edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. What we have just heard sums it up. The previous National Party speaker Paulo Garcia essentially said that their proposed amendments would have strengthened the bill and because they couldn't get them across the line they're not going to vote for it. How bad is that? They could have voted for this bill the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill and expressed how they wanted to improve it just like they did with the zero carbon bill—that wasn't what they wanted but they still voted for it because they wanted to send a message.Now what we heard just now is that if the amendments got across the line they would have voted for it. But because they didn't they didn't vote for it. Where I come from that's called packing a sad. I think if members of the public wish to go and listen to Mark Mitchell's speech right at the start that outlined the National Party's position they would see 10 minutes of whingeing and 10 minutes of packing a sad. I am very happy to stand and speak in favour of this bill. It is a rational and moderate approach to this that finds that balance and I commend the Minister for leading this through the House.
Mark RonHon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): It befalls me to speak for New Zealand First on this bill. I am not sure that there is a great deal more that can be added to the conversation on this other than to say that New Zealand First—Hon Mark Mitchell: You're a laughing stock Ron.Hon RON MARK: Well Mr Mitchell says I'm a laughing stock and I guess I do have a right to respond to that. I'd say that you know sadly if people had a look at that member's track record as a Minister of Defence people would say the same about his work rate—Hon Mark Mitchell: Well they're happy to say that but I'm telling you on this bill you're a laughing stock.Hon RON MARK: —and about his achievements and what he never got through anywhere. I think the greatest thing that anyone can do for the security of this nation Mr Mitchell is actually equip the men and our women of our defence force with that which they need to do their job and I'm about doing that. That's all I have to say.
Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): It is always a solemn occasion when this House's activity is prompted by tragedy and I acknowledge people in the gallery who have come here to see what's going on today for that very reason.I want to say that when people do send their children and young people to university they place a solemn trust in that institution and it is perhaps with surprise that we look back and discover that there wasn't a legal obligation as to how that trust was discharged. It's good to see that we've managed to cooperate and move quickly to put in place this measure.I must say having spent a lot of time as an academic at a university and as one perhaps does grow a little older we realise the considerable distance and perhaps immaturity of some of those students and the fact they do need care and they are not adults who are necessarily able to weather the storm of what goes on in that situation. So this bill is a good measure. It will have to be proportionate because not all students are the same and we know that many students live in halls of residence and so on and they may be 20-plus years old and will able to manage but it's those 17- and 18-year-olds that we're particularly concerned about. It was also of note that in this instance this was a privately managed institution one in which the duties had essentially been subcontracted and that may be a lesson for us. But I know that the vice-chancellor of that university Cheryl de la Rey is working very hard to rebuild the trust around what goes on in that university. I wish her well in that. I know she absolutely has the interests of those students very much at heart. So in terms of this bill it's a tool with which to put in place these codes of conduct that the Minister has oversight of. It's an important step and one in which we can now make sure that that solemn trust that we have to look after our young people in the education system is discharged. I commend it to the House.Bill read a third time.
Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): In similar vein as the final Opposition speaker I will give a very brief response. I do want to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Chris Hipkins for the way in which he has dealt with this matter. I'm sure that it has been widely respected. I also want to acknowledge the Education and Workforce Committee who clearly were faced with a distressing situation and have handled it in a very sensitive manner.As others have done I simply wish to add to the expression of sympathy from colleagues right around the House to the family. I can't see them above me but I understand that there are some in the gallery today. It is deeply distressing that the tragic death of a young man should have given rise to our understanding of the regulatory gaps that this measure is designed to address. So without wishing in any way to sound disrespectful by speaking so briefly could I just say that I welcome this measure and in particular the very dignified and compassionate way in which all members have handled it.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): This is not a controversial bill. This is a bill that's needed. There are acknowledgments that have been made in the House tonight to the select committee to the Minister and to the family as well. So I'll keep it short and just commend this bill to the House.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): It is deeply sad that it took the tragic death of Mason Pendrous for this legislation to come before the House. Members in this debate have acknowledged how horrified we have all been by the events that preceded his death and what it revealed about the quality of care in university hostels around New Zealand. Like others I want to acknowledge his whānau and I want to acknowledge all those affected by his loss. I want them to know that his death was not in vain. His death ensured that we lifted the lid on the lack of pastoral care in many student hostels despite the fact that families pay very high fees for those hostels in the expectation that a higher level of pastoral care will be provided. The voluntary code did not work and that is why this House has come together to legislate and to put in place a framework which will be compulsory. I know that students here in Wellington have some concerns that a code of this sort could lead to higher fees for student hostels and to those students and to the people who run those hostels and to our universities I say: do not let this be an excuse for raising your fees exorbitantly. It should be possible for good quality pastoral care to be provided within a framework such as this without huge fee increases. National supports this bill and we commend it to the House.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Madam Speaker it's a great pleasure to rise and acknowledge the unanimous agreement here in the House for the passing of the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill. I want to thank the Minister and officials in the select committee for this really constructive process. I was not a member of that select committee but I acknowledge that this has been a serious matter that all parties have taken a very careful and compassionate approach to to fix a gap in the system which none of us actually realised was there.I want to acknowledge the very tragic death of Mason and I want to acknowledge his stepdad in the gallery today. We hope that this piece of legislation goes some small way to ease the pain of losing your stepson. I commend this bill to the House.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It is right that we try and do our best to achieve a balance around student safety with this particular piece of legislation but also maintain student privacy and for this particular young adult age their right to act as an adult. So it has been a really interesting passage talking around incentivising and encouraging tertiary providers to do their best but also looking at costs and the impact and hopefully not but potentially perverse effect of passing legislation for which we don't exactly know all the impacts.We also did not know all the contents of the interim code that's about to come New Zealand's way. I'd like to acknowledge the submitters who strayed into out of scope areas and I realise and we can understand why they wanted to address what will actually be in the code but this particular legislation did not address that.We do support the passage of this. We know that the current self-regulating approach has not worked and it was exacerbated or highlighted by the tragic death of 19-year-old Mason Pendrous. We've just had confirmed the New Zealand public about 24 hours ago that we won't ever know how and why he died but what we do know and in the words of his stepdad was that he wasn't the young man that died alone; he was the young man that changed the law. Thank you.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill in its third and final reading here in Parliament. I too would like to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Chris Hipkins and also the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee Dr Parmjeet Parmar for this bill and for Parmjeet's work shepherding it through the House and also the Government's collaborative approach with Dr Shane Reti in terms of ensuring that the National Party supports this bill which we do.This bill is an important piece of legislation. It is about ensuring that the students the young people who leave home and go to university for the first time are given the care that they need—the pastoral care that they need and that they deserve—that our institutions are held to account for the care that they provide and that there will be a code put in place which can then be used to ensure that the appropriate care is made available to these young people. The circumstances which have brought us to this place have been well traversed but I do just want to say that I think that this bill is a step towards ensuring that our young people and families have the confidence in the system going forward that their children their loved ones will be given the care that they need.I do hope that this piece of legislation will be something which won't be putting an increased burden on the costs for these young people. I think that's something which certainly the committee spent some time on. That was one of the reasons why we pushed for the consultation requirements for the code in this bill—so that young people families and those with interests in student accommodation are actually properly consulted so that the code while it has the appropriate requirements is also not something which leads to such substantial increases in cost that young people find alternative accommodation where there might not be the same standard of care that we're hoping that they have.So that's something that I'll be keeping a close eye on as that code is developed. But in conclusion the National Party will be supporting this bill. Thank you very much.
Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee
Motions — Cook Islands—Death of New Zealand High Commissioner Tessa Temata
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to reaffirm New Zealand First's support for this Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill and in doing so to poignantly remember the reason why this bill of course is being pushed through with such speed through the parliamentary process: the passing of Mason Pendrous. I believe his father may be in the gallery which makes this a very poignant occasion.Of course heading off to university or to vocational training often in a different city or environment is an exciting period for young people as they explore their new-found freedoms. But it is also a time when they're away from their support networks potentially and that leaves them vulnerable. Through this process we have found that there have been some glaring gaps in our regulatory process for domestic students. From a New Zealand First perspective it's very hard for us to see why our New Zealand students—our domestic young people—shouldn't have the same or very similar protections as what we give our international students. The bar should be very high for pastoral care for both of those categories of student.So this bill I don't want to draw it out too much. I think it's been well traversed by the other speakers. But this bill does bring in firstly an interim code for the 2020 year—hence the speed of the process to get something in to give the parents and the young people some confidence that next year we will have addressed this gap in an interim way—and a permanent code will be developed over the following year. Given it will be my last contribution on education matters this year I'd just like to take a minute to acknowledge the Education and Workforce Committee which I very much enjoyed being on. I acknowledge the chair Parmjeet Parmar. Also our thoughts of course are with Jan Tinetti who is the deputy chair and leads the Government side. I know Jan will be watching now so we wish you well Jan with your recovery and look forward to seeing you in the new year—and all the members of the committee actually. It's a really constructive committee—both sides of the House. Of course some are wiser than others but we get there in the end.So anyway without further ado I think this is an important bill. It's important that we get this through so that we can give parents and students everywhere the confidence that this regulatory gap has been plugged for the new year. So New Zealand First support this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. The tragic death of Mason Pendrous at the Sonoda campus at the University of Canterbury exposed the lack of a consistent approach to the welfare and pastoral care of domestic tertiary students in our country. This was a young man who had his life ahead of him. I want to acknowledge his stepdad Anthony Holland for your courage and I acknowledge your grief.I also want to extend a heartfelt thanks actually to the Opposition for the way that this piece of legislation has passed through the House so quickly and through the select committee process and so constructively so that parents and students going into halls of residence next year can be reassured that there is a code of conduct in place an interim code of conduct that is mandatory and that there will be the development of a permanent code of conduct through that time next year. So there was an imperative for this legislation to pass this year in order to ensure that.We've heard that the bill enables the Minister of Education to issue that code of practice to provide that framework—the pastoral care of domestic tertiary students. I just want to reiterate how important it is that that is a mandatory code of conduct and that all providers must comply with it. It's not just a code of conduct that's sitting in the back office that nobody ever really pays attention to—that it also sets out arrangements relating to the administration the monitoring the compliance the enforcement the offences the penalties and the dispute resolution. So Parliament has worked hard on this piece of legislation and it's important.The select committee also made some important changes tweaks to the legislation mainly to improve language and definitions. The member Nikki Kaye may be interested to know that we actually have recommended that those affected by the code be consulted and that they include representatives of students parents providers signatory providers and the staff of providers and signatory providers as well as the Privacy Commissioner. So I'm not sure that she had caught up on that but we have actually accepted that the Privacy Commissioner be consulted. We also note that this bill does not override the Privacy Act. I'm going to end with that other than to acknowledge the submitters. There wasn't much time to submit. There were I think 22 submissions—11 submitters were heard and the Privacy Commissioner and while it's passed through this House quickly and an interim code will be released in time for next year there will be a solid amount of work done next year to get that final code in place and the consultation that's needed to take its time to make sure that that's right will happen. I really commend this bill to the House. I thank the Minister for taking the initiative so quickly on this—again to the Opposition to all the submitters and the officials that worked on it. I commend this bill to the House.
McAnulty KieranREMUNERATION AUTHORITY (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT REMUNERATION) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions within this bill to be taken as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): One debate. KIERAN McANULTY: One debate. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Parts 1 and 2 agreed to.Schedule agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) without amendment.Report adopted.
Williams PotoMOTIONSCook Islands—Death of New Zealand High Commissioner Tessa TemataHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the passing of the New Zealand Cook Islands High Commissioner Tessa Temata.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being taken? There appears to be none.Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I move That this House offer its condolences to the family and colleagues on the passing of Her Excellency Tessa Temata New Zealand's first High Commissioner of Cook Islands descent to serve in the Cook Islands and the first female New Zealand High Commissioner of Pacific ancestry to be posted to the Pacific and note the strong contribution she made to deepening New Zealand's relationships with Pacific Island countries.ʻAere ra ma te ʻau e teia tavini meitaki. Te miʻi nei matou te aue nei te ngākau i toʻou takakeʻanga. Kare koe e ngaropoina ia matou e teia vaine toa.[Go in peace oh humble servant. We are grieving; our hearts are full of sorrow at your passing. We will never forget you this warrior woman.]Motion agreed to.
