edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woods Megan; Mallard TrevorDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill. It feels a bit like we are taking part in a joint therapy session for the members opposite. Denial is the first stage of grief—I get that—but something happened yesterday and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is over. It is not going to happen yet we are using this House's time to go through and put legislation in place. What I have heard from members opposite is that they are proud to have fought for it and that it is not a waste of time. But what is this legislation going to do? The agreement is not going to be in place so what exactly are we using the House's time to do? I think it is about time that we had some acceptance from members opposite that this was going to happen.Some of my colleagues have talked about what they would have liked to see this debate time used for today which was to hear what it is that the Government has in place as a plan. All we have heard from the National Government for the last years and months is that the sky would fall in if we did not pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—if this did not happen. Well what is the economic plan now? What is going to happen? What is going to be in its place? What we have heard—[Interruption] So now we have Government members saying that it will all be OK and we never needed the TPP. I am loath to say this Mr Bishop but listen to Mr Bennett. He will tell you the internal logical—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting the member. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It is a great to be able to take a very short call in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill and particularly to help out Grant Robertson. He was doing his best Chicken Little impersonation by running round in circles going What's the plan? What's the plan?". Well Grant it is called this Government in action. It is delivering 3.6 percent GDP growth 35000 jobs in the last quarter 144000 jobs in the last year the highest employment rate in the OECD and an absolute commitment on this side to keep that going through enabling opportunities for our exporters to connect with the world. That is what the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is. It is $2.7 billion worth of benefits that on this side we are proud to support.When people stand up on the other side and say that this is just a waste of time—well it is never a waste of time to argue for our exporters on the world stage. It is never a waste of time to say we want more market access. It is never a waste of time to be there for our small businesses. And that defines this party. Next year when we are having the debate around the country as I am sure we will do I will be proud to be part of a John Key - led Government that is committed to trade and that completely understands the value of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We will always hold to the value of this agreement. It is a shame that members on the other side are too myopic in their anti-establishment views—it is going to bite them in the end. This is a great piece of legislation and I am delighted to support it. I commend it to the House."
Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is this Government's role to make sure that as a small trading nation we continue to investigate and deliver high-quality free-trade agreements. Along with a lot of other very good economic initiatives that is what is driving the growth and the opportunities that exist in New Zealand a small trading nation.I find it actually quite disturbing to stand in this House and see the smiles and the gloats coming from across the other side of the House because they feel like they have had a cheap political win. I do find that disturbing and I will tell you why. I sat there and I chaired the committee that heard the submissions and the submissions that we heard from the small businesses from the medium business owners and from our big industries and our primary industries were that this was a good agreement for them—that they supported it.I am telling you right now Mr Clark you do not have any employees. You are not exporting anything overseas. You are not creating any wealth in this country. The people who are the people who every day worry about their cash flow the people who every day worry about making payroll at the end of the month the people who are every day working hard to be innovative and growing their businesses and growing the opportunities for New Zealand are the people whom we should be thinking about the people whom we should be governing for and the people whom we should be opening opportunities for. That is what this Government will remain focused on and that is what this Government will continue to do.We will continue to be outward-looking and we will actually advance this free-trade agreement through the House and we will wait and see what happens in America. They have a new President and the Republicans have got the Senate and they have got the Congress. They are a party that historically has recognised the value of free trade so I feel that we are being a bit presumptive in assuming that actually this Trans-Pacific Partnership will not advance. Let us wait and see. I remain an eternal optimist and hope that we can continue to advance this agreement. It is an important one. If it does not work out I can assure you of this: the Government is working under a new trade Minister and Todd McClay is working constantly to identify and develop other trading opportunities for New Zealand as a small trading nation. Thank you.
