edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Urgent Debates Declined — Relationships Aotearoa—Government Funding Skycity Convention Centre—Design Iraq Military Deployment—Iraqi ArmyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — Relationships Aotearoa—Government Funding Skycity Convention Centre—Design Iraq Military Deployment—Iraqi Army[Sitting date: 26 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3946. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedRelationships Aotearoa—Government FundingSkycity Convention Centre—DesignIraq Military Deployment—Iraqi ArmyMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Annette King seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the failure of the negotiations between Government agencies and Relationships Aotearoa. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The failure of the negotiations with Government agencies was reported by Relationships Aotearoa yesterday. The negotiations concerned the level of future Government funding for the service. The House this week is debating the 2015-16 Budget and the departmental estimates are currently before select committees for examination. The Budget debate will provide the opportunity to discuss the matter today and the estimates examinations will provide the opportunity to consider it in detail and debate it further when select committee reports on the estimates are considered in the Committee of the whole House. On this basis the matter raised does not meet the test for me to set aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.I have also received a letter from Dr David Clark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the announcement today that the Skycity Auckland Convention Centre design will be downsized. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The revised design was announced today by the Minister for Economic Development and the Government is party to the agreement to build the convention centre. However the business of the House should not be set aside just because a ministerial announcement has been made even though it may be important. There must be such an element of urgency that the matter must take precedence over other business. In this instance I am not persuaded that there is an element of urgency that warrants the setting aside of the business of the House. The application is therefore declined.I have further received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to within an hour’s range of the Taji base and the Iraqis’ lack of will to fight. The matter outlined in Mr Mark’s letter does not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence and does not involve ministerial responsibility. The advance of ISIS and the state of the Iraqi army are not matters for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Government decision to deploy troops to Iraq was announced in February of this year and was debated in the House at that time. Because the application does not meet any of the criteria for an urgent debate set out in Standing Order 389 it is declined.
Roy Eric: Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3504. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is tragic to have to interrupt the member; however his time has expired.
Roy Eric: Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3499. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Catherine Delahunty—a 5-minute call.
Tisch Lindsay: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3477. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Chris Hipkins—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3476. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call I understand is a split call. Gareth Hughes—5 minutes.
Collins Judith: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCollins Judith: Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3475. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Yet another day in paradise. Is it not wonderful to be here having listened to the general debate and knowing that the taxpayer dollar is so well spent listening to us debate? Some of it of course was errant nonsense but there you go. It is a democracy and if those members want to spend their time wasting it—great. We are back to Radio New Zealand and radio generally. We have already established that every year we have been giving as a Government $25 million to Radio New Zealand.Brett Hudson: How much? How much?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: $25 million. That is a wonderful amount of money is it not? And that compares very favourably with all the other money that we give to radio stations in New Zealand. That is because we give them not a cent—zero zip nothing. So Radio New Zealand does really well. For that of course Radio New Zealand does not have to go cap in hand to advertisers and does not have to justify itself other than to select committees. That is a price that we pay as taxpayers because actually Radio New Zealand has a charter and it has to produce certain things that may not be commercially efficient and probably would not survive the commercial rule being run over it. But are we not lucky that we live in a society where not only do we have Radio New Zealand but we have so much more choice? If we do not want to hear the dulcet tones of Checkpoint we can in fact listen instead to that fabulous person on Newstalk ZB Larry Williams or we could listen instead in the morning to the fabulous Paul Henry someone whom I listen to quite a lot now and I know that my friend Annette King does too. That is the sort of thing. We have choice. Is that not wonderful?But I would also say that we need to be very aware—and I am sure that the people in the industry are—that there are very interesting times ahead for the industry. As we have been hearing in the debate so much in terms of technological change is happening. It is so fast. Multimedia solutions are now being trialled and used and we can see that with the Radio Live Paul Henry show. We can also see it with others as well. I think that is one of the things. We are going to see a lot of consolidation in the industry and a lot of new and innovative ways of doing things. Radio New Zealand is well placed and I am really pleased with the progress it has made in the last 6 and a bit years.
