edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
7. Environment Minister—Environmental Protection Authority Annual Report Chief Executive and Chief ScientistHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Associate Minister for the EnvironmentEnvironment Minister—Environmental Protection Authority Annual Report Chief Executive and Chief Scientist7. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with the statements in the Annual Report of the Environmental Protection Authority we have our share of science deniers who oppose fluoride 1080 vaccinations glyphosate genetic modification and much more" and "our Chief Scientist is prominent in emphasising the evidence data and science that underpins EPA decision making"; if so why?Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Associate Minister for the Environment): Yes I agree with the first statement by the chair of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) board Kerry Prendergast when she indicated that New Zealand was not immune to scepticism about science. I also agree that the chief scientist for the EPA has a role in highlighting the science which informs the EPA's decisions.Hon Scott Simpson: Did the Minister have any discussions with the EPA chief executive specifically about the EPA chief scientist?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I advised the EPA chief executive that my office had received correspondence expressing some concerns about media comments by the chief scientist. I was told that the matter was in hand. There was no substantive discussion.Hon Scott Simpson: Yesterday in a report on Radio New Zealand the Minister confirmed that she had met with the EPA chief executive. Does she expect the House now to accept that no meeting took place?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: That was raised in a normal status meeting.Hon Scott Simpson: Has the Minister had any discussions with the chief executive in terms of the scientific independence of the organisation and its role in how it expresses its view?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: It is important that the public has confidence in the EPA as an organisation which uses robust science in its decisions. It would not be appropriate for me as Minister to have any discussions with the chief executive about an employee of the authority. I did not do that.Hon Scott Simpson: Does she agree with the statement made last August that the EPA are incompetent chemical cowboys by her then Green Party colleague Steffan Browning?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The problem has been that the EPA was not resourced by the last Government to do all of the investigations that it needs to do.Hon Scott Simpson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'm not sure that the Minister even attempted to address that question.SPEAKER: Well she certainly—well I don't know if she attempted to but she did."
6. Prisons—Prison PopulationHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of CorrectionsPrisons—Prison Population6. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement on the Marae programme that the problem right now is that corrections doesn't have any flexibility … we're in a real bind"?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes in the context that statement was made.Hon David Bennett: Why is the Government not making a decision regarding Waikeria Prison when there are approximately only 300 Department of Corrections beds left in the system and this presents a risk to public safety?Hon Grant Robertson: Whose fault might that be David?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Thank you Mr Speaker and I probably need to paraphrase the words of my colleague right next to me: the reason we are in this bind is because of the mismanagement of the previous Government not only in corrections in justice but also the social policies.Hon Members: Do your job!SPEAKER: Order! I will do my job quite soon and it will involve substantial punishment for about five members.Hon David Bennett: When the Minister said in the Marae interview "Corrections cannot turn people away. The courts say 'Hey you have to go to prison.' then you have to go to prison." who does the Minister think should not be in prison?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The statement that I made was entirely correct because corrections does not have any flexibility to turn people away. So exactly as I said if someone is sent to prison then corrections is not able to turn them away. So we're looking at a range of options to reduce the prison population by 30 percent over 15 years in contrast to that previous Government's policy to build more beds and bars in prisons.Hon David Bennett: Who would the Minister want to turn away? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Anybody who is convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison has to be there. It is the corrections' job to actually accommodate them. So those people need to be there because the courts have said so. I don't want to turn anyone away that needs to be there but we're in a situation that has been created by the poor policies of the previous Government. Hon David Bennett: What's more important to the Minister: deciding who should be in the prison system or keeping the public safe from those who have been sentenced to prison? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Not only do I want the public to be safe I want the public to feel safe."
