 6—TransportHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 6—Transport6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: What actions if any has he taken to maintain public confidence in public transport?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): As Minister I have made public transport a priority. Over the next three years we will nearly double investment in public transport to a record $3.9 billion. With regard to the current bus disputes these contracts were let by regional councils under the past Government but I encourage the councils the companies and the unions to work together to conclude fair deals for the drivers and get the buses back on the road. I've also tasked officials with examining the past Government's competitive tendering policy the Public Transport Operating Model which has created significant problems for public transport users drivers providers and councils alike.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How many buses or trains have to not arrive at the station because of strikes before he will take action to restore confidence in public transport?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I'm doing everything I can as Minister to build public confidence in a public transport system that was run down neglected and underfunded for the last nine years under that Government.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How many public transport strikes have there been since his Government came into office?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well I draw the member's attention to something the Deputy Prime Minister said: you don't turn up at the bus stop if you think that the bus is never going to come. We are committed as a Government to building a sustainable 21st century transport system but we will not do that on the backs of low-paid bus drivers.Hon Paul Goldsmith: What does he say to the typical Henderson Papakura or Hamilton commuter who woke up this morning to find the buses not running the gas more expensive and congestion not improved?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: What I say to those people is that this Government has been left to clean up the mess left by National in public transport in health in education and in housing and we're doing it. We've doubled the funding for public transport and we're looking at fixing the problems that we inherited from that Government's competitive tendering framework that has driven down the labour costs of drivers and the people who get up every day to make the public transport system work.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he not accept that the Government sent a signal to the unions that it wants them to be stronger and strikes are an inevitable result of that signal?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: On this side of the House we do believe in raising incomes. Yes we believe in improving productivity. It's not our policy to build a modern public transport system by driving down the wages and conditions of the people who get up every day and make that system work.
5. Question No. 5—Housing and Urban DevelopmentHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 5—Housing and Urban Development5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is he confident KiwiBuild will achieve the Government's Overall objectives to support a range of family and household types"?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The national housing crisis is so bad that it is affecting all kinds of families—big families small families couples without kids single parents with kids people who live alone with their cat—and we are building affordable homes for all kinds of Kiwis. I am confident that KiwiBuild will achieve the Government's objectives to support a range of family and household types.Hon Judith Collins: Why did he tell Cabinet earlier this year that smaller houses were likely to be built to "achieve the price points which have been established for the programme" but that this risked not achieving the Government's overall objectives?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because it's all about striking the right balance. We're going to be building mostly through the KiwiBuild programme three-bedroom homes because that's what most first-home buyers want but there is a huge shortfall in the current provision of one-storey homes and one- and two-storey homes for smaller families and a shortage of larger homes for larger families like four-bedroom homes. So we'll be building a mix of all of those and we'll be doing our best to strike the right mix.Hon Judith Collins: Why are there now only 11 KiwiBuild houses under construction that have three or more bedrooms with most of those by the way being in Wānaka?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well I'm not sure what the member is referring to but more than 70 percent—70 percent—of the KiwiBuild homes that the Government has so far announced in the first year of the programme have three or more bedrooms.Hon Judith Collins: Is he able to build sufficient three-bedroom houses in Auckland for the $650000 affordable price point he has established?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well we're going to do our very best to achieve that. In fact the first KiwiBuild homes are 12 three-bedroom homes selling for $579000—way under the price cap for Auckland and Queenstown of $650000. There will also be six four-bedroom homes selling for $649000. The first 18 families are going to move into their KiwiBuild homes very shortly and I know they are going to be very happy to do that.Hon Judith Collins: Why does he believe that 80 percent of people who responded to the KiwiBuild registration of interest stated a preference for a three- or four-bedroom house?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because as I said I think that's where the predominant demand lies from first-home buyers because so many of those first-home buyers are young families. That's why 70 percent of the homes that we have announced for the first year of KiwiBuild have three or more bedrooms and 87 percent of the homes announced for this first KiwiBuild year are stand-alone homes."
