edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peters Winston; Bridges SimonURGENT QUESTIONSUrgent Question to MinisterMr SPEAKER: I have received during question time an urgent question in relation to a potential security outbreak. The guidance I use is whether this matter needs to be answered today and in view of the fact that it is on biosecurity the next opportunity the House would have to have a question asked would of course be next week which in light of our biosecurity position I do not think is satisfactory. The first question was submitted as I understand it right on the start of question time by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. But the information I have had is that the member did not at the time supply a copy to the Minister the Hon Nathan Guy. If that is the case then I have to rule the question out of order because Standing Order 388(1) has not been complied with. I will hear from the member.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): When the House was convening today I looked around for Mr Guy—I have got other copies here—to give him one.Hon Nathan Guy: I'm here.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No but you were not here then—that is my point.Mr SPEAKER: A nice try but not good enough on this occasion. I have noticed that the Minister has been here throughout most of question time and certainly was here for a question. So the Standing Orders have not been complied with and that is quite clear to me. Subsequently and subsequently later an urgent question was submitted by the Hon Damien O'Connor and I have been informed that at the same time a copy of that question was given to the Hon Nathan Guy so the urgent question is allowed. The question from the Hon Damien O'Connor is in order and will be asked.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have certainly heard what you have said. There is a point though in relation to Mr O'Connor's urgent question. I think it is in relation to the lateness of it. If you look at Speaker's ruling 203/3 what is very clear there is that—and you can go on to further rulings there—members should try to ensure that there is a reasonable opportunity for the question to be in the Speaker's and the Minister's hands". Of course what the Rt Hon Winston Peters did was he did it within a reasonable time—I think at 2 o'clock or just before—but he failed because he did not deliver it to the Minister. But in terms of these rulings what we have here is that I was watching when Mr O'Connor went forward some 10 minutes ago. I argue that it is not within the Speakers' rulings. I would also make the point in terms of Speakers' rulings 204/5-6 that what is very clear about urgent questions is that they are for something that is about to happen that needs urgent action. Here I accept the point Mr Speaker makes which is that biosecurity is incredibly important. But what is also true is now there is Government action in relation to it and it could be forensically examined by members opposite should they wish to next week and I would make that point in relation to this as well."
Peters Winston; Carter DavidPOINTS OF ORDERMinisterial Statements—Outbreak of Myrtle Rust in KerikeriRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to know whether or not the Minister of Primary Industries intends to make a ministerial statement about the outbreak of myrtle rust in Kerikeri in my electorate. It is a major threat to the industries of my electorate and indeed to the rest of the country.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member's concern but that is not a point of order.
Bridges Simon; Robertson GrantTHURSDAY 4 MAY 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 9 May the Government will look to complete the Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and the Education (Update) Amendment Bill and progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday 10 May will be a members' day. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to congratulate Simon Bridges on his promotion. He certainly has big shoes to fill. Could I ask him through you Mr Speaker whether or not the Government has any plans to put the House into urgency when we return after next week?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): I am flattered by those complimentary remarks by the member. We will just have to wait and see what happens in relation to urgency.
Wednesday 3 May 2017 - Volume 721
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 311 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendment to the amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.By leave the Chairperson Hon Trevor Mallard corrected the votes. Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell was agreed to on the voices. On the question that Part 1 as amended be agreed to the Ayes were 62 Noes 57.
