edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dowie Sarah: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionDowie Sarah: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4477. Text is subject to correction.]3.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill)to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing that lower interest rates and a pick-up in construction activity are helping to support growth in the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Last week the Reserve Bank released its Monetary Policy Statement for June 2015 and it cut the official cash rate to 3.25 percent—just above a 50-year low for interest rates. The bank said that the economy is growing at around 3 percent a year supported by low interest rates continued growth in construction activity high net migration and a decline in fuel prices. It noted risks including weaker prospects for dairy prices and higher petrol prices. It indicated that these could slow income and demand growth. Annual inflation remains near zero. The Reserve Bank’s outlook is for solid real growth in the economy.Sarah Dowie: What is the Reserve Bank’s outlook for growth employment and household savings?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The forecasts for these are reasonably strong. It forecasts that economic output will increase by an average of 3 percent for each of the next 3 years. Total employment growth is expected to be 1.5 percent over the next 3 years—above recent averages—with unemployment expected to fall to 5 percent. Household savings are expected to remain positive and well above long-term averages at 2 percent to 3 percent of disposable income.Sarah Dowie: What other reports has he received on the outlook for the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Earlier this week the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research released its consensus forecast—that is it compiles all the economic forecasts that are done. It says that although the outlook has been pared back slightly following the fall in dairy prices forecasters expect average annual growth of nearly 3 percent in the 3 years to 2018 and it notes particularly that the labour market is a positive aspect of the outlook. Export growth is expected to pick up over 2016 in spite of slowing activity in trading partners. These forecasts are consistent with the moderate sustainable growth that underpins the Budget.Sarah Dowie: What alternative reports has he seen on interest rates?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have received two particular reports lately. The first report said that households were worse off because of high interest rates. The second report received last week following the Reserve Bank’s cut in the official cash rate said that lower interest rates apparently show that the economy is on a downward slide. If sustained growth of 3 percent and 150000 more jobs by 2019 is the economy on a slide then that is not too bad. Both of these reports came from an organisation that apparently thinks that both higher interest rates and lower interest rates are bad for the New Zealand economy. It could be only one organisation—the New Zealand Labour Party.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4476. Text is subject to correction.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard quite enough on this matter. As I said earlier it is well accepted through Speakers’ rulings for a long period of time that the Government has the right to decide who has the responsibility and is best entitled to answer that question. On that basis the Government transferred the question. There will subsequently be an adjustment to words. What is in the Prime Minister’s head is not the essence of this question. The question at the time is about holding the Government to account for its policies. On this occasion the Government has decided to transfer it. That is the end of the matter. A question can be asked and indeed will be asked by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Mark Ron: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionMark Ron: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4475. Text is subject to correction.]RON MARK (NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order which I asked Chris Hipkins to raise or a continuation of the other—RON MARK: Well it pertains to comments made by the Leader of the House and the whole discussion to this point raises another question and I respectively ask you whether you could take some time to consider and come back and give us your views on the wider issue. It would appear to New Zealand First that if we simply asked the question “Does he stand by his statements” putting it to a Minister or the Prime Minister the question would remain with that person. When we try to give some assistance by referring to what the subject of the Prime Minister’s comment was and then the Government exercised its right under the Standing Order to shift it that could well become a tactic to avoid having the Prime Minister answer any question that he does not understand the details of.