Tisch Lindsay: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: General Debate[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3472. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I have rung the bell so the member sits. I am calling Sarah Dowie.
Carter David: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: General Debate[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3468. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Carter David: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: General Debate[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3467. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Carter David: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: General Debate[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3463. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has been described enough. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is.
Smith Nick: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: General Debate[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3463. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I seek leave to table a document prepared by Grant Cleland from the Parliamentary Library for Budgets over the last 20 years comparing that—
Carter David: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: General Debate[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3463. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. [Interruption] Order! If you are going to table a document just seek leave.
Parker David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3460. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was addressing the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s point to you which you have not ruled on. I did not disagree with the Speaker’s ruling; I merely read it out and said our point was we just wanted questions to be addressed.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That does not help the order of the House at all.
Parker David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3460. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speaking to the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s point of order the ruling to which he refers says: “A member cannot require a specific or particular answer to a question. The Minister is just required to address the question.” This is the very point we were making. We want an answer that addresses the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member ought to become more familiar with both the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. The Opposition cannot demand an answer that it requires. My job is to judge whether the question was addressed. On this occasion I did so. That is the end of that matter. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I just want to be clear: I have ruled on this matter. If the member is now relitigating that in itself brings this House into disorder. Has the member got a fresh point of order? If he has I will listen to it.
Mark Ron: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3460. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to take the opportunity to withdraw and apologise to the House for making a comment that some people may have been offended by or that would have brought the House into disrepute. Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3460. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Today has been a very interesting question time and I am sure that there will be some commentary that runs on from it. I am wondering whether you might consider whether Speaker’s ruling 167/6 still applies and suggest that that may be something that our opponents in the Opposition want to have a look at. It is a ruling delivered by Margaret Wilson in 2007.Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly have a look at that.
Kuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3458. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What has the Government done to protect the site of one of the most significant battles in the New Zealand Wars?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I am pleased to advise that the Government has purchased the property where the Battle of Ōrākau took place. The battle in which 300 Māori defenders faced 1500 Crown troops is considered by many to be the decisive battle of the New Zealand Wars. Māori sustained heavy casualties and the Crown subsequently confiscated the land. The property is going to be held in the land bank in the Office of Treaty Settlements while the Government engages with relevant iwi about future possibilities for the site.Barbara Kuriger: Why was it important for the Government to purchase the Battle of Ōrākau site?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government has been very keen to purchase this important site for a number of years as it is of great significance to several iwi and to New Zealand’s history. The opportunity recently arose for the Government to carry out the purchase when the owners of the property offered to sell it. The site contains the remains of Māori who were killed during the battle and buried where they lay. It has been recorded by Heritage New Zealand as a wāhi tapu area and the Crown and iwi agree that only certain uses of the property are going to be appropriate in the future.
Genter Julie Anne: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3453. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “the surplus target is important”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes I stand by the full statement which was that “The surplus target is important. It has imposed a discipline on us and on Government agencies to work hard on achieving value for money and providing new spending only where we can get better results.”Julie Anne Genter: Is he aware that in the last year his public statements about returning to surplus were at the lowest level since 2010 and does he accept that the National Government reached peak surplus talk 3 years ago in May 2012?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I was not aware of that particular statistical artefact but I can reassure the member that the amount of work and focus within the Government on achieving better value for money is higher than ever.Julie Anne Genter: Can he explain why from 2012 onwards his public statements about returning to surplus have decreased first gradually and then suddenly by almost 50 percent from 2013 to 2014?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only surmise that it is because of the rapid progress the Government has made towards surplus and I am gratified to see that the Greens are at least counting all my statements. I wish they would read them and take a bit more notice of them.Julie Anne Genter: Is he concerned that forward predictions of his public statements about returning to surplus are tracking upwards for the current year and therefore if historical trends continue the likelihood of actually returning to surplus will decrease in the near future?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No but I can say that the commentary by the Greens on the surplus makes a lot more sense than the commentary by the Labour Party.