4. Question No. 4—Internal AffairsDARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal AffairsQuestion No. 4—Internal Affairs4. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What progress if any has been made on the setting up of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care?Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Significant progress has been made in terms of both considering the scope and practical issues. While not yet fully operational the royal commission has approximately 15 staff who are involved in planning and preparatory work much of which is focused on looking at how best to conduct the process hear evidence and support the people who will be talking to the commission about their experiences. The royal commission has established a contact centre as well as a website and through these approximately 500 people have so far registered to participate. Once the commission is operating it is expected that this number will grow.Darroch Ball: What does the Minister say in response to statements that the royal commission has stalled?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The Government established this royal commission in recognition of the fact that the abuse of people in care is one of the most serious issues of public importance and we have to get it right. It is worth noting that the commitment made by this Government to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care was announced on 1 February this year. At that time the Prime Minister and I also announced a first under the Inquiries Act which was a period of public consultation on the draft terms of reference. After four months and over 400 submissions Sir Anand delivered his findings to me on 30 May. The ministerial group has been working through these recommendations. We know from experience both here and overseas that inquiries of this size and scope are complex and take a lot of planning to ensure they can listen to people who will be talking to the commission about their experiences and successfully deliver for the community. That is important for the country and especially for the people who need to be heard.Darroch Ball: Why is the royal commission taking so long?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The Government has been giving serious consideration to Sir Anand's recommendation following the public consultation period and the inquiry's final shape. There is substantial work in establishing a royal commission and finalising such things as scope cost operational set-up and membership. The largest is determining the final terms of reference which includes looking at a range of technical and legal matters. There are also a number of budget issues to work through which includes understanding how the royal commission plans to undertake the inquiry the structure of the secretariat and other functions such as IT and property that will support it. Establishing an inquiry of this magnitude is similar to setting up a small Government agency. The ministerial working group is meeting this week to consider a range of matters before taking a proposal to Cabinet for final decisions.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent international meetings has he attended to discuss the global economic situation and outlook?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Malo ni. I recently attended the IMF and World Bank annual meeting in Indonesia the APEC finance Ministers' meeting in Papua New Guinea and held a series of bilateral meetings in Malaysia. During those meetings I met with economists credit rating agencies business leaders and Ministers from countries in the Asia-Pacific region Europe the Americas and Africa. I also met with New Zealand businesses operating in those countries I visited. The meetings were very timely given rising international economic risks due to trade protectionism. They were also a good opportunity to reaffirm the strong trading relationships we have particularly in the Asia-Pacific. Kiritapu Allan: What were the main themes regarding the global and regional economic outlook?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF recently downgraded its local global economic outlook slightly. At the IMF World Bank and APEC meetings a number of regular themes came through in presentations on the international economic outlook. The main theme was on the risks faced by the global economy if the US-China trade war escalates. I was interested to hear concerns from my global counterparts similar to those held by New Zealand. At the meetings I reiterated New Zealand's position emphasising the importance of a strong rules-based global trading system not only for our economy but our trading partners as well. Other themes at the meeting included the importance of sustainable levels of public debt and making long-term investments in infrastructure and social services all of which the coalition Government is doing.Kiritapu Allan: What did the meetings highlight about New Zealand's economic position?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF recently raised its growth outlook for New Zealand following the release of Budget 2018 which included many growth-friendly policies such as the R & D tax incentive and record infrastructure investment. While New Zealand is in a better position than most of our global peers on paper we must keep in mind that we are more susceptible to the classic rainy day like a global economic shock or a natural disaster. That's why the coalition Government is committed to managing the books responsibly running sustainable surpluses keeping net debt under control and managing our expenses wisely. At the same time our careful fiscal management means we can make record investments in infrastructure and social services to ensure that all New Zealanders benefit from a growing economy.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 6 to Minister 18 October
