edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Whaitiri MekaTE TURE WHENUA MĀORI BILLIn CommitteeMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I move That the Committee report progress so that the House can refer Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill to the Māori Affairs Committee for consideration of Supplementary Order Papers 279 290 and 311.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
SpeechHon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): This is a sweep-up of again the issues that have been raised. I will try to get through them as quickly as I can. Earlier in the debate there was the question about the retention I think of election records. I think it was raised by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta who talked about—I think it was—something to do with a 3-month period. It is true that the board must keep all the documentation relating to an election for a period of 3 months after that election and thereafter the board may destroy—and I think that is the key issue may"—or dispose of such records as it sees fit. At least everybody knows that it is there and it is a part of the rules and documents that we have anyway and that is at the discretion of the board. So I think that one covers that particular issue off.The quorum of the board—again Nanaia Mahuta raised this one. Again the board must have at least five members and not more than seven. If five members are present then the quorum is three and if there are seven members on the board the quorum will be four. This is just clarifying that one.Marama Davidson raised two issues if I can address those. One was around the cut-off for the financial reporting if I heard what she had to say. That was worked out between the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment IRD and Te Puni Kōkiri to align with the wider financial reporting regime as was originally intended. So I just provide that as response to that one.Finally as to the issue about the Māori Land Court it is my advice that the Māori Land Court in this particular case continues under obviously Te Ture Whenua Maōri Act. It does have jurisdiction under various Acts including this bill. Its jurisdiction under Te Ture Whenua Maōri Act will change but not under this bill. That is the advice I have and thanks very much for the contributions."
Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Look I want to make some reference to the submission process and the concern that was expressed during that time. I raise it only because we have heard tonight just how closely the principals of the trust have worked with the Minister Te Ururoa Flavell and the Minister has delivered exactly what those principals have asked. One of the concerns that a submitter made was the question of donations being made without the total support of the beneficiaries. People can take what they like out of this but it seems to me that that submitter may have had some reason for concern. I would say that what we are discussing tonight is actually a blueprint for the next bill that this House will be discussing. I raise that point only because of the comment made about how closely the principals have worked with the Minister and what we see in this bill at this time is what those principals have actually requested. I suppose my concern is really for the small beneficiary holders—those who have small interests and yet are beneficiaries—and this bill it would seem to me could alienate those small-interest holders. Irrespective of the size of their shareholding at the end of the day when we have a corporate approach to dealing with Māori interests invariably the minor shareholders lose out. Hence my earlier reference to the dispute process—that if it is not resolved in the Māori Land Court then it gets referred to the High Court. Again although I raised it I do not think the Minister has sufficiently assured me that the cost of that process would not be a burden on the beneficiary if they should enter into a dispute with the trust and there is the use of trust resources by the trustees to defend or to promote their process. However we in New Zealand First are sufficiently happy that there is the retention of the Māori Land Court to a certain extent although we are not too happy with the fact that the High Court will be the court of final resolution. The second point I want to make is the reference to general land and Māori land—Māori interests. I have no difficulty with that and I have no difficulty with the High Court dealing with general land. However I do have some difficulty where the High Court is being used to deal with Māori freehold land and I think that is where the concern is in terms of the future retention of the trust corpus property. Apart from that the other Supplementary Order Paper 231 in terms of the Māori Television Service and the allocation of direct funding to Te Mātāwai—while that could be a management or an administrative issue I was quite surprised to see that the Māori Purposes Bill was being used to enable that direct funding. I would have thought that the Minister would make that allocation through Te Puni Kōkiri and not resort to the need to utilise the Māori Purposes Bill. But be that as it may it has come before the House in Committee tonight it has been included in this bill and I suppose that is one of the purposes of the Māori Purposes Bill—to enable those omnibus decisions to be implemented. That was the point I wanted to make. Thank you.
Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): I rise to take only a short call. I want to get back to the purposes of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 234 with regard to the amendment to the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act. I know my colleagues across the Chamber have canvassed this pretty well but I have always got a few questions when we look at retrospective changes. If we are going to go back and change it from Te Rūnanga to Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa as set out in the SOP I wonder when I think about—and this is in respect of the retrospective change because of the implications it has for Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa.What it means in respect of Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori schedule 3—and I raise that because we know that the iwi schedule set out in schedule 3 is based primarily on the fisheries schedule of iwi. I raise that as a point because my colleagues and my whanaunga here will know that Ngāti Hine were left out of that primarily because of the Fisheries Act. So if we are going to retrospectively change this in the Fisheries Act I wonder what other implications this might have.I ask that because I notice on the SOP that Te Puni Kōkiri considers that a departmental disclosure statement is not required to be prepared for the Supplementary Order Paper. I just wonder what other impacts there are with this kind of retrospective change given that the Fisheries Act is used as such a foundation Act for so much more moving forward. One example of that is of course Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori. So I will put that question to the Minister and look forward to and hope for a response.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I too want to thank the Minister for his previous responses. I want to pick up on the important point that the Minister made regarding him working very closely together with the Wī Pere Trust. For the Green Party that is pinnacle to our support. This is a fantastic model in terms of a trust wanting to increase its autonomy and distance itself further from Crown engagement. That is backed up for us by the consultation that the trustees had with the beneficiaries in both 2009 and 2013. We acknowledge that that is a good level of consultation. Something that is a reality and that always pains me if I am being honest is that 31 percent of all beneficiaries who represented 57 percent of beneficial interests voted and 91 percent of them supported the changes. On paper that is a good high mandate. In reality what I am always going to be concerned about is that we are leaving some whānau behind even if it is just in terms of engagement and information.On that note I think I will go now to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 232 the Minister's SOP. It is concerned particularly with amendments relating to financial reporting requirements. It seems I guess to group Māori corporations into two different groupings. There is a large Māori incorporation definition which is an incorporation that has had more than $10 million of revenue in each of the two preceding financial years and then there is the definition for all other Māori incorporations to simply prepare financial statements rather than be required to give an audit. So just briefly summarising the difference between the reporting financial requirements I agree with my colleague Nanaia Mahuta that this is useful and practical in not asking smaller Māori organisations to have too much of a burden.What I thought might be useful in that SOP however—other members have commented that this has been in the House before us for quite some time. I have tried to find anything in any of the committee reports and so forth and I simply cannot remember. So it would be useful if the Minister could just briefly outline where that classification came from—whether it was driven from the trust or whether it is simply just a standard classification of the size of incorporations. We support this—we think it is useful—but we are just making sure of where our practices and classification are coming from particularly because for me it goes back to wanting to make sure all the whānau are protected and making sure that we have got good robust systems in place. That was my short query on the bill at this point. Thank you.
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te W'are otirā tēnā tātou katoa. First of all I just want to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and the select committee members. I had the honour of sitting for one day hearing evidence on this bill in Gisborne and I just want to briefly address some of the issues of the submitters. One in particular that really struck me as being quite important to the beneficiaries was around the papakāinga land and what they saw as potential for papakāinga lands to be sold. Just as a very quick message out to the people listening that issue was heard by the committee and it has been addressed in here.I do want to now turn to Supplementary Order Paper 234 on the issue of retrospectively allowing Te Rūnanga o Te Arawa to become a mandated iwi organisation which is not the first time this has actually happened to answer my colleague's question. I know this because I was the chair of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Apa and it happened to us. I think it does actually highlight that there are two separate processes going on here between the Treaty settlement process and the Te Ohu Kaimoana process for mandated iwi organisations. Of course you can have only one mandated iwi organisation for the purpose of the fisheries settlement so ensuring that there is ease of transferral from existing entities into post-settlement governance entities is really important. The interesting thing I think about this particular case is that we are doing this by legislation and I think others have not been able to do that or have not had the opportunity perhaps because there was not a Māori Purposes Bill in the House at the time. I can fully understand why the Minister for Māori Development has created a Supplementary Order Paper under the Māori Purposes Bill for this express purpose because the only way other than that is to have its own amendment legislation which would take a lot longer. So I want to acknowledge the Minister for doing that. I can well understand the frustration that is probably happening with Te Rarawa in having their fisheries assets transferred to their post-settlement governance entity so I acknowledge that.I want to just briefly speak about the governance arrangements as well. I think for the Wī Pere Trust—jumping back to this part of the bill—I just want to acknowledge the concerns of some of the submitters and the beneficiaries and really just put out a word of encouragement around making certain that these new provisions do not remove the ability for beneficiaries to participate in what is essentially their legacy. So with those three points nō reira tēnā tātou.