Brownlee Gerry: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionBrownlee Gerry: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4475. Text is subject to correction.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):It is one of those days Mr Speaker—it is one of those days. The Speaker’s ruling that you quoted—168/2—does go on to make it clear that notwithstanding the claims made by Mr Hipkins matters that go to “Does someone stand by” certain statements do not meet the test as to whether or not the person initially being asked the question could possibly be the only person to give the answer. When the question was seen this morning it was reasonable to expect that it was going to be of a relatively technical nature because we know that is the general thrust of inquiry from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We therefore felt it most appropriate that the technical information could be provided by a Minister who had that responsibility.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4475. Text is subject to correction.]Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to take the time I will welcome—
Hipkins Chris: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionHipkins Chris: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4475. Text is subject to correction.]—CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I have dealt with this matter. If it a fresh point of order I am happy to hear it.CHRIS HIPKINS: It is indeed a fresh point of order. In ruling on this issue of transfer previously Speakers have indicated that one of the tests that they would apply in applying the Speakers’ rulings is: could somebody be expected to know what was in the head of somebody else when they made a statement? One of the issues here is if we ask a very broad question of the Prime Minister such as “Does he stand by all of his statements?” you would be quite at liberty to rule that when asked a very specific supplementary question the Prime Minister could not be expected to know about it because he would not have been given notice. So one of the things that the Opposition will try on occasion to do is give an indication of the broad nature of the topics to be debated. If that then means that the Prime Minister can automatically transfer the question to somebody else it does create a situation where we cannot question the Prime Minister on anything specific.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4475. Text is subject to correction.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I will give the member one final warning. If he wants to ask the question he rises to his feet and asks it; if he does not he will not be in the House to ask it in the first place.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionPeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4475. Text is subject to correction.]—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):There is no suggestion that I do not want to ask the question Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well then ask it.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was seeking your advice.Mr SPEAKER: Then ask it otherwise the member would not be—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh so seeking counsel is not a good idea?
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4474. Text is subject to correction.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! As I said earlier it is not my job to design the questions but the member himself frequently comes in and asks the Prime Minister whether he stands by all his statements. That would have got the member past step 1 on that occasion. He could have done that. This question has been accepted. It will be asked if the member wants to ask it. If he does not I am very comfortable with moving immediately to question No. 3.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionPeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4474. Text is subject to correction.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I am aware of the ruling. What I am asking you is if one is seeking to get a Minister to stand by that Minister’s statements or the Prime Minister to stand by his how would one phrase the question other than in the way I phrased it which was: “Does he stand by all his statements regarding the electricity market; if so why?”. If I was to avoid the outcome how would you suggest I draft it? To be within the Standing Orders—
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4474. Text is subject to correction.]Mr SPEAKER: It is not my job to phrase the questions. My job is to judge whether they meet the Standing Orders. On this occasion if the member looks at Speakers’ rulings 168 a number of rulings there will confirm to him that the Government has the right to determine where the question goes. So it transfers the question. Subsequent to a transfer there is often a change of wording required to make it sensible. This question has now been accepted and it will be asked today if the member wants to otherwise I am quite happy to move to the next question.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionPeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4474. Text is subject to correction.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):Mr Speaker could I raise a point of order? It is by way of seeking your advice for the future because we put in a question asking—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order; I wish to hear it in silence.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am seeking your counsel and advice in this matter because we put in a question asking whether the Prime Minister stood by his statements and then after 11 a.m. which is quite unique in our experience the question was switched to the Minister of Energy and Resources. My question is how you would phrase the question to avoid the outcome that we have just experienced whereby in seeking the Prime Minister standing by his own statements we have now got the Minister of Energy and Resources saying whether he stands by the Prime Minister’s statements which is not remotely what we were asking.
Draft transcript - Thursday 18 June 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Thursday 18 June 2015
Draft transcript - Wednesday 17 June 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 17 June 2015
Draft transcript - Tuesday 16 June 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Tuesday 16 June 2015
Draft transcript - Thursday 04 June 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Thursday 04 June 2015
Draft transcript - Wednesday 03 June 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 03 June 2015
Draft transcript - Tuesday 02 June 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Tuesday 02 June 2015
Draft transcript - Thursday 28 May 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Thursday 28 May 2015
Draft transcript - Wednesday 27 May 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 27 May 2015
Urgent Debates Declined — Relationships Aotearoa—Negotiations with Government Agencies Skycity Convention Centre—Design Iraq—Iraqi Army MoraleText is subject to correctionUrgent Debates Declined — Relationships Aotearoa—Negotiations with Government Agencies Skycity Convention Centre—Design Iraq—Iraqi Army Morale[Sitting date: 26 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:13. Text is subject to correction.]Urgent Debates DeclinedRelationships Aotearoa—Negotiations with Government AgenciesSkycity Convention Centre—DesignIraq—Iraqi Army MoraleMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Annette King seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the failure of the negotiations between Government agencies and Relationships Aotearoa. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The failure of the negotiations with Government agencies was reported by Relationships Aotearoa yesterday. The negotiations concerned the level of future Government funding for the service. The House this week is debating the 2015-16 Budget and the departmental estimates are currently before select committees for examination. The Budget debate will provide the opportunity to discuss the matter today and the estimates examinations will provide the opportunity to consider it in detail and debate it further when select committee reports on the estimates are considered in the Committee of the whole House. On this basis the matter raised does not meet the test for me to set aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.I have also received a letter from Dr David Clark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the announcement today that the Skycity Auckland Convention Centre design will be downsized. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The revised design was announced today by the Minister for Economic Development and the Government is party to the agreement to build the convention centre. However the business of the House should not be set aside just because a ministerial announcement has been made even though it may be important. There must be such an element of urgency that the matter must take precedence over other business. In this instance I am not persuaded that there is an element of urgency that warrants the setting aside of the business of the House. The application is therefore declined.I have further received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to within an hour’s range of the Taji base and the Iraqis’ lack of will to fight. The matter outlined in Mr Mark’s letter does not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence and does not involve ministerial responsibility. The advance of ISIS and the state of the Iraqi army are not matters for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Government decision to deploy troops to Iraq was announced in February of this year and was debated in the House at that time. Because the application does not meet any of the criteria for an urgent debate set out in Standing Order 389 it is declined.
