edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Visitors — Australia—Delegation ParliamentText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVisitors — Australia—Delegation Parliament[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 23 September 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsAustralia—Delegation ParliamentMr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome a delegation representing the Parliament of Australia led by Dr Andrew Southcott MP Chairperson of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit which is present in the gallery.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 61New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Vote: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6735. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6751. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member’s time has now expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to but this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is—[Interruption] It is lucky the member is not suspended. The House is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for an extended sitting.Debate interrupted.
Mallard Trevor: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member wishes to table a letter from herself and 14000 others to the Hon Peter Dunne. Is there any objection to that happening?Tim Macindoe: Does she have the member’s permission?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well it is a letter from her so it is not a question of permission. The member can object if he wants. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Moroney Sue: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): I seek leave to table a document. It is an open letter to the Hon Peter Dunne asking him to support the bill that has just been passed. It is in the name of myself and 14463 other signatories.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6739. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): We have essentially heard from Sarah Dowie that this is a good bill and that not only is it well intentioned but it has a strong evidence base behind it. We heard a number of reasons from Sarah Dowie why paid parental leave is important and why extending it is a good idea. And somewhere in there were just a couple of words—something about priorities. This is not a priority to the current Government and that is essentially what this comes down to.Where do our priorities lie? On the other side of the House this Government has found billions of dollars for tax cuts for the very very wealthy the very few at the top. It has found $30 million to prop up Rio Tinto. It has found money to support Warner Bros and the Skycity deal. It has found $11 million to pay to a Saudi sheep farmer. But the Government cannot find the money for paid parental leave—to extend paid parental leave by just 8 more weeks which actually would barely bring New Zealand into line with those who are in the middle of the pack in the OECD. Italy already has 26 weeks Germany has over a year the UK has 39 weeks Belgium has 32 weeks Ireland has 26 weeks Portugal has 30 weeks and Japan has 58 weeks. We are not actually talking about putting New Zealand way out the front. We are not talking about doing anything at all radical. We are talking about bringing New Zealand back to the middle of the pack.But National has never prioritised families. It has never prioritised paid parental leave. It was a Labour Government that introduced the changes in 1987. It was a Labour Government that introduced actual paid parental leave in 2002. It was a Labour Government that extended paid parental leave twice after it was initially introduced. And on every single one of those occasions National voted against it. Tonight despite hearing Sarah Dowie extoll the virtues of this legislation National is going to vote against it again because its priority is not working families and that is a shame.I am proud to be a member of the Labour Party which has always been consistent on paid parental leave. We will continue to be consistent on paid parental leave tonight. I congratulate Sue Moroney on keeping this issue alive and in front of the Parliament. This is something that is core to the Labour Party. This is in our DNA and it is one of the fundamental differences between National and Labour. I support this bill and I encourage other members around the House to find their hearts to prioritise children and to vote with us tonight.
Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6735. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s time has expired.
Borrows Chester: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6734. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Denis O’Rourke—right of reply.
Scott Alastair: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6733. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Reservations have been alluded to from the Labour Party around the pro rata basis of the calculation so the challenge is therefore why not vote against it? Then we have the Green Party members talking about this bill being racist and they are absolutely right—it is racist. So therefore why do they not vote against it?We will be voting against this bill because it is unfair. It is unjust. It is based on the fear of immigrants. It is based around a philosophy of building a fence around New Zealand to keep migrants out. It is based on anti-Asian sentiment. Maybe Mr Phil Twyford should be here because he would certainly vote for it given that he does not want anyone with a Chinese-sounding name joining in the economy of New Zealand. [Interruption] You should take note of Mr Lees-Galloway. He is trying to tell you guys to quieten down because you are only making fools of yourselves by protesting.At the end of the day this bill is a poor bill. The current legislation is good and fair. It treats people with respect and with equality. It does not prejudice refugees. That is why we oppose this bill.
