edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Flavell Te Ururoa: Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFlavell Te Ururoa: Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 24 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11185. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):I seek leaveme kī kia wāwāhi te āhuatanga ō wā tātou kōrero i tēnei rā nā runga i te āhuatanga o te kupu kōrero ki te wāhi ngaro ā-karakia nei nō reira kai te īnoi atu ki Te Whare kia whakatūwherahia i roto i te kupu kōrero ā-karakia nei kia īnoi atu ki a Adrian Rurawhe pea hei wāwahi i wā tātou kōrero mena e pai ana tēnā ki Te Whare.[I seek leave shall we say to re-examine the way we begin today in terms of opening up our contributions in regard to acknowledging the unseen place in a traditional way or through a prayer. Therefore I seek the indulgence of the House that we proceed to do that by way of a prayer and furthermore respectfully ask whether Adrian Rurawhe might perhaps lead the way with a prayer to open up our contributions if the House so desires.]
Vote: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11852. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That clauses 1 to 4 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill without amendment and the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill without amendment.Report adopted.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11842. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11842. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11842. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11840. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Schedule 2 agreed to.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11839. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Schedule 1 agreed to.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11839. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11824. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11820. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11819. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11817. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11814. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Borrows Chester: Sittings of the HouseText is subject to correctionBorrows Chester: Sittings of the House[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11852. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Faafoi Kris: Sittings of the HouseText is subject to correctionFaafoi Kris: Sittings of the House[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11852. Text is subject to correction.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Given the efficiency of the Committee of the whole House I seek leave for the House to adjourn.
Mallard Trevor: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11852. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am not going to let the member carry on debating something that is out of scope. The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye—oh sorry. I will make it clear as I have previously that I am not putting Mr Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper because it is out of scope.
Mallard Trevor: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11848. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK the member will resume his seat. David Seymour—sorry Eugenie Sage.David Seymour: Mr Chair you can’t take the call away.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It was an absolute mistake. I call Eugenie Sage.
Mitchell Mark: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMitchell Mark: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11847. Text is subject to correction.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I just wanted to open my speech tonight by going back to the chair of the Government Administration Committee—the very good chair of our committee the Hon Ruth Dyson—and some comments that she made and directed towards Mr Seymour in his role as a parliamentary under-secretary. She challenged him in terms of when he had actually begun releasing documents under the Official Information Act (OIA). He came back and he was very clear about the fact that he had signed an agreement with the Minister of Education Minister Parata in December 2014 and that is when the process had begun. Just looking at the documentation that I have I can confirm that this bill was introduced into the House on 23 July 2015 and it was referred to the committee on 14 October.Hon Ruth Dyson: When was it lodged? You don’t know the answer to that question do you?MARK MITCHELL: Well that might be a very good question. If the chair takes a call that might actually be a very good question for the chair to answer.Hon Ruth Dyson: The Chair’s there.MARK MITCHELL: The chair of the select committee—the chair of the select committee. I have been waiting all night for the chair to take a call. I was assured that she will so we will wait and see. I think that this just supports and highlights the comments that were made by David Seymour—that actually he had already initiated this process under the OIA before the bill was even introduced into the House. So I just wanted to support him on that.I would be the first to admit that I was a bit cynical when this bill was introduced to the House.Hon Ruth Dyson: Surely not!MARK MITCHELL: No that was at the start of the process and I will explain why I was cynical because under a Labour Government—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No the member is not going to explain why he was cynical. What he is going to do now is go back to debating clauses 1 to 4 which we are currently considering—remember? We had a first reading and a second reading. We have agreed to the principles of the bill. All we are doing now is debating whether these clauses do the job or not.MARK MITCHELL: I think the clauses will do the job Mr Chair. I do not think there is any concern or worry about that at all. But I am just very interested that our Parliament has actually had parliamentary under-secretaries before under both National and Labour Governments and the legislation that existed then seemed to work very well. I think we had the Hon Dover Samuels who was a parliamentary under-secretary. He seemed to operate very well under that legislation and so I could not see initially what the immediate issue was under the existing legislation. Parliamentary under-secretaries have obviously served very well and very transparently under previous Governments so—
Hudson Brett: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionHudson Brett: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11846. Text is subject to correction.]BRETT HUDSON (National): I just note thanks to the Committee for agreeing to treat this all as one question. So let us move on.