Vote: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3426. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Standards and Accreditation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a second time.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3380. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Roy Eric: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Stuart Nash—a 5-minute call.
Roy Eric: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Standards and Accreditation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3417. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute call and I call Julie Anne Genter.
Tisch Lindsay: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3371. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. James Shaw—5 minutes.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I will reflect on the answers that were given but when you consider the nature of the primary question that also needs to be considered. It was a very general primary question: “Does the Prime Minister stand by all his statements?”. There was a subsequent interchange around a particular supplementary question that was asked and from memory the Prime Minister’s answer was that he could not understand what Mr Peters was saying. Well that is an answer. There was a subsequent answer given to the next question that I think the member is more referring to. I will certainly have a look at that but I will only come back to the House if I consider it of value to do so.
Brownlee Gerry: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I am sure that when you do consider that you will consider it against Standing Order 380 around questions and their content and you will take note of the fact that to assert something in a question as being a fact when it is not is equally offensive to Parliament.
Hipkins Chris: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just been reflecting on the interchange between Mr Peters and the Prime Minister and I would like to ask you to go back and review the matter and come back to us with a more deliberated-upon ruling around Ministers questioning the word of a person asking a question. It is against the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings in the House for any member to question the word of another member and I ask you to reflect upon the answers given in that particular exchange but also to come back to us more generally with how that rule should be applied in question time.
Ardern Jacinda: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement that “it’s a priority for this term of Government that all New Zealanders benefit from the growing economy with a focus on children who are living in hardship”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes.Jacinda Ardern: How many children living in poverty have benefited from the growing economy while her Government has been in office?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As we have heard before there are a number of ways of measuring poverty. What we do know is that in the long term children who live in homes that are dependent on a benefit have considerably worse outcomes in life than those who do not. This Government has seen the number of children living in benefit-dependent households fall by almost 42000over the last 3 years.Jacinda Ardern: If child poverty is a priority does that mean she was right when she claimed last year that she was working on a new child poverty package for the 2015 Budget that was “a really big piece of work” or was Bill English right when he said today that there would be no new specific initiatives?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Prime Minister is always right and he has said that hardship is going to be a focus of the Budget.Jacinda Ardern: If child poverty is a priority why will her Government not measure it or target it? But will she in the interim sign a petition by Tick for Kids that calls for Budget 2015 to be the Budget that ends child poverty; if not why not?Mr SPEAKER: Any of those three supplementary questions—the Hon Anne Tolley.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member will just have to wait for the Budget.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3369. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement on 14 October 2013 when he said in regard to this country’s veterans: “our Government has been firmly guided by a keen sense of fairness and a sense of the need to honour our current and future veterans in a dignified way.”Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case is it true that while he was at Gallipoli and New Zealand was remembering 100 years of Anzac sacrifices behind the scenes cynical moves were under way to treat veterans as a burden on the State?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not got a clue what the member is talking about.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well half of that is correct—he has not got a clue. How can he stand by that statement when his Government sent out this letter to veteranson 30 April 5 days after Anzac Day signalling cuts to the services that they receive—this letter?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know what letter the member is talking about.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a letter from Veterans Affairs New Zealand dated 30 April 2015 written to veterans 5 days after Anzac Day.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! It has been tabled—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. Leave has been put leave was granted and the document will be tabled but that does not stop the member now from proceeding with his supplementary questions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that what is proposed is a serious cut and privatisation of the services to veterans does he not think that a better use of public money would be to use the $25 million that he is spending on a referendum to change the flag to support those who have fought and died for the flag?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is making it up.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect that is the second time. The first answer was that he said he did not have a clue—well I did not disagree with that.Mr SPEAKER: But he is allowed to say that if that is the answer he has got. The second point?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well OK. The second one is that now he is doubting my honour and that is the real issue here because as you know it is beyond question. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That is not a valid point of order.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3369. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question on the Order Paper.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3369. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): This question—[Interruption] This question is for the hirsute gentleman over there—
