edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
2. Building Infrastructure—AnnouncementsCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister for InfrastructureBuilding Infrastructure—Announcements2. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What announcements has he made recently?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Infrastructure): Recently at the Building Nations Symposium in Auckland Cabinet mandated me to announce the establishment of a new independent entity. It has taken not longer than nine months to have this entity well on the way to being erected unlike the nine years where the industry called for it. The level of confidence reflected back to me through this decision reflects very well on the Government's approach to infrastructure. Clayton Mitchell: How will the new entity deliver longer-term infrastructure planning and strategy? Hon SHANE JONES: When we came into Government we discovered very quickly and very lucidly that there is a major infrastructure deficit. There is a desire on the part of the industry for us to create a portal: a clear point of visibility to enable international domestic trans-Tasman providers of either capital construction services or other professional services to work with the Crown so we can begin to deal more efficiently with the large infrastructure investment—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Blah-blah blah-blah blah-blah."Hon SHANE JONES: Yes Gerry how is the "Pink Panther" going? Thank you very much.SPEAKER: Order! Clayton Mitchell: Nice. Thank you—SPEAKER: Order! No the member will resume his seat. The last comment in two ways was inappropriate. The member will withdraw and apologise. Hon SHANE JONES: I withdraw and apologise. Clayton Mitchell: What feedback did the announcement receive from the private sector? Hon SHANE JONES: Infrastructure New Zealand described it as "positive news" "a major step forward for the Government" an acceptance that there is a wide number of challenges and through the creation of this independent agency at long last they see a Government that is willing to engage with them so that we get the right balance between our political aspirations and harnessing the talent of the private sector and the public sector to deliver infrastructure outcomes in a way that has not been delivered certainly over the last nine years. Kim Campbell an occasional critic of the Government—forgiven on this particular occasion—described it as the creation of an entity with a "mandate to pull together the long-term pipeline of our infrastructure needs." and I would just say that what I've done in nine months failed to come into being over nine years."
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
Sio Hon Aupito WilliamThird ReadingHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I move That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.By their very nature statutes amendment bills do not address significant policy matters. These amendments are technical; they are short and non-controversial. They make amendments that individually would not receive the necessary priority to be progressed and they are a very important and vital part of the Government's legislation programme—the Government of the day—and they allow us to keep the law up to date and accurate. Many of the amendments in the bill are designed to correct drafting errors omissions and incorrect references. Some amendments make improvements to how some Acts work in practice. Other amendments—changes—make technical changes to facilitate functions of governance. Following consideration by the Governance and Administration Committee the bill was reported back with two parts removed and one new part inserted as well as a number of minor tweaks to existing amendments. The bill before the House has had a further part inserted by a Supplementary Order Paper and this brings the final total to 29 Acts administered by 12 different Government agencies. As you will be aware the committee voted to include Supplementary Order Paper 55 that I tabled in the bill. This Supplementary Order Paper makes minor but urgent changes. It amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 which is expected to come into force on 1 October this year. Without this amendment champagne would have been inadvertently exempted from excise-equivalent duty which represents approximately $2.7 million per year in revenue for the Crown. This amendment remedies that omission.The amendments in this Supplementary Order Paper are suitable for inclusion in a statutes amendment bill. All parties were consulted on this Supplementary Order Paper and they supported the inclusion in the bill at this later stage. I just want to summarise by saying that these Supplementary Order Papers are important. They do not change policy in a significant way. They are minor they are short and they fix a range of legislation and they are the key way that the Government ensures that legislation keeps up with changes and remains fit for purpose.I want to acknowledge a number of people who were instrumental in the passage of this Statutes Amendment Bill. I firstly want to acknowledge members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their time and effort and for including amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act in the bill. Secondly I want to thank the committee of the whole House for voting in favour of the Supplementary Order Paper that I tabled. Finally I want to thank all parliamentary parties for their backing of the amendments contained in the bill. This bill was supported by every party at each stage of the process and does demonstrate the importance of working together as members and representatives of this House. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Sio Hon Aupito William; Rurawhe AdrianHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I want to thank the member Jian Yang for that contribution. I just want to take a brief call and that is to say that in the previous sitting of the committee I had tabled before the committee of the whole House two Supplementary Order Papers for inclusion in this bill: Supplementary Order Paper 55 which amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 and Supplementary Order Paper 53 which amends the Food Act 2014. Due to timing constraints on reaching cross-party support I have withdrawn Supplementary Order Paper 53 and this will be addressed at some stage later in the legislative programme.So I just want to clarify for the committee of the whole House that we will be progressing one Supplementary Order Paper and that is Supplementary Order Paper 55 which amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018. The purpose of this amendment is to insert a new Part 9A into the bill to repeal clauses 30(1) and 31(1) in Part 5 of Schedule 3 of the Customs and Excise Act 2018. These clauses exempt champagne from excise equivalent duty under the 2018 Act which is due to come into force on 1 October this year. This was not intended and would cost the Crown $2.7 million per year if the clauses are not removed. So I thought it was important to clarify that for the committee before we continue the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Jacqui Dean.Hon Member: Oh good choice.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): OK sorry I didn't realise that. I thought—well it's good it's great. Thank you Mr Chair. As I said in my earlier speech actually this bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) deals with a number of issues. Some amendments would make Acts more rational some would update some Acts and some would simply clarify the statements in some Acts.So let's look at Part 22 Policing Act 2008". Part 22 would amend the Policing Act 2008. That would give police the power to basically destroy or give away some properties that police are holding. So at the moment police have to sell the properties by auction which is of course sometimes harder to do because there are properties there which may not be valuable at all. So the police may decide that these properties are not particularly valuable and could be destroyed or sometimes could be given away by the police. So that would give the police more freedom in dealing with lost or found property. That is basically making the Act more rational I would say. So this is Part 22.Also then if you look at some other parts in this bill you will find that these amendments would clarify a few things. For example Part 12. Part 12 would deal with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. Now basically this would give this Act more clarity by clarifying some particular statements. If you look at Part 12 you will find that it says that clause 42 amends a transitional provision in section 164A relating to permits issued under the Maritime Transport Act 1994. The amendment provides that "[A] reference in [the] permit to Maritime New Zealand the Director of Maritime New Zealand or the Director must be treated as if it were a reference to the Environmental Protection Authority." So this would clarify basically the reference.Now the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is particularly important to us because we have about 4.1 million square kilometres of it which is of course a huge area. It is actually about 15 times the land that we have. So the EEZ actually makes New Zealand a wealthy country in terms of resources. It is therefore very important for us to make sure we have a good understanding of the laws and also to make sure that we are able to protect our EEZ. If you look at Part 2 of this bill that is an attempt to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993."
Rurawhe AdrianSTATUTES AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeDebate resumed from 16 August.Parts 1 to 28 and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). Members when we were last considering the bill we were debating the question that Parts 1 to 28 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part. Dr Jian Yang was speaking and has 3 minutes 51 seconds remaining should he so wish.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much. It's with real pleasure that I rise to talk and commend this bill the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill to the House on its second reading.This is not a bill about free trade. There's never really been such a thing as free trade and it's a bit pernicious to bandy that term about. What this is about is a framework of rules. We need regulated trade and we need fair trade balanced trade and sustainable trade. That's what this bill is about. I must say it is a huge step forward in trade agreements because for the first time it recognises that equitable trade does not necessarily mean the same rules for everyone. I'm very pleased to see that in this PACER-Plus agreement New Zealand and Australia are really stepping up to build the capacity in our Pacific neighbours to engage in meaningful trade by building capacity around customs procedures to ensure that the biosecurity measures are in place so that in fact those economies can develop and wherever they develop whether it be in agricultural exports or whether it be in light industry or fishing—whatever it might be—in fact they can generate real wealth in their own countries by trade around the Pacific with New Zealand and Australia and elsewhere.So this trade agreement is an outstanding one because it's really based on the concept of trade for all. It isn't simply trade that benefits developed nations; it's trade that's based on a genuine understanding of both the economy and the culture of our neighbours genuine friendship mutual benefit collective ambition and sustainability. That really ties in with the Pacific reset. We simply don't want to have our neighbours limping along and leaning on us. We want to have them as empowered fully developed nations with developed economies generating wealth for their families. That is what this bill does and for that reason I commend it to the House.