Ngaro AlfredALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take the last call on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill in its third reading. All the speeches throughout this third reading of the bill have been in support of the hard work that has been conducted. I suppose as with anything what one looks for in a civil defence emergency management plan is reliability and responsiveness and that has been a critical part of the development of this bill.In my brief contribution I want to talk about just one thing in particular that was not mentioned and that is the transition notices. These will enable the civil defence emergency management plan officials to carry out critical work such as clearing roads and public places. Hopefully those who are listening will see that those transition notices are critically important to the pragmatic logistics of support and responsiveness in the event of an emergency as well. Also the declaration of a state of emergency is not necessary for the issuing of a transition notice. The transition notices in particular are a critical component of this bill. I commend this bill. I think it is a bill that has wide support right across the House. We look forward to the Royal assent and its implementation in the future. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill — Third Reading
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is a pleasure to take a very brief call on this bill. Suffice to say I will be talking about the Rangitīkei electorate for a moment. We have a history in this area in that we were the first region to suffer a civil defence and emergency disaster under the first of the regional civil defence and emergency management plans that were designed for this. We then some 10 years later—and Adrian Rurawhe touched on it—suffered the same problem with it with a second disaster of a similar nature. For both of those the recovery was a very important part. This bill goes a long way to improving those processes and the experience of Christchurch obviously helps improve those processes as well. It is a continual improvement in my view and I have got a great deal of pleasure in commending this bill to the House.
Hudson Brett; Tisch LindsayBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill in this its third reading. This bill will improve communities' recovery from small to moderate incidents—those most commonly experienced in New Zealand. In fact if we look back to June 2015 there was the event in Manawatū and Whanganui which helped to inform not only the need for these changes but indeed the actual nature of the changes that are being enacted hopefully at the end of this debate.There are three main features of this bill. Firstly of course we will put in place a legislative framework for recovery management: one that provides a mandate for recovery managers and also will require high-level preparatory recovery planning. Secondly and very very importantly it is going to support a seamless transition from the response into the initial recovery phase. That definitely came from learning from the Manawatū and Whanganui event one which was hampered very much in that phase of the recovery. Thirdly it will establish a permanent legislative authority to give effect to some of the provisions in the bill. This is going to go a long way to helping us be better not only in our preparation but for the recovery phase of small- to moderate-scale emergencies—those that occur most frequently in New Zealand. As others have said we will work on a separate phase that also deals with larger scale emergencies. This one is targeted at a specific area with very very good measures. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. I call Eugenie Sage—5 minutes.
Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I will just take a short call. It is my pleasure to take a call on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill. Can I basically take the short time that I have to acknowledge our civil defence personnel and management around the country. This is an important bill. It relates more to small to medium sized - type incidents but my own experience is that there is always risk in moving from a contingency-type environment into sustainment or from emergency into recovery. This bill goes a long way in terms of the legislative framework in making sure that there is a seamless transition between those two.I have to say that there has definitely been a lot of work and a heightened response taken in terms of how local communities are educated and engaged with civil defence. If I can just say in my own electorate of Rodney we have had a couple of recent exercises in preparation for a tsunami event. I just want to acknowledge civil defence emergency management and all our civil defence people around the country. I think we are definitely moving in the right direction. This piece of legislation continues to support that. Thank you very much.
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is a pleasure to rise to take a call on this bill. I did not sit on the select committee—the Government Administration Committee—for this particular bill but I have a strong interest and I have taken note of the submissions that were made. I want to first of all point out the submission from the Rangitīkei District Council which is in my electorate so I have taken particular note of that one. The Rangitīkei District Council is one of those councils that have had to deal with a number of floods over the last 11 years. I live very near a river within 50 metres of flood zone and I am very lucky that I do not get flooded but all of my neighbours have been—some of them four times over the last 11 years. So I have taken a real interest in this bill.I want to congratulate the Hon Nikki Kaye on the work that she did on this bill. I think and I agree with my colleague Clare Curran that civil defence is an area that all parties ought to be cooperating on. I know that when the Minister was in charge of this bill she made certain that she was talking to all parties about this particular bill. So I want to acknowledge that.We in Labour are supporting this bill but there are a couple of things that we have had concerns about. My colleague Clare Curran has already outlined those but I want to pay attention to them as well. So we have got unease about the imbalance of power in the authority that is exercising ministerial powers against consultation with local communities—particularly in the recovery phase of an emergency. This is of particular importance I believe for those communities that are affected by emergencies when they happen and the transition from dealing with those emergencies into the recovery phase. I think it is important that we acknowledge the concerns that those submitters have. I do want to acknowledge that there were some changes made during the Committee stage to the bill that we have before us right now. I think that they have made the bill better and stronger and so I support those changes around that area.I want to also talk briefly about the emergency management of strategic recovery plans and acknowledge the submissions of those submitters who had some concerns that it did not specifically require which details needed to be in those plans. I think that although the bill does not want to be too prescriptive they raised some clear points around that part of the bill before us.I think an overall comment on this bill is that we all want a better way forward. I think the next phase in the review of the civil defence area is going to be critically important. This bill deals with some of the issues but—as has been pointed out already—there is still more to come and we look forward to that. I do not have too much more to contribute on this but those areas—particularly around moving from the initial phase of dealing with an emergency into the recovery phase—need to be as seamless as possible. What is raised within this bill actually will achieve that. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua tēnā koe. In this third reading debate on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill I first want to congratulate both the sponsoring Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee who is Acting Minister of Civil Defence but also my colleague Nikki Kaye who worked so hard on these measures. Of course we miss Nikki here in the House today to see this piece of work going through and we wish her all the best.This bill amends the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 the CDEM Act in a number of ways that will positively enhance our ability to recover from the most frequent kinds of emergencies that we sustain here in New Zealand—that is those of a small to moderate scale. It does this in a number of main ways. Apart from some relatively minor and technical amendments that improve the Act there are three main pieces that innovate to create a better framework. These are the establishment of a legislative framework for the recovery management systems which provides a mandate for recovery managers and requires high-level preparatory work to be done so that we have recovery plans in place. It also supports the seamless transition from the initial response phase to the recovery phase. It establishes a transition notice mechanism and that makes some additional emergency powers available to transition managers for a specified period of time and with what we particularly on this side of the House believe are appropriate controls and mechanisms in place to ensure accountability. It also establishes a permanent legislative authority—that is a permanent appropriation of funds so that councils and local bodies will know that when they go and spend money on a recovery the Government will back up that spending and will do what it takes to help them recover.It should be noted that this is the first stage of a wider review of the legislative framework. We have taken learnings from Christchurch and elsewhere but this deals with small- to moderate-scale emergencies and is a positive set of improvements—and it is certainly a tribute to the hard work that the Hon Nikki Kaye put in initially and the current Acting Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I commend it to the House.
Curran ClareCIVIL DEFENCE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed from 8 November.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): In my 7½ minutes that preceded today's debate I outlined Labour's support for this bill and the reasons why. I also made some observations about some further concerns that we had. I had not quite finished with those observations and I will do that now in the time left.Civil defence should be a multipartisan issue and we all in this House have an absolute vested interest in keeping our communities safe in times of crisis and being able to respond quickly and effectively. One of the issues that remains to be dealt with in this country is the lack of a national disaster warning system—a public disaster warning system—and the importance of that. There are 16 civil defence emergency management groups around the country. There has been more than half a million dollars spent in the last couple of years developing technology that can act as a national public alerting system but we are now at a point where that appears to have been put to one side. The Government is now embarking on another system that may end up costing many many many more millions of dollars—perhaps up to $55 to $60 million—based on cell broadcast technology which I have heard is fraught with problems.Why is this important? This is important because we are not having fewer civil defence emergencies. The potential for a major earthquake off the shore of New Zealand creating a tsunami is there and New Zealand at the moment has no national public alerting system. If this Government is serious about a joined-up approach to civil defence emergency management it needs to get its act together on this and it needs to talk to the community. It needs to engage with other parties and it needs to sort this out.
Smith NickRESOURCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLReferral to Local Government and Environment CommitteeDebate resumed.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move That the order of the day for the second reading of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration.
Voting — Correction—Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill
Fox Marama; Carter DavidVOTINGCorrection—Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment BillMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Apologies Mr Speaker; this is not in regard to the point that is being debated at the moment but in regard to the earlier motion to discharge the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill. We would like to correct our vote. It is a requirement of our agreement that in cases of procedural motions we must give notice to the Government that we are going to vote against it. We have now done that and so we would like to be able to correct our vote and support the motion to discharge the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill.Mr SPEAKER: The member will therefore need to seek leave for a correction to that vote.MARAMA FOX: Thank you Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct the vote.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. The vote will therefore be adjusted by two votes the other way.Marama Fox: Thank you.
Robertson Grant; Carter DavidGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take the point that you have just made. I do want to draw to your attention—accepting your ruling—to the intervention made by Eugenie Sage which is that the Minister is on public record as suggesting that the bill will be back well within the normal 4-month period which otherwise would generate a debate. That is a very serious matter from our point of view in that we will not get to debate that even though the Minister has made clear in his public statements he has no intention of the bill being in the select committee for the normal length of time.Mr SPEAKER: If the motion were then to refer it back from the select committee in less than 4 months that then would be a debatable motion but at this stage I have seen no evidence of that before this House. I think the easiest way forward is to go back and to call Government order of the day No. 1.Debate interrupted.