12. Better Public Services Targets—Reductions in Children Experiencing Physical AbuseMAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for ChildrenBetter Public Services Targets—Reductions in Children Experiencing Physical Abuse12. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for Children: What changes has the Government made to Better Public Services Result 4—to reduce the number of children experiencing physical abuse?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): Today the Government announced that it has set a more ambitious target to reduce the number of children experiencing physical and sexual abuse by 20 percent by 2021. This goes beyond the current measure set in 2012 which was to halt the 10-year projected rise in children experiencing physical abuse and to reduce those 2011 numbers by 5 percent. This is significant as we are also broadening the target to include sexual as well as physical abuse and introducing two new supporting measures which are firstly measuring the total number of children experiencing abuse of any type including physical sexual and emotional abuse and neglect; and secondly measuring the percentage of children who have a repeat report of concern to the Ministry of Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki within 12 months.Maureen Pugh: Why has the Government decided to reset the target for Better Public Services Result 4 ?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We are always looking to challenge ourselves and the public sector to provide better results and outcomes for New Zealanders. We have halted the 10-year projected rise in children experiencing physical abuse and the trend in the numbers is declining. After an extensive analysis of care and protection we are overhauling the system and giving it a wider focus than just responding to a crisis event in a child's life but we do want to ensure that even more children and young people grow up in a safe environment.Maureen Pugh: What will the Government do to achieve this new ambitious target?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Actions to reduce the number of children experiencing physical and sexual abuse will be at the centre of a major programme of work within the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki which has five core services of prevention intensive intervention care support youth justice and transition support. While the new ministry will lead and be ultimately responsible for achieving the target to achieve this result will take an all-of-Government approach with cooperation and support from the ministries of Health Education and Social Development as well as Police and Corrections. There is no single way to achieve this target. Actions will be taken across a number of areas including sexual violence family violence whanau violence improving parenting skills and addressing mental health and addiction issues.
10. Pacific Advisory Appointments—IntegrityDARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Pacific PeoplesPacific Advisory Appointments—Integrity10. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Is he confident with the integrity of all Pacific advisory appointments made by him or his predecessor?Hon ALFRED NGARO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Yes.Darroch Ball: What concerns have been brought to the Minister's attention regarding possible alleged incidences of nepotism cronyism or mishandling of funds regarding Government-funded Pacific programmes or appointments?Hon ALFRED NGARO: It is my expectation that any public money spent has internal checks and systems in place to monitor spending and accountability. The Ministry of Social Development has previously provided a statement on the complex nature of a number of different issues involved and I support that response.Darroch Ball: What is the mess regarding Government-appointed Pacific funding and representation that the Minister has been tasked with cleaning up"?Hon ALFRED NGARO: There has been no such delegation to clean up."
7. Budget 2017—Social Investment PackageDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister responsible for Social InvestmentBudget 2017—Social Investment Package7. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister responsible for Social Investment: What recent announcements has she made about social investment?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister responsible for Social Investment): Today I was delighted to join with the Prime Minister in announcing that Budget 2017 will include a $321 million social investment package with 14 initiatives designed to help our most vulnerable to improve their circumstances. Social investment is about tackling our most challenging social issues and intervening early to help the most at-risk New Zealanders lead better lives become more independent and cost taxpayers less in the long run. The funded initiatives are also about supporting better cross-agency ways to target some ingrained social issues across those with complex needs and the work of the newly established Social Investment Agency that I announced last month will help provide the resources and support to embed this approach.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the new agency help deliver the Government's focus on social investment?Hon AMY ADAMS: We are on the precipice of what could be the most remarkable transformation in how we deal with social services in New Zealand. We are pivoting the system around to help social sector agencies shift away from focusing just on their specific areas to better understanding their customers and being able to assess the impact of their interventions across an individual's life. The new stand-alone Social Investment Agency will replace the existing social investment unit currently operating as part of the Ministry of Social Development and will provide robust all-of-Government social investment advice. This includes applying rigorous and evidence-based investment practices to social services and developing innovative new commissioning approaches. It will also be tasked with building the social investment architecture for all-of-Government and NGO agencies to use to help frontline staff fine-tune services and make them better targeted.