Radhakrishnan Priyanca; Rurawhe Adrian; Tolley AnnePRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It is with pleasure that I rise to take a call on the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. I say with pleasure" because I'm actually a new member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and this is the first trade-related bill that I've had the honour to speak to in this House. Mr Simon O'Connor has left but what a fine select committee it is under his chairmanship as well.The Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill and indeed the time that I've spent on the select committee has given me a much greater insight into how we can use trade policy to contribute to addressing some of the global and regional issues of concern. Indeed our Trade for All Agenda that the Government recently announced—and indeed we're launching public consultations on the Trade for All Agenda and I'm looking forward to the Auckland consultation that I'll get to attend next week. Indeed that's what the agenda does.Even though I'm a relatively new member to this House I've had the privilege of going on some of our overseas trips that have been trade-focused as well. I've seen the kudos that this Government has received because of the inclusivity of our trade negotiations internationally where trade isn't just "trade for the sake of" but also looks at mitigating some of the impacts that it might have in terms of our environment being inclusive of some of the more marginalised groups when it comes to trade and in fact looking at some of the gender aspects of trade as well which is what our Trade for All Agenda does—mitigating the climate change impacts that our Pacific nations are undergoing in fact as well.That's why the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill is so exciting. It's not just a trade negotiation but a trade negotiation that takes into account some of the aspirations and the needs of our Pacific partners as well because we all know that a stable and prosperous Pacific is a secure Pacific and New Zealand is part of the Pacific. The global trading environment is one that's becoming much more challenging for small countries particularly like—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Colleagues the House is resumed. We are debating the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill. When we broke before dinner Priyanca Radhakrishnan was speaking and she has seven minutes 25 seconds remaining to speak should she so wish to do. Otherwise is—Alastair Scott: Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh I call Alastair Scott."
Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill — First Reading
Urgent Debates — Hon Clare Curran—Removal from Cabinet
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I stand here today proud to be a member of a ministry led by the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern a woman who shows leadership who shows fairness and who shows proportionality. Minister Clare Curran has paid a hefty price for behaviour that she has admitted herself was not up to the standards demanded by our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. She has been stripped of two portfolios and she has been placed outside Cabinet.Now I want us to actually just calm down a little in this House and actually think about what has happened. A Minister did not meet standards. She did not record a meeting in her diary. Was this something that was revealed by the Opposition? Was this something that came out? No. This is something that the Prime Minister found out about and then dealt with openly. Did she try to sweep it under the carpet? No. She dealt with it fairly she dealt with it decisively and she dealt with it transparently. She was the one who made public what had happened with Ms Curran's failure to record the meeting in her diary after it was found out and I think we should keep that proportionality in mind. That is what leadership looks like.What we've had here is a lot of behaviour that begins with the letter h"—a word that we can't say in this House—from members on the opposite benches this afternoon. To have Paula Bennett standing there talking about standards when Ms Bennett as a Minister released the details of two beneficiaries who dared to criticise her Government—well I think she should come back and talk about the standards that her boss John Key required of her because that is despicable behaviour. Then for Nick Smith to stand there and say that to do things twice was unbelievable—well Mr Smith you intervened on Bronwyn Pullar's case not once but twice. It wasn't just once.So this is a rough place and this is a workplace where the consequences for not meeting standards are high. Ms Curran has not met the standards demanded by Jacinda Ardern and she has paid the price. But I think what we need to do is we need to make sure that when we're standing in the Opposition benches having a go we actually think back about other things that have happened over the life of this House. This is a place where perhaps we do have to accept that when people make mistakes they pay a price bigger than in most workplaces. I am proud of the kind of leadership we are seeing from Jacinda Ardern. She is a leader who is leading by example. She is a leader who is demanding the highest ever standards of her Ministers who is dealing with issues as they come up and not attempting to sweep them under the carpet as we saw from the previous administration. So what we have is an unfortunate situation where a member of this House has paid a price and we have a Prime Minister who we can rightly be proud of. Thank you."