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee Gerry; Mallard Trevor; Seymour DavidTHURSDAY 12 DECEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. On Wednesday next week the House will be adjourning for the summer break. On Tuesday the House will consider the third reading of the Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill the remaining stages of the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4) and the first readings of the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill and the Secondary Legislation Bill.The Government's notified the Business Committee of its intention to move a motion to extend Tuesday's business into Wednesday morning if necessary. After questions on Wednesday the House will pass the Rua Kēnana Pardon Bill. The adjournment debate will round off business for the year on Wednesday afternoon.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for the most extensive indication of the Government's intention for the week ahead that I think we've seen yet. It is having said that a very ambitious programme and given that there is only 5½ hours on Tuesday and then the four hours on Wednesday morning—which I suspect will be required just because of the length of that list—would it still be the Government's intention to progress beyond the Rua Kenana bill—Hon Members: Kēnana.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —apologies for that mispronunciation—and then straight to the adjournment debate at that point?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The Government's intention is to continue as planned on Wednesday afternoon regardless of where we get to on Wednesday morning although I would note for the member that given we passed a whole week's worth of business on Tuesday and another whole week's worth of business on Wednesday I'm very optimistic about our progress next week.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Well that is just a tribute to the Government's ability to put up legislation favourable to the Government—to the Opposition I should say.SPEAKER: Right on behalf of the country—DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Speaking to the Business Statement—SPEAKER: Well it's an unusual process but seeing as it's nearly Christmas—Mr Seymour.DAVID SEYMOUR: We've done it before. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government has no intention to introduce legislation to ban the sales of nicotine e-liquids to under-18s this year?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The member will just have to wait and see. There are a few more bills to be introduced next week.
Wednesday 11 December 2019 - Volume 743
Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Schedule 1 agreed to.
Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill — In Committee—Schedule 1
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.Hon Mark Mitchell: So tough. Amazing. Wow.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Votes will be conducted in silence. The Hon Mark Mitchell has been here long enough to know that rule. Please comply with it.The Hon Mark Mitchell's amendments to clauses 16 17 18 and 19 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 420 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 415.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 421 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to clause 16 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Mark Mitchell's amendment to clauses 20 and 24 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 419 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 422 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to insert new clause 21A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 423 in the name of Paulo Garcia to clause 24 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of Simon O'Connor to clause 25 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 425 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to clause 31 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 415 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 418 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 419 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.Ayes 119New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.
Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Venture Capital Fund Bill and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 119New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Bills read a third time.
Venture Capital Fund Bill & New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — Third Readings (continued)
11. Question No. 11—AgricultureTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of AgricultureQuestion No. 11—Agriculture11. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Agriculture: What were the key conclusions of the high-level advice his Ministry for Primary Industries officials said they provided him with to support the Essential Freshwater work programme proposals?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: On behalf of the Minister I will mention two: firstly that New Zealand needs to do better to protect our waterways and the brand values that underpin our export returns; and secondly that for many farmers who are already doing great work the cost will be minimal. They accept we must protect our natural environment.Todd Muller: What is his response to DairyNZ's multiple - peer reviewed economic modelling that shows the Essential Freshwater policy package is one of the largest economic challenges posed to the dairy sector in a generation potentially costing up to $6 billion a year by 2050?SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to rephrase the question to include either something from the question or the answer. The member asked about a completely different set of recommendations.Todd Muller: What specific economic cost did the Ministry for Primary Industries suggest the Essential Freshwater reforms would have on rural New Zealand?Hon DAVID PARKER: That clearly depends on the catchment in question the farm practice in question and will vary. I would note that overall costs will be much lower than the recent increases in returns to farmers from the prices that are being received under this Government—in no small part because the exchange rate has settled to a more realistic level for New Zealand under this Government's policies.Todd Muller: Is he saying that the recent adjustment in offshore market returns is going to compensate the industry's assessment of the cost being $60 billion or $6 billion a year by 2050?Hon DAVID PARKER: No I didn't say that and it wasn't even in the member's question. Now that it's in this question I would refute that. I would note that one of the cost assumptions in the DairyNZ modelling is that it assumes that no change was required under the 2017 national policy statement of the prior Government and asserts that it's a cost of this package. We don't think that's correct.Todd Muller: What does he say to the chief executive of Rabobank who in the recent survey released two days ago suggested that those future costs in Government policy were driving the level of sentiment in the sector that has not been seen in a generation?Hon DAVID PARKER: I would disagree. I would say that there's a lot of good news out there. There are record prices there's a realistic exchange rate there's record low interest rates and the only negativity seems to be both the tightening of credit from the banks themselves and the sentiment of the National Party.