Clark David: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6733. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to support this bill going to the select committee. We are concerned that New Zealand has a debate about the sustainability of New Zealand superannuation. This is a Government that is not being straight with New Zealanders; we know that. Bill English has said he does not want to have a conversation about the sustainability of superannuation. He said in his own words that that is a task he wants to leave to a future Government.The Government is out of touch with New Zealanders because the New Zealanders I speak to do want to have a conversation about superannuation. People my age young people know that when they get old the current settings will not deliver them New Zealand superannuation. They know that under the current settings they cannot be sure that they will get superannuation as it is provided today. It is simply not sustainable. We need to have a conversation as a society about how we can get to a sustainable place so that everybody can have fair and equal access to superannuation.We do have concerns of course about the bill. This is the first time that the principle of universal superannuation has been brought into question once criteria are met and this notion of a pro rata payment based on residence and presence is something that we think would need to be teased out and discussed in select committee. It is not something that we are comfortable with on the surface but we do congratulate New Zealand First and Denis O’Rourke on bringing this discussion to the House. It is something that this Government has refused to lead on. It is a Government with its head in the sand which is refusing to have the conversation. The Prime Minister has ruled out a conversation on it; Bill English has ruled out a conversation on it. Nobody wants to deal with the issue and that is not serving the interests of future New Zealanders. We will have a concern ongoing about this issue—whether or not this bill succeeds in the House.We know that this Government stopped contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—the Cullen fund—and has foregone $5 billion in dividends alone. We know that it stopped the KiwiSaver kick-start contribution—$1000 per family. We know KiwiSaver enrolment rates have dropped off. We know the Government does not have the long-term interests of New Zealand at heart. It is interested in the short term. That is bad for New Zealand and that is why we will continue to be critical of its position on superannuation.We will be supporting this bill to select committee because we want to have this debate. We are not afraid of it. We think this Government should support it too and actually have the discussion.
Dyson Ruth: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Pro Rata Entitlement) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6731. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Can I just begin by congratulating the member in whose name this bill is—Denis O’Rourke a fellow Cantabrian who lives just down the road from me in the best part of the universe. I think it is a bill with parts of which I agree and parts of which I disagree. It raises the issue about the structure of superannuation and the sustainability of it. Those are serious big issues for New Zealand and we should have this bill at a select committee so that we can have the debate. I know that there will be parts of it that other members will feel strongly about—we have heard Jan Logie say similar comments—but we should be brave enough to have the debate and that is where National misses the boat.Those members are going to put their heads in the sand and say: “No there’s no issue with superannuation. We don’t want to talk about it.” I am sure that not a single member there could honestly say that they have not been approached by somebody who had concerns about section 70 of the Social Security Act. I cannot believe that they are so disconnected from the planet that they have never heard anybody raise concerns about this.Dr David Clark: Oh they’re out of touch.Hon RUTH DYSON: They are certainly out of touch and this bill provides the opportunity for that debate.Just briefly the concerns I have are about the long-held tradition that once somebody meets the criteria they have universal superannuation and that this chips away at that. New Zealand First will be the last party after Labour to want to erode New Zealand superannuation in my view but I would not want to open the door for that party opposite to erode New Zealand superannuation and this has the potential to do that. So that is a concern that I have. I wholeheartedly support the proposal to treat people who are exposed to section 70 provisions in a fairer way and this bill provides a really good opportunity to do that.I want to conclude my contribution before the bell rings because I am very keen to get on to the next bill on the Order Paper. It is a fantastic bill. I am very pleased to be putting my vote behind this bill going to the select committee. Well done Denis O’Rourke.
Borrows Chester: Wellington Town Belt Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Wellington Town Belt Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6721. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Five minutes in reply—Grant Robertson.