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Well goodness me! If we've ever heard a case of the pot calling the kettle black that absolutely had to be the finest contribution that we could have ever had from an Opposition member who was if I recall demoted from his rank as a former Minister for ACC for having secret meetings with a former client of that ministry that I think he probably wishes he'd put in his diary. So if we want to get really frank about previous ministerial behaviour I think that some of those members currently sitting on the Opposition benches need to take some hard time to reflect on their previous administration's lack of administration.Look they say in sport that the best defence is offence. And if I was the member for Tauranga right now I'd be wanting to put up a mighty good defence to cast away any light that could ever be put on me because I'd know I had a bright light a burning light a sniper-red light shining at the back of my head that I would not want to draw any further attention to—whether that be the polls that I know that the member from Tauranga will be seeing crashing down or whether that's public opinion about the fact that they have some internal squeaky leaks that they need to tidy up on the Opposition benches. They will do whatever they need to do to distract from the fact that they are on a sinking ship with a captain that's losing credibility.I turn to the matter at hand. The question is whether our Prime Minister has acted with decisiveness with certainty and with a steady hand. What we've seen from our Prime Minister in the management of Minister Curran has been absolutely decisive has been absolutely steely and has been absolutely assertive. Therefore it is with great pleasure that I can say we stand as a Government that is prepared to act in a determined decisive and swift manner in holding our Ministers to a high account. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.
Visitors — Japan—House of Representatives of Japan
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I think the Leader of the Opposition actually might have his inquiries mixed up. He spoke about stupidity and he spoke about the use of secret phones—well clearly that's a conversation that he's been having on that side of the House with his own inquiry into his own caucus members. And then he asked about whether or not the Prime Minister had looked them in the eye. Well my challenge to the Opposition leader is to answer this question in the House today: have you looked your own caucus members in the eye and asked them the question: who did it yes or no—yes or no whether he has done that or not already. Clearly this is a failure of leadership on his part. I'd suggest that he might do his caucus a favour and resign but I challenge him to do this side of the House a favour and keep to his guns. Stay strong.I rise on behalf of this Government and specifically on behalf of New Zealand First to address the puffery from the Opposition leader and to say to him and those on that side that the Prime Minister has made a hard decision. She made the right decision when she removed the Hon Clare Curran from Cabinet and removed her from those portfolios. Clearly this Government expects a high level of conduct and integrity from all of its MPs on this side of the House and most especially from its Ministers.Minister Curran's actions were unacceptable. This Government continues to stand for transparency and accountability and Minister Curran has taken full responsibility for that and has followed proper process. So the Minister has been removed; definitive and quite hard actions have been taken. She has been removed from Cabinet and two of the portfolios will now be in the hands of the Hon Dr Megan Woods and the Hon Chris Hipkins.This is a stable Government that stands proudly to say that we have high expectations and we are willing to hold our own to account. Thank you very much.
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATESHon Clare Curran—Removal from CabinetSPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Simon Bridges seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the removal of the Hon Clare Curran from Cabinet and her resignation of two portfolios. This is a particular case of recent occurrence that involved ministerial responsibility. Not every ministerial resignation will lead to an urgent debate being accepted particularly where the Minister concerned has resigned portfolios rather than ceased being a Minister altogether. However in this instance the Prime Minister has removed a Minister from Cabinet for conduct involving answers to questions from this House. After weighing up the circumstances and the public interest in ministerial probity I have decided to allow the debate to be held today. Therefore I call on the Hon Simon Bridges to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.
Jackson WillieQuestion No. 11 to Minister—Amended AnswerHon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Mr Speaker I just wanted to correct something that I said in the answer.SPEAKER: Order! The member's going to seek leave.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Can I seek leave to make a correction?SPEAKER: Is there any objection? The Hon Willie Jackson.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you Mr Speaker. Sadly I've made a mistake over the 80 percent to 72 percent young people not in education employment or training. I meant 80000 to 72000. Thank you.
Mallard TrevorVISITORSJapan—Delegation House of RepresentativesSPEAKER: I'm sure that members will wish to welcome Mr Shinjiro Koizumi and his delegation from the House of Representatives of Japan who are present in the gallery.
