edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
4. Question No. 4—CorrectionsHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of CorrectionsQuestion No. 4—Corrections4. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement We have never had to manage a prisoner like this before" in relation to the alleged Christchurch gunman?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes. Hon David Bennett: Can he confirm that he knew in advance that the most rigorous procedures would be needed to manage this high-risk prisoner? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes of course the most rigorous procedures would be necessary to manage this offender and that's exactly what corrections did although we know that the letter that was sent out should not have been sent out under the law as it stands. That was a failure of corrections. They have acknowledged that they have apologised and they have set out to fix that problem. Hon David Bennett: What steps did he take when this high-risk prisoner entered the system to ensure the most rigorous procedures were both available and in place? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I met regularly with corrections and sought assurances from them around the management of this offender. Hon David Bennett: Does he stand by his statements that it's a system failure when he has responsibility for the system? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Absolutely it was a failure of the system. As I said that letter should have been withheld. It wasn't. The chief executive of corrections has admitted that it was a mistake—a failure of the system—and that it shouldn't have happened and we're now reviewing the mail system not just for this offender but for the whole mail system across the prisons. Hon David Bennett: Has he apologised to the victims for his failure to ensure that the system worked to keep them safe? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes. I've spoken directly to representatives of the community that was affected and the chief executive of corrections will be heading down to Christchurch herself to have a conversation with that community."
3. Question No. 3—ImmigrationHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 3—Immigration 3. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to Karel Sroubek?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you Mr Speaker. In the context they were given and made yes. This includes my decision of 28 November to make Mr Sroubek liable for deportation. This decision of course is subject to the usual appeal process.Hon Mark Mitchell: Has he seen correspondence from Immigration New Zealand officials that confirms there is a possibility that the board may look to releasing him on parole when Karel Sroubek appears before the Parole Board in the week of 16 September? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That's a matter for the Parole Board. SPEAKER: No. Order! I think the member should actually address the question. Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Have I seen any reports? Not that I can think of specifically—no. Hon Mark Mitchell: When he granted Karel Sroubek residency did he take into account community safety? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes and I did so when I made him liable for deportation as well. Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it still his opinion that a convicted drug smuggler with a history of fraud identity theft and serious assault poses a low risk to public safety in New Zealand as he said in November? Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that we do have to take care that from the member's question—and I don't have any first-hand knowledge of this—there is a matter that the Parole Board is going to be asked to consider. The member's question invites the Minister of Immigration to express a view on a matter that the Parole Board is going to have to make a decision on. SPEAKER: Yeah I have a lot of confidence in the Parole Board that they can see past comments of that sort from both sides of the House. Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Could the member ask the question again? SPEAKER: Could you repeat the question please. Hon Mark Mitchell: Is it still his opinion that a convicted drug smuggler with a history of fraud identity theft and serious assault poses a low risk to public safety in New Zealand as he said back in November? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I think I expressed my opinion when I made that person liable for deportation. Hon Mark Mitchell: Can he confirm that as long as Karel Sroubek is in the middle of an active appeal process he cannot be deported from New Zealand so if he is released from prison on parole he will be back on our streets? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well whether he is released on parole from prison is a matter for the Parole Board.
SpeechHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I seek leave for the committee to report progress.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I will report progress.House resumed.Bill reported with progress.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 11.21 p.m.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave of the committee for the questions on Supplementary Order Papers 304 306 318 302 320 and 321—those being all the remaining amendments to the amendment in my name Supplementary Order Paper 259—to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave has been sought to take that action. Is there any objection? Yes. There is objection.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Point of order the Hon Simon O'Connor.SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh look I'm feeling better already. That's very kind of you!CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I beg your pardon the ordinary Simon O'Connor.SIMON O'CONNOR: I was going to say less honourable". No. I seek leave of the committee that the subsequent votes 31 of them are carried over to the next members' sitting day.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So you're perfectly able to seek leave to achieve that. The way you do it is you seek leave for the committee to report progress.SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh sounds fantastic. So I seek leave of the committee that the committee report progress.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'll put that leave. Is there any objection? OK there is."
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move That the question be now put.