5. Earthquake Commission—Operational ChangesDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake CommissionEarthquake Commission—Operational Changes5. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What announcements has the Government made about changes to how the Earthquake Commission operates?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): This week I announced that Cabinet has approved a range of changes to the Earthquake Commission (EQC) which will improve how the Act functions and enable the scheme to work more effectively for claimants in future natural disasters. The changes are increasing the cap limit on EQC's residential building cover to $150000 plus GST enabling EQC to accept claim notifications for up to two years after a natural disaster rather than the current three-month time limit for such notifications removing EQC insurance cover for contents and clarifying EQC's authority to share information to support the implementation of the EQC Act and settlement of insurance claims where it is in the public interest and safety. This of course was a recommendation of the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission.Dr Duncan Webb: What will the impact of these changes be?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: These changes simplify and speed up the claims process and resolve issues with the EQC Act that have been previously identified by the Ombudsman and the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. They will mean EQC is better placed to resolve claims in the event of future disasters.Dr Duncan Webb: Why are these changes being made now and not following the Government's already-indicated independent inquiry into EQC?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: These are widely agreed and common-sense changes that have been discussed with EQC private insurers and Government officials. I've chosen to bring these forward so that if the worst did happen and we had a major event before the conclusion of the inquiry and changes can be made following that we would have made these immediate changes which we know will make a difference. There are the more complex and substantial issues that are appropriate for the independent inquiry to look at and it is my intention that changes following that inquiry will be made in the future.
2. Fiscal Strategy—Investment Statement 2018Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceFiscal Strategy—Investment Statement 20182. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What does the Treasury's 2018 Investment Statement show about the state of the Government's balance sheet?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The 2018 Investment Statement shows that as at 30 June 2017 the Government owned $314 billion worth of assets and owed $197 billion worth of liabilities resulting in a net worth of $117 billion. As part of producing the Investment Statement Treasury conducted three stress tests to show how the Government would be able to handle major adverse shocks including a major Wellington earthquake a widespread agricultural disease outbreak or an international economic downturn. The results show that the Government's balance sheet has some resilience to meet these shocks given a commitment to careful management of the Government's finances and net debt position.Dr Deborah Russell: What does the Investment Statement show about the condition of the Government's assets?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well unfortunately the statement does not paint such a rosy picture in this regard. The statement shows that 38.6 percent of assets in the social portfolio including schools and hospitals have aged to a point where they are adversely impacting the ability of the Government to provide public services. Approximately 40 percent of the assets in the social housing portfolio are more than 50 years old district health boards are reporting that 19 percent of their assets are in either poor or very poor condition and 38 percent of school buildings are at least 50 years old. This is not good enough. This Government has inherited an infrastructure deficit and we will do something to address that to make sure that New Zealanders' investments are working for everybody.Dr Deborah Russell: How will Investment Statements evolve in the future?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The future Investment Statements will incorporate a more holistic view of the Government's investments as Treasury continues to develop and apply its living standards framework. I am pleased to see in the 2018 statement that Treasury has focused on how people value natural capital and environmental quality. Future Investment Statements will outline approaches that account for the value of New Zealand's social and human capital as well. I look forward to seeing this work progress as we move towards having a Government that puts the well-being and living standards of all New Zealanders at the heart of everything that we do.
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'm delighted to speak at the third reading of the Customs and Excise Bill. We've heard a lot through the contributions today and I just want to add my congratulations to everyone that's been involved in the passage of this bill in particular the New Zealand Customs Service and also the Ministers that have been involved and in particular Minister Whaitiri who will be able to chalk up this piece of legislation her first piece of legislation I believe as Minister of Customs.There has been a lot said. This is a comprehensive piece of legislation. It's bringing the Customs Service into the 21st century. It's all about doing things smarter. Let's get rid of the old legislation that was highly prescriptive very much out of date and unable to keep up with our modern trade environment. This legislation definitely puts the Customs Service right at the forefront—I believe actually in the world—of being able to have a modern border agency whereby we can obviously be vigilant and have very much a risk focus but not at the expense of facilitating trade and the passage of goods and craft and the like at the border.So this is a long-overdue piece of legislation. It's had a long passage. It's been thoroughly scrutinised. I was part of the select committee that was charged with examining this bill and it was very thoroughly looked into. I acknowledge Todd Muller who was the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who actually very capably led our committee through that process. But finally this bill is bringing customs into the 21st century. It's modernising it. It's giving it a great new empowering piece of legislation which will govern its activities. I just wanted to say that one thing that I would have hoped could have been addressed is the title of Comptroller"—the Comptroller of Customs. That comes from the 19th century and certainly maybe that could have been one thing that could have been updated. But that aside I do commend everyone that's been involved in this bill. I'm sure it's going to be of great benefit to our border and everything and all of the works that the New Zealand Customs Service do. I am very proud to commend it to the House. Kia ora.Bill read a third time."
