edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Mr Speaker I don't mind queue-jumping. It's a delight for me to take a call on this bill. I want to begin by acknowledging the Rt Hon Winston Peters for his Pacific reset. It was an excellent move and it has got huge support amongst the Pacific nations that we are so close to in so many ways. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and the work that she has done to bring this bill to the House and it's so rewarding to see the across-the-board support that the legislation has gained primarily due to the hard work that she's put into it.In this Parliament when we were all sworn in I think we had seven languages used which is a bit of a tribute to the increased diversity of this House. But I want to particularly acknowledge Poto Williams and the Hon Alfred Ngaro for their Cook Island connection. They're both very proud Cook Islanders and they demonstrate that frequently in this House. Without wanting to bring family members in I can do so because the Hon Alfred Ngaro did acknowledge his wife is Niuean so I want to recognise that connection as well. We have our Tokelauan brother the Hon Kris Faafoi and the Hon Carmel Sepuloni also has a family connection to Niue. So this bill has personal relevance and I guess is more passionate as a result.So with the Pacific's triple star the Realm nations of the Cooks Tokelau and Niue the change that we are introducing in this legislation will I'm sure be very welcomed by them. It has been a long time coming. For those people that will now be able to live in any of the Realm nations or New Zealand after they turn 50 this will be warmly welcomed. So I don't want to delay its passing. I commend its progress to the House.Bill read a third time.
Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill — Third Reading
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's always good when you have a bill that everyone in the House supports—and I'm sure that those at home are thinking that as well—especially one that is seriously recognising the importance of those constitutional relationships between New Zealand and Niue the Cook Islands and Tokelau. This feels to me as if it is a real recognition of those constitutional relationships. It is also a genuine recognition that depopulation and its social and economic impacts are a real issue for those nations as well.The only other point—I can't really add to all of the good words that have been said on this bill tonight but I do want to just point out that those changes that were made in 2015 to the special portability arrangement were really important. I acknowledge the work that was done by the previous Government on that but the take-up of that wasn't as high as expected and that's why this change is so important. It is important because it allows people over the age of 50 to remain in the Islands when they need to in order to be entitled to those social supports and that's the bottom line. So it feels as if we're doing the right thing in the House tonight and it's going to make a difference.I acknowledge the work by the previous Government. I acknowledge absolutely the work by my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and also the very strong commitment by this Government through the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister to the Pacific reset and this is a manifestation of that.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia orana katoatoa. Fakalofa lahi atu. Malo ni. Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It is an absolute privilege to stand here tonight to contribute to the third reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. It would be remiss of me not to respond to the last speaker Maureen Pugh where she acknowledged the dinosaurs who are no longer in this House and who took their time to make a decision on this very important bill.I'd like to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni on the journey of this very important bill as part of this coalition Government's Pacific reset. Why do I say that? Why do I acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni? Well her leadership in navigating this bill in terms of courage—courage to do the honourable thing. If we say that people in the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau share New Zealand citizenship then why shouldn't every New Zealand citizen that qualifies receive this very important opportunity where in doing so it seeks to provide greater pension flexibility for people who wish to retire in any of those islands—the Cook Islands Niue Tokelau or New Zealand for that matter?So this is not just for the citizens of Tokelau Niue or the Cook Islands; this is also for the citizens of New Zealand. On that on behalf of all the citizens I want to thank the leadership of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the member the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. In the languages I would like to say whakawhetai koe which is in Te Reo; Fakaaue fakaaue lahi koe which is Niuean. Fakafetai is thank you in Tokelauan; and meitaki maata in Cook Islands Maori. On that note I commend this bill to the House.