Foster-Bell Paul: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionFoster-Bell Paul: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11843. Text is subject to correction.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Kaiwhakahaere I apologise for my tardy erection in the House. [Interruption] In speaking on this first clause of the—[Interruption] I am sorry. I apologise if I have embarrassed the member Mrs Martin but—[Interruption] Yes. In speaking on this first clause of the member—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! [Interruption] Order! I think if members could get a grip we will just—[Interruption] Just get on with it.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: In speaking to this first clause of the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill in the name of the honourable member Adrian Rurawhe during this Committee of the whole House debate I first want to say—Richard Prosser: The upstanding member.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Yes a very upstanding member—thank you Mr Prosser. The bill has a number of concerns for people on this side of the House but from the outset I want to indicate that the Government will be supporting it. That is because this is a Government that is concerned with transparency. We are believers in open government. We think it is good that the public of New Zealand can have scrutiny over what the Government does with its money and how it uses the resources granted to the executive by Parliamentand for those reasons in particular this part of the bill does meet with favour from this side of the House. So I want to congratulate the member Mr Rurawhe on actually convincing Government members with the power of his debate particularly in the select committee stage—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The Committee was invited and declined the opportunity to have a broad-ranging debate across the clauses. I now ask the member to address clause 1.Kris Faafoi: I seek leave for all clauses to be taken as one debate again.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to get a little bit of advice because my understanding is that you cannot seek leave for the same thing twice. I am advised—which is slightly different from the way that Sir Gerry Wall used to rule well back—that the House is its own master and I will put the question. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The member gets to start again.
Faafoi Kris: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionFaafoi Kris: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11842. Text is subject to correction.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I seek leave for all clauses to be debated as one.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): So you want clauses 1 to 4 and Mr Seymour’s amendments—soon to be ruled out of order—to be debated as one question. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Mallard Trevor: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11841. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No he did not. Right.
Mallard Trevor: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11839. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise. I have fouled this up by giving the member a call and a bit of extra time. We will go straight to the question. We have of course debated schedules 1 and 2 as part of the earlier debate.
Foster-Bell Paul: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionFoster-Bell Paul: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11839. Text is subject to correction.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I want to reiterate some of the arguments that have been made earlier in so far as they apply to the schedule of this bill. We on the Government side do not have—
Borrows Chester: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionBorrows Chester: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11824. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No I pushed the button all by myself.
Dyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionDyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11820. Text is subject to correction.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I move That the question be now put.
Sepuloni Carmel: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionSepuloni Carmel: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11818. Text is subject to correction.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Tisch Lindsay: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11817. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We will have silence when votes are taken thank you.
Henare Peeni: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionHenare Peeni: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11817. Text is subject to correction.]PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.
Mitchell Clayton: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMitchell Clayton: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11814. Text is subject to correction.]CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I move That the question be now put.
Logie Jan: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionLogie Jan: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11811. Text is subject to correction.]JAN LOGIE (Green): I will keep this short and sweet because we have traversed the content and the detail of this bill significantly already in numerous debates. I would just like to speak to Part 1 and put on record the Green Party’s support for this bill but also acknowledge that the 22 weeks of paid leave that is in Part 1 is an accommodation that has been made by this member. I doubt that anyone on this side of the House would think it is ideal. With the amount of time that this House has been discussing the need for 26 weeks I think that actually everyone on this side of the House is probably ready to go straight to 26 weeks to give the country what it has asked so clearly for.However the fact that we have 22 weeks’ paid leave in Part 1 of this bill is another demonstration of the absolute willingness of the sponsor of this bill Sue Moroney to bend backwards to do everything in her power to try to persuade this Government to give the country what it wants. In the last iteration of this bill she confined it down to significantly premature babies and children with very significant disabilities—down to very significant measures. She brought it right down to try to get it over the line for even one group of people and still this Government just pushed and pushed and was so mean that it could not deliver it.The truth is Part 1 of this bill is another reflection of this Government’s meanness and how far this member has had to go to try to get it over the line. It is a real shame because actually all the evidence supports 26 weeks and we will speak more to that on Part 2 of the bill.