5. Better Public Services—Target UpdateJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of State ServicesBetter Public Services—Target Update5. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of State Services: What updates can she give about the Government's commitment to Better Public Services?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of State Services): Today the Prime Minister announced a new set of 10 Better Public Services (BPS) targets which sets clear expectations about what we expect the Public Service to achieve for New Zealanders. We first introduced BPS targets in 2012 to ensure the Public Service was focused on achieving tangible outcomes that would result in people being healthier better educated and more likely to be off benefit. Five years on the targets have driven real improvements so it is the perfect time to refresh them and set new targets.Jonathan Young: What have the targets achieved so far?Carmel Sepuloni: Everyone's asking that.Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is a very good question and the member might like to listen up because she is quite interested in this: the proportion of the population on a main benefit is the lowest it has been in a March quarter since 1997. Carmel Sepuloni: Seventy-four thousand additional hardship grants.Hon PAULA BENNETT: No no no—you wanted to hear it. One more time for the member sorry: the proportion of the population on a main benefit is the lowest it has been in a March quarter since 1997.Carmel Sepuloni: Where have they gone? Where are they?Hon PAULA BENNETT: If the member is wondering where they are that would be those for whom employment is up. Employment is up and that has actually had a huge benefit. Between 93 and 94 percent of 8-month-olds are fully immunised. It is going very very well.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That in no way was a proper ministerial answer. It was long it was indulgent and it was false.Mr SPEAKER: It was certainly a very long answer but it was then responding throughout to very substantial interjections coming from a member on my left. Further supplementary question?Jonathan Young: What are the new targets?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The refresh includes six brand-new targets which focus on the issues that are most important to people such as having healthy mums and babies and increasing educational achievement. The new targets include having 90 percent of pregnant women register with a lead maternity carer in the first trimester—currently it is about 65 percent so going to 90 percent will make a huge difference; reducing the number of hospitalisations for children with preventable conditions; improving the literacy and numeracy of children focusing particularly on that higher achievement of students in year 8; and reducing serious crime. These are just a few.
Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): Reference was made to this bill being a complex one. Can I say that in this part of the bill particularly around clause 51 I think is an example of the complexity that a number of commentators have made reference to. For me it is the issue of the second-chance meeting. While the Minister for Māori Development made reference to the fact that all owners need to be involved the issue of a second-chance decision-making process will contradict that comment because it then allows for a fraction of the total ownership to make a decision on behalf of the ownership. That point was certainly highlighted by the Māori Land Court judges themselves where they say that the participating owners' regime will mean that a minority of owners who can satisfy the bill's participation thresholds will be able to make decisions with binding effect on all owners without any court process where the interests of the owners as a whole are assessed. Those decisions can be made outside of any governance structure meaning that the owners owe very few if any duties to their fellow owners.Furthermore the second decision-making process—again in clause 51—will mean that if an initial meeting does not meet the participation threshold and another meeting is held within 20 working days there is no participation threshold whatsoever. So that for me does not augur well for many of the shareholders particularly those who are living away from home and we know that it is intended that this clause will allow for the participation of those who are not living at home and are living away in other areas—in fact in some cases in other countries. My feeling is that the possibilities of a second decision-making process can alienate those particular shareholders from this decision process.The bill itself goes on to identify the circumstances in which this decision-making process can take place. It identifies how owners of Māori freehold land will be required to make decisions. However if the participation threshold for a decision is not satisfied and I quote from clauses 51(8)(a) and (b) a second decision-making process for the decision may be commenced within 20 working days after the day on which the level of owner participation in the first decision-making process was calculated (which may be the day on which voting on the proposal closes or the day on which owners consider the proposal if the proposal does not proceed to a vote because the required quorum of owners is not present);". In subclause (8)(b) "there is no participation threshold for the second decision-making process as long as—(i) the applicable decision-making process is followed as if the decision were a new decision;". Subclause (8)(c) goes on to say that "if the applicable decision-making process includes a separate quorum requirement a failure to satisfy the quorum requirement does not invalidate the decision." That does provide some concern for me. In terms of the use of the words "a complex bill" I think that this provides for that issue of complexity."
