edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Naylor Jono: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National): For the last 12 months since I announced that I was going to run for the National Party I have been approached by a lot of people asking: “Why would you be doing that? Why would someone with a degree in social work be joining the National Party? Why would you get involved?”. After today’s Budget I do not think I will be getting those questions any more. Today in this Budget this Government has raised—has raised—for the first time in 43 years the real bottom-line benefits for people with families.Chris Bishop: How many years?JONO NAYLOR: 43 years. The question we have to ask is: why now? I have heard that asked from across the other side of the House today: “Why now?”. Well I can tell you why now. It is because we have been able to grow the economy over recent times. We have been able to grow the minimum wage—we have been able to grow the gap between wages and what people are earning on benefits—to such a level that we can now raise benefits without disincentivising people to go to work. That is what happens when you have got a Minister of Finance who understands families and who understands how an economy works: you can have a Government that is working hard to ensure that all of these pieces of the jigsaw fit together to make a country that works hard and that is delivering the kinds of outcomes that New Zealanders want.We find ourselves now in a position where families who are struggling those who are on low incomes—and we all know that there are families who are struggling in our communities—will get more money in their pockets through an increase in Working for Families. And those who are unable to work at the moment will see a greater amount of money go into their bank accounts each week to enable them to start to lift themselves out of the place that they find themselves in. That is why I am supporting this bill that is why I am glad to hear others in this House are supporting this bill and I look forward to discussing it with the select committee and to bringing it back to this House so that we can continue to make good progress for families in New Zealand. Thank you.
Muller Todd: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMuller Todd: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): What a privilege to be able to stand to speak this evening to the Support for Children in Hardship Bill which gives effect to the hardship package that we announced this afternoon. Listening to the attack from the other side—I will tell you earlier today when Bill English was giving that Budget speech you could really see from the back of the House the impact that it was having not only on this side but particularly on the other side.Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition referenced my name in a speech and said I was “Mooller”—Todd “Mooller”. Well it is actually Todd “Muller”. It rhymes with “muller” as in “mullet” and the people who looked like stunned mullets as we were outlining a once-in-a-generational change were those on the other side of the House. It has been 43 years since benefits have risen and it is this side of the House—it is this Government—that has made—Hon David Parker: Looked more like a dead fish.TODD MULLER: Well I am sure you will turn up with two dead fish next week Mr Parker. It will happen. But seriously we have seen quite an afternoon here and what a tremendous bill to be able to stand up and talk to this afternoon.What a change that we can talk to. The first rise in 43 years—$25 a week for those with families on benefits and immediately it gets ridiculed by the other side. It is significant money and it talks of a Government that cares and when the Government is in a position to respond to the needs of New Zealand it does. We were handed an absolute cot-case of an economy. It has taken 6 years to get to this position and now we are in that position to respond to the needs of New Zealanders. That is exactly what we have done and that is the reaction we are getting. The Opposition members know it from the reaction that is going on outside.This is a very very good bill. It is great to be able to talk to it—194000 jobs since 2011. The reason I say that is important is it means there are 42000 fewer children living in welfare-dependent homes. We are making a difference and therefore we can put a package like this in place to encourage those who are still yet to make that journey to be able to do it. We will stand beside them and make sure that in their hour of need we are there. We are running an economy that enables them to move from welfare to work. This Government is working we have a plan that is working and I cannot wait to support this bill through the various stages of the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.
Doocey Matt: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDoocey Matt: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It gives me great honour to rise and support the first reading of the Support for Children in Hardship Bill. As a first-term member of Parliament and hearing my first Budget it was one of those moments where time just seemed to stop. There was plenty of time to soak in all the news and all the information. I think today will be a definitive point over the next year over the next 2 years and over the next 3 years. What I mean by that is that this Budget has proved that the National Party is the working people’s party. We are out there working for the people of New Zealand but we are listening to the people of New Zealand. Why I know that we are the working people’s party is that we have created over 194000 jobs since 2011 and we will go on to create tens of thousands more. That is important for this bill because we know that job creation reduces child poverty.The Budget announced a $790 million child hardship package. Working families who earn less than $27000 will get a $24.50 increase to their Working for Families payment every week. That is 4000 families. This National Government is the working people’s party. Families earning $27000 to $36350 will get a $12.50 increase to their Working for Families payment. That is 50000 families in New Zealand.When I campaigned last year I met many people who were voting National for the first time. They had voted for Labour all their life but they knew that we were working for New Zealanders and we were listening to New Zealanders. We are delivering better jobs and better incomes. They said to us to support the most vulnerable. That is why for beneficiary families—how much time?Todd Muller: Keep going.MATT DOOCEY: We are increasing the benefit by $25 every week. That is 110000 families. I know that when we look back we will know that we have worked hard for the working people of New Zealand and we have listened to them.I am proud of this National Government which is working hard for the working people of New Zealand. Thank you.