Norman Russel: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3367. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What is the range of potential costs to the Government resulting from New Zealand’s current forecast for increasing net greenhouse gas emissions for the period 2021-2030 as reported in the Treasury’s climate change briefing dated 6 October 2014?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The range of figures contained in the redacted part of that now rather dated document was between 0.3 and 0.8 percent of GDP and crucially even at the very highest levels of carbon prices used took no impact whatsoever on our emissions. Happily I can inform the member that a lot more professional work has gone into modelling since then. Only yesterday we published modelling that has involved a range of agencies including the New Zealand Treasury which puts the cost of a minus 0.5 percent target between 2020 and 2030 at the rather more reasonable cost of $3.6 billion—not a small sum of money but not nearly large enough to meet the member’s political narrative.Dr Russel Norman: In light of that answer what exactly did Treasury get wrong when it said in this paper that the cost to the Government of not cutting our greenhouse gas emissions was up to $52 billion—as Treasury said in this paper?Hon TIM GROSER: I think what Treasury got wrong was that it did not use sufficiently sophisticated software to conceal the redacted information.Dr Russel Norman: It is nice of you to admit that Minister. Why is it that the Government’s climate target consultation paper makes the unsubstantiated claim that the annual cost of cutting emissions is up to $1800 per household but does not happen to mention Treasury’s rather detailed analysis that says that the cost of not cutting emissions is up to $3400 per household—if we do not cut emissions?Hon TIM GROSER: Well we will let modellers debate the relative merits of these models. What we have done is commission a first-class piece by Infometrics with all the agents involved and the figure they have come up with is the figure the member mentioned.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Minister finally admitting that the redacted number in this paper for the cost to the Government of not cutting emissions is up to $52 billion?Hon TIM GROSER: No I am not verifying that. That was a matter of a so-called independent forecaster drawing two dots together that really should never have been joined together. I recommend to the member and the members of this House that they look at the very professional analysis that we put on the Ministry for the Environment’s website only yesterday.
Naylor Jono: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3366. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress is the Government making in developing New Zealand’s ICT sector?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Last week I along with the Hon Amy Adams released the New Zealand 2015 Information and Communications Technology Report. This report provides in-depth analysis of New Zealand’s information and communications technology sector and showcases New Zealand’s very strong performance over the last few years in this sector with the positive support of the Government. The report shows that the sector has been growing at the rate of 9 percent per year since 2008. The industry is expanding. The number of IT businesses has topped 10000 for the first time and IT stocks now make up about 10 percent of the value of all listings on the New Zealand Exchange main board compared with 1 percent 5 years ago. It is clear that New Zealand’s information and communications technology sector is an increasingly important contributor to our economy both as a strong platform for future business growth and as the driver of the digitisation of our economy.Jono Naylor: How is New Zealand’s information and communications technology industry performing on the world stage?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Very well. Exports have grown at 14 percent a year in the information and communications technology sector—that is 14 percent a year—over the last 6 years and are now worth just shy of $1 billion a year at $930 million; a doubling in value since 2008. To succeed internationally it is important our companies are linked with the world and encouraged to develop their products and ideas when they enter new markets. We are doing that through the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband through partnering with Callaghan Innovation to encourage research and development and by working with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to make the most of opportunities offshore. The information and communications technology industry is just one example of a number of industries that are expanding and diversifying New Zealand’s economic base with the encouragement of this Government.
Vote: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3148. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Human Rights Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Bill read a second time.
Vote: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Human Rights Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3148. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Question agreed to.