Resource Legislation Amendment Bill — Recommittal
SpeechMr SPEAKER: I thank all members for their comments. I have spent considerable time on this and intend to rule. The starting point for my ruling is of course Standing Order 74(2) which provides that motions to discharge an order of the day are not debatable. There is no specific provision in Standing Orders to govern the referral of a bill back to the select committee so I have looked for the most similar applicable rule for guidance. Standing Order 311 provides for a referral of a bill back to the Committee of the whole House from the third reading also without debate.In determining how to proceed with the discharge and the referral of the bill I have also looked at McGee and as Mr Mallard has mentioned it says on page 363: When the order of the day for a bill's second reading is reached it is possible for any member to move to discharge it and for the bill to be referred back to a select committee for further consideration. There is no amendment or debate on this question." [The word "no" in the previous sentence was originally omitted; text corrected.]Finally I considered how the House has dealt with motions to discharge the second reading and refer a bill back to a select committee in the past. I have searched back the last 14 years to 2002 and have found that in 2015 an identical motion was moved by Tracey Martin in respect of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill and that occurred without debate. In 2013 the same thing happened with the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill and also with the Food Bill and the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill was referred back to a select committee without debate in 2006. In each of those four cases the motions to discharge the bill from second reading and refer them to the select committee were moved and there was no debate. Clearly the same process should be followed in respect of the bill before the House today.To avoid further doubt I am now confirming that the motion to discharge and refer a bill back to select committee is not debatable or subject to amendment. I will not entertain further discussion now but I will certainly allow further discussion to occur at the Standing Orders Committee if its members so wish."
Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): I have just two additional points. The Minister for the Environment said that the select committee was considering a pro forma report. There were quite detailed and extensive minority views from Opposition parties—Labour and the Greens—so it would not have been simply a pro forma report. The other point is in relation to Standing Order 290(2) and the Minister yesterday in his press release said that select committee consideration may be completed this year but may flow early into next year." So if the select committee is going to be asked to consider the bill for less than 4 months then that is normally debated by the House."
Mallard TrevorHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I am a person of some experience in these matters. The first point is that I think the Deputy Leader of the House had better have a look at the Standing Orders. I think he might be using an out-of-date set of Standing Orders when he was making that reference. I think he was probably referring to Standing Order 74 rather than Standing Order 70 but we will—Mr SPEAKER: I thought the member referred to Standing Order 74.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well Standing Order 70(2) is certainly not the one that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just clarify that the member Mr Bridges when he referred to a Standing Order referred to Standing Order 74(2)?Hon Simon Bridges: Yes.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Thank you that is fine. I apologise for mishearing.I want to make about three points. The first is that in this House motions are debatable unless it is clear that they are not and that is quite a high test. I want to make it clear that we have changed the approach to the debate on bills over a period of time at the point we amalgamated the debate on the report of the select committee and the debate on the second reading. I think that should be taken into account in any new ruling because under the previous Standing Orders and any sorts of precedents that might flow from way back we would have already had a report-back debate before we come to this point. I do want to accept that on the face David McGee—when he deals with this matter on page 363 of the third edition of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand—does indicate that this would be a non-debatable motion. But in doing so he appears to be referring to the absolute discharge—of a bill or the postponement of a bill as opposed to a discharge for the purpose of referral back to a select committee. It is an awful thing to disagree with McGee but my view is that he has his references incorrect on page 363.
Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): In my very brief perusal of the Standing Orders there has been comment made by other members—respected senior members of this House—that there is no Standing Order that applies. In my brief reading of this Standing Order 74(2) where we are dealing with the discharge or postponement of an order of the day it makes it abundantly clear that there is no amendment or debate on the question to discharge or postpone an order of the day.Mr SPEAKER: Which Standing Order is the member quoting?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Standing Order 74(2). My argument would be very clear: there is simply no getting around those plain words there in that Standing Order. There is simply no ability here to debate this matter.Hon Members: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to hear too many more. There have been a lot of members who have had an opportunity. I will hear from the Hon Trevor Mallard who is a learned scholar of many years' experience.