SpeechHon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): I thought I had better get ahead of the game and try to keep up with the comments that are coming through. I will start with Pita Paraone and say that I hear what he is saying about costs but if you go to any court it is going to cost somebody—not to say that that is a good response to your kōrero but I hear what you say. Ultimately in this whole bill what has happened is that the trust itself has basically shaped up this bill. Therefore it has set the rules it has set the terms it understands what it is getting into and it has made it very clear. Because of the long period of time—it is not as if this thing started just yesterday; it has been a long period of time—it has come to the conclusions that it has. But I do understand the point that the member made.In terms of the member Marama Davidson just for her clarity I think I did mention—I am not too sure whether she was here—that the Māori Land Court does retain jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to lineal descent so kua ea tērā [that has been achieved]. Around the issue about general land not being available for public works unfortunately—and I made the statement that the trust went into it with eyes open—when the land is converted over to general title then it does line up to everyone else's having the same regime of being available for that. On the good side of the coin I suppose it is my understanding—and it will be discussed a little bit later—that the number of times that the Public Works Act has been used on Māori land in the last 7 or 8 years has been once. That is not to say it will not happen again and we sort of cover that off in the bill but at least that clarifies I think what the member was talking about. In terms of the tax regime—the Hon Nanaia Mahuta raised this asking what steps I took to address the issue of transitional tax. My advice was that this was carefully considered through with officials including the IRA—IRD ha ha!The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Same—same thing.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: E rua e rua. [Two two.] Oh! So the IRD officials were a part of it to ensure that the transitional tax clause works as it was intended so I think we have sort of covered off that one. In terms of the member Rino Tirikatene I think that the issue that he raised was around the trustee. Again I say that the trust itself put this kaupapa on the table in front of me as Minister for Māori Development and I am pretty sure that they were very clear that the original intent of the trustee must be retained or else we would not be here. So I think that has sort of dealt with that.Te Rarawa—I am fairly confident that Te Ohu Kaimoana has signed off on that one or else we would not be here so I will leave that to sit there. I will not talk about any other iwi because all I am focused on is getting this one through. I think that pretty much covers the issues that have been raised already so kia ora tātou.
Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chairperson. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification. In terms of widening the debate to include all parts does that include the number of calls that members can have?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): There is one member Meka Whaitiri who has used four calls on the previous clauses. She can seek leave to be given another call if she wishes and nobody objects. Apart from that members have still got their allocation of calls. I understand the member currently with the call has not had any so far. He has got four to come.Jami-Lee Ross: It is quite normal for members to restart their calls when we take it as one debate so I will seek leave for Meka Whaitiri to have her number reset for want of a better term.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Congratulations.PITA PARAONE: First of all I want to thank the Minister in the chair Minister Flavell for his explanation particularly his justification for not supporting Ms Whaitiri's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 205. I just want to raise a point in terms of the use of the High Court particularly in dispute situations. It would seem to me that where such a situation arises the trustees will use trust resources to defend their position whereas those particularly beneficiaries who have an opposing view have to use their own resources with the possibility of being awarded costs at the end of the process. For that reason again New Zealand First would support the SOP from the member and would ask the Minister whether he has considered that position because invariably that is what will happen. While we have a disputes process outlined in terms of where it can go at the end of the day the objections have been around the costs that would be involved. That is No. 1.No. 2 is the question of the ability of the Māori Land Court. Reference was made by an earlier speaker that the use of the High Court equalled a speedier decision. Reference has been made to the next bill that the House will be discussing in Committee Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. The issue here is whether or not the Māori Land Court has the capacity and I would have thought that consideration would be given to strengthening the Māori Land Court in order that we can get speedier decisions rather than as is proposed in the next bill establishing what we call the Māori Land Service. However that is a debate that we will certainly have when the time comes. I just wanted to make that point.The other point is the reference made by the member for Te Tai Tokerau in regard to Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa its mandated iwi authority and its issues regarding the Fisheries Act. I actually spoke with the chairman of te rūnanga Haami Piripi and he is a supporter of the proposal because it actually clarifies their position and the position of Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa and the responsibility that it will have for managing those fisheries assets.