Draft transcript - Tuesday 19 May 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Tuesday 19 May 2015
Draft transcript - Thursday 07 May 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Thursday 07 May 2015
Draft transcript - Wednesday 29 April 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 29 April 2015
Roy Eric: Radiation Safety Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRoy Eric: Radiation Safety Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2093. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute call for the Green Party.
Tisch Lindsay: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2077. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): We are waiting for a Minister. The Minister needs to move the report-back date.
Tisch Lindsay: Radiation Safety Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Radiation Safety Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2099. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Todd McClay—Todd Barclay. My apologies.
Roy Eric: Radiation Safety Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionRoy Eric: Radiation Safety Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2094. Text is subject to correction.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call from the Labour Party.
Woodhouse Michael: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is subject to correctionWoodhouse Michael: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2077. Text is subject to correction.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration)on behalf of theMinister for Building and Housing: I move that the committee report to the House—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. There is wording for this so I will ask the whip to give you the wording. We must have this right.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I move That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill be reported back to the House by 31 July 2015.Motion agreed to.
Draft transcript - Wednesday 06 May 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 06 May 2015
Draft transcript - Tuesday 05 May 2015First draft - subject to correction.Draft transcript - Tuesday 05 May 2015AdjournmentSpeech - Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram)Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is not with pleasure that I rise to give this speech. Labour will be opposing this legislation. It is not a position that we wanted to be in. We did oppose the bill at its first reading. My predecessor and the spokesperson on the environment Moana Mackey made it very clear that we wanted to work very hard at the select committee stage to bring about the changes that meant we could support it. I think there are very few people in the world who would not support the stated purpose of the bill but it is when you get into the detail of the bill that the problems emerge. As Dr Smith set out in his contribution this is something that has been on the books of the National Government for a very long time. In fact it was promised in its 2008 election manifesto that it was going to introduce an environment reporting Act that required independent 5-yearly state of the environment reports. Well I guess that us being here tonight means that perhaps this Government has beat itself to a surplus in terms of the environment reporting bill because that was also promised in the 2008 manifesto. What this bill does not deliver is independent reporting. For Dr Smith to say that he challenges parties to justify why it is that it needs to be different—well I would like to hear from a Government contributor on this bill as to how it is that they disagree with the vast majority of submitters many of them very very deep in the detail of this bill who had grave concerns about the independence of the mechanisms that had been set up under this legislation. We heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment herself who had grave concerns around whether or not this bill would deliver independent decision making around which topics are to be covered. I am of course referring to clause 18 of this bill which is the central cause of Labour’s inability to support this bill. You simply cannot have the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Statistics making the decisions on what is being reported on and claim that you have independent reporting. What we have consistently asked for and we will be asking for again is that that decision be in the hands of the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician  who does consult with other people such as iwi such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and that they arrive at what it is. The Minister who has spoken was quite correct. We are the only country in the OECD not to have this. We really wanted to be able to support this legislation and to put in place a robust and independent environmental reporting.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Vote: Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionVote: Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third 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 third time.