8. Question No. 8—HealthHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: What was the number of elective patients funded by DHBs and discharged from surgical specialties in 2018/19 and how does that compare to 2017/18?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Our public health service is delivering more care to more people than ever before. We're seeing more acute surgeries and more non-admitted procedures delivered by DHBs and for the first time ever the number of discharges from our hospitals has topped one million. Elective surgery discharges are part of a wider measure—planned care. There were 268747 planned care procedures completed in 2018-19 including 199080 elective surgeries. The total number of planned care procedures is 5000 more than the year before. In 2017/18 there were 203458 elective surgeries.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the target of an increase in the volume of elective surgeries by an average of 4000 discharges per year as described on the Ministry of Health website still in place?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government is focused on planned care which is about making sure more New Zealanders have access to more services. There are a wide range of measures—dozens—across the system which continue to be measured because we want to ensure that there's a system-wide response and that our healthcare services are delivering more care over time to more people.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was straightforward but wasn't addressed.SPEAKER: I think the member does know though—I think the question was addressed but the member does know he cannot insist on a yes or no answer.Hon Michael Woodhouse: No. Quite right.SPEAKER: I think it was addressed but you didn't get a yes/no answer—Speaker's Ruling 171/4 or 171/5 somewhere around there from memory.Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the 4000 increase target is no longer in place why did the Government invest $31.5 million in Vote Health 2018-19 to support the delivery of the Electives … Target. The output is the agreed Health Target discharges"?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Elective surgeries are not the only measure of success in our public health service. What New Zealanders want and what I want is that people get the appropriate care they need when they need it. Overall we've seen an increase in planned care which covers electives as well as minor operations including many eye procedures some gynaecological procedures and skin lesion removals. In 2018-19 there were around 5000 more planned care interventions than the previous year. We're treating more people in the right clinical setting which is more appropriate and efficient.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Isn't he just fudging the numbers in that the actual number is not only 5775 fewer than the previous year but 9775 fewer than the Government actually planned for?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No."
7. Question No. 7—Civil DefenceTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Civil DefenceQuestion No. 7—Civil Defence7. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What actions have the National Emergency Management Agency taken in response to the eruption on Whakaari / White Island?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): As per the response delivered on my behalf yesterday by the Hon Grant Robertson the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) is still coordinating the all-of-Government response to the eruption and ensuring that the focus is on keeping people at the centre of the response. To ensure public safety and wellbeing the National Emergency Management Agency has created a national action plan to coordinate support at the national level for the delivery of essential services to affected families. The plan coordinates the specific actions required by each agency going forward which will also continue throughout recovery.Tamati Coffey: Where can people affected by the emergency seek financial support?Hon PEENI HENARE: Extra support is available to people affected by the White Island eruption. Work and Income can help with financial support to those impacted including for loss of income and housing assistance. ACC can provide support to those who were injured or have lost a family member as well as payment for medical care. For further details I encourage the public to go to the Government's factsheet which can be found on NEMA's website: civildefence.govt.nzTamati Coffey: Where can people seek support—mental health support—if they are feeling distressed?Hon PEENI HENARE: The events from the other day have had a significant impact on the community. It is normal to feel upset following an event like this. If people need support or advice they can text or phone 1737 to speak to a trained counsellor. Several organisations are also providing emotional and mental wellbeing services to those impacted by this event including Red Cross Victim Support and the cruise-line company for Ovation of the Seas Royal Caribbean International.