Brownlee Gerry: Budget Statement —Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Budget Statement —[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That the debate be now adjourned.
English Bill: Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEnglish Bill: Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.
Carter David: Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
English Bill: Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEnglish Bill: Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I hereby present the 2015 Budget Minister’s Executive Summary the Speech the Fiscal Strategy Report (B.2) the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (B.3) and the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2016 (B.5 Volumes 1-10).
Carter David: Appropriation (2014/15 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — ProcedureText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Appropriation (2014/15 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.
English Bill: Appropriation (2014/15 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — ProcedureText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEnglish Bill: Appropriation (2014/15 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2015 (B.7).
Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAppropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill — Procedure First Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) BillProcedureHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I hereby present the 2015 Budget Minister’s Executive Summary the Speech the Fiscal Strategy Report (B.2) the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (B.3) and the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2016 (B.5 Volumes 1-10).Mr SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.First ReadingHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.
Appropriation (2014/15 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — ProcedureText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAppropriation (2014/15 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Procedure[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 21 May 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Appropriation (2014/15 Supplementary Estimates) BillProcedureHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I hereby present the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2015 (B.7).Mr SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.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.Motion agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7668. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party votewas called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 89New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 32New Zealand Labour 32.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129 in the name of the Hon Todd McClay to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Wagner Nicky: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7683. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): I would like to take just a short call to answer one of the queries that David Clark put up to the House. He was concerned about the accommodation for ministers of religion and this is clause 70 of the bill. Yes I can confirm that this is a clarifying amendment and it is to ensure that the original policy intent is met. The change ensures that the value of the accommodation is not double-counted when accommodation is part of the minister’s remuneration. So it is not double-dipping; it is a clarification.
Tabuteau Fletcher: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7682. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I just wanted to carry on from one of the contributions earlier around the ”black hole” expenditure issue. It is a question of appropriateness and fairness and so the question needs to be put to the Committee: what is this black hole expenditure? It is defined as expenditure that is currently neither deductible nor depreciable over a financial year or in fact at all.And speaking specifically to new section CG 7C of the Income Tax Act inserted by clause 73 and section DB 34(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act in clause 85 what they are trying to do there with this tidy-up of the legislation is to remove—or it is probably best to describe it as reduce—distortions that discourage investments in research and development. So New Zealand First wholeheartedly supports the intent there. There has been a lot of ambiguity and a lot of accountants going back and forth—in fact I think one of the earlier contributions mentioned court cases around what is involved and how we resolve these issues and come back with clear and meaningful definitions.The black hole exemptions have been issues going forward. But what I want to say—and the example I want to use—relates to expenditure on derecognised non-depreciable assets so it is a person incurring expenditure specifically on the development of an intangible asset. I just put it to the Minister—and it is a short call Mr Chair. But when you look at that language—and I will just say again that it is specifically on the development of an intangible asset in terms of a person incurring an expenditure—I put the question to the Minister: will the issue be resolved?New Zealand First acknowledges that the black hole exemptions from items that are neither deductible nor non-depreciable have created an issue in the past. We do want to incentivise small to medium sized businesses particularly in terms of giving them a chance to claim those tax credits but the problem is does this now not create just a different issue of ambiguity around the black hole exemptions? So some clarification is what New Zealand First is seeking there because when you read the legislation the ambiguity is still there to be fair and it is simply a matter of the need for clarification. Thank you.
Mitchell Mark: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7682. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I move That the question be now put.
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that Part 3 stand part. Just for clarification this is debate on clauses 66 to 220 and on schedules 1 to 3.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I move That the question be now put.
Robertson Grant: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7671. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much for that clarification and somewhat pejorative explanation of my speech. Can I ask you a question—a point of clarification? When we are debating Part 2 are we able to draw in material relating to the commencement date of that part or would you rule us as not able to do that as a result of there being a separate debate on clause 2 of the bill?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think that if members made passing reference it would be acceptable but if people try to focus their entire speech on something that is actually part of a later part of the bill then I will rule them out of order.