Woods Megan: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Environmental Reporting Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3212. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is not with pleasure that I rise to give this speech. Labour will be opposing this legislation. It is not a position that we wanted to be in. We did oppose the bill at its first reading. My predecessor in the role of Labour spokesperson on the environment Moana Mackey made it very clear that we wanted to work very hard during the select committee process to bring about the changes that meant we could support it. I think there are very few people in the world who would not support the stated purpose of the bill but it is when you get into the detail of the bill that the problems emerge.As Dr Smith set out in his contribution this is something that has been on the books of the National Government for a very long time. In fact it was promised in its 2008 election manifesto that it was going to introduce environment reporting legislation that required independent 5-yearly state of the environment reports. Well I guess that us being here tonight means that perhaps this Government has beaten itself to a surplus in terms of the Environment Reporting Bill because that was also promised in the 2008 manifesto.What this bill does not deliver is independent reporting. For Dr Smith to say that he challenges parties to justify why it is that it needs to be different—well I would like to hear from a Government contributor on this bill as to how it is that they disagree with the vast majority of submitters many of them very very deep in the detail of this bill who had grave concerns about the independence of the mechanisms that are set up under this legislation. We heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who had grave concerns around whether or not this bill would deliver independent decision making around which topics are to be covered.I am of course referring to clause 18 of this bill which is the central cause of Labour’s inability to support this bill. You simply cannot have the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Statistics making the decisions on what is to be reported on and claim that you have independent reporting. What we have consistently asked for and will be asking for again is that that decision be in the hands of the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician—who does consult with other people such as iwi and such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—and that they arrive at what is to be reported on.The Minister who has spoken was quite correct. We are the only country in the OECD not to have this. We really wanted to be able to support this legislation and to put in place robust and independent environmental reporting.Debate interrupted.
Roy Eric: New Zealand Business Number Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: New Zealand Business Number Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3195. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but her time has expired.
Smith Stuart: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Stuart: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3187. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. I would like to start by mentioning what my colleague Su’a William Sio was just talking about across the House in regard to the only really successful landing that New Zealand did in the First World War on 29 August 1914 when we landed in Samoa without a shot being fired or a life being lost. We ran the Union flag—as it was in those days—up the pole without any resistance whatsoever. So we do have a special relationship with our Pacific Island neighbours particularly the three nations of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau that we are talking about this evening.I think we were reminded earlier this evening by Alfred Ngaro that the triple star in our national anthem actually refers to those islands which I suspect most people do not realise. I think that is something that we should actually ponder from time to time because it is quite important.Despite what is being said around Supplementary Order Paper 71 around the 5 years after 50 stipulation I think it would be quite wrong to fix an inequity by creating another one because effectively no New Zealander is allowed to come home without meeting that 5-year rule and then claim superannuation even if they want to live here. So we would be creating another inequity in order to fix one.I am getting the signal so it is with great pleasure that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a second time.
Roy Eric: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3182. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jenny Salesa—5-minute call.
Roy Eric: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3181. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jan Logie. This is a 5-minute call.
Tisch Lindsay: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Sue Moroney—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3162. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Steffan Browning—5 minutes.
Mallard Trevor: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3146. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters to the committee on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill requesting a yes/no vote has she requested attend to give evidence out of those who made submissions on this point?JACQUI DEAN (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): The committee will be hearing from 34 submitters a number of whom have indicated they will be speaking on the yes/no vote and some of whom we heard from last week. We will also be hearing from that member who will be speaking on his yes/no vote petition to the bill when the committee sits on Thursday.Hon Trevor Mallard: Is there anything preventing her from exercising her power to request further submissions from the 747 individuals who have asked to be heard including former servicemen who have yet to hear from her to give evidence; if so what is it that is preventing her from doing that?Mr SPEAKER: Either of those supplementary questions Jacqui Dean.JACQUI DEAN: It was the committee’s decision not to hear oral evidence from those who submitted a form submission.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance. A member has conveyed to the House a decision that was made by the select committee and that is in itself a question for you to consider. But she has also incorrectly conveyed that it was a decision made by the committee as a whole when that was not the case. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has raised a point of order. She knows very well the procedure if she feels an incorrect answer has been given in this House.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In light of the answer given by the chair of the committee can I ask you to consider a ruling about whether it breaches privilege to pass that answer on to the submitters who are apparently not to be heard but have not been told?Mr SPEAKER: The member is asking me to give consideration to the question that was asked and the answer that was given. I will do so.