Borrows ChesterThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members just to restate in light of the point of order taken earlier and the leave granted the question is that Parts 1 and 2 the schedule and clauses 1 and 2 stand part and that the amendments inserting new Parts 1A and 1B new Part 3 and new schedule 2 be agreed to. I call Pita Paraone.
Ross Jami-Lee; Borrows ChesterJAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the Māori Purposes Bill to be debated as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Borrows ChesterFIRE AND EMERGENCY NEW ZEALAND BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 11 April.Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): When we were last considering the bill we were debating clauses 1 and 2. Clayton Mitchell has the call and he has 1 minute and 18 seconds remaining if he so wishes.
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I move That the Committee report progress presently and move to consider the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill.Progress to be reported presently.
Urgent Debates Declined
Resignations
Visitors — Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-General
Borrows ChesterThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well I take the member's point and I am surprised that he would think that any of the presiding officers would read it that narrowly because much as it may be painful to have to give a speech like that it is even worse to have to listen to it. The point is though that if members are familiar and au fait with their portfolio area that they are speaking on they should be able to draw attention to a report. We are not expecting pages and line numbers. We expect it to be colourful and eloquent and hopefully humorous and witty and entertaining as well.
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just be clear however I do not think the Business Committee ever envisaged that the debate would be so restrictive that members had to be quoting page and line numbers of a report. They need to talk about what is in the report but I do not think the intention of the committee was to restrict the debate so that members had to be so narrow they could talk only about a particular sentence or a particular issue in so far as it is covered in the report. I think that for example when we get to the education report covering the topics that are covered in the Education and Science Committee's report is sufficient. I do not think the intention was to restrict the debate down so narrowly that you can cover only the exact material in the report because of course select committees hear a lot more material than is reflected in the wording of the report.
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): And I cannot wait for you to sit down. I will just let each side of the House have a smack each way in order to explain the rules. The deal is that we are doing this in a new way.This debate is not a wide-ranging general debate telling us what we are going to hear during the election campaign or telling us about the prolific travels and visitations around the country by leaders and deputy leaders from the parties. It is a very specific debate about entities that are within these themes that we are running—here the economic development and infrastructure sector—and I am sad to relate that the last speaker Stuart Nash did not quote a single one of the reports and actually neither did the first speaker Chris Bishop. The deal is—it may be boring but you have got 10 hours of it—when a person chooses to speak on this theme the person then cites the report and talks about the select committee review of the 2015-16 year not the 2016-17 year or what they hope to achieve in the 2017-18 year.That is the deal. That is what the Business Committee has signed you up for like it or not so those are going to be the rules the presiding officers will be adhering to. So if you are going to make a speech make it consistent with the Business Committee's rulings. Quote the report that you are calling from and knock yourself out.
SpeechANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): This is the debate on the annual reviews of departments Offices of Parliament Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported on by select committees. The time allocated for this debate is 10 hours. Members please bear with me as I indicate to the Committee the rulings of the Business Committee.The Business Committee has determined that the debate is to be divided into 10 separate debates covering the sectors set out in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2015-16. The Business Committee has further determined that eight 5-minute calls per sector will be allocated to committee chairs Ministers and parties as follows: the committee chairperson one call; the Minister three calls; the Labour Party two calls; the Green Party one call; and New Zealand First Party one call. In addition there are 40 5-minute supplementary calls that may be taken by parties as they see fit during the 10 sector debates. The supplementary calls have been allocated as follows: National 14; Labour 13; the Greens six; New Zealand First five; the Māori Party one; and ACT one.Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of the select committee nominated by the Government as the major committee reporting on the sector in order to set out the major findings of their committee. At the end of each debate the question will be put that the committee reports relevant to the sector be noted. The time taken on each question is in the hands of members depending on parties' use of their allocation of supplementary calls. However the debate expires after 10 hours.I understand that the annual review debate will be held across several days. A motion to report progress on the bill must be moved on a call not a point of order—Speaker's ruling 89/5. Because the annual review debate will run for a fixed period of time and the calls have been allocated proportionally it would harm the proportionality of the debate to treat the motion to report progress as a member's entire call. Therefore when a member moves to report progress in this annual review debate the presiding officer will call on that member first when the debate resumes. This is a similar process to that followed in other debates when they are adjourned.At the conclusion of the debate a single question is put on the provisions of the Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. There is no amendment or debate on this question.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDPike River Mine Disaster—Video FootageMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the emergence of video footage from inside the Pike River mine. The purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government to account for an action for which it is responsible. There must be a distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case that is sought to debate. I refer members to Speaker's ruling 207/2. There is no ministerial responsibility for the release of the footage from inside the mine and that is the case that the Rt Winston Peters has sought to debate. Therefore the application is declined.Pike River Mine Disaster—Drift Re-entry and Video FootageMr SPEAKER: I have further received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the decision not to re-enter the Pike River mine after the release of video footage from inside the mine. The purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government to account for an action for which it is responsible. Again I refer members to Speaker's ruling 207/2. Several previous Speakers have ruled that the absence of an action on the part of the Government is not a particular case of recent occurrence—Speakers' ruling 212/2. The Prime Minister has stated that the emergence of the footage does not change the Government's decision on re-entering the mine. No new Government policy or action has been announced. Therefore that application is also declined.
Carter DavidRESIGNATIONSRt Hon John Key HelensvilleMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Rt Hon John Key resigning his seat in the House with effect at 11 p.m. on Friday 14 April 2017.Hon David Cunliffe New LynnMr SPEAKER: I also wish to advise that I have received a letter from the Hon David Cunliffe resigning his seat in the House with effect at 11 p.m. on Sunday 23 April 2017.Hon Member: What about Maurice Williamson? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! No that is a letter I have not yet received.
Carter DavidTUESDAY 2 MAY 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSCommonwealth Parliamentary Association—Secretary-GeneralMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Akbar Khan Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association who is present in the gallery.
Thursday 13 April 2017 - Volume 721
12. Electricity Market—Transmission Pricing MethodologyFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesElectricity Market—Transmission Pricing Methodology12. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will she use her section 18 powers under the Electricity Industry Act 2010 to order a review of the Transmission Pricing Methodology given the effect it will have on the West Coast Ashburton Eastern Bay of Plenty Auckland and Northland?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Energy and Resources): No decision has been made on transmission pricing methodology so at the moment there is nothing to review.Fletcher Tabuteau: Why will she not use her section 18 powers to demand that the Electricity Authority explain to her why it gave industry just 2 weeks to submit on its latest mistake-ridden consultation round let alone its rationale for hitting the households and businesses in some regions with price hikes that can least afford it?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because there is nothing to review yet.Fletcher Tabuteau: Is her disregard for our regions—allowing the Electricity Authority price hikes of almost $11 million in Northland over $4 million in Eastern Bay of Plenty over $4 million in Ashburton over $2 million on the West Coast and actually over $60 million in Auckland—really just another opportunity for this Government to implement yet another tax by stealth?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.Fletcher Tabuteau: Does she not think that she might be compromising her party's Auckland support base given the words of Simon Mackenzie that The changes will mean a 33 percent per annum increase in Auckland's transmission grid charges … It basically leaves everyday users across the country bearing an even heavier burden while the generators make windfall gains"?Mr SPEAKER: In as far as there is ministerial responsibility—the Hon Judith Collins.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No and given that there has been no decision announced by the authority as I have said there is nothing to get too excited about yet."