Mallard Trevor; Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaTUESDAY 4 SEPTEMBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.PRAYERSSPEAKER: Because it's Tongan Language Week I have asked Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki to say the prayer in Tongan.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua māfimafi kuo mau taa'imālie 'i he 'ofá. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke ke malu'i 'a e Kuiní mo tataki 'emau ngāue 'i Fale Aleá ke fai 'aki 'a e poto faka'Otua 'ofá mo e 'ulungaanga malū ko e 'uhí ke mo'ui mo nofo melino 'a e fonuá 'Emeni.
Wednesday 15 August 2018 - Volume 732
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill be now read a third 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 third time.
Overseas Investment Amendment Bill — Third Reading
10. Economy—Employment and WagesMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyEconomy—Employment and Wages10. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What is the Government doing to lift wages?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): This Government supports the right of Kiwis to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill restores the rights of Kiwi workers to bargain for decent pay and conditions that existed before 2015. This Government believes that families need enough income to participate in society. That's why we've already raised the minimum wage. We've extended the living wage to the core Public Service and especially important is pay equity. I applaud yesterday's historic pay equity settlement for education support workers.Marja Lubeck: What are his plans in relation to lifting wages?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I will shortly introduce the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to lift wages for people working in female-dominated professions. The Government is working with business and unions to develop fair pay agreements. We plan to raise the minimum wage further to $20 an hour by 1 April 2021 and through the Future of Work forum we are preparing for a more productive more sustainable more inclusive economy with a highly skilled well-paid workforce.Marja Lubeck: Why does the Government think that increasing wages is important?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sadly the share of income that goes to working people has fallen drastically in the last 30 years. That is one of the major reasons New Zealand wages lag so far behind Australian wages for comparable jobs. It's a major cause of the growth in inequality. A better paid workforce leads to a more productive economy. That's good for society and it's good for business.
9. Employment Relations—Industrial Action and Employment Law ChangeHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyEmployment Relations—Industrial Action and Employment Law Change9. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How many people have gone on strike this year compared to previous periods and will the Government's employment relations policies encourage more strike action in the future?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In answer to the first part of the question accurate data on how many people have gone on strike this year is not yet available. Work stoppage data is self-reported and subject to delay and collation. In answer to the second part of the question no.Hon Scott Simpson: In light of all the strikes under this Government does he think that this makes a mockery of the Prime Minister who has said previously that there will not be any national strikes under her Government?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No and the member needs to listen more clearly as the Prime Minister clarified earlier in this question time that that comment was made in relation to fair pay agreements.Hon Scott Simpson: Can the Minister confirm that the Government's changes to employment relations law that take away the right of businesses to deduct pay for a partial strike even if the partial strike brings the entire production process of a business to a halt will make strike action more frequent in the future?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. In fact I would suggest to the member that having the opportunity to take a partial strike without penalty—partial strikes such as for instance wearing a campaign T-shirt to work—means that those union members are more likely to take lower-level action rather than resorting directly to strike action.Hon Scott Simpson: Can the Minister confirm that the Government's employment law changes mean that employers will be required to disclose the personal information of employees to unions whether they're union members or not and that these changes are strongly opposed by the Privacy Commissioner?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No. Again the member is incorrect in his characterisation of the legislation. Should a new employee not wish to have their information passed on to the union they can opt out.Hon Scott Simpson: Why then is he pressing ahead with changes to the employment relations law that even the Privacy Commissioner has opposed on the basis that the employee's personal information may be handed over to unions without their knowledge?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Because this is a Government that believes in people getting a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and we are committed to restoring the rights that workers had before they were ripped away by the National Party in 2015.