Mallard Trevor: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3145. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill have asked to be heard by the committee and of those how many has she requested to attend to give evidence?JACQUI DEAN (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): The committee has received 256 submissions on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill which includes one form submission. The committee has agreed to hear 34 oral submissions.Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she before she exercised her power to decide whether to call witnesses read the submissions she has described as form submissions to ensure that all former service personnel and individuals who had made distinct and different arguments are heard; if not why not?JACQUI DEAN: It is normal established committee practice to treat large volumes of submissions that are identical or nearly identical as form submissions. A sample representing these submissions is placed on the committee record as representing the views of all those who submitted in this way. This by the way is a process that has been followed for other bills such as the marriage equality bill.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I think was quite a simple one. It asked whether she read them. I do not think that was addressed.Mr SPEAKER: If the member had made it a simple question like that it might have been easier for the matter to be addressed. It was not as simple as that but I will ask the member to simply answer whether she has read all of the form submissions.JACQUI DEAN: The committee treated some 1500—Hon Trevor Mallard: Has she read them!Mr SPEAKER: Order!JACQUI DEAN: Will the member give me a chance to answer? The answer is I sampled as did the clerk of the committee a number of the form submissions. It was determined that the vast majority of those 1761-odd submissions were either similar or essentially the same. That is why they were treated as form submissions.
Sage Eugenie: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she agree with Professor Mark Urban that New Zealand’s indigenous species are at greater risk of extinction from climate change than species in many other parts of the world; and if not why not?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): Yes.Eugenie Sage: Has she ever tried to convince her Cabinet colleagues to protect our native species at risk of extinction from climate change by adopting policies that reduce New Zealand’s emissions; if not why not?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I have spoken to my Cabinet colleagues and caucus and this House on many occasions about the need to preserve and protect more of our endangered species. In terms of the climate change part of your question that is best directed to the Minister for Climate Change Issues.Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister accept that if New Zealand contributes to a more than 2-degree warming of the planet by our emissions increasing by 50 percent over the next 10 years as the Ministry for the Environment predicts this will increase the extinction risk for our indigenous species?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I refute the so-called facts in that member’s question and disagree with them.Eugenie Sage: Well how can the Minister as the Minister of Conservation stand by while climate change increases the extinction risk for our threatened species to 14 percent as Mark Urban predicts?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: This Government and I as the Minister of Conservation are certainly not standing by. An example I would draw the member’s attention to is the Battle for our Birds which was a direct response to what happened with a masting—that is a very extensive seeding of the beech trees. Many people understand that the reason that triggers the mast of a beech forest is to do with temperatures. Warmer temperatures mean higher seeding which means plague proportions of rats—25 million. We planned for that we analysed it and we unrolled a strategy called Battle for our Birds which resulted in the successful turn-round of the decline of at least 12 of our native species. It was a highly successful campaign.
Smith Stuart: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Stuart: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Disability Issues: How is the Government’s investment in the New Zealand Sign Language Fund helping sign language users to promote and maintain the language during Sign Language Week?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): Sign Language Week is a chance to celebrate one of New Zealand’s official languages. It is a language that is spoken by over 20000 Kiwis every day. The Government has invested $350000 to raise awareness about this unique language during Sign Language Week 2015 and provide all New Zealanders with an opportunity to get involved and connect with the Deaf community. This is in addition to the $11 million the Government has invested over 4 years to support deaf children and their families by helping school-aged and preschool children learn sign language and provide more sign language support and tutors in schools.Stuart Smith: How can New Zealanders take part in New Zealand Sign Language Week?Hon NICKY WAGNER: Hundreds of events are taking place across New Zealand this week. There are tours of galleries and museums with sign language interpreters comedy shows pop-up sign language cafes and over 745 New Zealand Sign Language taster classes being available. Raising awareness of sign language helps the Deaf community and other users of the language to connect with all New Zealanders. I encourage us Kiwis to get out and give it a go. Happy Sign Language Week.