Urgent Debates Declined — United States 2016 Presidential Election—Government Responsibility
Clark DavidDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): The experience that I have of other Speakers and of you Mr Speaker is that you tend to exercise a ruling in favour of the House and the opportunity to debate and that is with precedent in the absence of Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings. I think the House should be given the opportunity to debate the matter. It is not an opportunity to give the executive an easy out.
Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): First of all it is the timing of this referral back. We have seen bills referred back for third reading with the consent of the House but after a discussion. The second thing is that there is no Standing Order on this. In that event when there is a request for a debate one would surely think that in the absence of a Standing Order it would be granted. Why? Well the public has got a right to know what is going on. Out there in New Zealand the people have got a right to know what is going on which is why these parliamentary proceedings are broadcast right around the nation. If there is no debate in respect of this referral motion first of all to the debating structure itself then Parliament will not be informed and worse still the public will not be.If this matter is critically important to the whole future of the whole nation and National's economic strategy is what it says it is then the more the public knows about that and what is happening to it the better. I suggest therefore that you should not err in favour of a debate but for the very reason we gave favour the debate.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I wish to speak to the point of order that has been raised by Mr Parker and make four points. First there is absolutely nothing abnormal about the Government referring a bill back to the select committee. It is exactly what occurred in this Parliament in 2014 with the Food Bill. The reason in that case was that there was further work for the select committee to do on the bill and the circumstances here are the same. The second point is that the member makes the claim that it is unusual for a bill to be still in the select committee process after 11 months. I would draw your attention Mr Speaker to the Marine Reserves Bill which was introduced into the Parliament by the previous Government in 2002 and had extensions all the way through 8 years of consideration by the select committee.The third point is that I was part of the Standing Orders discussion when the Business Committee process was set up. I was a member of Parliament before we had the Business Committee and after. The decision that the Standing Orders Committee made at the time was that any single party would be able to object to an extension being granted by the Business Committee—that it was by consensus. At the time that decision was made it was quite deliberate that in the event that there was not a consensus—in other words any single party could object to a select committee extension—then it was for the House to make the decision by majority to refer a bill back to the select committee. To now require a debate on that would be a substantive change from the very intent of establishing a Business Committee. The last point I would make is that in the political dialogue that occurred last week members opposite asserted that it was the Government's intention not to have a report from the Local Government and Environment Committee to have a pro forma report back to the House this week and for us to just use our parliamentary numbers to bung it through the Parliament. That is not the Government's intent. The Government's intent is that this bill does require the substantive 500-page report which was received by the department only last week to be referred back to the select committee. When the select committee produces its report back to the House all of the views—including the debate about why it has taken some time for the select committee to report the bill back to the House—can be dealt with at the time when the select committee delivers its proper consideration.
Peters WinstonTRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILLDischargeRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I move That the order of the day for the third reading of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill be discharged. [Interruption]A party vote was called for on the question that the motion be agreed to.
Peters Winston; Carter DavidRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Nevertheless I move that there be a debate on the full ramifications of that election. I seek the leave of the House to have a full debate on the ramifications of that election.Mr SPEAKER: The member is now seeking leave to have an urgent debate after I have just rejected it. Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDUnited States—Presidential Election 2016Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the United States presidential election. The urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. It is not a way of raising topical matters for debate when there is no ministerial responsibility. The US presidential election although a significant event is not a matter for which the Government is responsible. The application is therefore declined.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party I would like to join with other leaders who have supported the motion congratulating the 45th President-Elect of the United States Donald Trump. That occurs in the context—Hon Member: What did you say about him the day before?DAVID SEYMOUR: —of a long friendship between our two countries—I will come to you—that happens in the context of a long friendship between our two countries and our two peoples.I think it is important that we respect the will of the American people. There have been many commentators in New Zealand over the last 24 hours most notably the Dominion Post's front page who seem to think that we should respect the outcome of a democratic election only when we happen to like the result. We have to accept the result from the American people; only then can we start to understand it.I have to say we actually did get halfway to that from New Zealand's own poor man's Donald Trump and you have to wonder what Donald Trump—Donald Trump the outsider that is—would think of a 40-year career politician the poor man's Donald Trump who sells exactly the same product and cannot break 10 percent.It is important that we accept that there were people in the United States who did feel that they were not being included in America's growth and that they were being left behind by dysfunctional markets. If we are to avoid the same winds of dissatisfaction and division in New Zealand I believe the main thing that we must do is fix our dysfunctional markets in housing and in education. That is actually something that this Government is making a serious effort at doing because there are no ideas on the other side of the House particularly from New Zealand First.I do want to quibble slightly with the President-Elect on one particular point and that is that I know that many women in the US and many women in New Zealand are deeply disturbed by the comments made by a man who has now been elected the leader of the free world and one of the most powerful men on the planet. I certainly hope on behalf of that sentiment and on behalf of those people whom he has disturbed that he will back away from those comments and apologise. With that minor quibble I join with other leaders in celebration of democracy and in congratulation of the 45th President-Elect of the United States Donald Trump.