Customs and Excise Bill — Third Reading
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Isn't it great to see another beautiful fantastic piece of work by the previous National-led Government. I just want to address a few points made by previous speakers. There was one point made by an Auckland MP around legislation that this Government has picked up. I challenge you to name one new piece of legislation by—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No the member won't be challenging me.HAMISH WALKER: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. It is happy hour. When National was in Government we were committed to supporting Customs and we worked to protect and promote New Zealanders' trade and travel. I just want to acknowledge the fantastic work that the customs officials do especially when you come home after travelling overseas for a few weeks possibly to Europe to Austria. You come home you're tired and just that warm Kiwi welcome that they often give you—there's nothing better. There's nothing better than arriving back home.The border is a crucial point in identifying and controlling risks. Before entry or exit from New Zealand customs have a short window of opportunity at the border to manage risks before goods and people move beyond the airport or port and become difficult to trace. Risks include security law and order revenue—and a previous speaker did mention the duty that customs have of collecting international tax; not quite right but I'd like to acknowledge one of our leading tax experts in the gallery. It's great to have you here today sir. There has been significant growth in movements of people goods and craft; extensive developments in logistics and technology; and new security risks.Like speakers before I just want to acknowledge the excellent work the honourable member Nicky Wagner has done in this area. It's a very heavy bill a lot of work has gone into it and for that reason I support this bill and I commend it to the House.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's my pleasure to take a call on this bill the Customs and—I was going to say Exercise"—Excise Bill. This is the third reading and I'd like to acknowledge the Hon Meka Whaitiri for shepherding this bill and also the Hon Nicky Wagner for her commencement of this work.Look we've all talked on a number of themes around this bill. It is very clear that we across the House agree to the changes. It is in fact—and I'm holding up the bill for the Hansard record—a very weighty bill.Hon Member: They've never seen it before.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: See the notes? I've been reading through it. So what I would like to say generally is that I found some really fascinating clauses in here and I'm just going to talk about one. I'd like to acknowledge the member who spoke about the ability to use controlled substances—oh is that what he was saying? No I don't think he was.I would like to talk about clause 414 fishing. Those of you who know me know that I am a fisherwoman. Now this clause actually says something really interesting. It says essentially that if you are fishing on a New Zealand vessel then you are not going to be importing fish but if you are fishing on an international vessel and you're catching fish in New Zealand waters then you are in fact going to be importing fish into New Zealand. I think that it's a really interesting point. I find it fascinating how we treat fish caught in our waters caught on foreign vessels; they are treated as being imported into our country. I just find that really interesting. I think probably at this time of the evening when everybody has actually been talking and saying essentially the same thing—that we across the House all agree—that that's just something that I would like to mention to my fellow fisher friends.It was actually Mark Patterson who mentioned about controlled delivery and I would like to just talk specifically about this. In Tauranga recently the Labour Party launched the serious crime unit. One of the things that the serious crime unit will be able to do is to access and use these kinds of methods to actually stop at the border or actually stop and let those people get those items directly to their homes so that we can arrest them. Now the member Simeon has actually—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member needs to use the correct form of members' names.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Sorry—very sorry.Kieran McAnulty: Mr Brown.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: The member Mr Brown—Simeon Brown: Brown without an "e"; just Brown without an "e".ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: —Brown without an "e"—has in fact mentioned that we essentially are light on crime. I would just like to say that this part of the bill actually refers to how we can actually facilitate that. So I'd just like to mention that to you.Now I have a whole pile of other things that I might say but essentially we need to get this bill passed in the House tonight so it is my great pleasure to commend this bill to the House."