Carter David: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: General Debate[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6690. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
Carter David: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Display of Flag Design OptionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Display of Flag Design Options[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6679. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I do not need any further assistance. I do not consider for one moment that the wearing of a lapel badge or a fern like I often wear is in any way advertising and breaching the rules of this House.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Display of Flag Design OptionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Display of Flag Design Options[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6679. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The choice of lapel badge by any member of Parliament is in fact their own choice. It can well be considered to be a piece of jewellery. I just notice that one of the members on that member’s side is wearing a silver fern which could equally—no no the member is not; he has got his SAS badge on. But the other members have a silver fern on and that could equally be considered advertising as of course could the various boxes sitting over there. They could be considered advertising for New Zealand First. I think we have got to be very very careful that we do not get too precious about this. [Interruption]
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Display of Flag Design OptionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Display of Flag Design Options[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6678. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to draw to your attention that the Hon Maggie Barry is currently wearing a lapel badge of one of the flag design options in the—[Interruption] Silence!Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we have the point of order please.RON MARK: The point of order is that I would like to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 18/1 regarding advertising. I have a second point of order. Am I entitled to have this heard in silence?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well if the member would come with a point of order and get to it quickly I would listen to it. Otherwise we are wasting the House’s time. Can I have the point of order.RON MARK: The point of order is regarding advertising in the House and regarding being in breach of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act passed through this House and the appropriateness of a person wearing an advertising lapel pin of one of the flag designs which should not be worn.
Muller Todd: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMuller Todd: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6675. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in the avocado industry?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Recent reports show that the avocado industry has experienced record volumes with 7.9 million trays produced this year. This is up from 4.9 million trays in the previous year. I am sure that New Zealand’s growth will be a topic of conversation at the World Avocado Congress in Peru this week. Also 90000 new Kiwi households are now purchasing avocados and record volumes are being exported to priority Asian markets. Average orchard gate returns for growers are now almost $25000 per hectare up from $20700 last year.Todd Muller: How is the Government supporting this growth in the avocado industry?Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very good question. The Government has partnered with the avocado industry in the 5-year $8.5 million Avocados Go Global Primary Growth Partnership programme. This will transform our avocado industry into a globally competitive high-value sustainable export industry alongside a growing domestic market. The programme will help support the industry to triple productivity to 12 tonnes per hectare and quadruple industry returns from $70 million to $280 million by 2023. Also the Korean free-trade agreement is hugely positive for the avocado industry.
Hughes Gareth: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6673. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he agree with the Treasury that solar electricity generation is one of the opportunities with the “most potential” to “reduce our carbon dioxide emissions in the medium-to-long-term”; if so does he think the current rules are working to give Kiwis going solar a fair go?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes I generally agree with Treasury’s full statement that technological advances in electric vehicles biofuels and fuel switching and renewable energy—e.g. solar—offer the most potential. I also in answer to the second part of the question think the rules are fair. That is why solar photovoltaic rates have skyrocketed since I have been Minister.Gareth Hughes: So why does a country of only 4 million people have 29 different regional rules forms fees and resource consent processes for someone to just put up a solar panel on their roof?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I would have to check those facts. I think actually what we have got is an incredibly successful electricity market with an Electricity Authority and a piece of legislation that are very simple. I appreciate the member wants to wreck that but I do not accept that is a good thing to do.Gareth Hughes: Why is it the case that a household that wants to go solar in Auckland likely faces no charges whatsoever to connect to the grid while only an hour and a half’s drive down the road to Cambridge it can face $850 to do exactly the same thing?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I find that hard to believe. In fact as I say it is a very competitive market. In relation to solar for example what we know is that there is a range of retailers offering quite a number of buy-back schemes in relation to excess generation. Actually a number of them are above the wholesale price and in one case in Auckland it is over double. So I think it is a very competitive market delivering what is required and as I say solar is going up exponentially.Gareth Hughes: For a Minister who was just recently claiming credit for solar growth in New Zealand and cannot seem to answer particularly many questions can he answer the question: does the country need a standard nationwide framework for solar connections to simplify the process and to cut the red tape; and will the Minister respond to my invitation to sit down and talk about the “Fair Go for Solar Bill”?Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions the Hon Simon Bridges.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am stung by that personal attack but can I say that we have an excellent system for solar. That is why people are voting with their wallets and investing much more in it. That is why actually quite a number of companies are offering buy-back schemes above the wholesale price. I think it is an excellent system that we should not meddle with.