Macindoe Tim: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7668. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Goodhew Jo: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoodhew Jo: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7668. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I want to respond to a couple of the questions that have been posed by Opposition members during this debate insomuch as I have sought some advice on answers to them.In terms of serious hardship which is a question that has been raised it is already defined in the Act and it has been in place for a number of years. With reference to Supplementary Order Paper 77 this ensures that the serious hardship provision can be used in a wider range of situations alongside the “fair and reasonable” test in order to write off penalties. So that is some clarification that I have been advised on with regard to that question.The question “Does the change to the student hardship benefit definition penalise the student?” has also been raised. In answer to that question the answer is no. The change in the definition will mean that sole parents who are students and who go on a benefit for student hardship are not forced to apply for child support; they can continue with any private arrangement. So I thank the members opposite for their questions and I hope that adds some clarity to the discussion.
McKelvie Ian: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7664. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am not going to take it now; I am going to make it clear why. I have been listening to this debate from outside the Chamber and I have been listening to it now. The purpose of the Committee stage debate is for the principles accepted in the second reading to be checked against some technical details of the bill. An important part of that from my perspective is the ability for members to have an interchange with the Minister in charge of the bill and to ask questions. Clearly if the Government declines to take part in that it will not go on for ever but I want to reiterate the message that I have previously given to the Committee and that is that closure motions are more likely to be accepted in a shorter time period if Ministers have engaged in a positive manner to non-political technical questions.
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7663. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am tempted but this is an important part in an important bill.
Young Jonathan: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7663. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I move That the question be now put.
Macindoe Tim: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7662. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7660. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I move That the question be now put.
Simpson Scott: Radiation Safety Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Radiation Safety Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7647. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As a member of the Health Committee it is a great pleasure to speak in the second reading debate on the Radiation Safety Bill in the name of my friend and colleague Jonathan Coleman the Minister of Health.When the speeches leading off this debate were made earlier on by colleagues on the Health Committee I was impressed with the range of knowledge and depth of understanding that my colleagues had absorbed from this bill and our hearings into it at select committee. One of the great things about being a member of this Parliament is that even though you have no particular expertise—and as members we may not have a particular knowledge of a subject area or a piece of legislation—when a piece of technical legislation such as this comes before a committee such as the Health Committee which is a collegial and well-chaired committee and one that works hard and diligently you do learn things as a member of a committee like that. That certainly has been my experience on this piece of legislation. It is something that has been I think an exemplar in terms of how a select committee process should work and I want to acknowledge and also thank the Hon Annette King for the comments she made during her contribution with regard to the very competent level of advice and professionalism received from officials and staff during the select committee hearings and process.This is a technical bill. It is a bill that replaces legislation that dates to the mid-1960s and the amount of technological advancement medical advancement and improvement in science and knowledge that has occurred in those intervening years is hardly necessary to explain. However it is important that our legislation improves and keeps up with modern technology and new ways of doing things. This bill does that I think in a very good way. It is a way of ensuring that medical professionals are secure that the users of these types of rays and radiation are secure and that the beneficiaries of treatments that are achieved from that medical use are also protected.But it goes further than that and it is not going to be something that I want to get into in terms of making great proclamations as to the definitions of the technical aspects of this bill other than to say that I think the select committee has done an extremely good job. All members of the committee worked very well. I am delighted to hear that there seems to be unanimous support for this bill across the House and so I commend it to the House.
Mathers Mojo: Radiation Safety Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMathers Mojo: Radiation Safety Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7646. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MOJO MATHERS (Green): The Green Party supports the Radiation Safety Bill. I agree with my colleague Kevin Hague when he said that maybe it should be called the “Ionising Radiation Safety Bill” because that is the focus of this bill.Obviously it is an important bill because it is going to update and modernise the regulation of ionising radiation in New Zealand. This is important because not only is this radiation used in a wide range of applications but the use of it does carry with it a certain level of risk. It is one that the public is not able to assess for themselves. When they go for an X-ray whether it is a dental one or at the hospital they need to have trust that the regulatory regime is robust enough that they will not be exposed to more risk from that radiation than would be acceptable. Obviously all exposure has the potential to cause harm so what this bill is trying to do is balance the benefits of the use of being exposed to damaging ionising radiation with the harm that can result from that and to ensure that that exposure occurs only when the benefits are greater than the risk of harm which includes the increased risk of cancer and other damage as a result of that exposure.I was one of those who would have liked to see a single regulatory framework that covered both ionising and non-ionising radiation. Obviously the way that they affect the body and the way that they cause harm is different but the reality is that exposure to both can cause harm. The exposure to ionising radiation carries with it in most cases a much greater risk of harm and therefore the priority is to make sure that our regulatory regime for ionising radiation is robust and strong because the risk of harm is very well known and very well quantified. That does have to be the priority and that is why we need to support this bill because it is finally updating the laws to meet international standards and ensure a higher level of compliance which is absolutely what we need to see in New Zealand.However it does not therefore follow that our current levels of regulation around non-ionising radiation are adequate. I would hope that further down the track the Ministry of Health will look at and review the regulations and standards that govern non-ionising radiation because there is greater and greater exposure to non-ionising radiation from a very wide range of sources and there is greater public concern about this. So we accept the recommendation of the officials that we do not try to incorporate it into this bill but it does not therefore follow that that is an issue we should ignore altogether.The Green Party supports this bill. We support a robust regulatory regime for ionising radiation we support compliance with international standards we support the high levels of compliance that we hope will arise out of the bill and therefore we are pleased to be supporting it. Thank you.