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I have just a couple of quick points which I am genuinely wondering whether the Chair will allow. So I will start by saying that in Part 3 as through the whole bill we are referring to a number of tikanga phrases and concepts—so they are not just kupu—like kaiwhakamarumaru kaiwhakahaere whenua tāpui and kawenata tiaki whenua. So I wondered whether the Chair would just allow me—I did not get to make my point in the earlier parts—to just make the point that we are inserting right throughout the whole bill these tikanga Māori terms and concepts.While I personally do not have a huge problem with having a go—and I have talked to my colleague Marama Fox about this—at seeing how and testing how we incorporate Māori law into statute law I will make an acknowledgment of the fundamental view also that is quite cynical and quite wary of that. I think it is important as we continue to debate these terms through the bill that I need to acknowledge the valid cynicism purely because tikanga Māori by its very nature operates and begins from a whole different standing of leadership. And what we are doing which we have done for a long time I acknowledge before this bill is trying to translate or insert a whole different concept of living and maintaining and establishing relationships into a Crown and Western law system that starts from an entirely almost opposing concept of leadership and relationship to people and land. So I will only do it in one part because it does occur through the whole bill but I will take the opportunity in this part as I am looking through to just make that point and at least have the Green Party in the Hansard record as acknowledging what I think is valid cynicism and being fearful and wary of inserting our amazing concepts and tikanga into law.Secondly this is just a small point and it is really a genuine question because I do think it is worth continuing to raise that this is a big thick telephone-book bill and this is a big thick Supplementary Order Paper so I am genuinely left asking to clarify. We are in Part 3 I think going on to clause 51C where it talks about Summary of specified majorities of owners who must agree to [certain] decisions about Māori freehold land". So essentially clause 51C presents a schedule of those thresholds for how certain decisions are made. Clause 51C goes through for example the required levels of owners to reach those agreements. It is different depending on the decisions. So for example disposition of land has a certain different threshold to boundary adjustment—just two quick little examples so I am clear about what I am asking. Earlier at the beginning of this part the Minister for Māori Development I believe made the comment that the thresholds for making different decisions remain the same or are improved or increased but the decision-making thresholds have not been reduced. I just want to get some clarity and it may not be a simple answer because I take on board what my colleagues raised about the different scale. So I would appreciate—and I also apologise—some actual clarity about that."
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te Whare nei. Otirā tēnā tātou. Thank you for the opportunity for this first contribution on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.It is a complex bill and I have had some questions and contact from constituents who are concerned about it. I just wanted to make a quote around the complexities of it from the Māori Land Court judges who said the complexity of the reform risks parties lawyering up which will change the dynamic of Māori land disputes. And I think my questions on this part are relevant to the complexities of it.My question is because I was contacted by a trustee of a reserve that has been set up under the Māori Purposes Act 1954 and I am assuming that the interest of that particular land will come under the Part 2 arrangement as whenua tāpui. Given that and also the ownership interest in Māori in this part of the bill and the threshold required under that particular trust it is held on behalf of a large number of people; 40000 in fact. So the threshold under this particular part would be incredibly onerous on the trustees for that particular trust. When they asked me I said I don't know." but I feel obliged to actually ask the question. It may or may not even be relevant; I just do not know but I refer to the comments from the Māori Land Court judges—and this is a very complex piece of legislation that removes an entire Act and then replaces it.On top of that we have added into it over—from my count anyway—60 substantial changes since the select committee. In that context these parts have not been scrutinised on the changes since the select committee and so the only avenue that I have on behalf of my constituents is to ask the questions at this stage of the Committee of the whole House. So I think it is really important that we do get answers to these questions. To be honest there is probably a simple answer but I just do not know. If we had had the opportunity to scrutinise it through the select committee then these questions could have been answered quite quickly. And that is probably the main point of this contribution to this part of the bill—I tried to get up earlier—which is that it has not been scrutinised to that extent.So if we think about the contributions and the consultation that has taken place on this part and all the other parts from the first consultation to the time it left the select committee there have been at least 16 or 17 versions. I do not know; it could even be more. The fact of the matter is you know the constituents who have contacted me I believe deserve to have those answers and it is a great shame that they have not been able to be answered through a more efficient use of Parliament's time. So that is my contribution on this and those are my questions. Thank you."