Lees-Galloway Iain: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionLees-Galloway Iain: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11811. Text is subject to correction.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I move That the question be now put.
Mallard Trevor: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11808. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the member I am going to reiterate a ruling I have made now I think about four times to remind members about relevance and repetition. I actually came very close to terminating the member Sarah Dowie’s speech for both. Being repetitious with irrelevancies is not helpful.
Tisch Lindsay: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11802. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I am dealing with the matter. [Interruption] Will the member please be quiet I am ruling on this matter.
Sepuloni Carmel: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionSepuloni Carmel: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11802. Text is subject to correction.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for this to be taken as one question.
Mallard Trevor: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — Referral of Bill and S.O.P. 181 to Government Administration CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — Referral of Bill and S.O.P. 181 to Government Administration Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11802. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that course of action? Yes there is.
Seymour David: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — Referral of Bill and S.O.P. 181 to Government Administration CommitteeText is subject to correctionSeymour David: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — Referral of Bill and S.O.P. 181 to Government Administration Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11802. Text is subject to correction.]DAVID SEYMOUR (ACT—Epsom): I seek leave for the order of the day for the consideration by the Committee of the whole House of the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill to be discharged for the bill to be referred back to the Government Administration Committee and for the committee to have the power to consider and if it thinks fit to adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 181.
Vote: Coroners Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Coroners Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 46New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams and the following amendment in her name to Part 1 be agreed to:replace in new section 7(2)(e) in clause 6 “1 July 2016” with “the commencement of the Coroners Amendment Act 2014”.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionVote: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2016/17 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a second time.
Vote: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionVote: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat all the words after “That” be omitted and the following substituted: “this House has no confidence in a government that has lost touch after eight years in office is too oftenfocused on the few at the very top and which is forgetting about middleNew Zealanders who are trying to get ahead.”Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Coroners Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Coroners Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Coroners Amendment Bill and no progress on the Riccarton Racecourse Development Enabling Bill and the Riccarton Racecourse Bill.Report adopted.
Hudson Brett: Coroners Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionHudson Brett: Coroners Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]BRETT HUDSON (National): I move That the question be now put.
Borrows Chester: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionBorrows Chester: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Matt Doocey—5 minutes.
Borrows Chester: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionBorrows Chester: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Ria Bond—a 5-minute call.
Borrows Chester: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionBorrows Chester: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call—Todd Barclay.
Borrows Chester: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionBorrows Chester: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Shane Reti—a 5 minute call.
Borrows Chester: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionBorrows Chester: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call—Jono Naylor.
Tisch Lindsay: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Jan Logie—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Catherine Delahunty—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Sarah Dowie—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Jacqui Dean—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Paul Foster-Bell—5 minutes.
Mallard Trevor: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Stuart Smith—5 minutes.
Mallard Trevor: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Ian McKelvie and I understand that this is a 5-minute call.
Mallard Trevor: Budget DebateText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Denis O’Rourke for 5 minutes I understand.
Borrows Chester: Urgent Debates Declined — Silver Fern Farms and Shanghai Maling—Performance of RegulatorsText is subject to correctionBorrows Chester: Urgent Debates Declined — Silver Fern Farms and Shanghai Maling—Performance of Regulators[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The letter was received over the member’s signature. There was no accompanying authentication—[Interruption] Do not call out while I am on my feet. The member has been here probably longer than most other people and he knows the rules. I will not be trifled with in that regard. The application calling for the urgent debate is declined on the basis that it did not have authentication.
Peters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Silver Fern Farms and Shanghai Maling—Performance of RegulatorsText is subject to correctionPeters Winston: Urgent Debates Declined — Silver Fern Farms and Shanghai Maling—Performance of Regulators[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have my letter to the Financial Markets Authority which is all the authentication you need. If you are referring to some other reference like the 574 pages that they have got in China but not are here then that is another matter. But if you want authentication as to the complaint I sent you my letter and you have it.