Vote: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionVote: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]A party votewas called for on the questionThat clauses 1 to 13 and schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.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.Clauses 1 to 13 and schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Sepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionSepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:3062. Text is subject to correction.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):I just want to thank the previous speaker Winston Peters for giving me 30 seconds to speak in the House before we go home tonight.Debate interrupted.
Coleman Jonathan: Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Third ReadingText is subject to correctionColeman Jonathan: Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health)on behalf of theMinister of Finance: I move That the Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not my point. The point is that this is a 7-hour debate full stop. The question is that the reports of the committees relevant to internal affairs and Government relationships—[Interruption] Order! We are having a vote. The question is that the reports of committees relevant to internal affairs and Government relationships—arts culture and heritage defence finance and revenue internal affairs Māori affairs Pacific Island affairs Prime Minister and Cabinet security intelligence services for Parliament sport and recreation State services statistics Treaty negotiations and women’s affairs—be noted.Reports noted.
Peters Winston: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionPeters Winston: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a fresh point of order and it is this. Were there 84 5-minute speeches?
Tisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. The member will sit down.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well that’s why we’re going to oppose this sort of crap in the future.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member will sit. [Interruption] Order! The 7-hour time limit was determined by the Business Committee. [Interruption] I am on my feet and I am going to explain the position. Let me explain. The Business Committee determined that this would be a debate of 7 hours. There would be 84 5-minute calls. As I explained earlier if all those calls were not taken or the time for those debates was not expended then there were extra calls allocated. The 7 hours are now up. That is the end of the matter. I intend to put the vote. [Interruption] I am on my feet.The Business Committee made this determination. You have a member on the Business Committee who—[Interruption] Order! Points of order will be taken in silence. New Zealand First has a member on the Business Committee and that member would have been able to put their case at the time. That is what has been resolved and that is the process that we are now following. I intend to put the vote.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): If the member is trifling with my decision—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am having a point of order. That is within the Standing Orders. Can I please put it?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A point of order the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Peters Winston: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionPeters Winston: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is not unusual when you are going to have a planned debate like that that you have so many speakers or a time limit. That is why we objected to this process in the first place. I made it very clear in a point of order in this Chamber. My point is surely one should have the courtesy of being able to finish their 5-minute speech in this Chamber.
Tisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time for this debate has expired.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The time for this debate has expired.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I said a point of order. That means you sit down while I give it. All right?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You will sit down.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I want my point of order though.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You sit down. This is a 7-hour debate. The time for this debate has expired.
Peters Winston: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionPeters Winston: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):Let me say that I was down on Stewart Island recently and the place was packed out. The reason it was packed out for the benefit of the member for Invercargill is that down there they are in the top export bracket of New Zealand and the lower—
Tisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members there is one call left but the Business Committee determined that this would be a time-limited debate of 7 hours not just a debate of 84 5-minute calls. Hence when all calls are exhausted or where those with remaining calls are not seeking a call the call may go to any member seeking the call.The Business Committee determined the calls allocated to each party to ensure that each party has the opportunity to contribute to the annual review debate taking into account the proportion of seats held by that party in the House. However once those calls are exhausted or not sought the overall time limit prevails and the call may go to any member seeking the call.
Tisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question now is that the reports of committees relevant to internal affairs and Government relationships—arts culture and heritage defence finance and revenue internal affairs Māori affairs Pacific Island affairs Prime Minister and Cabinet security intelligence services for Parliament sport and recreation State services statistics Treaty negotiations and women’s affairs—be noted.
Browning Steffan: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionBrowning Steffan: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I believe there is another one for Jan Logie to come that I could use.
Mallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The numbers I have show that Catherine Delahunty had one of the substantive calls and had the only floating call. She took two calls and as I indicated at the beginning of the debate the Greens had two. They were used tonight by Eugenie Sage and Catherine Delahunty. If the figures were incorrect there the member might want to talk to Kevin Hague James Shaw and I am not sure who “DR” is who had the earlier calls.
Mallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No Mr Browning you cannot have a call. Your calls have been exhausted on this debate and your spare calls have all been used.Steffan Browning: I think your numbers are wrong.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I beg your pardon?
Mallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the next member I am going to repeat the comment I made earlier and it is that members must at some stage make a passing reference at least to the annual review or the report or the current operations of an agency. One of the three will do. But it would be good if that happened.
Mallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that the reports of committees relevant to primary industries—primary industries agriculture fisheries forestry horticulture biosecurity and food safety—be noted.
Tisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to the next theme and the question is that the reports of committees relevant to natural resources—conservation environment and lands—be noted.
Bindra Mahesh: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionBindra Mahesh: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First):This Government has built a brand new prison in South Auckland spending $350 million of public money when there was no need for a prison. We had 1861 spare beds in our prison system as at 31 October 2014 and that includes those that were made available as emergency accommodation. That $350 million could have been used to fund or upgrade schools or hospitals. But now this Government’s priority is towards building a brand new prison that is not required—not educating Kiwi kids or providing better health-care services. This is not even close to common sense.The South Auckland prison was built with a view to be handed over later to a corporate to run so that the corporate—principally Serco which is known to carry out shonky financial deals in the UK—could improve its bottom line. Prisons for profits: this in spite of the fact that the rehabilitative programmes provided by that company are in no way comparable with the ones provided by the public prison service. The public do not get any value for money. The staff do not get the benefits. The prisoners do not get the benefits. The only one to see any benefit is the company called Serco.Staff and prison safety: the Minister of Corrections admitted that private companies are not required to maintain the prisoner to staff ratio that is required in public prisons. This has had a detrimental effect on the safety of both staff and prisoners as evidenced at Mt Eden prison. There have been some serious assaults on staff at the Serco-run Mt Eden Corrections Facility and the Minister is aware of those. The number of prisoner assaults on staff and on other prisoners is relatively high in that prison and the reason for that is that there are fewer staff to manage violent incidents in that prison—that is when the prisoners are unlocked there are fewer staff to manage those units which results in prisoners getting violent and staff getting hurt. This has had a demoralising effect on staff and there has been a high staff turnover in that prison. New Zealanders do not feel safe working in privately run prisons.The next thing this Government does is close down units in publicly run prisons in order to fill the privately run prisons because that is what the contract says. We see no wisdom in this. In fact it is pure folly. This is the only way that the Government can justify the building of a new prison—shut the ones that we already have and move the prisoners into the new one at Wiri. It might seem like sense to this Government but to New Zealanders it makes no sense at all. This move is likely to render around 260 staff jobless—this from a Government that prides itself on creating jobs. It makes no sense at all. Our thoughts are with those staff and their families who will be affected by this new prison and with the communities that face an uncertain future. Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that the reports of committees relevant to justice—corrections courts Crown legal and drafting services justice police and serious fraud—be noted. In calling members for this debate can I just ask people to at some time make a reference to the period of expenditure under review or one of the select committee reports just to make the speeches relevant to the year before last.
Mallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just checking that the Green Party is choosing not to take its call on this. OK.Reports noted.
Mallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The House is in Committee for the Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. The Committee is debating the question that the reports of committees relevant to services for infrastructure—Canterbury earthquake recovery communications energy and transport—be noted. Many of the supplementary calls available for the debate have already been used by parties. National has five supplementary calls remaining. Labour has one. The Greens have one. New Zealand First has three. The Māori Party and ACT have one each.
Carter David: General DebateText is subject to correctionCarter David: General Debate[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member’s—[Interruption] Order! The member’s time has expired.
Simpson Scott: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionSimpson Scott: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]10.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel)to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received on improved access to first surgical assessments?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):I have received a recent report confirming that over the last 6 years the number of first surgical assessments has risen from 267000 a year to 317000. This increase means that now 50000 more patients each year are seeing a surgeon for a first assessment than in 2008. That contrasts dramatically with the 8 years prior to 2008 where access to first specialist assessments was actually cut in real terms.Scott Simpson: Has the increase in the number of first surgical assessments resulted in reductions to waiting times?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes it has led to significant reductions in the time that patients have to wait to see a surgeon. In 2006 there were over 15000 patients waiting over 6 months for their first surgical assessment. Today there are only two patients waiting over 6 months and only a small number waiting over 4 months. That is the result of the hard work of our dedicated health workforce and the Government’s commitment to increasing health funding despite tough times.Hon Annette King: How many New Zealanders have received letters in this last year telling them that they cannot have a first specialist assessment because they do not reach the threshold set by the district health board even though they have not even been seen by a specialist?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: District health boards have always set thresholds. We are the first Government that has ever attempted to count what the member is referring to and we are in the process of doing that. But what I can say is that we are not going to be removing 30000 people from waiting lists which happened when Mrs King was the health Minister.Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 11 Iain Lees-Galloway.Iain Lees-Galloway: Thank you. My question is to the Minister for Workplace—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. If the member Annette King was unhappy she should have risen to her feet on that occasion not by interjecting subsequently after I called her colleague.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—if you believe I need to get to my feet. If you go back and look at the answers of the Minister of Health today at the end of nearly every answer he has referred gratuitously to the time that I was Minister of Health. I was not—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat.