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just now going to place absolutely on the record for the avoidance of all doubt that Part 1 as amended stood part on a vote of 62 to 57—just to make sure that there is no disagreement with that. Thank you.
Mallard TrevorPart 2 Whenua Māori/Māori land whenua tāpui and kawenata tiaki whenuaThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that Part 2 stand part. This is debate on clauses 12 to 44C and on schedule 2.
Kuriger Barbara; Mallard TrevorBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put. [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Calling while I am making a decision is likely to disadvantage the member whoever it is. We have been going on this for well over an hour and a half now. It is a long bill with lots of other parts so I think those can be dealt with later on.
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I thought I would help the honourable member Rino Tirikatene by referring to clause 3 because he seemed to have a problem with which version was to prevail. I would have thought it was tolerably clear that the Māori version prevailed as is said in the explanatory note to clause 3(5). English is only an explanation; the only formal version is the Māori version.The second issue that was raised earlier by another speaker was this term tikanga Māori". I agree that avoiding a statutory codification of this phrase is absolutely fundamental. Tikanga Māori is not a matter of law; it is a matter of fact. I think it was the Chief Justice who said in the well-known Takamore case which went to the Supreme Court some time ago that what constitutes tikanga Māori in any particular situation is a question of fact and a court asked to identify its content by evidence is not engaged in a process of interpretation or law creation. This aligns with the Māori Land Court's approach to matters of tikanga Māori under the current Act as I understand it.When one strips away the Roget's Thesaurus approach to argumentation that we have had from the member for Te Tai Tonga tonight—it has been described in various colourful terms—I think what it boils down to if I understand the essence of his argument is that yes changes were required to the 1993 Act but they should have been done by way of an amendment to the 1993 Act rather than through a complete rewrite. Look I can understand that there will be circumstances where an amendment is appropriate but sometimes—and this is particularly the case with the 1993 Act—the substructure of the Act has been fundamentally weakened by so many amendments. From time to time you have got to go back to base one and start again.There are many pieces of legislation that this House has dealt with over the years where exactly that principle has been applied. I remember it very well with the Limitation Act 1950. It was so far past its use-by date that a complete rewrite was required and just a couple of weeks ago we did exactly the same thing with the intelligence legislation. So to mount an argument that it can all be done by amendment is in my respectful submission totally wrong. This Act has been amended as the Minister for Māori Development said on many many occasions and the time comes when you go back to first principles you take a fresh look at it and you rewrite the legislation. It is hardly a ground for opposition to the passage of this very important bill.So I hope that we have more than formulaic and presentational arguments about this legislation. Let us get down to the detail and debate the detail but suggesting that it could have been done by amendment is quite simply wrong."
Borrows ChesterTE TURE WHENUA MĀORI BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 2 May.Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Peeni Henare has the call. He has 4 minutes and 55 seconds remaining.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I move That the Committee report progress presently and move to consider Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill.Progress to be reported presently.
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Todd Muller I do want to apologise. Amongst a number of things I am out of date on was the chair of that committee. I should have called him first. I apologise to him. I am informed not only that he is the chair but that he is doing a very good job.
Mallard TrevorANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 2 May on the Appropriation (2015/16 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.Environment Sector (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): When we were last considering the bill we were debating the third sector the environment sector. There are 7 hours and 7 minutes remaining in the debate. Jami-Lee Ross had the call and has 5 minutes remaining if he wishes. He has declined.Reports noted.External SectorHon Annette King: Mr Chairman.Todd Muller: Mr Chairman.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well I will take the member who called first then. Annette King.
Member Vacancy — New Lynn Electoral District—Hon David Cunliffe
Woodhouse MichaelNew Lynn Electoral District—Hon David CunliffeHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That pursuant to section 131(b) of the Electoral Act 1993 a vacancy in the New Lynn Electoral District having arisen and the House having been informed that a general election is to be held within 6 months of the occurrence of the vacancy no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that Electoral District to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of David Richard Cunliffe.Motion agreed to.