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is with a sense of privilege and joy that I rise to offer the Green Party's support for the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. This is a piece of legislation that is long long overdue and it's really nice to be able to stand in support of it in the House this evening.I don't think I feel compelled to keep on drawing out my speech; it's actually quite a simple piece of legislation. What it does is it enables New Zealanders who have spent 10 years here after the age of 20 to spend their last five qualifying years before they can get access to superannuation or the veterans pension in any of the Realm countries—so that's the Cook Islands Niue Tokelau or New Zealand. So it's just building in that consistency and making sure that we're treating all our citizens fairly and consistently.This is something that's been called for by the leaders and the people of those nation States who are really struggling to bring people back to be able to keep their countries thriving. These are beautiful amazing countries and communities who are very small. The populations of—I think Niue is around 1600 people Tokelau around 1300 and the Cook Islands is only around 17500 people as a population. So when you think about those numbers and the tasks involved in running an economy and looking after families and indeed the Governments in those countries you can see how important it is that we support them in bringing their people home. So this is a really important and simple measure on that basis.I do just want to congratulate the Government for making this a priority. This was announced by the Prime Minister on the Pacific tour in February or March this year which makes this one of the really early acts of this Government and it sends a very clear message I hope to people in the Pacific that we are listening we have been listening for years and we are prioritising this work because it deserves to be prioritised. Kia ora.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to take a brief call on the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill. I'm heartened that throughout the entire process of this bill the sentiment and the stories of history told in relation to the contribution of the Islands of Niue Tokelau and the Cook Islands to New Zealand Aotearoa and of course the war effort as mentioned by the Hon Alfred Ngaro. I think that serves as a timely reminder for one and all in Aotearoa New Zealand and indeed across the islands that this bill pertains to just exactly how we are joined together. We're tied together by history and in this particular bill we are also tied together in the future prosperity as the honourable member Alfred Ngaro has already mentioned—the future prosperity to allow our people Pacific Island people of Cook Islands Tokelauan and Niuean descent to return home.I want to endorse the words of the Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni who in pointing out the parts of this bill also talked about a broader agenda around the Pacific nations and the agenda of this Government. Indeed with the support of the relevant Ministers we're able to have these conversations for meaningful development in those islands but just as much for in those islands meaningful development of those communities here in Aotearoa New Zealand. So look without further ado with support right across the House I want to commend this bill to the House.
McAnulty Kieran; Tolley AnneKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I gave the member the courtesy of waiting to the end of his contribution before I raised this point of order; however I am aware that contributions on the title clause must not provide suggestions that are clearly a critique of the contents of the bill. I would argue that that suggestion was exactly that. I would hate to see this debate go on unnecessarily and see the other side of the House suggest things that weren't consistent with the Speakers' Rulings.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes but the Speakers' Rulings also states that it's the Chair who decides that.
Tolley AnneCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Colleagues when we rose from the dinner break we were considering clauses 1 to 3 of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. Lawrence Yule had the call and has three minutes and 49 seconds remaining should he so wish.
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Madam Chair it's a pleasure—it's nearly dinner time and I understand that. Look the question I wish to raise is actually around the title because what this bill does is amend an Act the Crown Minerals Act 1991 which is the principal Act and then it inserts the word (Petroleum)". In my view it's too narrow a word. What we are talking about here is fundamental change to the energy that powers New Zealand. You can change oil and gas and you can ban oil and gas but there are implications for other forms of energy or for how we're going to power New Zealand. In my mind we should simply say it's an amendment to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and take out the word "(Petroleum)" because I think that it's too narrow a definition for the scale of what this Government is intending to do. Even though we're opposing it—I understand the numbers and I understand how they work—in my view simply talking about "(Petroleum)" does not signify what this is. We are changing a fundamental Act—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm sorry to interrupt such an eloquent member—Lawrence Yule—but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. We will resume at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m."