SpeechPAULO GARCIA (National): I rise to speak on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 314 which is in my name understanding that elder abuse is endemic in New Zealand and that a major study in 2015 found that 10 percent of elderly New Zealanders—nearly 70000—have suffered some form of abuse either physically sexually psychologically financially or through neglect. Another study has found that 79 percent of elder abusers are the family or whānau of the victim—their friends and their children—and that the victims are often very old people in poor health especially women. Financial and psychological abuse are the most common forms of elder abuse and neglect. Understanding this situation the SOP that I am proposing is to ensure that when a person approaches a medical practitioner with a stated desire or wish be assisted in his or her death that person be given clear and enough information about the end of life options that they have and that they are clearly informed that they do not have to choose death at that point. The amendment that I propose is for clause 8 replacing paragraph (c) on page 6 lines 14 and 15 with new paragraph (c) to ensure that the person understands their other options for end of life care including the following in particular as valid legal alternatives to assisted dying under this Act: (i) [clearly] palliative care: receiving pain relief that may have the incidental effect of shortening [their] life: [and] the person's right to refuse medical treatment to sustain or prolong their life".Many times when a vulnerable person gets to the point of making that decision of wanting to be assisted in their death then the person may just not be aware of all the other options that they may have and all the possible treatments that may be given to them without having to go all the way to having assisted death.This SOP amends clause 8 and it is an attempt to ensure that the person who is contemplating euthanasia or assisted suicide is fully informed of all the options available to them. It may just well be that the person who is already thinking of ending his or her suffering by assisted death just may not be fully aware and not be knowledgeable enough that the pain and suffering they may be experiencing at that point in time may actually be helped and not have to resort to being assisted to die. So really it is information and making sure that that information is given to them and making sure that they understand the information that has been provided to them so that they can make an informed decision going forward. At this point if the person requesting to exercise the option of receiving assisted dying still wishes to proceed the attending medical practitioner must exert all effort for them to be able to be certain that the person has been informed and is fully aware of all their options."
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I know you haven't made a call on that but I have got a number of Supplementary Order Papers—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Have you got a point of order Simeon Brown? Do you have a point of order? Can I just advise the committee that we have had over two hours of debate. There are only 12 clauses in this part. Every member who has lodged a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) has spoken to it with the exception of the Hon Michael Woodhouse and fortunately the Hon Tim Macindoe and the Hon Dr David Clark and others have addressed his SOP because he is unable to be partaking in the debate. There has been a huge amount of repetition. If we continue the debate it would be advantageous if we could have genuine questions to the member responsible for the bill or new material.Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do raise a point of order in respect of Speaker's ruling 61/4. I've long felt there is a really unsatisfactory aspect relating to closure motions and that is that there is no opportunity to explore the reasons why they might have been accepted—and of course that completely shuts things down. So in fact I'd like to raise both Speakers ruling 61/2 and—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt. Have you got a point of order?Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes. Under Speaker's ruling 61/4 and—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Do you have a point of order?Hon TIM MACINDOE: I'm raising a point of order with you under Speaker's ruling 61/4 in Speakers' Rulings and Speakers' ruling 61/2 and the point I want to make is to draw your attention to the fact that in this particular debate there are a huge number of amendments that are being put. Yes there has been a significant body of debate already but a number of SOPs have not yet been debated. A number of those members—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry if the member could resume his seat. I haven't ruled that the debate is closed—Hon Tim Macindoe: No no—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I haven't ruled that the debate is closed. Acceptance of a closure motion then leaves it in the hands of the committee to decide whether the debate has concluded. My only role is to put the motion and I haven't. So if the member would like to read further on that page I think it would be to his advantage.
SpeechKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to contribute in the second part of this bill. I would like to start where Dr Nick Smith left—that it is very important that the family of the person concerned should be informed. It is very important. I would like to touch upon my Supplementary Order Paper 309 which touches on clause 17(1). It says to amend the words within 14 working days of a person's death" with "as soon as practicable but in any case no later than five working days after a person's death". It is very important I think Mr Seymour. I spent three or four days listening to the submissions in Auckland. Had that member done that listening to the submissions he would have changed his mind and withdrawn his member's bill because there were so many moving submissions given. Not a single person turned up on those days who was in favour of this bill; everyone was against this bill. That would have really changed the mind of the member I hope if he had done the hard yards sitting on the Justice Committee. This clause where 14 working days is being mentioned—it can be up to a month because when we are talking about 14 working days it means 3 weeks. If it is during the Christmas period it can be extended to a month or so. Why would they want to hold this information to be sent to the registrar for a month? Then there is a process after that which is to be followed. The second thing which I am really concerned about is that I went with my colleagues the Hon Jacqui Dean and the Hon Amy Adams to visit the Netherlands to understand this bill. I was not convinced that there are clauses which can protect vulnerable people so they will not be abused with this bill. I think it is very important that we have to make sure that the people who we consider are vulnerable should not be abused and should not be given this process. We know that particularly if we are talking about culturally from the Indian perspective or from the ethnic perspective it is very important. Some of the people will not understand what is happening and some of the religions—particularly I was talking to the Muslim community; their religion doesn't allow suicide and this is a kind of suicide which is being promoted in this bill. They can't understand it. There are loopholes in this bill where people will be really struggling to understand what is going to happen because there will be reasons why the family members or someone who has got an interest in a person's death and can benefit from that reason. So I think the members of this House will consider my Supplementary Order Paper in which we are replacing the words "within 14 working days of a person's death" to "as soon as practicable but in any case no later than five working days after a person's death" and will be supported by the members so that we can at least provide this protection to the person. Thank you."