Member Vacancy — Helensville Electoral District—Rt Hon John Key
Woodhouse MichaelMEMBER VACANCYHelensville Electoral District—Rt Hon John KeyHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That pursuant to section 131(b) of the Electoral Act 1993 a vacancy in the Helensville Electoral District having arisen and the House having been informed that a general election is to be held within 6 months of the occurrence of that vacancy no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that Electoral District to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of John Phillip Key.Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Business Committee Determinations—Government Orders of the Day
Points of Order — Indonesia—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice
Visitors — Samoa—Speaker of the Samoan Legislative Assembly
SpeechMr SPEAKER: I appreciate the comments from the Minister and from Mr Peters. I refer members to Standing Order 79 Business of the House". It is the Business Committee's role to determine the way this House operates. It made a decision on from memory 14 March and it was done at the time that we set the time for valedictory speeches by two departing members of Parliament. It determined at that stage there would be no debate. It was further discussed at the Business Committee yesterday and by near-unanimity the decision was made that those two motions would be put today without further debate. That is the resolution of the Business Committee."
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): Mr Speaker as you know the Business Committee considered this twice in detail and I would suggest that the question of whether or not there be a by-election is one that is the subject of the vote itself not necessarily the debate on the motion. In particular the Business Committee deals with matters on a principle of near-unanimity. When more than 90 percent of the represented members are in agreement on something I would suggest that is near-unanimity and if it is not then we get into the situation where we have an effective veto such as say the UN Security Council and I am sure we do not want to get to that point.
Peters WinstonBusiness Committee Decisions—Right to Debate MotionsRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Looking at the business of the day at the Government orders of the day today there are notices Nos 1 and 2 which refer to a motion without debate. The Business Committee has got one role in this Parliament and that is to facilitate the business of Parliament. But when it proscribes debate and shuts down debate or a contest of ideas on the question of democracy and representation that is entirely something else. We made it very clear at the Business Committee that we would not accept that and we do not accept that motions Nos 1 and 2 should appear on the Order Paper with the prior notice that we would not be allowed to debate whether two electorates for example have representation in this Parliament remain until election day. We think that is wrong and we want the right to debate it.
Delahunty Catherine; Carter DavidPOINTS OF ORDERWest Papua—Leave to Move Motion Without NoticeCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate that this House support freedom for journalists worldwide and call on Indonesia to cease its abuse of press freedom in West Papua.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? Is there any objection? There is no objection. Catherine Delahunty. [Interruption] Order! I did not—I will put the leave again. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is objection.
Carter DavidWEDNESDAY 3 MAY 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSSamoa—Speaker of the Samoan Legislative AssemblyMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome the Hon Leaupepe Faafisi Speaker of the Samoan Legislative Assembly and his delegation who are present in the gallery and accord the Speaker a seat to the left of the Chair.The Hon Leaupepe Faafisi accompanied by the Deputy Speaker the Hon Chester Borrows entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Tuesday 2 May 2017 - Volume 721
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 10 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of Meka Whaitiri to clause 9 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new Part 1A be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new Part 1B be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new Part 3 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Māori Purposes Bill — In Committee
VoteThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members the question being that clauses 1 and 2 stand part first we turn our mind to Adrian Rurawhe's amendment to clause 1. Inserting Services" in the title was out of order as contingent on an amendment already negatived.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Adrian Rurawhe's amendment to clause 2 changing "FENZ" to "FESNZ" is out of order as being contingent on an amendment already negatived.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently."