Sepuloni CarmelAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 6 to Minister 18 OctoberHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I seek leave to make a personal explanation. I have reviewed the transcript—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hang on hang on—you're seeking leave and we need to know what it's about.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Sorry—in relation to an answer in the House last week.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll put the leave—anyone objecting? No. You may proceed.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Thank you. I have reviewed the transcript of my response to an oral question in the House last week and have seen that I used a figure inconsistently in my response. I said that the unemployment figure was 9.4 percent and then went on to say that this figure refers to the proportion of people on the benefit in a subsequent answer. This figure does refer to the proportion of working-age people on a main benefit. I understand my use of this figure may have caused confusion to some members of the House and am correcting this on record for absolute clarification.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but it has come time for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Commerce Amendment Bill with amendment the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill without amendment progress on the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill no progress on the Courts Matters Bill and no progress on the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill.Report adopted.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Mr Chairman just in response to a couple of those things the member is correct I guess. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) can come back into place but hell will probably freeze over before that happens so let's be realistic about that. I think that the US will have to buy into it and then we have to have one of three other major countries to do that to put the GDP calculation beyond 85 percent. The chances of that happening when we have the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in place are very very slim.Can I say that it is important that the name be changed because it does reflect not just a token commitment to a change in objectives but a real commitment. We want trade for all not trade for traders. Canada did lead the charge on that—I accept that—but we bought into that in the way that trade agreements now around the world through the EU through the UK are wanting more than just trade for traders. There needs to be a clear benefit across the population in the countries that are negotiating. And New Zealand has bought into that. We campaigned on it and we're following through. There are 22 suspended provisions in this new piece of legislation. That is not insignificant and they are in place to ensure that we meet the promises that we had prior to the election of supporting the agreement in principle subject to five provisions. Even in the area of concern for the Green Party the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions there are safeguards here—11 substantive safeguards—to ensure that we are protected in the unlikely event that a company should take exceptions that limit the scope of the investment chapter and therefore limit the scope of ISDS. Our provision allows Government to rule out ISDS challenges over tobacco control measures. There are all of these things that should allay the concerns of the Green Party. When it comes to the ISDS yes we did not wish them in there. They are in there. It is the outcome of a negotiated agreement that on balance we in Government think is a good deal for New Zealand and for our future but it has the safeguards to protect our sovereign rights over who can buy our houses who can buy our land and whether Pharmac is protected into the future. These are important things that New Zealanders across the board wanted to see in place. We've carried these through. I thank and acknowledge the efforts of the previous member who spoke Todd McClay. As trade Minister he did do a really good job but we saw improvements were possible and Minister Parker and the Prime Minister negotiated those improvements. I acknowledge the support of the Opposition in passing this through as quickly as we can to ensure that we are one of the early countries that can ratify and see the CPTPP in place and we can start to enjoy the benefits from that. So I look forward to the Opposition's support for this and I'm sure that the agreement that we're passing will be an improvement on the TPP one that offers more security for New Zealanders whatever party you're in into the future.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I move That the question be now put.
Dyson Ruth; Rurawhe AdrianHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Chair I just wonder if you would care to remind members of the committee following the interjection by Matt King that votes should be taken in silence. It was clear that the Table was busy and you may not have heard it but it was a pretty offensive interjection during the votes being taken.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member is correct; I did not hear any interjection. But the point is correct; votes are taken in silence.Part 2 agreed to.
Tolley AnnePart 2 Amendments to other provisions of principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Simon O'Connor.Kieran McAnulty: Argh!
Tolley AnneCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members the committee is considering Part 1 of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) Amendment Bill. Lawrence Yule has the call and he has one minute left. I call Simon O'Connor.
Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Part 3 agreed to.Schedule agreed to.