11. Anzac Day—CommemorationsANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Arts Culture and HeritageAnzac Day—Commemorations11. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage: How will New Zealand mark Anzac Day 2017?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): Anzac Day is a time when we reflect on the sacrifice and commitment of our servicemen and servicewomen. The emphasis of our ongoing First World War centennial commemorations has now moved from Gallipoli to the Western Front battles of 1917. Here in Wellington Pukeahu National War Memorial Park will host a Dawn Service and national commemoration. Special services will be held at the Atatürk Memorial in Wellington and The Last Post service will complete the day here in the capital at 5.30 p.m. Hundreds of commemorations will be held across New Zealand from our biggest cities to our smallest communities as well as New Zealand being represented overseas in France Turkey and Belgium.Andrew Bayly: What other events are planned to mark the centenary of 1917?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The year 1917 saw some of the darkest days in our national history as New Zealand forces faced the unimaginable horror of the Western Front battles of Messines and Passchendaele. National commemorations will be held for both anniversaries as well as for the battle of Beersheba during the Palestine campaign. Communities around the country are holding many different exhibitions events and other opportunities throughout this year. Among them is The Belgians have not forgotten". It is an exhibition created by the Memorial Museum Passchendaele which opens in Hamilton today and will visit Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin later in the year."
9. Autism Spectrum Disorder—Explore ServicesDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Associate Minister of HealthAutism Spectrum Disorder—Explore Services9. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Associate Minister of Health: What announcements has she made regarding a new provider for Autism Spectrum Disorder programmes previously run by IDEA Services? Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister of Health): I am very pleased to announce that Explore Services Ltd will take over the provision of the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) education communication and behaviour support programmes at the end of this month. The Ministry of Health will be working with Explore and IDEA Services to ensure a smooth transition. Those referred for specialist ASD services will automatically be transferred to Explore.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How does this announcement provide reassurance to people with Autism Spectrum Disorder and their families?Hon NICKY WAGNER: People with ASD are often vulnerable to sudden change or loss of routine so IDEA's decision to cancel its autism services caused a great deal of unnecessary stress for hundreds of disabled people and their families. Thankfully within days the Ministry of Health with the help of IDEA Services has secured a new provider meaning that there will be no interruptions to services. That will give people with ASD and their families the certainty that they need to continue with their lives.
7. NCEA—Results for 2016SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of EducationNCEA—Results for 20167. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding NCEA results?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Earlier today I was pleased to announce the final NCEA results for 2016. These latest results are by far the best we have seen since we came into Government at the end of 2008 particularly for Māori who are now at 74.9 percent—representing a 23 percent increase—and Pasifika who are now at 79.5 percent which represents a 29 percent increase. We have made it our priority as a Government to significantly lift NCEA achievement—in particular for those groups that the system had not been paying sufficient attention to. The results today prove that focus is working. But those results have lifted for all population groups. So overall for year 11 NCEA level 1 there has been a 13 percentage point increase up to 75.5 percent. Year 12 is at 78.4 percent up 12 percentage points. Year 13 NCEA level 3 is at 64.5 percent up 11 percentage points since 2008.Sarah Dowie: What information does the Minister have about NCEA results in the regions?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Across all regions clearly NCEA level 2 achievement has increased since 2008. In Invercargill in particular NCEA level 2 has increased to 87.6 percent up 16 percentage points since the end of 2008. This is a great achievement by our young people there and I congratulate them and their teachers on their hard work. Cumulatively if I may take a selfish moment since I became Minister that means that 17799 year 12 students have achieved NCEA who would not have done if we had continued with the 2008 approach.
6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Minister's Response to GLOBE-NZ's ReportDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change IssuesGreenhouse Gas Emissions—Minister's Response to GLOBE-NZ's Report6. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Which of the four scenarios in the March 2017 Vivid report—Off Track" "Innovative" "Resourceful" or "Net Zero 2050"—is the Government considering using as the basis for its own climate planning?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The Vivid report is a welcome addition to the debate and it outlines as the member says a number of scenarios that New Zealand could follow to reduce emissions. I believe there is more work to be done on the basis of that report and I think it is a really good start but we would have to do more work to decide which track we would go down or whether there might be others.Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister agree with the fourth conclusion in the report—that if substantial afforestation is combined with extensive technological innovation it could be possible to achieve domestic net zero emissions by 2050?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not have a crystal ball. So it is hard for me to say—[Interruption] So it is difficult for me to say what will be happening in 2050 and what those technological advances could be but I have to say that I am hopeful.Dr Kennedy Graham: What steps will she consider taking from here to strengthen the relationship between GLOBE-NZ and the executive in light of recommendation No. 5 of the report?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am very supportive of the work that GLOBE-NZ has done. Can I acknowledge the member for his tireless effort to have cross-party work.Hon Members: Hear hear!Hon PAULA BENNETT: —yeah he does deserve that—and that the National Party through the work that Scott Simpson is leading for us on this side has got a number of members and is committed to it. I as Minister am interested in an ongoing involvement.Dr Kennedy Graham: If GLOBE-NZ were to commission a follow-up study to explore in more depth the "net zero 2050" scenario would the Government be prepared to seriously consider such an analysis?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would not be prepared to commit to that right now but I certainly do not want to rule it out completely either. We would have to see the terms of what that might be."