7. One Billion Trees Programme—AnnouncementsMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of ForestryOne Billion Trees Programme—Announcements7. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made regarding the One Billion Trees programme?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Not wanting to be repetitive but all brands and all products are better understood when they're constantly heard about and seen. The $240 million programme represents a grants scheme $118 million—a substantial improvement on a contribution that was parsimonious and reflective of the last nine years. In relation to the partnership fund work is under way at the moment to find appropriate partners. And although it wouldn't have been where I'd have started in assuring the House that this is not just an industry thing I understand my Te Uru Rākau officials are talking with Gary Taylor which is not where I would have started but I've encouraged them to get on with it.Mark Patterson: What feedback has he received from the forestry sector to the pending Overseas Investment Act changes?Hon SHANE JONES: Within the overseas investment legislative changes shepherded forward by the Minister a key provision has provided daylight has decluttered the consent allocation process and gives certainty something akin to a primrose path for an industry that has been blighted by neglect uncertainty and broken promises—indeed right back to the time when Graeme Hart appealed to John Key snuffed out by Mr Nick Smith to start planting trees nine years ago.Mark Patterson: How does the programme support the creation of jobs?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Lining the pockets of billionaires!Hon SHANE JONES: The importance of employing new battalions of New Zealanders in this nation-building strategy of planting trees both exotic and native—what lies at the pith of this policy genius that being the programme not the speaker what we are doing in that regard—SPEAKER: Please keep me out of the debate.Hon SHANE JONES: We are wheeling out Mr Speaker a whole host of initiatives touching the hard end of the employee spectrum. It is more expensive than relying on orthodox approaches and we are also working in partnership with industry and I am preparing a paper for additional interventions that improve the prospects of our young people working in this industry with likeminded employers.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is it not correct to say as the Hon Gerry Brownlee has said that this is just lining the pockets of millionaires?Hon SHANE JONES: If I can make the observation that it was not a millionaire" but a "billionaire" Graeme Hart who came to John Key the Prime Minister who was the millionaire. It was the billionaire Mr Graeme Hart who brought forward a proposal snuffed out by Nick Smith; so you're quite right: it does not actually line the pockets of someone who's a millionaire. It was designed as a possible intervention with New Zealand's billionaire. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Right. Thank you both."
4. Education—Government Response to Concerns of Primary School TeachersJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of EducationEducation—Government Response to Concerns of Primary School Teachers4. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to address the concerns raised by primary school teachers?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government is listening very carefully to the concerns that are being raised by primary school teachers and we do take them very seriously. To name three things that we have done already: we've reduced teacher workload by abolishing national standards; this year's Budget provided the biggest increase in learning support funding in a decade; and the Government has made a clear commitment to addressing pay equity claims in the education system which will ensure that our teacher aides—some of the lowest-paid people in the education workforce—are properly paid and respected.Jo Luxton: What actions has the Government taken to restore teachers' voice to their own professional body?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government does recognise that one of the concerns teachers have been expressing is that they want their profession to be respected and recognised and valued. The Government has made a priority of restoring democratic representation to the Teaching Council of New Zealand to ensure that teachers do have a say in how their own profession is governed.Jo Luxton: What is the offer on the table and how does this compare to previous years?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Whilst we recognise that pay is not the only issue that teachers are raising during these negotiations we do realise that pay is a legitimate concern to be raised during negotiations. The offer that is on the table with the primary teachers at the moment is more than double what they were offered under the previous Government. To put the cost figures out there it is a $484 million offer compared to a $215 million offer which was the highest settlement reached under the previous Government.