Commerce Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Mr Chair. Just a quick response to a couple of points raised by the Hon Paul Goldsmith and Brett Hudson. Of course Mr Hudson we will continue—as you said in your very truthful statement just seconds ago—to be disciplined. Can I also just note that for a while I thought peace had broken out until Mr Goldsmith got two minutes and 45 seconds into his speech because I actually think he gave up until that point a pretty good synopsis of what exactly Part 3 is hoping to achieve in the wider context. So I won't try and explain that because I actually think he did a pretty good job of it himself. To Mr Hudson the question around behavioural undertakings—that wasn't considered within the scope of this bill but it's still something that the Government would like to investigate and do some of the policy work on. So while Part 3 allows the Commerce Commission to look into structural undertakings as he will know we believe that more work needs to be done around behavioural undertakings for that to be legislated for. So hopefully that will answer that question.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'll just take a short time to respond to Alastair Scott's points that he made in his speech. First of all he raised the issue of only a Minister being able to initiate an inquiry and asked why Part 2 didn't have the ability for a commission-initiated inquiry. I'd point the member to new section 56F in clause 10 on page 9 which the Hon Judith Collins alluded to earlier in this debate where the commission can hold an inquiry if the Minister required it to do so or the commission can (b) … hold an inquiry on its own initiative." So there isn't any disparity between Part 1 and Part 2 because the commission itself can hold its own inquiry upon its own initiative.The member also asked—which I think is a reasonable question—in and around why only the three entities currently under the information disclosure regime under Part 4 of the Commerce Act—Auckland Wellington and Christchurch airports—are included under that information disclosure regime. It is because there is a legislative threshold in the Act as it stands now under section 52G—and I won't bore the committee by reading it—where if a good or service does meet a certain threshold around competition in an area—or the goods or services offered—it does come under regulation under Part 4. So it's not to say that in the future other airports won't be included under the information disclosure regime within the Act but at the moment only the Auckland Wellington and Christchurch airports I believe meet the test under section 52G of the Act as it stands."
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I'd just like to reference a comment made by Minister Jones during that contribution from Mr Bayly which I believe was quite unparliamentary and brings this House into disrepute. The comment He's making it up" clearly inferring that the member was lying is absolutely inappropriate and given that member's recent delicacy around a comment from Mr Hudson I would suggest that it is indeed bringing the House into disrepute per Speaker's ruling 42/3. I would ask that you require him to withdraw and apologise.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I thank the member for that point. You are correct in saying that there is some sensitivity in the committee today and I think we are all aware of that. However the term that the member used is one that is used often in this debating chamber and one that I don't think requires the intervention that the member is seeking.Tim van de Molen: Speaking to that Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No I've ruled on that thank you—I've ruled on it.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Are you now ruling that the term "making it up" is dissimilar to an accusation of lying and therefore completely unrelated?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Let me just be clear the member did not use the term lying when he made the comment. I have said that yes there are sensitivities in the committee at the moment. However it is a discussion point that has been well-made in this committee and has not been ruled on. So that's the end of the matter. We are—is someone else taking a call?"
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to take an opportunity to respond to some of the comments made by members of the National Party during this debate so far. Can I begin with those made immediately before I took to my feet in respect of section 56F in clause 10 where the commission can hold an inquiry at the behest of the Minister and of their own initiative. I'm assuming the Opposition has a problem with that because it had a fundamental problem with Part 1 of this piece of legislation.Can I just point out that this is kind of one of those quasi-operational roles for the commission. The commission is not waiting around for the Minister to tell it what to do. It has powers to make sure that it does protect consumers and competition. So to the member who asked the question in and around section 56F(1)(a) and (b) the commission can either initiate itself or the Minister of commerce can ask it to initiate an inquiry which I think we should see fit to it doing.Can I also respond at a relatively high level to Mr Hudson's concerns around the increased regulation or potential regulation for the airports in and around Part 2. In his Part 1 speech he was talking about putting a fence at the top of a cliff. In essence I believe this is an example of where we are putting a fence at the top of the cliff to make sure that if an information disclosure regime for those airports which are currently regulated does not work we do have the ability to further regulate. So to answer the question that the Hon Judith Collins made in terms of what we are trying to fix I would note that the airports themselves welcome the clarification in and around this piece of legislation but while the information disclosure regime is working at the moment this piece of legislation as I mentioned before in and around section 56F allows for an inquiry to be started if we believe that the information disclosure regime isn't working any longer.Now I don't see the sense in us giving the Commerce Commission the ability to have an inquiry if we don't give it the option of further regulation down the road because at the moment we've got an information disclosure regime that works well. We can't guarantee that it will always work well but if it does not if the integrity of it is called into question then having a look at it and then having a further regulatory regime already there within this piece of legislation there ready to go makes sure that this legislation acts I guess in a way as a deterrent for those airports that are regulated which as Mr Falloon mentioned are currently Auckland Wellington and Christchurch—there would be another regulatory step available to the Commerce Commission.So I guess that's the response to the questions that have been posed so far by the members of the Opposition. Making sure that we can ask these questions is a right and proper thing to do but I guess to answer Mr Hudson's question again not giving any regulatory ability beyond what is already there doesn't make sense if we're going to give the Commerce Commission the ability to inquire.