Woods Megan; Tolley AnneHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I'm going to take a very quick call just to respond to Jonathan Young the member who's just taken his seat—Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 152—to let him know that we won't be supporting this SOP. I consider it largely unrelated to this bill. In fact the provisions that are set out in this amendment aren't in clauses 1 to 3 but I will respond to this because the bill is actually intended to avoid the conflict between various work streams. So that is the purpose of the provisions that are in the Act. The work programme related to the Government's work around having no new mines as set out in the Speech from the Throne is separate and there is no need to delay to coincide those work streams. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh gosh—Lawrence Yule: Lawrence Yule. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Lawrence Yule.
Williams PotoCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Gareth Hughes' amendments to the schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 151 are out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill as agreed at second reading.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): We have heard a large number of claims about the process in the Environment Committee. A number of members including some who actually weren't even in the room have been commenting on the process and claiming that it was difficult unfair and that people were cut off short. I just want to clarify some of what happened in the committee so that we need not traverse this ground again.First of all the claim just recently from the previous speaker—that submitters were allowed only five minutes for individuals or 10 minutes for groups. In actual fact we allowed five minutes for individuals as is usual with select committees and 15 minutes for groups. So that was quite a generous time allowance. I'd also like to point out that as a way of trying to be as fair as possible to submitters as chair of that committee I did keep people very carefully to that time. I warned them that I was going to do so. As their time came to an end I asked them to finish and I did move them on very quickly. I did this because opinion was so polarised on this bill. I knew that I couldn't extend people's time because it would be seen as unfair; so I made sure we were as fair as possible to each submitter.In fact Opposition members on that committee actually commented to me at the end of it on how fair and reasonable a process I'd made. So I am mystified at the claims that are being made in the Chamber right now. And the people who were in that room will know the truth of that claim. But for those who weren't in the room I would like to remind them that the submissions process—the hearing process—is all live-streamed on Facebook so there's actually a record of what happened in that select committee room and of the way that we tried to treat every single submitter with fairness and respect.So in light of all the claims that have been made about the process in that room in light of all the claims have been made about whether people who wanted to make oral submissions were heard I'd just like to put what I recall of the process there and say that we heard from every single submitter who asked to be heard. We made every single effort to hear them to bring them in from all around the country via technology to give everyone their opportunity. And so with respect Madam Chair I think that this matter has been dealt with sufficiently.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I'd like to take a very quick call to respond to the member Jonathan Young on his Supplementary Order Paper 150. I advise the member that we won't be supporting that Supplementary Order Paper and that is for a very simple reason. Our policy has been very clear that the purpose of this bill is to restrict the offer of further exploration permits to onshore Taranaki.Now the member advances an argument that the oil and gas industry have also brought up with me in the time since we made the announcement in April. The conversation that I have had with them around that is that what we are doing in this bill are the things that we are required to do to give legal effect to the decision of the April announcement and this is what we are calling tranche one". Tranche two of changes to the Crown Minerals Act will be more broad-reaching where we will consider a range of things and I have invited them to continue the conversation both with myself and with officials around that very point.So I invite that member in terms of thinking about that and in terms of contributions he might want to make to any work that we do around tranche two changes to the Crown Minerals Act but in these very restricted and tight changes that we are making in tranche one of the amendments we won't be accepting that Supplementary Order Paper."
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media): I move That the question be now put.
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to make a couple of points on Part 1 of this bill and a particular reference to the commentary on this bill and the introduction which kind of goes really to what the heart of this bill is—and it says it in black and white—which is that it's one of several initiatives. So it's not the only initiative to aid New Zealand's transition to a low-carbon economy in line with the country's international commitments. The other key word there is transition" which I think is a pretty important word. And listening to the debate coming from the other side of the Chamber this afternoon one would think that this is all happening tomorrow.So the points that I want to just quickly touch on are that this is the first tranche of it. It's a bill which has a narrow scope. It's the first tranche of a review of the Crown Minerals Act and is only to give effect to the Government's decision about oil and gas permits. Listening to the flowery over-the-top language coming out of the Opposition on the other side one would think that it was all about to happen tomorrow. Tranche two is a much wider review of the Act that will enable stakeholders to take part in future-proofing the Crown Minerals Act.It was also strongly signalled. The Prime Minister said in one of her first interviews after being elected that this might be the last block offer. It's also very strongly about leadership. It's the right thing to do. We're not going to stick our heads in the sand like the previous National Government and the existing National Opposition. And really important it's a carefully managed transition over 30 years.One final point is that with regards to the submission process with all of the 95 submissions that were heard many of them came in through technology—this thing called "technology": through Skype through video link through telephone link from other parts of the country. And people did get a good hearing. They were treated very fairly. And just reinforcing that this bill has a narrow scope and it was strongly signalled."