Lee Melissa: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLee Melissa: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6669. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: How is the Government helping students make more informed tertiary study decisions?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): On Monday I announced that from 2017 all universities wānanga and polytechnics will be required to publish information about the employment status and earnings of their graduates broken down by specific degrees and diplomas. The employment status and earnings data is taken from Statistics New Zealand and is gathered by matching information on a confidential basis from the Inland Revenue Department with tertiary qualifications. Students and their families consider many things when deciding what to study and where but we know that most students expect that their tertiary study will get them a job and improve their career prospects. As New Zealand continues to become more highly skilled it is more important than ever for students to consider carefully their tertiary study options.Melissa Lee: How will the information help students make better decisions?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Students have been able to compare earnings by qualification and field of study at a national level since 2013. From 2017 they will be able to compare graduates’ employment status and earnings by provider as well. This will let students see whether employers prefer graduates from particular providers and let them compare what and where to study in order to improve their employment prospects. That information helps ensure that the skills people develop in tertiary education are matched to the labour market needs. Tertiary education providers are increasingly working with industry to ensure that this happens and this information will help them do that.Melissa Lee: What other initiatives are under way to improve the information that is available for students?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have taken a number of steps to provide students with more and better information to help them with their study decisions. Students can now compare earnings by qualification and field of study on the Careers New Zealand website and download the occupational outlook app which gives them an easy-to-use overview of job demand their likely income levels and training requirements. Next year we also intend to introduce Rate My Qualification which will let employers provide direct feedback to tertiary providers and students about the qualifications that they value. These initiatives taken together will ensure that students make the most of their very significant investment in tertiary education—for the time and the money they invest in their programmes.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6666. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection—particularly from the far-left corner but not only from the far-left corner—again goes back to the territory we were in last week. After my specific ruling yesterday members be warned that I will not be that patient.
Little Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6666. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Prime Minister and asks: why did he say—[Interruption]
Carter David: Points of Order — Leave for Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Andrew Little Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Member’s Bill in the Name of Richard ProsserText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Leave for Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Andrew Little Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Member’s Bill in the Name of Richard Prosser[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Prosser Richard: Points of Order — Leave for Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Andrew Little Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Member’s Bill in the Name of Richard ProsserText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Points of Order — Leave for Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Andrew Little Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Member’s Bill in the Name of Richard Prosser[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name to restructure New Zealand’s red meat industry cooperatives and keep them in New Zealand ownership using capital drawn from the Future Investment Fund to be set down for first reading today ahead of members’ order of the day No. 1.
Little Andrew: Points of Order — Leave for Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Andrew Little Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Member’s Bill in the Name of Richard ProsserText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Points of Order — Leave for Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Andrew Little Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Member’s Bill in the Name of Richard Prosser[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name to increase the number of options for alternative flags to five and to add a question to the first flag referendum under the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act 2015 asking whether New Zealanders want to change the flag at all and for the bill to be set down for first reading before private and local orders of the day No. 1. I also seek leave for the bill to progress through all stages today.
Points of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Display of Flag Design OptionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Signage in the Chamber—Display of Flag Design Options[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6678. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderSignage in the Chamber—Display of Flag Design OptionsRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to draw to your attention that the Hon Maggie Barry is currently wearing a lapel badge of one of the flag design options in the—[Interruption] Silence!Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we have the point of order please.RON MARK: The point of order is that I would like to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 18/1 regarding advertising. I have a second point of order. Am I entitled to have this heard in silence?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well if the member would come with a point of order and get to it quickly I would listen to it. Otherwise we are wasting the House’s time. Can I have the point of order.RON MARK: The point of order is regarding advertising in the House and regarding being in breach of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act passed through this House and the appropriateness of a person wearing an advertising lapel pin of one of the flag designs which should not be worn.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The choice of lapel badge by any member of Parliament is in fact their own choice. It can well be considered to be a piece of jewellery. I just notice that one of the members on that member’s side is wearing a silver fern which could equally—no no the member is not; he has got his SAS badge on. But the other members have a silver fern on and that could equally be considered advertising as of course could the various boxes sitting over there. They could be considered advertising for New Zealand First. I think we have got to be very very careful that we do not get too precious about this. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I do not need any further assistance. I do not consider for one moment that the wearing of a lapel badge or a fern like I often wear is in any way advertising and breaching the rules of this House.