Parmar Parmjeet: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionParmar Parmjeet: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]8.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National)to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received on welfare numbers in New Zealand?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):Thanks to a growing economy and this Government’s welfare reforms benefit numbers are at a 6-year low. There are 11000 fewer people on a benefit compared with this time last year. Over 5000 of those people were on job seeker support at that time. This is extremely positive and continues the downward trend in the number of people on welfare. Getting off a benefit and into employment or study reduces long-term welfare dependence and allows individuals and families to thrive.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How have the Government’s welfare reforms supported sole parents off benefits?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The number of sole parent support clients reduced by 5471—7 percent—which is the lowest number since 1988. Even better results were achieved for those sole parents aged 18 to 24 years with a 10 percent reduction. That is 1700 young people no longer on sole parent support. We have invested millions into intensive support and training as well as helped with study and childcare for those sole parents so that working while raising children alone is achievable and rewarding. The evidence is very clear that this means far better outcomes for those parents and the long-term prospects for their children.Darroch Ball: Will the Minister stand by her Better Public Services target results of reducing benefit numbers and have them independently scrutinised by the Office of the Auditor-General; if not why not?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes I do stand by the targets that have been set under the Better Public Services targets. But actually the best audit of those results is by the public and that is done on a constant basis.
McCully Murray: Motions — Indonesia—ExecutionsText is subject to correctionMcCully Murray: Motions — Indonesia—Executions[Sitting date: 29 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2977. Text is subject to correction.]Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs):I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate regarding the recent executions in Indonesia.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I move That this House express its dismay at the executions carried out today by Indonesian authorities despite the vigorous representations on behalf of the condemned prisoners by Australia and other Governments reiterate its condemnation of the death penalty in all cases and strongly urge the Government of Indonesia to reconsider its use of the death penalty.Motion agreed to.
Draft transcript - Thursday 30 April 2015Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Thursday 30 April 2015
Bindra Mahesh: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBindra Mahesh: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2031. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First):It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and speak to the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill. I continue on from where I left off last time. This bill seeks to amend the previous legislation put in place where bailees and parolees including those offenders who are based in the community were at times liable to abstain from using drugs and alcohol. However there was no mechanism in place to make sure that they complied with those orders with the result that the legislation itself was rendered slightly powerless. But we support this bill because it seeks to strengthen the previous legislation which is the Sentencing Act the Parole Act and amendments to the Parole Act.This bill ensures that those offenders who have been ordered to stay away from drugs and alcohol actually do so and there are repercussions if they do not. This bill will make sure that offenders not only those inside the wire who are being randomly drug tested but also those in the community will be liable for random testing with regard to their use of drugs and alcohol. That will make our communities safer and that is the reason we support this bill. Also there will be parity between the offenders who are actually inside the prison with those who are entrusted to behave better outside the wire—those in the community.These are the reasons that we in New Zealand First believe this bill should be supported.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — GCSB—Surveillance of New Zealanders OverseasText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — GCSB—Surveillance of New Zealanders Overseas[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2031. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 recent revelations that the Government Communications Security Bureau has allegedly undertaken spying against New Zealanders in the Pacific.In ruling on an application for an urgent debate the Speaker has to determine whether there is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The particular case may arise sometime after the event occurred if members could not reasonably have found out about it at the time. If something occurs in secret it becomes an event for the purpose of the Standing Orders only when it becomes publicly known. However the making of allegations is not a particular case for which there is ministerial responsibility. An urgent debate cannot be granted on the basis of newspaper allegations or speculation. There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case that is being sought to debate.On this basis although I accept that the case has only now come to the member’s attention it does not meet the test for me to set aside the business of the House. The application is therefore declined.