Special Debate — GLOBE-NZ—Report
Mark Ron; Carter DavidQuestion No. 5 to MinisterRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I seek leave of the House to table a document obtained under the Official Information Act that shows that there are actually 332 police stations not the 300 stated by the Deputy Prime Minister today in the House.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Oral Questions—Supplementary Questions
Seymour David; Prosser Richard; Carter DavidPOINTS OF ORDEROral Questions—Questions to Members in Charge of Bills Supplementary QuestionsDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance and clarification around a previous ruling by Speaker Wilson 188/4 which says that when a question is asked of a member there can be one or perhaps two supplementary questions on that primary. Yesterday in your position the Deputy Speaker appeared to rule that from now on there would be only one supplementary question and it must be asked by the same member who asked the primary.I think this is important for the House because if his ruling is to be taken as the way forward it means that members as we saw yesterday can put on an endless number of questions to members that have no possibility of being hijacked by a hostile supplementary question and effectively put on a dog and pony show for political purposes and frankly waste the House's time.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): Speaking to the point of order notwithstanding the validity of that point of order Speaker's ruling 188/1 says that: No member has an absolute right to be given the call to ask a supplementary question."Mr SPEAKER: And I appreciate that both members are focused on page 188 of Speakers' Rulings. I will give further consideration to the matter. It is actually a question that I raised in a review of the Standing Orders at a Standing Orders Committee hearing today because I think there is little value in a line of questioning such as we had yesterday with members just using it simply to promote a member's bill. It is a matter for further discussion at the Standing Orders Committee but in the meantime I think the member David Seymour makes a reasonable point about what the value of such a line of questions is and the patsy answers frankly that were given in the House yesterday. I will give it further consideration."
Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 13 APRIL 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The House will rise at the end of the debate this afternoon for the Easter adjournment and will then have 2 weeks of select committee sittings. When the House resumes on 2 May the Government will look to complete the Committee stage of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill and the Māori Purposes Bill and will make progress on a number of other bills on the Order Paper.
Wednesday 12 April 2017 (continued on Thursday 13 April 2017) - Volume 721
Education (Update) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Appointments — Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That this House recommend to the Governor-General that pursuant to section 4 of the Environment Act 1986 Rt Hon Simon David Upton be appointed as Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That under section 11 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 this House endorse Rt Hon Winston Peters as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee nominated by the Leader of the Opposition with the agreement of the Prime Minister under section 7(1)(d) of the Act.Ayes 120New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.
Intelligence and Security Committee — Membership
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No we have had sufficient debate—Tracey Martin: It's not about a call.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): What are you trying to do?Tracey Martin: I am just actually asking for clarification on why you are mentioning that we have to tie this up. There is nothing in the determination from the Business Committee—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No there is no obligation but my view was—and my view is—that we have had some major parts where there was longer debate than was expected remembering that normally the debate on Part 1—on the substantive thing—would probably have been about an hour and a half or 2 hours. We have had a debate that is quite a lot longer than that. It has been a high-quality debate. There is no obligation to finish but my view is that the member has had a couple of calls Mr Hipkins has had a call Ms Delahunty has had a call and we have dealt with the matter so I am now going to move to the votes.