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. It's great to be able to rise and speak on this bill. I'd just like to correct something which the previous speaker Priyanca Radhakrishnan said. She was saying that Simon O'Connor was making a jibe talking about how great it was that we're progressing more National Party legislation which is a point which I agree with but then she went on to say that she wouldn't be so churlish as to throw out a good bill. Well I'd like to ask the members on the other side what they're planning to do about Denise Lee's bill on gender pay equity because it's pretty churlish to throw that one out—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! [Interruption] Order! Sit down. [Interruption] Order! OK it's Thursday afternoon; we've got a few minutes left—Hon David Bennett: Let us go.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Ah no. Ha! While I'm on my feet Mr Bennett you will be silent. Thank you. I want the member to focus on the bill and not someone else's bill. I want you to focus on this one. OK? Kia ora.SIMEON BROWN: Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a fantastic bill and as I was saying it was progressed by the National Party. As my colleague Nicky Wagner said the Hon Maurice Williamson my predecessor in Pakuranga has also had a big part to play in progressing this bill through the House and I just want to pay tribute to him tonight as well for what he's done.This bill does a number of different things. It modernises the legislation around the Customs Service as we've heard. It replaces the 1996 Act which was replacing the 1966 Act and it makes a large amount of changes to legislation which is essentially 100 years old which is well before the time of anyone who's in the Chamber this afternoon.It's also good to hear members on the other side talk about the great work that customs does and I think it's important to pay tribute to what our customs officers do on the borders every single day working to ensure that businesses are able to trade but also ensuring that those who are trying to bring into the country illegal products such as meth are stopped from doing so. I'd just like to pay special tribute to that.I'd also like to pay tribute to the work they do to stop other drugs such as synthetic drugs coming into the country. It's important that we focus on that and other substances as well.Virginia Andersen: Lock 'em up! Lock 'em up Simeon!SIMEON BROWN: That's right and it's disappointing to hear that the Labour Party feels that those who supply those drugs can get off much lighter than if they're supplying other drugs.So it is great to see this bill go through its third reading with support across the House and I commend it to the House. Thank you very much.
Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill — First Reading
O'Connor SimonQuestion No. 1 to MinisterSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. In an answer to question No. 1 the Minister speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister talked about MH17 and Russia talked about Holland and a report. So I'd seek the leave of the House to table two reports—final reports—from the Government of Holland: a technical report on the downing of MH17 on 13 October 2015 and a criminal report on 20 September 2016.SPEAKER: Source?SIMON O'CONNOR: They're on the internet and available but I thought it would be useful for the member to have read them.SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that he cannot table those documents and because of the long precedent he is trifling with the Chair and that results in the loss of two questions to the National Party.Hon Members: Oh!SPEAKER: Order! And they just got them back as a result of the commentary from the right.
Robertson Grant; Ross Jami-LeeTHURSDAY 22 MARCH 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Next week the House will complete the third readings of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18 Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill and the Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill will have its second reading and committee stage. There will first readings of the Crimes Amendment Bill the Corrections Amendment Bill the Privacy Bill the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill and the Coroners (Access to Body of a Dead Person) Amendment Bill. The Hon Steven Joyce will make his valedictory statement at 5.40 p.m. on Tuesday 27 March.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I notice that the bill that's just been introduced the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill seeks to implement some changes in a very short time frame. When is the Government going to stop ramming things through a select committee in a shortened time frame and give New Zealanders a real opportunity to consider legislation?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): It's interesting that the member raises that. On one day we hear from the Opposition there's not enough legislation; on another day we hear there's too much. I'd just encourage Mr Jami-Lee Ross to up his game up his work rate and get on with the job.