Allan KiritapuPart 2 Specified airport servicesKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Allan Kiritapu; Williams PotoKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Oh I think we've got room for one more.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Before the debate on this part closes I want to make sure I make some points because I do feel it coming to a natural end. Can I just respond to some comments made by the Hon Jacqui Dean where she said that it's not the job of the Commerce Commission to protect small business. Well I've got some news for her: it actually is. To make sure that businesses flourish in New Zealand and that competition is fair—that's one of the key outcomes of what we asked the Commerce Commission to do. So I'm quite troubled that we have a former commerce Minister in the Opposition who fundamentally believes that it's not the job of the Commerce Commission to protect small business which should also be troubling for the Opposition. I also want to point to an argument that has been made by a number of members opposite in and around their disdain for the fact that the Commerce Commission would go and ask businesses of all shapes and sizes within a market to get information. Well my simple question to the members opposite—as they have been saying during this debate this is a piece of National Party legislation allegedly—is how would it have been different under you? Where in the bill would it have been fundamentally any different in the collection of that information? Judith Collins a former Minister herself has said that in the fuel market study the previous Government didn't have the ability to go and collect information and data and Alastair Scott himself—in amongst a couple of shocking things—made this point that we need to make sure that we've got the information and the data. The Commerce Commission will only do that with businesses both big and small if it finds it necessary and desirable to get the information that it needs to make the recommendations and the findings to the Government as to whether a market is operating effectively. So can I just reiterate the point to the members opposite: you might have to start bringing your arguments together to be clearer. I'm not sure whether you actually support or don't support this piece of legislation. I know you've changed your minds as to whether or not you're going to be voting for or against it but I suggest you don't poke holes in your own arguments by saying this is a National Party bill and taking credit for it but then end up making arguments against the details of it. It doesn't look good especially when you change your tune in the voting.Andrew Falloon: Madam Chair?Brett Hudson: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Andrew Falloon.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Madam Chair thank you. I'd like to thank Matt King for being able to have the rehearsal of his general debate speech this week. Alastair Scott raised some issues for which I have concern as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and again it goes to show I think some of the confused messaging that the National Party has had during this Part 1 debate. Earlier in the debate former Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Jacqui Dean was talking about the Commerce Commission people—they're nice people—but then what concerns me is that we have a member of the Opposition calling into question the integrity of the Commerce Commission saying that they wanted to stay in their jobs as a ruse to making sure that they could initiate market studies. Now I'm hoping that that is a careless remark from the member but I think that the Commerce Commission has a lot more integrity than that. To the suggestion that Mr Scott made that they may willy-nilly initiate market studies as a ruse as I say to keep their jobs is both simplistic and I think stupid and dumb on the member's part.I'm a big fan of independence of certain entities within the Government framework the Commerce Commission being one of them but for the member to suggest that the Commerce Commission would be silly and initiate market studies because they wanted to stay in their jobs I think crosses the line to a degree and doesn't show due respect to an entity that is very important in terms of the enforcement of the Commerce Act. The debate can be robust in this House but the member might want to rethink his remarks. I've only been the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs for one year—for 12 months—and all my dealings with the Commerce Commission have been ones with integrity. I know that there are points of difference of opinion in and around this legislation and if the Opposition thinks that the members of the Commerce Commission are good people that's fine—that's an opinion—but to suggest that they might use the market power initiation to keep their jobs" or stay in their jobs I think might need a little bit more thinking from the member involved."