Points of Order — Leave for Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Andrew Little Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Member’s Bill in the Name of Richard ProsserText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Leave for Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Andrew Little Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Member’s Bill in the Name of Richard Prosser[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 16 September 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Points of OrderLeave for Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Andrew LittleANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name to increase the number of options for alternative flags to five and to add a question to the first flag referendum under the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act 2015 asking whether New Zealanders want to change the flag at all and for the bill to be set down for first reading before private and local orders of the day No. 1. I also seek leave for the bill to progress through all stages today.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.Leave for Introduction and First Reading—Member’s Bill in the Name of Richard ProsserRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name to restructure New Zealand’s red meat industry cooperatives and keep them in New Zealand ownership using capital drawn from the Future Investment Fund to be set down for first reading today ahead of members’ order of the day No. 1.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7768. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a second time.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.Bill read a second time.
Mallard Trevor: Sittings of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Sittings of the House[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7786. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection? There appears to be no objection.
Robertson Grant: Sittings of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Sittings of the House[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7786. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I notice that it is fairly close to the end of the sitting day and we will not get through a full speech on the next bill so I seek leave for the House to rise.
Naylor Jono: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7783. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National): I just want to if I can take you back to 1972. At that time people were driving around in HQ Holdens. Our family was driving around in our Mark IV Zephyr. It was the year of the Munich Olympics. It was 2 years before those famous Commonwealth Games in Christchurch—for me that was a distant memory I have got to say. For some of my colleagues here I think that Ministers Guy and Lotu-Iiga were probably in nappies. It was the year that my colleague here Mr Doocey was born. That was a long time ago—1972—and yet that was the last time that a Government put up the real amount of benefits for beneficiaries in New Zealand.I have heard people say today we should stop talking about that and that it seems parsimonious. Somebody else was saying that it was a National Government that cut the benefits in another distant memory as well. But in order to do this—in order to this—it takes a certain level of management and over the last little while that we have been in Government it has not been possible necessarily to take this step but we are now in a position where we are seeing a growth in the amount of wages. We are starting to see a bigger gap between wages and benefits. That means that we can actually start to raise these benefits.I am proud to be a part of a Government that is bringing this into place and to hear the negativity around the House today is I think sad because actually today is a day that we are actually doing something very positive to ensure that the vulnerable children in our communities will have a better chance at making it out of that poverty. There has been a lot of criticism to say: “Oh this one thing isn’t going to do it. The Government is just barking up the wrong tree if they think this is going to do it.” But this is not the only thing that this Government is doing to ensure that our vulnerable young children will have better outcomes. There are going to be 750000 Kiwi kids under 13 receiving free doctors visits. Ninety-four percent of 2-year-olds were immunised last year whereas in 2007 a mere 67 percent of them were. We have insulated over a quarter of a million homes as well.This bill is part of an ongoing package. It is part of an ongoing commitment of this Government to ensure that we are lifting people up from poverty; we are living people up into places where they can do better for themselves. I am really proud of what we are doing here. I am proud that we are starting to make some progress. This is a good bill. I wish we did not have so much sour grapes about it but I am so glad that it is going to go through with such strong support and that we are going to see great things for young New Zealanders as we move forward.
Doocey Matt: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDoocey Matt: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7775. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is an honour to rise and speak in support of the second reading of the Support for Children in Hardship Bill. Just picking up where that last member Nanaia Mahuta finished I agree: it is a very complex issue and one that we need to work across both sides of the House on. I feel that is where we landed with this bill after our Social Services Committee work: that across the parties we felt that the intent of the bill was correct and we were working through the detail.I must say for myself that like many young New Zealanders I had the fortunate experience of going overseas on my OE and it gave me a great understanding and experience to understand a range of other countries and the levels of aspiration and the levels of quality of living that young people grow up with in other countries. It really made me proud to be able to come back to a country like New Zealand and bring up my kids here. The reality for some young people in New Zealand is though that they do not start off on the right foot and they will not enjoy the many qualities of life that the average New Zealand child will enjoy. I think it is right that this Government is putting in place measures to address that.What we need to do is stay focused on the facts. We know international research and it is demonstrated in the departmental report has identified that the most effective way of reducing the risk of family poverty enhancing child development and generally giving the best possible start in life is getting into paid work. That is something we need to be supporting. The Salvation Army state of the nation report identified that the decrease in child poverty the decrease in the numbers presenting to food banks was in exact correlation to job creation. We know that this Government is working hard and can do better at creating jobs now and in the future. It is right that we are focusing on a bill that will support beneficiaries getting into employment and provide the support they need—the childcare support.One of the main arguments that we had through the submissions process—we received about 31 submissions 15 of them orally—was about the tension of children infants to the age of 3 going into early childhood education. But we listened to Russell Wills the Children’s Commissioner and he identified that actually that is the average age that infants are going in—at the age of 3. He wrote that participation in high-quality childcare is beneficial for children particularly if they are disadvantaged and live in hardship. That is very much the intent of this bill. So I wholeheartedly support it and look forward to it going through the further legislative process. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7772. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry. I neglected to ring the 2-minute bell but you have had more than 10 minutes. That was the concession for my faux pas.