Dean Jacqui: Radiation Safety Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Radiation Safety Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7645. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): A lot of the debate in this Chamber has been around the difference between and the nature of ionising and non-ionising radiation and they are important distinctions to be made clearly in this bill. The Radiation Safety Bill applies to ionising radiation which of course is X-rays and gamma rays.I just want to refer to some of the comments around non-ionising radiation that have been made by other members throughout the House and their reference to sun-tanning beds and how in the context of another piece of legislation some members were calling for the complete ban of the use of sun-tanning beds in New Zealand. We did arrive at a different position in the Health Committee. I want to sound just a slight note of caution around that total prohibition position because for sufferers of skin conditions such as psoriasis which is a very common and upsetting skin condition—Louisa Wall: That’s medical. That’s not about cosmetic use. It’s not even relevant.JACQUI DEAN: The member opposite says it is not even relevant but I contend that it is indeed relevant to those people who have several choices when dealing with the treatment of psoriasis. They can if they live in Wellington make an appointment to go to Wellington Regional Hospital. They can take the bus or they can walk or whatever to get to Wellington Regional Hospital park their vehicle pay the fee wait in the waiting room until it is their turn go into the non-ionising radiation facility get their 10 20 30 or 1 minute session of radiation for their psoriasis then repeat the procedure having taken half a day off work and losing income. Or they can go down to Courtenay Place or Lambton Quay and go and treat themselves for their psoriasis. I think that is a valuable option for people to have. That is my position on it. I see it as being a very valuable alternative. However we can have that argument and we will have that argument in the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill perhaps later today.The Radiation Safety Bill is not actually really about the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. It is actually about modernising the framework around the use of X-ray and gamma ray facilities. If one thinks about it there are X-ray suites and gamma ray suites and radiation therapy suites up and down New Zealand and also in dental surgeries that indeed take films of schoolchildren. What this bill does is it brings the legislation around the use of those facilities in line with modern practice. That is what it does. It does it very well. I commend the bill to the House.
Twyford Phil: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): So as we have been saying there are three main provisions in the bill. The first deals with basically trying to deliver more clarity by inserting the qualifying criteria out of the Gazette notice and into the legislation itself. The second as we have been saying is a response to Osborne v Auckland Council and the question of definition of “built”. The third which I do not think we have discussed sufficiently yet is really about the issue of the qualifying claimant.The point here is that for a claimant to apply for the funding assistance package under the Act a notice to proceed must be issued. In order to get that notice to proceed the claimant has to be considered a qualifying claimant and there are a number of steps involved—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that I have to interrupt the member. [Interruption] I am sure he does not regret it. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill with amendment and divided into 15 bills the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill with amendment progress on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill and no progress on the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill.Report adopted.
Vote: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of David Clendon to clause 6 be agreed to.
Vote: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.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.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 76 in the name of David Clendon to clause 6 be agreed to.
Ross Jami-Lee: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Williams Poto: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I just have a couple of things that I would like some clarity on but first I do want to reiterate as I said in my earlier contribution on Part 1 that this bill will seek to define what the built date is which is not actually defined in the primary legislation. As I understand it the built date is 10 years after the code compliance certificate is issued. But what I do want to ask—and it is unfortunate that we do not have the responsible Minister Nick Smith here because there is an issue around the weathertightness of homes that has a direct relationship to what is happening within the Canterbury rebuild. That for many of the constituents who come through the doors of my office and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove’s office and the other Christchurch MPs’ offices is around the repair strategy that is stymied because of the implication that there might be weathertightness issues with the home. So a lot of Earthquake Commission issues are held up because of this type of issue.What I would like to ask the Minister is: if that becomes part of the Earthquake Commission’s scope of works the weathertightness issue where do those residents in Canterbury fit into the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill? Is there going to be an opportunity for their concerns to be addressed within this bill? I know it is potentially slightly out of the scope but it has a big impact on the people who are part of the Canterbury rebuild and I would ask the Minister whether he has got an answer to that question. Thank you.