Voting — Correction—Education Amendment Bill
Mallard TrevorVOTINGCorrection—Education Amendment BillSPEAKER: On 16 October when the committee of the whole House was considering the Education Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the clauses 1 to 3 closure motion was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 63 Noes 56. The correct result is Ayes 64 Noes 55.
Speaker's Rulings — Select Committees—Minority Views
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker the issue that you've raised is a very very important one. It's important to note that in this Parliament a number of select committees are in fact tied select committees so there is no majority report in many cases because if the committee is unable to find a majority for a majority report then bills get reported back with no amendment effectively. And it would seem to me rather odd if we ended up in a situation where we had a minority view but no majority report which is what we could end up with if we moved to a position where a minority view was expected by default.SPEAKER: And if the committee cannot come to an agreement and a bill is reported back without a report—automatically reported back—then there will be no minority view because there's no select committee report. So that matter is taken care of fairly easily I think.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSSelect Committees—Minority ViewsSPEAKER: Members have raised with me a growing reluctance in some select committees to allow minority views to be included in committee reports.Select committee reports to the House are an essential part of our parliamentary system of government. The House delegates to committees the role of investigating consulting on and scrutinising matters on its behalf. Committee reports inform the House of the result of those activities of the different perspectives of members and of recommended changes. In a unicameral Parliament select committee scrutiny is the only detailed parliamentary scrutiny given to the business of the House.There is a strong convention that differing views of members should be fairly reflected in select committee reports. In 2011 the Standing Orders Committee stopped short of requiring the inclusion of minority views because it would deprive committees of the right to control the form and content of their reports. However the Standing Orders Committee stated that there is a strong presumption that differing views should be fairly reflected in reports and members who are in a minority have a legitimate expectation that all reasonable steps will be taken to ensure this occurs. A minority view should only be excluded as a last resort where the text provided is significantly misleading or intemperate. This is a matter for the committee as a whole to judge rather than solely the role of the chairperson.The chairperson has a duty in presiding over the committee to lead it towards finding agreement on minority views. I would remind members of the findings on the role of the chairperson made by the Standing Orders Committee in its 2017 report. The chair has a responsibility to ensure that the legitimate expectations of Government and non-Government members are accommodated; and reports properly crystallise the outcomes of committee consideration and allow the expression of differing views. Where a minority view is excluded from a committee report then the report should note that fact and should direct readers to a source for the minority view. That would allow readers to judge its merits.I encourage members of committees to work constructively with each other to ensure that all views are fairly reflected in their reports.
Motions — Conservation—Helicopter Crash
Sage EugenieMOTIONSConservation—Helicopter CrashHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on the recent tragic helicopter crash that claimed the lives of the pilot and two senior Department of Conservation staff.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I move That this House express its deepest sympathy to the family friends and colleagues of Department of Conservation Senior Ranger Biodiversity Paul Hondelink; Ranger Biodiversity Scott Theobald; and Director and General Manager of Alpine Helicopters Nick Wallis and acknowledge the large contribution to conservation that these three highly skilled professionals made over many years.Motion agreed to.
Mallard Trevor; Faafoi KrisTUESDAY 23 OCTOBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.PRAYERSPEAKER: Malo ni. Members because it is Tokelauan Language Week I have asked the Hon Kris Faafoi to say the prayer today.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media): Te Atua Hilihilikēhē fakafetai atu kimātou mo nā fakamanuiaga kua liligi mai e koe ki luga o Niuhila. Ke tuku kehe o mātou lagona fakapito tautokatahi ma e tatalo atu mō tau takitakiga ki a mātou fetufaakiga ka e ke mafai ai e kimātou oi fakatino nā tiute ma te pule o te Fale tēnei i te poto ma te loto maualalo mō te ola lelei o tagata ma te fīlēmū o Niuhila. Amene.