Turei MetiriaMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." These are the words of one of the truly great Americans Martin Luther King Jr. Yesterday's result in the US elections has left me and the Green Party even more determined than ever to fight for the values that we believe in. We have generations of families living in poverty; people who face uncertain futures without proper housing or healthcare or education; and people who do not believe that being involved can make a difference. That is something that we can—that we must—change. We must use the Trump election as a powerful motivator a motivator to stay involved in the governance of our country and to include others in that process; to organise; to be strong; to listen to each other; to speak truth to power; to find hope; and to be kind to each other—to be kind. So no I will not support this motion to congratulate Trump and neither will the Green Party. We vow to fight the climate change denial the misogyny and the racism represented by Trump. We will not let hate triumph. Thank you."
King AnnetteHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): The Labour Party congratulates Donald Trump on becoming the 45th President of the United States. I also want to congratulate Hillary Clinton who achieved much in her public life and who has been a good friend to New Zealand.There is no doubt over the year-long divisive presidential campaign that many Americans have been left fearful and concerned as to where they fit in their country. I call on Mr Trump to follow through on his words and pledge last night: that it is now time for America to bind the wounds of division and that he will be the President for all Americans. We can take heart from Hillary Clinton's comments this morning. They must accept the result and look to the future. She said they owe the new President an open mind and a chance to lead. We support those sentiments. I also call on Mr Trump to uphold the rule of law the principles of equal rights and dignity freedom of expression respect inclusion and understanding because these are the values that lie at the heart of a liberal democracy. In the Labour Party we do value our relations with the United States and we are committed to continuing those relationships while at the same time making it clear that we will speak out against bigotry racism misogyny or hate whenever and wherever we see it.
Joyce StevenMOTIONSUnited States—Election of Donald TrumpHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I move that the House convey its congratulations to President—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sorry the member just needs to seek leave to move the motion first.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I seek leave to move a motion without notice in support of the election of the President of the United States.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I move That the House convey its congratulations to President-elect Donald Trump on his election as the next President of the United States and to Vice-President-elect Mike Pence on his election and in doing so express our desire to work with the incoming Trump administration to continue building on New Zealand's already strong relationship with the United States. New Zealand and the US have an excellent relationship and it has gone from strength to strength in recent years as demonstrated by the visit of the USS Sampson to Auckland next week for the International Naval Review marking the Royal New Zealand Navy's 75th anniversary. Secretary of State John Kerry is currently visiting New Zealand and is also travelling to Antarctica where we are of course natural partners. New Zealand and the US recently cooperated to create the world's largest marine protected area in the Ross Sea. This will cover roughly 1.55 million square kilometres and showcases what we can achieve when we work together. The people of America went to the polls yesterday as we know and will soon have a new President. The Prime Minister will be writing to President-elect Trump to offer his personal congratulations and to reiterate our commitment to continuing to work closely with the US on trade and economic cooperation including progressing our shared regional interests in the Asia-Pacific region. We share many common values with the US: democracy human rights the rule of law and a belief in free markets. Our two countries are very close defence and security partners working to bring peace and security in Iraq Afghanistan and other parts of the world. An open and engaged United States is very important to New Zealand. The US is a valued trading partner for New Zealand. It is our third-largest trading market worth over $8 billion. New Zealand will seek to build on this already-strong relationship with the incoming Trump administration in order to advance our shared interests. In closing I would also like to pay tribute to the outgoing administration led by President Barack Obama. President Obama has been a good friend to New Zealand and we wish him all the best in the future.
Bridges SimonTHURSDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 15 November the Government will look to complete the first reading of the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill the third reading of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and to progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper.