Motions — Pittsburgh—Condemnation of Attack on Jewish Community
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you Madam Chair. There are a couple of clauses that I'd like to talk on in this Part 1 of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill. One is a clause that was introduced during the select committee process and that's clause 6A. It's going to amend section 25 of the Act and what it does is it restricts what the Minister may do. Now in clauses 5 and 6 of the bill as introduced a number of restrictions were introduced as to who might apply for an exploration permit and what tenders the Minister might accept. So you might think that that was sufficient protection to stop ongoing offshore oil exploration but the committee on the advice of officials elected to take a belt and braces approach and to add clause 6A which amends section 25. As well as restricting who may apply for a permit and the offers and which tenders the Minister may accept it also says The Minister must not grant a permit for petroleum in respect of any land outside the onshore Taranaki region". So that does restrict the Minister's actions.I'm quite interested to hear from the Minister what her views are on this belt and braces approach as to why we needed this additional restriction in the Act—so not only who might apply for a permit and which tenders the Minister might accept but also that extra restriction on actually what permits the Minister might not grant. So it's a restriction on the Minister's activities and it does add a real extra layer of protection. I'd be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.One other issue was raised extensively by many people who supported this bill in submissions and that was their concern for the protection of the great treasure in Taranaki the maunga Taranaki the mountain which the residents of the province—and indeed I as someone who was born and bred there—hold in great affection and very high regard and not just the maunga but also the Egmont National Park. Many many people who made submissions were concerned that—well even if onshore exploration is going to be permitted they absolutely wanted to be assured that the maunga was protected that there would be no exploration and no drilling under that great treasure Egmont National Park which cloaks Taranaki and the maunga. So I'd be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.Now the Environment Committee didn't introduce any changes in that regard because we felt that the protections that were there were sufficient that there is restricted access to conservation land and that access to Egmont National Park is in fact already further restricted by the Minerals Programme for Petroleum. What it means by the time you have that minerals programme as well is that no prospecting exploration or mining activities could occur in the National Park. But I think that people at home and people listening along to this particularly the people who submitted on this bill would appreciate hearing from the Minister that that protection for Taranaki's treasure is guaranteed under this bill and under the resulting Act. Thank you Madam Chair."
Woods MeganCROWN MINERALS (PETROLEUM) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Substantive provisionsHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I'd like to take this opportunity in the debate on Part 1 to have a look at some of the issues raised by submitters during the select committee process and highlight some of the changes subsequently made to the bill. With the title and commencement clauses—clause 2 being the commencement—some submitters requested that the commencement of the bill be delayed to allow for further consideration of the policy decisions that led to the bill. My response is that any delay in commencement would undermine the policy intent of the bill. Simply put this Government is committed to taking the action and providing the certainty that we need and the vast majority of submitters on the bill supported that approach. In terms of Part 1 Substantive provisions" clause 4—interpretation—was something that was discussed at some length in the Environment Committee and an issue was raised about the definition used for the onshore Taranaki region. In particular this area follows the political boundary of the Taranaki region rather than the geological boundary of the Taranaki sedimentary basin. I'd like to make two points in response to this. The first is that the area in the bill captures all areas of current onshore petroleum production—so what is currently being drilled is already caught in that area. The second is that the intention around allowing exploration to continue in onshore Taranaki was to support a transition which includes the potential for new discoveries to make use of existing production and transmission infrastructure. The other issue that was brought up at the select committee was clause 5 applications for permits and clause 6 allocation by public tender—I'll take these two clauses together. Some submitters raised an issue around flexibility and sought to retain greater flexibility for the Minister to exercise discretion regarding where and when permitting can occur. My view is that this flexibility would only lead to uncertainty around where new petroleum exploration could occur. The Government has taken a very clear position that there should be no new petroleum exploration permits issued outside the onshore Taranaki region. The only exception to that is for permits issued subsequent to an existing permit. This approach provides the most certainty around new exploration.Other submitters raised issues around the matters which we were asked to take into account when considering permit applications—for example that climate change could be a factor. Such a change would represent a significant departure from the status quo. Our position is that this bill is focused on giving effect to the Government's recent changes to new petroleum exploration and that changes that go beyond this are outside the scope of this tranche one of changes. So they're some of the changes that were outlined and have been effected and I'm sure I will respond to more of those as we go through this committee stage."