Wednesday 21 March 2018 - Volume 728
Oranga Tamariki (Parent's and Guardian's Responsibility) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Oranga Tamariki (Parent's and Guardian's Responsibility) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
Accident Compensation (Recent Migrants and Returning New Zealanders) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 65New Zealand National 56; New Zealand First 9.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
12. Business—Attracting International Businesses and Innovative Partnerships ProgrammeDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationBusiness—Attracting International Businesses and Innovative Partnerships Programme12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: How much new money has the Government announced as part of her formal" launch of MBIE's Innovative Partnership Programme last week?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): No new money for the programme was announced as part of the formal launch last week. Companies are not offered any direct funding grants or financial incentives to come to New Zealand through this programme.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Did she really stand up and formally launch a programme which has been in place for more than two years now?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The programme was never formally launched by the previous Government. In 2015 it was initiated as a trial. Under National I note the focus of the programme was the attraction of multinational companies and the programme within Government was known as the multinational corporations attraction programme. This Government decided to do things a bit differently. We've called it Innovative Partnerships and have shifted the focus dramatically. The programme no longer specifically focuses on multinational corporations; rather this Government's programme now includes a much wider range of innovative companies developing new technologies that will help us grow a more sustainable and diversified economy that will benefit all New Zealanders.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the significance of the word "formal" in the context of this announcement? Does it mean re-announcement of the previous Government's programme?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think I answered that question in my last answer but I am happy to go through it again. We did—SPEAKER: No. I agree with the member and we're not happy.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What evidence can she provide to back up her statement "This Government is committed to developing New Zealand as a hub for high-value knowledge-intensive businesses that create value through innovation and R & D" beyond re-announcing existing National Government programmes?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: When I became the Minister I found there was a very small amount of funding that was to go to helping companies come to New Zealand and develop R & D. I am not so close-minded that I would cancel that scheme. In fact in my experience much of science and research policy is reasonably non-partisan and I encourage that member to look at a good idea and celebrate it when she sees it rather than her constant negativity.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Supplementary Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: No. No good. The National Party's run out of supplementaries. I apologise to the member."
11. Defence—2016 Defence Capability Plan and P-8 PoseidonsHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of DefenceDefence—2016 Defence Capability Plan and P-8 Poseidons11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Defence: Does he remain committed to supporting the 2016 Defence Capability Plan?Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Yes. My answer is yes. As detailed in the coalition agreement we will be re-examining the defence procurement programme within the context of the 2016 Defence Capability Plan.Hon Mark Mitchell: When does the Minister intend to announce the purchase of the P-8 Poseidon aircraft?Hon RON MARK: It's a very good question. The first point I would make is that we're in the throes of going through a Budget round right now. The Budget will become very clear to that member in good time. But it does I guess raise some question as to why the member would be concerned about the P-3 decision given that he didn't make it when he was the Minister.Hon Mark Mitchell: It's actually the P-8 but to the Minister has he been able to achieve Cabinet support for the purchase of the P-8 Poseidon?Hon RON MARK: The member will know in good time exactly where we stand on that decision. At the moment my focus—as has been explained already by the Minister of Finance—is to review the capability plan within the context of the 2016 announcement to ensure that what we are looking at is what we should be looking at that the proposals that have been put on my table do stack up and that I've had an opportunity to run due diligence over all of the assessment and evaluation processes that have taken place. It would be inappropriate for me this Government to simply rubber-stamp the work that was done by the previous Government particularly given—SPEAKER: Order! It's getting quite long.Hon RON MARK: —that they didn't make a decision.Hon Mark Mitchell: So when the Minister is sure of what he's looking at does he think that he will want to support the purchase of the P-8 Poseidon for our New Zealand Defence Forces?Hon RON MARK: That really is a wait-and-see question. When I have finished reviewing the information when we have looked at what is available and when we have finished our discussions we will announce that decision.
8. Child Poverty Reduction Bill—National Party Supplementary Order PapersHon ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Child Poverty ReductionChild Poverty Reduction Bill—National Party Supplementary Order Papers8. Hon ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Does she stand by her statement that There shouldn't be politics in child poverty"?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): Yes.Hon Alfred Ngaro: When she said "we will do a bit of consultation with the Opposition and see if we can get some support from them" why hasn't she responded to the letters from the Hon Paula Bennett seeking support and consideration of our Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on the Child Poverty Reduction Bill?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously usually the time in which we would have the ability to discuss those is when we come back to the House but I'd like to extend to the member that if he'd like to sit down in person and discuss those SOPs I'd be very happy to do that.Hon Alfred Ngaro: Given that she has had a month to consider the proposals put forward by the Opposition has she decided whether the Government will support our SOPs having been given their three invitations to discuss them as well?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually as I understand the original letter as I recall set out what the SOPs were intended to do but without the actual SOPs. I received the SOPs today. That gives me a good starting point to know what you'd like to discuss; so I'm happy now that we have the full substance that we can sit down and discuss them. In fact the concepts would have been premature because I see that you've actually proposed a specific target for for instance material hardship that wasn't contained in the letter. In fact it's a target that last year when suggested by the Children's Commissioner you rejected.SPEAKER: Order! I'm just going to remind the Prime Minister that I'm not Mr Ngaro.Hon Alfred Ngaro: So would she then be supportive of extending the submission date to allow the public to have their say on the three Supplementary Order Papers I tabled today in the spirit of taking politics out of child poverty? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That would be an unusual practice. I do think there's still ability for the public to be made aware of the suggestions that you're making but obviously the practice of this House is that we debate SOPs collectively when bills return to the House.Hon Alfred Ngaro: So just to clarify will she meet with the Leader of the Opposition and myself to discuss our Supplementary Order Papers on the Child Poverty Reduction Bill in the spirit of taking politics out of child poverty?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes."