1. Pike River Mine Disaster—Video FootageCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Chairperson of the Commerce CommitteeQUESTIONS TO MEMBERSPike River Mine Disaster—Video Footage1. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: Does she intend to call for further submissions on the petition of Dame Fiona Kidman before it is reported back to the House in light of the recently released footage shot inside the drift of the Pike River mine?MELISSA LEE (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): It is my view that there is nothing in the video footage that changes the risk assessment that a manned re-entry deep into the drift is too risky. Having said that the ultimate decision on whether the committee seeks a further submission is a matter for the committee and the member can actually raise that in committee. Clare Curran: Does the existence of footage showing that people can enter the mine drift safely not fundamentally change the case for re-entry meaning submitters should be allowed the opportunity to provide further submissions and the committee time to consider additional evidence? Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not a matter of select committee business. It is far wide of the field of what she should be asking as a question to another member. Chris Hipkins: This is exactly what questions to presiding officers should be allowed to do. It holds presiding officers accountable for the decisions they make and the supplementary question related directly to the answer the presiding officer of that committee gave to the question. If she had wanted to narrow the scope for supplementary questions she could have given a narrower answer to the original question as lodged. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think on balance the points made by the Hon Simon Bridges are right. It was a very convoluted question and certainly not a straightforward one. I am going to invite the member to repeat the question but before she starts she wants to be fully conversant with Speaker's ruling 178/1. If I then after hearing the question again decide that it is beyond the responsibility of the chairperson of the committee I will not hesitate to rule the question out. We will give it one more go. Clare Curran: Given the answer that the chair of the select committee just gave to the House on her opinion of the footage does the existence of such footage not fundamentally change the case for a re-entry meaning submitters should be allowed to submit to a parliamentary select committee and further submissions by the committee be heard? Mr SPEAKER: No. I have listened very carefully again and that question now certainly goes beyond the responsibility of the chairperson as the chairperson of the committee to answer that question.
12. Housing Christchurch—Construction of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority - Commissioned HomesDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch RegenerationHousing Christchurch—Construction of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority - Commissioned Homes12. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she agree that the first homes in the East Frame will be completed 5 months ahead of schedule?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Yes and I have been assured by both the chief executive of Ōtākaro and the chief executive of Fletcher Living that the first 20 homes in the East Frame will be completed ahead of schedule. Dr Megan Woods: How can the first stage be 5 months ahead of schedule when according to the original cost-sharing agreement the first stage should have been completed in 2015 and even the time line in John Key's announcement of the delayed project should see residents moving in this month and not waiting on a construction deadline a year from now? Hon NICKY WAGNER: I think the member is confusing the proposed construction dates with those finalised in the contract. The development agreement with Fletcher's was signed in December 2015 and the completion date for the first homes was October 2018. They will now be completed in May 2018. Dr Megan Woods: Is it correct that not only is the first stage a year behind schedule but her predecessor admitted last week that the two other lots are expected to be delayed by 4 months and 12 months—and 6 years after the earthquakes is it not time for her Government to do better? Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes I have been advised that the number of homes in the plans of the next two super-lots have increased which means the construction of those lots will take slightly longer. But we still expect that those 200 homes from these lots will be constructed by the middle of 2019. Dr Megan Woods: How many of the 13 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority - led (CERA-led) anchor projects have been delivered to the date set out in the original cost-sharing agreement? Hon NICKY WAGNER: We are working through the anchor projects. The time lines are publicly announced and we will deliver those. Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very straight question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just—[Interruption] Order! Can I just invite the member to ask the question again. Dr Megan Woods: Thank you Mr Speaker. How many of the 13 CERA-led anchor projects have been delivered to the date set out in the original cost-sharing agreement?Hon NICKY WAGNER: What I can tell you is three of the projects—the oval the parts of the Avon/Ōtākaro River and also the bus exchange—are complete and operating well and if you would like to put that question in writing I will give you the full details.