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for: consideration in committee of the Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Social Assistance (Residency Qualification) Legislation Bill; the third readings of the Family Violence Bill and the Family Violence (Amendments) Bill; and the third reading of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill.
Ngaro AlfredTUESDAY 6 NOVEMBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MOTIONSPittsburgh—Condemnation of Attack on Jewish CommunityHon ALFRED NGARO (National): I seek leave to move a motion without debate that this House supports the worldwide Shabbat services condemning the recent horrific attack on the Jewish community in Pittsburgh. SPEAKER: I just want to check that that's been cleared through the whips. It has been. I'll put the question that the member be given leave to move that motion without notice and without debate. Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could he read it again? Many of us couldn't hear it because the mike wasn't on. SPEAKER: It's been cleared by the whips and it'll become pretty clear to the member soon. Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you Mr Speaker. I seek leave for this motion That this House supports the worldwide Shabbat services this past weekend condemning the recent horrific attack on the Jewish community in Pittsburgh and acknowledges that no one should be forced to live in fear in their daily lives no matter their race or religion for fear of terror or anti-Semitism. SPEAKER: Now what I'm going to do is notwithstanding it being a bit of a repeat of seeking leave I'll take that as being the motion. Motion agreed to.
Wednesday 31 October 2018 (continued on Thursday 1 November 2018) - Volume 734
Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Child Poverty Reduction Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 118New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.
Child Poverty Reduction Bill — Second Reading
Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand to take a call in this split call on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill that's before the House. The House already knows that we are opposing this bill. The reason why we're opposing this bill—I know the Hon Peeni Henare in his speech talked about the fact that this is a great day for his electorate. I'm not so sure that this bill will do greatness. It may do some good things but I'm not sure if it will do the great things that it's been intended to do.The reason I preface that comment is because in all the submissions that we had the discussions were around the issue around the impact of the letting fee. The example that was given was actually from out in Scotland. There's an organisation called Shelter in which they actually remove letting fees from their current situations of residual tendencies and a security of tenure of homes over in Scotland. But what's been proven when that happened is that over the last five years the impact on the sector has been the lack of residential properties available for those which has meant that there's been an increase in rent rises. So to use that as an example I think there'll be—Louisa Wall: England and Wales are going to do the same thing.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Wales—they haggled over it but what they did is they actually set a cap. So they've set a cap on that. So transparency was one of the issues and I know that Louisa Wall is talking about that—other examples have been set there. So it's not the silver bullet. It's not the issue that I think will bring greatness to the residential tenancy market; it may bring some good things it may bring some relief for a certain period of time.I suppose the concern on this side was this: why is it that this was introduced now when it's only a small portion of an amendment to a change to the Act when there currently is through consultation a total reform of the Residential Tenancies Act as it is? Why was it not left until the point of time in which through the whole of the Act there could be the conversation so that this small proportion could be included in the whole? So we can only surmise on this side that it is because it's been part of the 100 days in which they could have a tick-box to say that We've done this."So while we say that we oppose this it's on the principled basis that actually there could have been a better job that could have been done by the current Government of the day. However it is what it is. We oppose this bill. We don't believe it will achieve the great things that they are talking about. It will achieve some relief but in the long term I think it will have some unintended consequences for the whole sector. I commend my views to the House but oppose this bill on behalf of us as a party."