Wednesday 5 April 2017 - Volume 721
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.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.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The consequential amendments in the name of Adrian Rurawhe to Part 2 are out of order because the matter has already been dealt with and lost as part of Part 1.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 263 in the name of Kris Faafoi to insert new clause 48A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.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.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.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.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Resource Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 181 be agreed to:That subclause 2 be amended by substituting the word 20" with "40".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Part 4 agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Part 2 agreed to.
12. Project 1000—Matariki: Hawke's Bay Regional Economic Strategy and Action Plan 2016ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentProject 1000—Matariki: Hawke's Bay Regional Economic Strategy and Action Plan 201612. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Social Development: What updates can she provide on the progress of Project 1000?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): In July last year the Government launched the Matariki: Hawke's Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan 2016 which included as one of the actions Project 1000. This is focused on supporting 1000 local people including beneficiaries into new jobs over the next 3 years. I am absolutely delighted to report that to date 231 people have been placed into employment and that we are well on track to meet that target of 1000 people by July 2019. That is fantastic news because the evidence tells us that there are significant financial and social benefits to being in work. By encouraging businesses to employ local people we are supporting the regional labour market and helping people to get ahead.Alastair Scott: What are some of the initiatives in place to help link up businesses with people who are looking for work?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are currently 16 initiatives that sit under Project 1000 because we are working collaboratively with employers on the ground to achieve that target of connecting 1000 people with sustainable work. These include employer-led initiatives in the horticulture sector and partnerships with iwi and hapū. Other initiatives include partnerships with local government organisations and the health sector such as the one between the Ministry of Social Development the Hawke's Bay District Health Board and the Hastings District Council which will support up to 50 youth into paid community project positions with a focus on clients with health conditions and disabilities.
10. Meat Industry—Chilled Meat Exports to ChinaSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesMeat Industry—Chilled Meat Exports to China10. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent agreement has the Government made to support export growth in the red meat sector?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Recently trade Minister Todd McClay and I announced a memorandum of cooperation that allows for the chilled export of meat into China. This 6-month trial will initially involve 10 meat establishments agreed in conjunction with industry. China is New Zealand's second-largest market for beef and sheep exports. New Zealand exported around $1 billion worth of frozen sheep and beef exports last year. It is a trade that has grown by five times since 2011. It is a fantastic story.Sarah Dowie: How will this announcement increase the value of our red meat exports?Brett Hudson: Good question.Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very good question. Chilled meat is worth around twice the value of frozen meat and this announcement will potentially be worth hundreds of millions of dollars for our red meat sector down the track. With great air links to China our exporters now have the opportunity to fill returning planes with chilled meat as demand grows. Also the recently signed veterinarian agreement with Iran opens up this market for sheep and beef products. In the 1980s they took one in every four sheep that were exported. I am very proud of what the Government has achieved for meat exporters ultimately lifting farm gate returns.
5. Regional Economic Development—GDP Statistics and Government SupportDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Economic DevelopmentRegional Economic Development—GDP Statistics and Government Support5. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Economic Development: What reports has he received on regional economic growth across New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): Last week Statistics New Zealand released GDP statistics for New Zealand's 15 regions which showed the regions continue to grow strongly with 12 of our 15 regions seeing economic growth in the year to March. The strongest growth was seen in the Bay of Plenty with a very strong 7.7 percent. Meanwhile Northland Auckland Waikato Manawatū Wanganui Wellington Canterbury and Otago all grew by more than 3 percent. All up across New Zealand this led to growth for the year of 2.1 percent and it is being driven by such factors as strong construction and tourism activity as well as a falling exchange rate and low inflation rates.Dr Shane Reti: How is the Government working with regional New Zealand to ensure it continues to grow strongly?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We are working intensively with 10 regions through the Business Growth Agenda and the regional growth programme to help lift the growth rates in the years ahead. We are committed to helping every region in New Zealand achieve its potential by both attracting new investors and investing in the infrastructure for growth—be it ultra-fast broadband to 150 more regional towns or key regional transport projects up and down the country. Economic action plans have already been launched for Tai Rāwhiti East Coast Southland Bay of Plenty Northland Hawke's Bay and Manawatū-Wanganui and we are now looking at action plans for the West Coast and Canterbury.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table information from the Parliamentary Library that says that the average growth rate for the last 10 years in Northland is 1.4 percent. Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection to it being tabled? No. It can be tabled. Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.