McKelvie Ian: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7764. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): This is a somewhat unusual type of bill for me to be speaking on but it is a bit of a pleasure—Hon David Cunliffe: It’s not about cows.IAN McKELVIE: I will get to that. It is a pleasure to speak on the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. I always find it quite interesting listening to the member for Epsom David Seymour. He has a slightly different view I guess of benefit and market than my view but none the less that is what happens in Epsom.I want to very briefly talk about this. I spent last week in Asia interestingly. I think it is hugely important for New Zealand that we maintain our reputation. We have a great reputation in that part of the world and it is increasing all the time. So I think for us to be playing a role in a place that is very significant for us as a market is really important. I am very pleased to support the bill because I think it gives us a further opportunity to reinforce our presence in Asia.On the matter that Kennedy Graham raised about the type of development that is taking place in Asia I think we can be pretty sure that the modern infrastructure build in that part of the world is certainly more sustainable than some of the early infrastructure build that took place in that part of the world. So I think that making a contribution to this is also going to assist the development to become much more sustainable in the future which I think is really important.From New Zealand’s perspective to be able to put money into a fund that is going to certainly help countries in Asia that we will definitely have trading relationships with in the future and at a much greater rate than we do now is certainly very good use of New Zealand money. I think that to suggest that New Zealand money should not be invested in Asia and that it is better used for New Zealand—this money is certainly being used for the benefit of New Zealanders and I think it is a very appropriate use of it. So I have got no problems supporting this bill. I think the whole idea behind it is very sensible for New Zealand. I have got great pleasure in supporting the bill. Thank you.
Borrows Chester: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7763. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call David Seymour—a 5-minute call for the ACT Party.
Borrows Chester: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7762. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Kennedy Graham—a 5-minute speech on behalf of the Green Party.
Reti Shane: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeReti Shane: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7757. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak to this bill. This bill effectively amends the legislation and lets us become a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. More specifically it amends the International Finance Agreements Act 1961.It has already been commented to us how important Asia is. A number of figures—of course Asia buys 43 percent of our export merchandise. It is significant; it is important. There is certainly need for development of infrastructure in Asia and New Zealand can help with that. I think that also talks to some of the advantages some of which we have heard about being a part of this bank. New Zealand businesses will be able to compete for infrastructure contracts under the open procurement agreement. Being a founding member as we have heard has let us play a role at the development table initially. This let us assist with direction and transparency and we have been able to bring some of the best practices that New Zealand has—which we are good at—to that table. We have also been told that our relationships with our Asian neighbours have been strengthened through our engagement. We remain a steady hand and open for business.This is the second reading of this bill and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—as has been commented—received no submissions on this bill. To address the question that the member Grant Robertson raised a moment ago what the committee did agree to was to delete clause 9(1) from this bill. What that clause would have done was enable article 19(1) of the International Finance Agreements Act which talks to prohibiting currency restrictions for members and recipients. The case was made to us by officials and we agreed that we did not need that clause which answers the member Grant Robertson’s question because it is already covered by domestic policy and it is inconsistent with our existing international finance agreements.Really this is a piece of legislation that lets us be a part of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We know that it is good for New Zealand. We know that the opportunities for our exporters will increase. We know that the contracts will be let out with best practice and that we will be able to compete for those contracts. We have been able to be part of the founding group and therefore influence it and have a say. I think that all of those are good things and I commend this bill to the House.