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. This is a very specific bill with some great outcomes for the people of my electorate in Tāmaki Makaurau. We've heard in this House how we can leave things to the market. Well I often leave a lot of my opinion to the market—that's the Ōtara market the Manurewa market the Māngere market—and the voices are very clear there that this bill will help the people of Tāmaki Makaurau the very cohorts in our community that the member Marama Davidson has spoken about. This bill is very specific and I take great pride in recommending it to the House.
Wednesday 31 October 2018 - Volume 734
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 3 agreed to.
Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 64New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 2 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8.Clause 1 agreed to.
Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 55New Zealand National 55.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.
12. Question No. 12—CorrectionsHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of CorrectionsQuestion No. 12—Corrections12. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: When was he first made aware of the communications blind spot at the Te Korowai unit in Upper Hutt where violent criminals and sex offenders are placed?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): I was made aware at the outset. Corrections have always been aware of the black spot and that is why we've never relied on GPS monitoring for inside that facility. At Te Korowai we provide physical onsite staffing with 24/7 line-of-sight monitoring by security staff corrections staff and CCTV cameras. When offenders leave they are tracked by their ankle bracelets and at times accompanied by an officer. To be clear the GPS black spot is contained to the residence; it does not affect the ability of corrections to monitor them when they leave the gates.Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could the Minister please clarify what outset" means. Does that mean beginning does it mean—what date that was perhaps?SPEAKER: It would be useful for the Minister to—Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The first two residents were received on Monday 20 August and consultation with the community began on 14 August. It was around that time that I was first made aware.Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that there is only one entrance and exit from the facility and that it is staffed?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That's correct. During the day there are three staff members inside the facility and one around the perimeter. There is only one entry and exit point."
11. Question No. 11—BiosecurityKIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister for BiosecurityQuestion No. 11—Biosecurity11. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcements has he made on work to improve the country's animal tracing system?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Yesterday I announced that we're ramping up work to strengthen New Zealand's animal tracing system National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) which plays a vital part in protecting our economic base and unique way of life. Yesterday at a meeting of farming leaders and industry stakeholders the Ministry for Primary Industries launched a public consultation that asks farmers who use NAIT every day to tell us what will make the system both good for business and effective for biosecurity. We want to improve the use of data tighten rules around the handling of untagged animals and align penalties with our other Acts to reflect the seriousness of non-compliance with NAIT.Kieran McAnulty: How does this latest effort to fix NAIT fit alongside other work the Minister is overseeing to improve the animal tracing system?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Operational changes have been made to NAIT by management agency Operational Solutions for Primary Industries New Zealand after I demanded the release of a year-overdue report on the NAIT system. Urgent law changes to fix the NAIT Act of 2012 have been introduced to bring its search and inspection powers in line with other Acts such as the wine and fisheries Acts to ensure compliance officers can do their job. Hundreds of warning letters have been sent to those not meeting the rules and thousands of farmers are also upping their game and treating their NAIT obligations with the respect they deserve. We took action and we are seeing the results.Kieran McAnulty: Why has he made this latest announcement now?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are currently on track to eradicate Mycoplasma bovis. We now have more properties back farming than are infected. Manawatū and Wairarapa are free of Mycoplasma bovis once again. We said that when we had a handle on the disease we would look to fix the NAIT system. This is what we are doing.