Guy Nathan; Williams PotoHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thanks Madam Chair. I acknowledge the Minister Damien O'Connor and thank him for taking a call. It's good that he stood up and addressed some of the concerns that we have on this side of the House. We've got a few more that haven't been discussed in detail so presumably we're talking about Part 1 this evening. This is a two-part bill with a title and commencement debate to come as well.What I'm really keen to hear from the Minister and he may need to go to his officials is as I understand it this bill changes—indeed as he has alluded to the change when a transaction occurs from a farm to another farm that isn't registered under the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system. As I understand it it's a two-legged stool. There needs to be ascending and receiving transactions occurring. Can the Minister confirm that if this law is changed—well potentially it's tomorrow—the NAIT system i.e. the software the hardware and the overall system can cope with this law change that is proposed in this bill? That's a very important and alive question that I would really like to hear from the Minister on because I'm hearing that potentially the NAIT system right now doesn't have the capability to be able to handle that transaction. So therefore if that is so you would wonder why the urgency is on that particular aspect.I understand the intent of it and I support it. But if the NAIT system indeed needs to be turbocharged in its hardware it may require funding. Where's that funding going to come from? Is it going to come from split-share—35 percent MPI; 65 percent from industry? I think that's a very important point that needs to be debated and discussed through the select committee process.What was also good to hear from the Minister this evening was that a personal dwelling—i.e. a farmer's house—isn't part of the warrantless powers but we still have a concern and you heard about it from some of our speeches this afternoon that farmers being like they are tend to do a lot of business around the kitchen table. And when a salesperson comes in or an MPI compliance officer or the like they tend to get invited in to sit around the kitchen table. Suddenly they are in the house and then these warrantless powers that the Minister is proposing to extend—suddenly the person is already in the dwelling. It would be interesting to know the safeguards around that.We haven't had a real sense from the Minister. He's indicated that there is another NAIT bill that's being worked up by officials probably as we speak because he's already indicated there are 15 recommendations that need to be worked up. They may not all be coming in that bill because we're probably addressing a couple of them now. The first question is: what's the timing of that? And if it's in the next bill—the NAIT Amendment Bill (No 2)—if it's going to be in the next—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Sorry to interrupt you. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
McAnulty Kieran; Williams PotoIn CommitteeKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. [Interruption] Oh there is objection? There is objection. Well we will not have it as one.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Ahiahi mārie Te Mana Whakawā.[Good afternoon Madam Deputy Speaker.]It is an absolute privilege to take the last call in the second reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. I want to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to all the people in the industry. As someone who enjoys a quality steak I want to take this opportunity to say thank you very much for your contribution. Leadership is about caring for people and I want to thank the industry for their caring for people and of course to extend my thanks to the Hon Minister Damien O'Connor for his leadership in this case.There are four words that stand out for me in this policy statement and the words are food safety" and "quality assurance" and that's the leadership that this Minister is leading. I commend this bill to the House. Malo.Bill read a second time."
National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Madam Deputy Speaker I rise to reiterate my support for this bill. Can I congratulate the Minister Damien O'Connor for his leadership in this matter. I commend this bill to the House.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker I appreciate the opportunity to contribute this debate. I would like to acknowledge the Minister Damien O'Connor—a very good Tasman gentleman—for bringing this bill to the House. I'm going to take a short but substantial call. This bill is simply tidying up an issue around stock movements. I commend this bill to the House.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'll just take a very short call in the second reading but I would actually commend the previous speaker David Bennett on what was a fairly measured contribution and I think probably something I'm not terribly used to from him on matters in this House. No I thought the commendation of the Minister's performance the recognition of the issue at hand—and it is a very serious issue we're dealing with here. I think we just need to step back and take that into account. We can get carried away with the process but it's what we're trying to achieve that is a really important thing here. This is to give our Ministry for Primary Industries the tools that they need to respond appropriately to this very very important matter.So we'll look forward to—within the committee stage of this bill—going through the details. There are some genuine queries and questions being raised by the Opposition. I know the Minister has got the answers to all of that and we'll look forward to responding in a bit more substance through that process. But that would be my urgent urge: to step back and remember what we're trying to achieve here. We're trying to bolster this response to this very very important biosecurity outbreak. So with that I commend this bill in the second reading to the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): This is an important bill and I therefore commend it to the House. Thank you.