11. Conservation Land—Logging of Wind-blown TreesEUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of ConservationConservation Land—Logging of Wind-blown Trees11. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Is it Government policy to increase the logging of native forests on West Coast conservation land?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): No.Eugenie Sage: Has the Minister been asked by Sustainable Forest Products or any other company to change the law to allow further logging of wind-blown trees or of standing trees on conservation land?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: No.Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree with the proposal in the Government's Tai Poutini West Coast Growth Study opportunities report to expand native forests logging on public conservation land by allowing logging after any major weather event or at the Minister's discretion?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: It is in the plan and more will be revealed when the development plan is released in a few months' time. But there are no plans at this time to exercise either of those options.Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a straight yes/no question—whether she agreed with the proposal.Mr SPEAKER: Yes but the member cannot ask for a straight yes or no answer. The member cannot insist on that at all. The member can carry on with further supplementary questions.Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister accept that logging wind-blown trees robs a forest of nutrients that the trees need to grow and removes habitat for everything from fungi to insects?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: No I do not agree with that. I believe that Cyclone Ita which was a once-in-a-generation storm that felled 20000 hectares of trees and a further 200000 hectares were damaged—at that time when the legislation was proposed and went through under my predecessor the Hon Dr Nick Smith it was entirely appropriate to rather than let everything rot and waste allow some logging to be conducted. That is why we passed that legislation which will come to an end in 2019.
6. Care and Support Workers—WagesMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of HealthCare and Support Workers—Wages6. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 55000 care and support workers will share in the $2 billion pay equity settlement announced on 18 April 2017?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes indeed. This agreement is the result of complex and detailed negotiations over nearly 2 years. From 1 July this dedicated and predominately female workforce most of whom are on or around the minimum wage will receive a pay rise of between around 15 and 50 percent depending on their qualifications and/or experience. For the 20000 workers currently on the minimum wage it means they will move to at least $19 per hour—a 21 percent pay rise. For a full-time worker this means they will be taking home around an extra $106 a week which is $5500 a year in the hand. This will make a massive difference to some of the hardest-working deserving and lowest-paid people in the country and their families.Melissa Lee: What are the next major steps to be taken in order to deliver this huge increase in payments to these 55000 workers?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This afternoon I am meeting with the unions and relevant parties in my office to sign the settlement agreement. The next priority is to ensure that the 55000 workers are getting the money in their pay packets from 1 July. Implementation of the settlement is complex as there are approximately 1000 providers and 4000 contracts that will need to be amended. I will also be introducing legislation to Parliament shortly and I look forward to broad support for this historic settlement.
4. Transport Infrastructure—KaikōuraSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of TransportTransport Infrastructure—Kaikōura4. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made recently regarding the Government's commitment to reinstate key transport links following the Kaikōura earthquake?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The Government is committed to restoring the pre-earthquake transport links to Kaikōura and its surrounding communities. To make sure this work continues at pace last week I announced that Budget 2017 will provide up to $812 million to reinstate State Highway 1 between Picton and Christchurch. The Transport Agency is also considering additional improvements to this stretch of highway which could see a further investment of up to $240 million from the National Land Transport Fund. Confirmation of funding through Budget 2017 ensures that every effort continues to be made to ensure we have this critical stretch of State highway reopened before the end of the year.Stuart Smith: What other announcements as part of Budget 2017 has he made regarding the Government's commitment to reinstate key transport links following the Kaikōura earthquake?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Last week I was also pleased to announce as part of Budget 2017 that we would also make funding available for KiwiRail to continue reinstatement work to its line while its insurance claim is finalised. More than $45 million of work has already been completed since last November's earthquake including clearing slips and obstructions undertaking geotechnical assessments and reinstating rail track. The total cost of reinstating the road and rail corridors is now estimated to be between $1.1 billion and $1.3 billion which reflects damage and destruction of this scale. The Government continues to stand with those affected by the November earthquake and funding in Budget 2017 demonstrates our very real commitment to getting these communities moving again.Marama Fox: When can we expect an announcement from the Minister to reinstate the rail line between Gisborne and Wairoa with KiwiRail?Mr SPEAKER: That is a fair way from the original question with regard to the Kaikōura earthquake. I do not think I can allow that.