10. Question No. 10—Social DevelopmentHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 10—Social DevelopmentSPEAKER: I will warn that I've been informed that it will be a longer than normal answer to this.10. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: What minimum wage jobs if any are not suitable for the 129643 people currently on the Jobseeker Support benefit?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Firstly can I acknowledge that this Government recognises the importance of having a minimum wage and moved quickly to lift that minimum wage within the first 100 days in office to $16.50 per hour. In reference to jobseeker beneficiaries when a person's skill level work and life experience amongst other things align with a minimum wage job on offer then it is absolutely appropriate for the person to be supported into that relevant job. If people find a job that they like or love that pays minimum wage then that's great. What needs to be noted is that job seekers come with varying levels of skills qualifications and experience. Each person needs to be supported to find work that is appropriate to their skill level and expertise—into work that is meaningful to them. There are numerous examples of where this didn't happen under the previous Government's target to reduce long-term welfare dependency including where a former female deputy principal was being encouraged via a Ministry of Social Development contracted service to take up work in a fast-food restaurant. This case was covered by Stuff. It is an example where the minimum wage job was not suitable for the job seeker. This Government is committed to maximising people's potential and supporting people into sustainable and meaningful employment not just pushing people off benefit with no regard for whether they are better off.
9. Question No. 9—Trade and Export GrowthJAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export GrowthQuestion No. 9—Trade and Export Growth9. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What announcements has the Government made regarding trade and export growth?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Today New Zealand as the official depository under the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) received notification from Australia the sixth country to ratify CPTPP. This means the agreement will come into force on 30 December. From day one our exporters will have greatly improved market access into three of the world's largest economies: Japan Canada and Mexico. The benefits of the agreement will be felt across the entire economy from north to south and from factory floor to business owner. It's a momentous day not just for New Zealand but actually for world trade. It's the result of a decade's work of officials and Ministers on both sides of the House but I would especially like to thank the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for their strong leadership in getting this across the line. Jamie Strange: Why is the CPTPP important for New Zealand's economy?Hon DAVID PARKER: The CPTPP has taken on added importance in recent times because the World Trade Organization (WTO) is under threat. As a small exporting nation New Zealand relies upon the rules-based system for fair trade. In Ottawa last week we put forward options to address legitimate concerns of the United States and other economies about how the WTO operates. However New Zealand must also be prepared if it's weakened and although our first preference is for a functional and effective WTO there's no doubt that CPTPP is relatively more important than it was and we look forward to its expansion over time to better protect New Zealand's interests. Jamie Strange: What else is the Government doing to grow exports?Hon DAVID PARKER: We're progressing important trade negotiations in many parts of the world—with the EU the UK the Pacific Alliance South and Central America and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in Asia as well as upgrades with China and Singapore. But free-trade agreements aren't the only key to export growth; New Zealand needs to grow new points of comparative advantage to broaden our export offering to the world and grow productivity. Here it's our R & D tax credits the Provincial Growth Fund the tax review—key elements of the Government's ambition to grow exports create jobs and raise incomes as we move New Zealand's economy from volume to value.
8. Question No. 8—EducationHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 8—Education8. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement regarding discussions on next year's Budget that Actually many of those things we have been talking about through the Budget process address the concerns that teachers have been raising" and will he commit to delivering on all of his education promises?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes and as I've said before in the House to the member repeatedly I am absolutely committed to delivering on the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne the coalition agreement and the confidence and supply agreement.Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he confirm that the $6 billion promised over four years for education by the Prime Minister will be delivered and that it will include special education coordinators to help prevent strikes?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question yes. In answer to the second part of the question the member will have to wait and see.Hon Nikki Kaye: Was the last year of National's pay increases for secondary teachers 2.7 percent and if so why has the Government offered less than 0.5 percent more despite having billions of dollars in surplus?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The previous Government chose to prioritise tax cuts over pay increases for teachers. The pay increase the member suggests is from my recollection correct in terms of the most recent settlement the National Government reached which of course is better than the 0.6 percent they gave to teachers in at least one of the years that they settled. I can confirm that the percentage increase on offer under this Government is worth more in percentage terms than the increases in all three settlements reached under the previous Government. Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he agree with previous reports that say teachers' low wages are at the centre of shortages; if not why not?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes I do agree with that—I was the one that said it—and I was very concerned with the low level of settlement reached under the previous Government. That is one of the reasons why in this Government's first contract negotiation round we have put on the table an offer to teachers that is worth more in percentage terms than all of the settlements they reached under the previous Government put together."