O'Connor DamienSecond ReadingHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I move that the piece of legislation—the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill—we're dealing with—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Would the member like the motion that the member needs to put? Just a moment.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Thank you—I apologise to the members. I move That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Thank you.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It's marvellous to be following what is somewhat of an East Coast line-up of speakers following the MP for Napier the Hon Stuart Nash and one of his constituents Lawrence Yule. Two Napier-based MPs and here we have the real voice for Wairarapa standing up to put my support for this and it is marvellous to have the opportunity to do so.What a marvellous opportunity to be able to stand up and lend my voice of support to yet another example of this House coming together for the sake of the rural and regional sector of this country. But is it actually coming together? That's the question. Is the House actually coming together on this very important issue—of course the amendment to the National Animal Identification and Tracing something that is crucial to the rural and regional sector? No—no it's not. It might show it when it comes time to voting but actually what we've heard tonight are these thinly veiled pleas to keep politics out of it.What we've seen from the National Party is that they stand up and they say Look I'm not going to bring politics into this." and then spend nine minutes talking about politics claiming that they have always been neutral throughout the Mycoplasma bovis response. What a load of rubbish—what a load of rubbish.The previous speaker Lawrence Yule wondered why the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has an issue with trust. Perhaps if the National Party didn't take every opportunity they could to put the boot into MPI we might actually be able to have a sector that backs the department. Perhaps when the issue that caused rise to this bill Mycoplasma bovis arose if that side of the House didn't stop playing politics and trying to put the boot into the Minister we could have actually had a universal approach to this. It wasn't until after a couple of weeks that the National Party actually got the message from the farming sector and industry reps that they didn't appreciate having their party putting the boot into them that those members got the message.You've got representatives like Alastair Scott in Wairarapa who was standing there at every opportunity putting the boot into MPI. But after two to three weeks when the Minister actually started to put forward proposals and actually demonstrate that he was bringing industry along with him members just like Alastair Scott got the message and they shut up and I will find that tonight will be exactly the same thing.Actually it doesn't matter because at the end of the night the National Party when they've stopped playing games will vote for this bill because they know it's important they know that the sector wants it and they know that the regional and rural areas that they are supposed to represent want it. It is this Government that's bringing it to the country and fixing a problem that they created.Bill read a first time."
National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill — First Reading
Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I don't intend to speak long on this bill. I'd like to commend Minister O'Connor for his swift action in bringing this bill to the House and also to congratulate the Government for the work that it's doing in the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis.I just want to say that I'm pleased that the Opposition will be supporting this bill. I know they're going through a set play set piece of you know moan and groan about urgency and we'll hear more of it as the contributions go along. But they are supporting this bill because they know that it's needed—it's needed. We've learnt from these terrible incursions these outbreaks that happen across the primary sector the damage that it can cause. All we are doing is strengthening the National Animal Identification and Tracing provisions to ensure that the system works properly. It's all about just tracking the traceability of stock. It's had a long history the system. Unfortunately the uptake hasn't been as good as it should be nor has the enforcement but we're fixing it and we're taking swift action to do that.Everyone knows that this system is important and I would just like to congratulate those farmers who have been playing by the rules and putting on those tags and entering the data. This is a wake-up call I guess to all those that haven't because the price that we have to pay is too great. We've learnt from the whey protein contamination incident—those sorts of events—and likewise with the outbreak of Mycoplasma bovis that these organisms can cause huge destruction across our primary sector our exports our brand our reputation and our wealth as a country. So we need to take these systems seriously. This isn't representing new policy. All we're doing is making sure that the legislation reflects the legislative intent that's always been there and so I support this legislation.I acknowledge the Opposition. Yes they may have concerns and I guess if they want they've got 20-plus hours of debate in this House and questions that they can ask to tease out any issues or concerns that they may have. But ultimately we need this legislation. It's good for our primary sector and it's going to be good for our country and I support it at its first reading. Kia ora tātou.
Whaitiri Meka; Williams PotoHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The timing of today's bill is important as we are at the end of a long winter and we're about to head into spring calving. The movement of animals will increase the biosecurity and animal welfare challenges and that is why my colleague the Hon Damien O'Connor has introduced this bill under urgency to this House.As the Associate Minister of Agriculture responsible for animal welfare I'm adamant that there is no place for animal cruelty. The suffering caused by the M. bovis outbreak defines animal cruelty so this Government is committed to strengthening biosecurity by overhauling the Biosecurity Act and making it fit for purpose so that outbreaks like this don't happen again.So tonight on the floor we are debating this National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. The Minister has gone through the parts that it's amending. It's attempting to remove the requirements as declared on the search warrants. It talks about aligning the powers under the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act for warrantless inspections and it also talks about the clarification—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry for interrupting the member but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Members the House has resumed. We were debating the first reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill. Are you seeking the call?Hon Amy Adams: Well I thought Meka had some time left but I will if she's not here.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes she did but obviously she's not going to seek the call. So I call the Hon Amy Adams.