4. Question No. 4—EducationJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 4—Education4. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he seen on the Government's investment for 2050 State schools so that they can upgrade their property over the next 24 months?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Over the next two years the Government will be injecting an additional $400 million capital investment into school properties. Makikihi School has said that the extra $50000 that they are getting will mean that they can revamp their two multi-level classrooms quicker and fix their roofs that weren't covered by their original budget. Waimataitai School have said that the $339000 of funding that they got meant that they were relieved they'd be able to complete a job properly rather than patching things up. The New Zealand School Trustees Association have said that the Government announcement is a good way for school boards of trustees to end the school year.Mark Patterson: What does the school property funding recently announced by the Prime Minister mean for schools in Clutha-Southland?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are 58 schools in Clutha-Southland who'll be receiving a total of over $6 million to upgrade their classrooms and other property including Gore High School who'll be getting $334000; Rosebank School in Balclutha they'll be getting $178000; West Gore School who'll be getting $159000; and Milton School who'll be receiving $108000.Angie Warren-Clark: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in the Bay of Plenty?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are 21 schools in the Bay of Plenty. They'll receive a total of around $5 million to upgrade their school property and bring forward their upgrade works. That includes schools like Te Puna School who'll be getting $158000; Tahatai Coast School will be receiving $400000; Arataki School will be getting $341000.Hon Aupito William Sio: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in Māngere?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are 21 schools in Māngere who'll be receiving over $6 million to upgrade their classrooms and their property including Papatoetoe North School who will be getting $400000; Nga Iwi School who'll be getting $261000; and Māngere East School who will receive $400000. Schools up and down the country will benefit over the next two years from the significant investment in additional funding in their facilities as will businesses up and down the country who will be engaged to do that work?
2. Question No. 2—FinanceDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made about Government investment to boost the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today I announced that the Government is lifting capital investment by $12 billion to the highest level in more than 20 years in order to futureproof the New Zealand economy. Of this increase we have allocated $8 billion for specific capital projects and we have increased the multi-year capital allowance for future Budgets by $4 billion. This Government inherited a huge infrastructure challenge when we took office including rundown hospitals roads that were announced but not paid for overcrowded classrooms and a State housing shortage. This package shows New Zealanders that this Government is serious about investing in our economy and our prosperity.Dr Deborah Russell: What sectors will the additional capital be invested in?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government's $8 billion immediate capital investment package includes $6.8 billion for new transport projects with a significant portion going to roads and rail; $300 million for district health board asset renewal; $200 million for public estate decarbonisation such as removing coal boilers from schools hospitals and other public assets; up to $300 million for regional investment opportunities that do not fit within the criteria of the Provincial Growth Fund; and the previously announced $400 million one-off increase to schools' capital funding. We believe that the time is right for this further capital investment in New Zealand. The cost of borrowing is low the projects are there to be done and the books are in good shape and this will boost the economy.Dr Deborah Russell: How will this package help boost the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The New Zealand economy is still forecast to grow solidly and grow at a rate faster than many of our trading partners but this increased investment will provide a further boost for the New Zealand economy in the face of slower than forecast growth and stronger global headwinds. These new investments will increase the size of the economy and will have further positive impacts on GDP beyond the forecast period. The capital investment will provide a combination of shorter-term spending to support economic activity as well as the certainty of medium- and long-term investments that will provide business with a pipeline of Government demand going into the future.