7. Question No. 7—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 7—Finance7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government's policies statements and actions in relation to the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context in which they were made and taken.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he take responsibility for the prolonged slump in business confidence as demonstrated once more by today's ANZ own activity index?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There is a long-run historical trend to the perception survey that the member refers to and I think he should focus more on real data in the economy—for instance the words this week of ASB: So far we have yet to see a smoking gun that would point to actual activity slowing. Indeed quite the opposite has been true." Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he understand that the consequences of low business confidence take time to flow through to GDP figures and is he saying that low business confidence will be without consequences?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I look to historical evidence in this regard. When the Labour Party was last at the core of a Government business pessimism was in place for 82 of 99 months and across that period there was an average annual growth of 3.2 percent. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is he considering additional taxes from the Tax Working Group when tax revenue is already forecast to grow by $9.3 billion or 11 percent over the next two years? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Tax Working Group has been given the task of looking at the overall balance and fairness of the New Zealand tax system. We haven't made any final decisions on its basis at all. What I would say to the member is that the growth in tax revenue that's forecast for the next two years is of course in fact lower than it was in the years 2015 to 2017 under the last Government's watch.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Because growth is lower I suppose—SPEAKER: Order! Hon Paul Goldsmith: My apologies.SPEAKER: The member is very lucky.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why are good-looking race horses the only ones deserving of tax cuts?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House we are focused on a better-balanced fairer tax system and I note that the member doesn't mention the $1 billion research and development tax incentive that is going to grow the economy and innovate and provide more productive businesses—something his Government didn't think was important at all.Rt Hon Winston Peters: On this issue of perpetual gloom what did David Hisco the ANZ chief executive put down to the success of the ANZ current profit?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What he said—I happen to have that with me—was that the continued strength of the economy is down to strong exports a tourism sector continued demand for housing and growth in household incomes. And he said the Government's investment in major infrastructure across the country and trade achievements are providing jobs and fuelling consumer spending and saving."
6. Question No. 6—Earthquake CommissionDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake CommissionQuestion No. 6—Earthquake Commission6. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What recent announcements has she made regarding the Crown guarantee for EQC?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): On Monday I announced that tomorrow the Earthquake Commission (EQC) will receive $50 million under the Crown guarantee the first time this has been needed in the 74 years the guarantee has been in place. The Government has long expected the Crown guarantee would be needed and have planned for this but we have needed to make the payment earlier than originally forecast. The payment to EQC is an operating grant and provides additional financial support to EQC alongside the Natural Disaster Fund and EQC's reinsurance programme and provides the buffer so that EQC can continue to pay claimants.Dr Duncan Webb: What has been the cause of the earlier than expected payment under the Crown guarantee?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The key cause is that EQC is now making improved progress to fast-track the settlement of claims currently resolving a thousand claims per month. In Canterbury this means people who have been living in damaged homes for almost eight years can move on with their lives. Of the claims that EQC had on hand at 10 May when I received the report from my independent ministerial adviser 54 percent have now been resolved.Dr Duncan Webb: Why is the Crown guarantee important for New Zealand?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Crown guarantee means that New Zealanders know the Crown is standing behind the EQC's Natural Disaster Fund and that they can have confidence there is money to settle their claims. Having this level of backing helps keep insurance premiums more affordable for New Zealanders giving us one of the highest rates of residential insurance in the world which yesterday's events remind us that we need.