Delahunty Catherine; Martin TraceyCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I will keep it short. I understand this is a new process and the reason I did not take the call was so that the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that my colleague was talking about could be finished. I am not trying to spin out the debate.Tracey Martin has actually talked quite a bit about SOP 309. It has got some history around the lack of opportunity for parents to appeal. The courts are not always the best place. We have suggested the Ministry of Justice because of discussions that we have had with the Children's Commissioner. You would have thought it may not be the best place for it but this really is just about setting up a parents' advocacy function to advise the Government to be the mediator and arbiter. So it does have quasi-legal functions and we would like to see a parent voice because at the moment the boards of trustees cannot deal with some of the issues. Parents are left with nowhere to go. This is not necessarily the final solution or the best model but this is what we wanted to put up so that people could start considering how we might get the parent voice at a national level—when the systems are failing—to be part of the Education Act 1989 because right now we do not have anything. So I just want to put that on the table. I think it is important. Thanks.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.
Mallard Trevor; Macindoe Tim; Clendon DavidCatherine Delahunty: Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I have got a dilemma now because I looked to Catherine Delahunty earlier and she chose not to take a call—[Interruption] Well the effect of that appears to me to be pretty unfair because what it means is that if I give Catherine Delahunty a call when she had not previously sought one it means that we will not finish when we would have otherwise finished. I think I will err on the side of being generous to the minor party and give her a call but I want to remind members that if they want a call—especially at the end points of a debate when we are discussing relatively narrow areas—they should ask for it.TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the Committee to continue until 1.10 p.m. or until the completion of the Committee stage whichever comes sooner.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? There is objection. OK we will move to the votes.DAVID CLENDON (Musterer—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understood that before the point of order from Mr Macindoe you had awarded a call to Catherine Delahunty.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Did I actually call Catherine Delahunty? I think I indicated that I was going to. Did I?Hon Members: Yes you did.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise.
Mallard TrevorNew clause 38A Part 2 clauses 117 to 143 and 145(1) and (2) and schedule 3The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Thank you members. I think we have had questions asked and answered and I think it is reasonable we move on to the next debate which is on Miscellaneous provisions: new clause 38A Part 2 clauses 117 to 143 and 145(1) and (2) and schedule 3. Is there anyone who wants to speak to those?
Parata HekiaHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I stand to give three assurances. The first is that Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu is not disappearing. It is appearing in different parts of the bill with a modernised section fully consulted with te kura. In terms of special character designation this is not intended to do anything other than simplify the process of designation and speaks not at all to any of the entitlements that then go along with having become a designated special character school. As to the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act and its incorporation into this bill again I can assure the Committee that that was fully discussed in detail with the proprietors and reflects the agreement reached with them. I thank all of those bodies for the work that we have done to get to this stage. Thank you.
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Mr Chairman you anticipated that I was about to stand before I had even made it all the way to my feet so I thank you—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I could read the member's mind.CHRIS HIPKINS: I thank you for that. I could not let this particular provision pass without making a brief comment. I had some trepidation when I discovered that the Minister of Education was proposing to incorporate integrated schools into the Education Act 1989. I remember having a conversation with Brother Pat Lynch about this many years ago where he described the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act as like the integrated schools' equivalent of the Treaty of Waitangi. He was at the time vehemently opposed to any change to that so I have been keeping in regular contact with the proprietors of integrated schools as this legislation has progressed to ensure that they are comfortable with where we have got to. They are indeed comfortable with the changes that are being proposed now although they did have some suggestions along the way.It is important to note that that Act is being removed and incorporated into the main Education Act on the basis that there are not any substantive policy changes unless they have been specifically agreed to. There is actually a contract if you like between the integrated schools and the Minister and the ministry around that. We have worked through the Education and Science Committee and I guess through our back-channel processes to ensure that the changes are consistent with the heads of agreement that were reached. I have been advised that they are and on that basis the Labour Party is comfortable with supporting this.I think it is worth noting in the Committee that the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act had its origins in the third Labour Government under Norman Kirk and Norman Kirk described it as unfinished business when it was introduced. The Labour Party has always been I think quite proud of the bringing into the system of the schools because the Catholic schools would have all collapsed financially had this Act not been passed in the first place. So I am satisfied that we have kept faith with the original intent of that Act in incorporating it into the main Education Act.