Rurawhe Adrian: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRurawhe Adrian: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered this bill but I am very interested in the whole process of it. In particular I want to acknowledge the Osborne family for their part in bringing this legislation into the House by their pure perseverance with this issue. I was reading the regulatory impact statement also absolutely staggered at the numbers in here—you know “42000 homes … likely to be leaky and the total economic cost (including repairs and transaction costs) to remediate them could be $11.3 billion.” which is an enormous amount of money in anyone’s language.Speaking in particular to the parts that through this bill widen the definition for qualifying as a claimant I think it is really important that those claimants who are affected by this unfortunate incident of having a leaky home through no fault of their own will be comforted that they are now included in this and come under this bill. So the meaning of a “qualifying claimant” in clause 5 is the particular part that I wanted to look at. Also we have the bill and I also have a copy of Supplementary Order Paper 125 which wholly replaces section 125BA and—sorry—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Section 125BB.ADRIAN RURAWHE: —section 125BB thank you. I think it is important that—and the part that I was looking at in particular was the situation where a claimant has already applied for adjudication. So taking this which is new section 125BA(2)(ii) inserted by clause 5 it makes it quite clear that “the claimant must withdraw from the adjudication in accordance with section 67” so that “if the claimant has applied for adjudication under this Act … whether the claimant has commenced mediation or adjudication) and the relevant participating territorial authority is named as a party in the application or later joined to the application then—(i) the participating territorial authority must agree to the claimant receiving a financial contribution …”. I think that is the main part that I wanted to acknowledge within this particular clause here.I think overall Part 1 in addressing these three main areas is important to acknowledge. That is all I have to contribute to this bill. Kia ora.
Borrows Chester: Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill — In Committee00DBHOH_BILL12851.1Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill — In Committee00DBHOH_BILL12851.1[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Tirikatene Rino: Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill — In Committee00DBHOH_BILL12851.1Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTirikatene Rino: Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill — In Committee00DBHOH_BILL12851.1[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. It is a pleasure to take a first-up call on this very significant piece of legislation. I am very proud to be a member of the Māori Affairs Committee—Tim Macindoe: I do apologise to the member on his feet. I am sorry I was distracted. By agreement with the whips I seek leave for debate on the Waitangi National Trust Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate with the voting on the parts to be taken separately.
Macindoe Tim: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to clause 46 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Ross Jami-Lee: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Tisch Lindsay: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to hear from David Clendon. He has two amendments.
Doocey Matt: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDoocey Matt: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.JOANNE HAYES (National) on behalf of MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery:What recent announcements have been made on the development of key anchor projects in Christchurch?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): This morning I announced that interest is being sought from contractors wanting to be involved in the planning and building of the Metro Sports Facility in Christchurch. This follows last month’s release of tenders for architectural and engineering design services. The Government has also increased the funding available for the facility to ensure that it is a first-class asset for Christchurch. Proposals are readily coming in from prospective designers. There is now real momentum in this development. It is a key anchor project that will cater for everything from recreational to elite sport.Joanne Hayes: How is the Government working with Christchurch City Council on the Metro Sports Facility project?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government is working extremely well with the Christchurch City Council on a number of areas. Particularly we point to this project where it is a shared responsibility. We have also worked with the council particularly on agreeing a funding mechanism which has meant that the Government has provided a little more funding than initially proposed. The tender released today is a step forward to the development of that facility which will be a great asset for Christchurch.
Ball Darroch: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBall Darroch: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7419. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes when taken in context.Darroch Ball: Does she stand by her reply to my written questions requesting the readmission rates and number of reported assaults on young people at Korowai Manaaki Youth Justice North facility stating after 11 days that she “could not provide the information in the required time frame”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes I do. The member has asked for some quite detailed information that has to come from its records and we will get it as soon as possible.Darroch Ball: How can she state that “The ministry is investigating the allegations regarding Korowai Manaaki and any concerns are being addressed.” when she is still clearly unable to provide important basic statistics which an investigating ministry would be expected to have readily available?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have said to the member the allegations that he made in September in the House about Korowai Manaaki are actually being investigated. That is what is happening and I will continue to make sure that they are investigated.Darroch Ball: What important data does the Minister actually have readily available on our youth justice facilities or is the answer actually none showing a blatant lack of oversight allowing these current issues to occur in the first place?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member has asked me in written questions for some quite detailed information about a number of our youth justice residences and I have asked for that information. It has not come in time to answer a written question so I have given him an interim answer to say that I will get that information for him as soon as possible and I will do that.