7. Environment—Aluminium DrossDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister for the EnvironmentEnvironment—Aluminium Dross7. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: What announcements has the Government made regarding aluminium waste in Southland and Central Otago?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The coalition Government has reached an agreement in principle for the removal of stockpiles of partly treated aluminium dross a by-product from aluminium production from sites mainly across Southland. This dross produces harmful gases when in contact with water and while details are still to be finalised and a formal agreement signed I'm encouraged the parties have agreed to share the multimillion-dollar cost of its removal. Thanks are due to the local community the Gore district CEO and mayor Tracy Hicks who worked with local MPs Liz Craig and Mark Patterson the smelter and landlords to develop a solution. Dr Liz Craig: So why has the Government chosen this approach?Hon DAVID PARKER: This problem has a history going back many many years. The coalition however is an active Government that gets things done so we've taken a pragmatic approach to resolve it. Although polluters should be responsible for their own pollution not taxpayers or ratepayers—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday you banned ironic expression in questions. Surely you'll ban it in answers from Ministers.SPEAKER: I'm tempted Mr Brownlee. Continue Mr Parker.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Speaker. The coalition Government has adopted a pragmatic approach to resolution of the problem. Although polluters should be responsible for their own pollution not taxpayers or ratepayers the Crown and the council have agreed to share the $4 million cost with the smelter and landlords to avoid protracted and costly legal action and get the dross cleaned up.Dr Liz Craig: What will the Government do should this situation reoccur?Hon DAVID PARKER: We need to take care to avoid the moral hazard of stepping in. I believe primary responsibility for the by-product from the smelter should rest with the smelter. While we're pushing forward with this solution in this instance we've made it clear that if this issue arises again I will be expecting the Crown to sue those responsible.
6. Budget 2018—Capital Project FundingHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of FinanceBudget 2018—Capital Project Funding6. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: When he set the capital allowance for Budget 2018 at $3.4 billion in his Budget Policy Statement was it his intention to fully fund all capital projects announced to date within this allowance?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): My intention when I set the capital allowance for Budget 2018 was for it to fund the capital projects that will be announced in Budget 2018.Hon Amy Adams: Given his statement that We don't believe PPPs have a place in schools and hospitals" can he now confirm all new schools and the up to $1.6 billion Dunedin Hospital rebuild will be fully funded within Budget 2018's capital allowance?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The former Minister may have some particular figures in mind for those things. I don't know that those are the figures. What I can say is that on this side of the House we don't favour the privatisation of health and education.Hon Amy Adams: Given his repeated refusals to commit to funding the Defence Capability Plan is it his intention then to fund additional capital promises by cutting back on the defence budget?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I have said is that we want to undertake as we have agreed through our coalition agreement a review of defence procurement. When we do that we'll be able to understand what the costs are for making sure that we have effective capability and capacity in our Defence Force. What we won't be doing is writing out a ghost cheque for $20 billion.Hon Amy Adams: In his answer to question No. 3 in the House yesterday when he claimed that the previous National Government was spending $30.5 billion on capital over the next five years why did he deliberately use different time periods to compare the capital spending intentions of the previous and current Governments?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I did was use the figures that are available in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU).Hon Amy Adams: What in fact is the correct forecast of capital spending from 2018 to 2022 from the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update that he referenced yesterday?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I referenced figures from the HYEFU yesterday.Hon Amy Adams: No no no no no. No you didn't. Be very careful Grant.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I did.SPEAKER: Order! I think both supplementaries and answers have finished."