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): We are absolutely opposed to this bill because it's a complete and utter waste of time. In the 10 or 15 seconds that I have left I wish this House to be aware that actually there are more important things for this House to do. The Chief Ombudsman was in the Governance and Administration Committee today and I have great respect for him—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm very sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the chair. The House stands adjourned till 2 p.m. tomorrow. The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much. I'm delighted if not somewhat surprised to be speaking on the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. You know sometimes things come in front of this House that the other side might wish to ridicule; they might wish to make cheap political points but I am shocked that they would choose to take that tack on something as important as protecting the name of the ombudsman".The thing is that the ombudsman role is vital in our democracy; it is a layer of protection to ensure that people who live in this country can have a fall-back I suppose—a check on a check; a balance on a balance. That is what an ombudsman is. Yet that other side of the House is willing to have it flailed about willy-nilly by any character any rooster that pops into town.What if I wanted to come into town and open up an "Ombudsman's Advice Service"? I might change my name to "Ombudsman" and it would be entirely appropriate. Kieran "McOmbudsman" I might change my name to and that might allow me to open up a financial advice service and in doing so I would give my service an artificial veneer of credibility just because of the use of the term and we say that is wrong—that is utterly wrong. For nine years the previous Government flailed about with this opportunity and loophole available to people and I say thank God no one used it. But the Hon Andrew Little came along and said "Here is a loophole which we will not stand for and we will fix." So what this bill does is it protects the integrity of the role of the parliamentary Ombudsman. I note that the Minister in his second reading speech acknowledged the work of the Governance and Administration Committee—and good on them. So here we are at the second reading with an opportunity to reflect on the changes that the select committee made. I note that there were 11 submitters of which six presented orally. I think that's a tremendous strike rate—that is a marvellous strike rate. It demonstrates the interest in something of this nature. I refer to something that came in front of this House on a members' day not that long ago. For here we have the National Party speaker after speaker after speaker saying that this is not important and it's not needed and that no one cares. Yet this had a total of 11 submitters a sum total of 10 submitters more than Todd Muller's member's bill which the National Party stood there and said. "This is vital that we pass for the benefit of cooperatives around the country." What is good for the goose is good for the gander—that's what I say.Here we are with an opportunity to make sure that the use of the term "ombudsman" is prohibited from use aside from those that it was intended. Now I'm sure it's on the tip of our tongues that we acknowledge that the name "ombudsman" is currently protected under the Ombudsman Act 1975. I have to say that it's been a privilege. I commend this bill to the House."
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): National opposes the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill; however we will work together with Government MPs to improve the bill. National oppose the bill because we believe it is a waste of Parliament's time. The bill simply transfers the power regarding protection of the name of ombudsman" from the ombudsman to the Minister and attempts to address a problem that does not really exist.If we read the Ministry of Justice's regulatory impact statement—or RIS—we can see that the officials are not enthusiastic about the bill at all; they simply can't find any good convincing reasons to justify such a Government bill. Officials say on page 3 in the RIS that the evidence certainty for the bill is low. They are not even confident that they are well positioned to produce an analysis and give advice to the Cabinet because of "A lack of empirical evidence about the nature and extent of the problem" and "Key gaps and assumptions in the data or analysis" and "Insufficient consultation and information to inform analysis or test assumptions." So I oppose the bill."
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak to this Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill in what appears to be one of the calmer moments that we've witnessed in this Chamber in the past few hours.This is a common-sense piece of legislation; it's interesting to hear from the National Party that it's unnecessary and that it's a waste of space. I hope that they contribute some great ideas at the committee of the whole House stage up next. But none the less as this is common sense it doesn't require that much more contribution. The Green Party supports this bill.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): National does not support the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. We do indeed believe that this bill is not necessary and is effectively wasting the House's and select committee's time. The member who has just resumed his seat Clayton Mitchell cited exactly the reason why National does not support this bill. The member cited unspecified overseas countries where the ombudsman's name is overused. Well that's simply not the case in New Zealand. As it currently stands the term ombudsman" is rarely adopted and rarely used so indeed there is no problem to be solved. So this bill simply is a space-filler in the Order Paper in order for this Government to look as if it's doing something.The National Party took a very strong part in the select committee process and it is our view that while there is a savings provision contained in this bill under new clauses 2 and 2A in Schedule 1AA the savings provision would allow the Banking Ombudsman Scheme and the Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme Incorporated to continue to use the name because they have permission if you like to do so but they would not be able in the future to change their corporate structure and still continue to use that name. So they would therefore be caught in a certain period in time. They are known as the ombudsman schemes and they should continue to be used as the ombudsman scheme. This is a bill which is looking to solve a problem which simply does not exist in New Zealand and National does not support it to the House."