Wednesday 5 December 2018 - Volume 735
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 5
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 5 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 5 as amended agreed to.
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 4
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1. Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 4 as amended agreed to.
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 of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 in the name of Dr Shane Reti to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon David Clark to clause 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
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 of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 3 agreed to.
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
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 of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 in the name of Dr Shane Reti to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1 (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Third Reading
10. Question No. 10—EducationHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 10—Education10. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does the Government plan to make new offers to try and prevent strikes in primary and secondary schools prior to the start of the 2019 school year?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government through the Ministry of Education is ready and willing to come back to the negotiating table as soon as possible. We've been very clear all along that we are happy to reconfigure the offer to better address teachers' concerns within the $1.2 billion envelope that is now on the table.Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he agree with the ministry using their resources for a Facebook video campaign talking up the offer that has generated parody videos and that teachers have called insulting crass and propaganda?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Education have an absolutely legitimate role in explaining the offer.Hon Nikki Kaye: What does he say to Post Primary Teachers' Association (PPTA) president Jack Boyle who described the Government's previous offer to secondary teachers as last-minute half-hearted and almost a failure of their moral responsibility?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If our offer is a failure of moral responsibility the member might want to consider where she's been for the last 10 years because the offer that we have made to the PPTA is a 9.3 percent increase on the existing rates plus an additional top step of the new salary scale which adds up to an increase of about 12.6 percent which is almost as much as all of the percentage increases put together under the previous Government.Jo Luxton: What are the pay increases currently on offer as part of the negotiations?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The $698 million offer to primary school teachers which I note the Employment Relations Authority described as handsome and competitive would see most primary school teachers receiving an increase of between $9500 and $11000. The latest $496 million offer to the secondary school teachers would see most secondary school teachers receive an increase of just under $10000.Hon Nikki Kaye: When will he take responsibility for what are being called mega strikes in 2019 and does he stand by the statement There is no more money" when in November alone this Government announced $900 million in spending initiatives?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: $217 million of the spending initiatives I assume the member is referring to were directly related to the teachers' claim in the sense that they were dealing with the role of learning support coordinators which is something that the teachers have been requesting through these negotiations. In terms of accepting responsibility I fully accept responsibility for the fact that we have made teachers the biggest pay increase offer they have received in over a decade. I also fully accept responsibility for the fact that it is going to take some time to deal with the decade of neglect our education system has experienced."
9. Question No. 9—ImmigrationHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 9—Immigration9. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all the Government's statements and actions on the immigration case involving Karel Sroubek?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes in their context and given the information and advice that was available at the time.Hon Mark Mitchell: Who advised Immigration New Zealand of the whereabouts of Karel Sroubek's estranged wife when this information was known only to New Zealand Police?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That's an operational matter for Immigration New Zealand.Hon Mark Mitchell: What was the purpose of two New Zealand police detectives accompanying an immigration official to the location of Sroubek's estranged wife?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That's an operational matter for the New Zealand Police.Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the New Zealand Police and Immigration New Zealand both apologise and New Zealand Police say that they would not accompany an immigration official—SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm going to give the member a chance to rephrase the beginning of the question and make sure that it is within this Minister's responsibility and that he's not asking this Minister to answer for police operational matters as has been made clear he can't.Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you Mr Speaker. Why did Immigration New Zealand and New Zealand Police both apologise—SPEAKER: Order! All the member has to do to stay within order is take the police out of it and then he's got the stuff that this Minister's responsible for.Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did Immigration New Zealand apologise to the estranged wife of Mr Sroubek and state that they would not approach that situation like that again?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I cannot speak to the veracity of the second part of the member's statement but in answer to the first part of his statement Immigration New Zealand apologised for any distress caused. But I will say to the member that I have sought assurances from Immigration New Zealand that they followed standard procedures. They have assured me that is the case.