3. Charter Schools—Opinion PollDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of EducationCharter Schools—Opinion Poll3. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Education: Does he believe his Government has handled the issue of charter schools well?Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes.David Seymour: Will the Minister then be surprised to find recent opinion polling that shows 60 percent of New Zealanders disagree and disapprove of the Government's handling and 57 percent believe they should be allowed to stay open?Hon JENNY SALESA: On behalf of the Minister of Education I have not seen this poll that the member is speaking of but I can assure the member that this Government is focused on and committed to ensuring that all of our students have access to excellent public education.David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: A point of order the Hon—sorry David Seymour. I'm not promoting anyone.David Seymour: I turned that down. I seek leave to table a document which is a report from Curia Market Research on polling undertaken from 26 February—SPEAKER: Is it a private report or is it one that's been published on a website?David Seymour: It's not available anywhere else except on this piece of paper right now.SPEAKER: It's not available anywhere else other than on that piece of paper?David Seymour: That's right.SPEAKER: On that assurance from the member I will put it to the House. Is there any objection to that unique piece of paper being tabled? It appears there is. Right it won't be tabled. Is there a further supplementary?David Seymour: We take cyber-security very seriously. Will the Minister after she has read the polling reverse the Government's position and allow those 1500 students to continue in the school of their choice on those schools' terms?SPEAKER: Before the member answers I'm just going to do the adjustment to make it he" to make it in order rather than "she".Hon JENNY SALESA: I cannot comment on a report that I have not yet seen; so it would not be appropriate for me to say that I will reverse a decision given that I have not seen that piece of paper."
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a right of reply tonight. We've had some very heated discussion and to me that is positive because it shows everybody across this House cares deeply about youth and cares deeply about some answers that we need to find. But I want to put a few things in context here in that we are not talking about rounding up all the parents and putting them in jail. Sometimes when discussions are had people take this topic to the extreme and I really want to commend particular members like Jan Logie who stood up before and she made some very positive comments about some of the other tools that are in the toolbox. This bill was really about one tool that we were trying to add to the toolbox which was there because the youth justice system has not failed as someone mentioned before—I think it was you Darroch when you were very wound up—but we do have some people in the system that have reached extreme and it's very difficult to deal with. So there's a lot of tools in the toolbox that we can use and this was just going to be one other one.Alfred Ngaro talked about it not taking away the spirit of generosity. I don't know Bill Wiki who we had Peeni Henare paying a tribute to—I didn't know Bill Wiki but I commend people like that and I know that there's lots of people out there like that who are prepared to give of their time to give of their effort. There is no intention with putting this piece of legislation forward to start attacking people who are doing their absolute best but unfortunately there are some situations in this society that no matter what Oranga Tamariki do no matter what the police do and no matter what the justice system does—there are some people that just get too hard and this was really about putting an extra tool in the toolbox.I had to wonder at some point whether some members over the other side of the House actually had any agreement that parental responsibility existed at all. Teenagers need boundaries as I mentioned at the start of the discussion and I think it's really important that they get those and there's lots of ways there and I'm really pleased that we've had this discussion tonight. There's been lots of animation in the House and there's been lots of people who really care about the youth. It's my pleasure to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a very short call in opposition to this Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Bill. The reason that I oppose it is quite simply on the basis of the second purpose of this bill which relates to giving leave to apply to the Employment Authority to join for want of a better term one employer with a secondary employer for a personal grievance and that's simply because that already exists in New Zealand law. Provided there is a nexus of liability between one party and another you can go to the court and join the two as defendants. Therefore this just confuses the issue. The judiciary and lawyers have been doing this for some time. This confuses the issue.My first question to the member would be: what is the threshold of that application? Let's assume that it's a very low threshold—OK then two parties are now joined; they're jointly liable. How are we going to apportion the liability between them? This bill simply opens up a can of worms with regards to questions as to process and how this is going to work. When you're talking about a remedy for what a person who is bringing a personal grievance seeks what if there is a person on a secondment between one employer and the next?Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker and it's great to be able to rise on another member's bill tonight. Let me just congratulate Kieran McAnulty for having yours drawn. I think it was on the same day as mine so congratulations and well done.Hon Member: Very special.SIMEON BROWN: It was very special—quite the bonding moment I felt. I was reflecting on the speech that I've just been listening to where the Green Party was saying it's more likely to stop exploitation. Well I think it's more likely to stop people being employed I think is how you could sum up this piece of legislation. We already have in our legislation legislation which addresses exploitation and National has done a huge amount over our time in Government: increasing the support for the labour inspectorate passing legislation to eliminate zero wages modernising New Zealand's paid parental leave scheme—all these changes which have made a huge impact and have supported workers in their workplace and in the relationships that they have with their employers. We promote a fairer and more productive workplace by providing protections and benefits to both employers and employees. I think this bill could probably be more summed up as just ticking another one off the union's shopping list—for their support of the Labour Party over nine long years. This is just a few of the things on their shopping list: forcing businesses to accept multi-employer collective agreements even when those businesses were not part of the negotiations; union leaders being allowed to walk into businesses whenever they want; reintroducing a 30-day rule where new employees must be treated as if they are union members for the first 30 days and this is despite the fact that unions represent just 10 percent of private sector workers.The question I've got is: why was this bill not put in with Labour's Employment Relations Amendment Bill which was passed on 1 February as part of their 100 day plan? Why was it not included? If it's such an important piece of legislation why was it not put in place as a Supplementary Order Paper or something like that to make a change under that?This bill will make it harder for people to get on the employment ladder—for migrant workers young people and those who are looking for a first job. National does not support this bill. Thank you very much.
General Debate (continued)
Personal Explanations — Oral Questions—Question No. 10 to Minister
Smith NickPERSONAL EXPLANATIONSOral Questions—Question No. 10 to MinisterHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House under Standing Order 358 to make a personal explanation in respect of my question in the House this afternoon on electoral law.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that proceeding? There is none.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: During the course of question time—of the Minister of Justice about any other country that had high standards of democracy and human rights that had the sort of law being proposed for New Zealand the Minister answered New Zealand" and I raised a point of order with you about the appropriateness of that answer. In the course of that discussion I genuinely thought that I had used the word "another" as was on my notes and prepared questions for the time. I subsequently checked the audio I used and the word was "a" rather than "other". The second time I did use the word "another". I wish to apologise to you Mr Speaker and the House for what was a genuine error.SPEAKER: I thank the member and say that is now the end of that matter."
1. Families Package—Poverty Reduction Targets and Treasury Coding ErrorVIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceWEDNESDAY 21 MARCH 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSFamilies Package—Poverty Reduction Targets and Treasury Coding Error1. VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent advice has he received on the impact of the Government's Families Package?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week Treasury corrected the coding error that they had made which affected the projections of the number of children that would be lifted out of poverty by this Government's Families Package and by the previous Government's proposed Family Incomes Package. Treasury have urged caution about the underlying data used for these projections and work is ongoing to improve that data but Treasury continue to indicate that the Government's Families Package will still lift twice as many children out of poverty as the previous Government's package.Virginia Andersen: Does Treasury's coding error affect the impact this package will have on New Zealanders?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. The coding error and Treasury's subsequent revisions do not affect the number of families assisted by the Government's package—384000 families with children will still be better off by an average of $75 per week when the package is fully rolled out. There will still be a Best Start payment of $60 per week for all children in their first year and many thousands of children up to the age of three. There will still be a winter energy payment to help superannuitants and low-income earners pay their power bills and there will still be significant boosts to Working for Families and the accommodation supplement.Virginia Andersen: How does the Families Package support the Government's child poverty reduction targets?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government's target to reduce the proportion of children living in poverty from 15 percent now to 5 percent within 10 years remains unchanged. This Government's goal is for New Zealand to be the best place in the world for children. The Families Package will make a significant contribution to this goal. This Government will not neglect children living in poverty.
Tuesday 20 March 2018 - Volume 728