Borrows Chester: Urgent Debates Declined — Silver Fern Farms and Shanghai Maling—Performance of RegulatorsText is subject to correctionBorrows Chester: Urgent Debates Declined — Silver Fern Farms and Shanghai Maling—Performance of Regulators[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora mai tātou tēnā tātou katoa. Members I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the performance of regulators like the Financial Markets Authority in relation to the proposed joint venture between Silver Fern Farms and Shanghai Maling. The letter seeking an urgent debate was received on Friday 3 June. It was not accompanied by any authenticating material. Previous Speakers have ruled that every statement in a letter seeking an urgent debate must be authenticated and that applications for an urgent debate that are not accompanied by authenticating material will be declined on that ground. The application is therefore declined.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Silver Fern Farms and Shanghai Maling—Performance of RegulatorsText is subject to correctionCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Silver Fern Farms and Shanghai Maling—Performance of Regulators[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]Mr SPEAKER: My office has received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the performance of regulators in relation to the proposed joint venture between Silver Fern Farms and Shanghai Maling. As I am a shareholder in Silver Fern Farms I have asked the Deputy Speaker to consider the application. I will now vacate the Chair and invite the Deputy Speaker to rule on the matter.
Martin Tracey: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionMartin Tracey: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]12.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What reports has he seen on the pass rates for international students at Whitireia Community Polytechnic?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice)on behalf of theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: I have received no reports specifically on the pass rates for international students at Whitireia Community Polytechnic. I am aware of allegations made by a former staff member of Whitireia Community Polytechnic to a large number of agencies and members of Parliament relating to a particular paper at the institution. Whitireia Community Polytechnic had the concerns independently investigated and although the review found some concerns with the paper education agencies consider there was no evidence of serious concerns that required further investigation.Tracey Martin: Is the Minister comfortable with his department responding to these allegations in writing by saying: “Whitireia informed us of malpractice and we accept that this will not be repeated.” thereby ceasing any investigation?Hon AMY ADAMS: What I am aware of is that the independent investigation by Mr Peter Sherwin found that although there were procedural shortcomings it had not led to an unfair or noticeably perverse outcome. Based on those findings and the findings that the organisation handled the matter appropriately in reviewing it it is appropriate that it is left there.Tracey Martin: Is the Minister saying that it is standard practice by his officials to make no requests for further information or proof regarding these sorts of allegations from the official complainant?Hon AMY ADAMS: What I understand the Minister to be saying is that when an independent review finds that the matter has been thoroughly investigated that where lessons have needed to be learnt they have been learnt and that it has been handled appropriately he is happy to take it at that.Tracey Martin: Does the Minister acknowledge that it is best practice when scaling exam or assignment marks to scale the complete cohort involved not hand pick certain students and will he instruct a full independent inquiry from his office on these allegations?Hon AMY ADAMS: My understanding is that the Minister is satisfied that it has been properly investigated.
Pugh Maureen: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionPugh Maureen: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]11.MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for the Environment: What progress is the Government making on cleaning up contaminated sites and what new projects have been announced since Budget 2016?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The Government is systematically cleaning up New Zealand’s most contaminated sites. We currently have eight projects under way. These projects are difficult as we note from the experience at Māpua and require careful project management and the flexibility to adapt as new contamination is found. Last Friday I announced the latest project involving a Government contribution of $4.2 million for addressing tributyltin and copper contamination in Nelson Haven. This is a project with the Nelson City Council and Port Nelson. This project will not only prevent this contamination from gradually spreading throughout the haven but also help secure the future of the boat maintenance facility and jobs. A condition of the funding is that there is the proper environmental regulation to ensure no future pollution. Another is that the local community shares in the cost of the clean-up.
Robertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionRobertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]8.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “one aspect of macro-prudential tools is that they can have unintended consequences”; if so what does he think would be the likely unintended consequences of debt-to-income ratio restrictions for mortgage lending?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I do stand by my statement; I would not speculate on the unintended consequences of restrictions that are not in place and that the Reserve Bank is beginning to investigate.Grant Robertson: Would a blanket debt to income ratio that limited a first-home buyer to borrowing $400000 as per the UK model pricing them out of the Auckland housing market be one of the unintended consequences he is referring to?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not want to speculate on that simply because the Reserve Bank as I understand it is beginning work and no doubt its consideration will include looking at the application of the tool to other countries.Grant Robertson: Would he agree to a debt to income ratio applying only to investors and not to first-home buyers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is hypothetical. The Reserve Bank has yet to investigate whether the tool is workable. Then it has got to decide that it wants to include it in the memorandum of understanding about macro-prudential tools. Then it has got to go out and consult everybody and work out how to apply it.Grant Robertson: Are there any limits to a debt to income ratio that he will rule out now?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No because it is not my role in law to do that. In law the respective roles are that if the Reserve Bank wants to introduce another macro-prudential tool then it negotiates with the Government to include it in the memorandum of understanding. The design and application of the tool are as they should be the tasks of the independent statutory regulator. Much as the member might think it is appropriate I do not think the New Zealand Minister of Finance should break the law.Grant Robertson: Why is he prepared to see first-home buyers priced out of the market but he is still unprepared to crack down on speculators including offshore ones continuing to allow them to purchase existing homes?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the last 12 months 12000 first-home buyers have benefited from the HomeStart programme and there is sufficient funding allocated for 90000 first-home buyers to benefit from that policy. It is succeeding and it is helping many first-home buyers into their first home.
McKelvie Ian: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionMcKelvie Ian: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]6.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about special education?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I was pleased to announce as part of Budget 2016 that an additional $42.1 million of operating funding over the next 4 years will be made into services for students with special needs. Under this Government spending on special education has increased by 29 percent. The extra funding will extend the personalised Intensive Wraparound Service for students with complex behavioural and learning needs enable more students to access the ongoing resourcing scheme and increase teacher-aide hours to support classroom teachers of students with high learning needs. In addition we are investing $1.5 million of operating funding over the next 4 years in specialised equipment and technology that will help students with special education needs to better access the curriculum and to participate and learn in class.Ian McKelvie: How will these announcements assist students with special education needs?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The $8.9 million extension to the Intensive Wraparound Service over the next 4 years will increase the number of students receiving this personalised support by 50 bringing it to 335 a year. The $16.5 million increase in ongoing resourcing scheme funding over the next 4 years means that from 2016-17 the number of students receiving this specialist help including speech therapy additional teacher time and teacher-aide hours will rise from 8335 to more than 8600. The extra $15.3 million for in-class teacher-aide hours over the next 4 years will enable 1250 more students to benefit from teacher-aide support in classrooms. This investment will help some of our most disadvantaged students to get the educational qualifications they need and ensure they get the opportunity to be included with their peers and to study in their local schools.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionPeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 07 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11681. Text is subject to correction.]4.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so how?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; in so many ways.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement that “immigration settings were about right and the Auckland housing market would take care of itself.”; if so is he satisfied with 34000 new migrants moving to Auckland each year adding more pressure on demand for housing education health and infrastructure?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he truly does not want New Zealanders to become in his words “tenants in their own country”—said in the campaign of course—then why did his Government let immigration get so out of control that so many young New Zealand families today are going to be tenants and not owners of their homes?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will just assist the member. [Interruption]Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well it is yellow—it is your colour.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just have the question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Since he announced his Government’s policy for migrants to settle outside of Auckland last year why have more visa applications for skilled migrants gone to Auckland rather than the regions?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because many of those people will be working in areas that will help what is a construction boom happening in Auckland so they will be involved in that area. If one takes an objective look at the net migration numbers they reflect a number of areas. They are largely the Kiwis not leaving or Kiwis coming home they are people on working holidays or they are students. I think most New Zealanders would see that as a pretty good thing.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has Immigration New Zealand got rid of its verification teams in respect of skilled migrant applications; why was it disbanded in April 2015 with a 20 percent performance record and 80 percent not looked at at all?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member would have to ask the Minister of Immigration.Mr SPEAKER: Question No.—[Interruption] Oh a supplementary question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: No no Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: What is it?Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a point of order. I seek leave to table an Immigration New Zealand paper to New Zealand First setting out what has gone wrong with the process—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part will not help. It is an Immigration New Zealand paper sent to New Zealand First. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11459. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a third time.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11452. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 May 2016. Volume:714;Page:11452. Text is subject to correction.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clause 2 agreed to.