SpeechEND OF LIFE CHOICE BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 31 July.Part 2 Assisted dyingCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We now come to Part 2—debate on clauses 6 to 18.
KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I'd like to make a brief contribution and a positive contribution to this debate. This bill appears to be on track to pass in the House today and that's positive in a number of respects. I acknowledge the member Hamish Walker for getting a member's bill through the House it would seem that will make a positive difference to people. There are approximately 500 to 700 foster children who will potentially gain access to KiwiSaver under the provisions of this bill. I feel positive because members across the House and on this side of the House have engaged with the content of the bill and have got to the point of having a workable piece of legislation that navigates the complex issues around foster care in respect of rights of guardianship that are very real issues. I also very feel very positive because after 13 years of voting against KiwiSaver at virtually every single turn from its inception in 2006—and I quote here from a National speaker in that debate: National will not support KiwiSaver. We do not think it will work enormously in its current form. … There is no incentive on employers to encourage this scheme and the Minister of Finance has once again—as he so often does—got it horribly wrong." and I acknowledge the former Prime Minister the Right Hon John Key as the leader of the National Party for his contribution to the KiwiSaver debate in 2006. The reality is that party has voted and spoken against KiwiSaver at every turn. They gutted it in their previous term of Government but the good news today is that they seem to be finally coming to their senses and supporting members and parties on this side of the House who know that KiwiSaver which has built up savings of $50 billion in New Zealand for the benefit of New Zealanders in their retirement is a good scheme. That's some good news. I'm happy about that and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. Now I think it's great that a good National Party lad like Hamish Walker loves KiwiSaver so much that he wants to make it have its widest reach possible. I commend the member for having that good intent. You know a question: where was that a while ago?—I guess he wasn't in Government back then. So the point being that the main change that this bill has gone through when the select committee process has occurred is that to extend it as far as those caregivers who are in short-term arrangements has some concerns and that's where the submissions stepped in there. So to address the issue that the previous member raised it was considered that it would be out of step with current legislation and current practice where they are temporary caregivers. The key reasons for this is that there were concerns that short-term foster parents may not be the best-placed to consider what is a long-term financial interest of the child. Also at select committee there were concerns raised about the situations where foster care arrangements are short term and may change over time. The third one that was raised by submitters also was that a child's subsequent caregivers may have different views about finances including KiwiSavers. So it's important that we acknowledge that everyone is due a right but it's also important that that role is safeguarded—what that role is in looking after a child. I think that it's fantastic that we have such strong support from across the House for KiwiSaver and it's such a marvellous scheme. It's great to see it continuing for many years yet. I commend this bill to the House.
Ghahraman Golriz; Rurawhe AdrianGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise in support of this bill the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. The Green Party has a long history of supporting measures that make New Zealand more equal in particular when it comes to our youngest Kiwis and we have a long history of supporting KiwiSaver. In fact we have a policy where we believe that every child in New Zealand should have a KiwiSaver account with a $1000 contribution by the Government that they can access when they turn 18. That's in recognition of the inequality that children face in our society and a widening gap that has been happening for decades now but in particular over the last decade when New Zealand has been breaking inequality records and our child poverty stats have been criticised by international agencies by the IMF by the United Nations. We would like to do everything we can to make New Zealand more equal.When children turn 18 they should have the kinds of opportunities that we all hope for our own children. They should have the option of studying of taking up higher education expensive apprenticeships buying a car travelling. At the moment those things are not realistic for a vast number of children in New Zealand. We feel that that shouldn't depend on your family make-up on the generational wealth and this bill goes some way to make that a reality for children in foster care. So it does enable foster parents who have committed to long-term care arrangements to enrol children in KiwiSaver. It clarifies care arrangements. It does something that will benefit those children in the long term which is to introduce them to a tradition of saving as well which is always good. It's something that my parents certainly instilled upon me and we certainly didn't have a lot when we first came to New Zealand so I have valued that particular skill as well.But this is something that will become part of the fabric of New Zealand culture for those children and it's something that they didn't have access to before which actually has been quite a shame. So I do commend the bill to the House. I hope that it will be part of a suite of measures as we go forward and I know that it will be as part of this Government's commitment to addressing both child poverty and inequality generally in New Zealand. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Agnes Loheni—five minutes.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. In response to that member Simon O'Connor and what the bad intentions of this bill are: well it is about the erosion of the guardians' right—only guardians can open a KiwiSaver. And might I say it is because of a Labour Government who had a long-term view for the best for New Zealand that we have this KiwiSaver. There are 1124040 young people under the age of 18 years old who all have guardians—who all have guardians. We are born into guardianship and the only time that guardianship is changed is through the court. It's only through the court that they change the guardianship—through the court. So this bill: I am in support of it because it is saying that at the hands of the highest powers of the land the court can change what a guardian is.I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister who says that this is the best place to be a child. We are looking at this for the long term. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō 'aupito.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I too would like to congratulate Hamish Walker very earnestly for bringing this bill to select committee and to the House. The reason it has restrictions on it is quite simply because of the officials and what we learnt at the select committee which was that foster parents are sometimes there for two weeks. The definition of a foster parent or kin carer does not give us the confidence that we could allow them to make the decision. The decision should be made by the person who is actually the primary carer of the child at the time. That's what it's about. But before I finish what I must say is that I'm sitting here thinking that the Opposition brought the matter of KiwiSaver to the House—and if they are that concerned about it why in 2014 did they stop the Government contribution? That is what would have done more for children like this. That's the reality. We are now debating KiwiSaver. What a shame we are not debating about actually bringing back the Government contribution that they stopped. That would have been something that that party could have done for the children of New Zealand. So while we are supporting this bill just remember to put this whole thing in context.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Youth): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I stand to support this bill—the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. I want to on this day acknowledge King Tūheitia who celebrates his 13th year sitting on the ahurewa we call it or the mantle that his mother once occupied. I want to acknowledge him not just because of this commemoration but because in his speech today he talked about equity and he talked about our tamariki. And I think that's relevant in this particular case because we do want equity. We do want our tamariki to have the best chance that they can to have successful lives. This is all but one part.I do want to just say to that member in my support for his bill that there's lots more we can do to make sure that equity is found amongst our families and for our young people for our most vulnerable like having incentives to join the KiwiSaver programme like financial literacy skills that are taught through navigators who work within Oranga Tamariki and like literacy plans that are pushed out into low-decile schools of which my colleague Jan Tinetti has mentioned today. Those are all parts that bring equity to the discussion around finances for our young people and our most vulnerable. This Government's proud of our record on that particular matter. In that vein I too want to support this bill in the House.
Speaker's Rulings — Debate—References to you" and "your""
Visitors — French Polynesia—President of the Assembly
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSDebate—Use of You" and "Your"SPEAKER: Members after discussions at the Business Committee I have asked presiding officers to relax the prohibition on the use of the words "you" and "your" in debate. These words have been prohibited because they're seen to bring the Speaker into the debate. That is because members are required to address the House through the Speaker so any reference to "you" is taken to be directly to the Speaker. However the context of member's remarks in debate often makes it clear that "you" or "your" are not being used to refer to another member or to the Speaker; often they are used instead of "one" or "I". The practice of addressing remarks through the Speaker depersonalises debate to an extent and helps to keep order; I would not like to see that practice end.Members will not be permitted to address each other in the second person. However where it is clear from the context of a speech that a member is using "you" or "your" neither to bring the Speaker into the debate nor to direct remarks at another member presiding officers will use their discretion about whether to call a member to order. I'll remind members that the application of this ruling is at the sole discretion of the Speaker or Chair—Speaker's ruling 28/6. I intend to trial this relaxation of the rule ahead of the review of the Standing Orders that is about to commence and then the Standing Orders Committee will consider whether it ought to be a permanent change."
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 21 AUGUST 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.VISITORSFrench Polynesia—President of the AssemblySPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Gaston Tong Sang President of the Assembly of French Polynesia who is on my left and his delegation who are present in the gallery.
Tuesday 20 August 2019 - Volume 740
Contempt of Court Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Contempt of Court Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 57 New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Business Science and Innovation and Vote Transport be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Votes agreed to.
Estimates Debate — Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector
12. Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer AffairsDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs 12. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What reports has he seen about the New Zealand fuel market?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Notably I have received the Commerce Commission's draft report that outlines the findings of their market study into the prices New Zealanders pay for their petrol and their diesel. The Commerce Commission has found that the retail fuel market is not as competitive as it could be due to the lack of an active wholesale market in New Zealand and a lack of retail competition.Dr Deborah Russell: What conclusions does this draft report present?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: It backs up the Government's concerns that New Zealanders are getting fleeced at the pump and that the market is broken. The draft report outlines that due to a lack of an active wholesale market in New Zealand not enough retail competition is happening and New Zealanders are not getting a fair deal at the petrol pumps. The draft report also found that the high profitability of the major fuel suppliers in New Zealand is out of step with international comparisons and not consistent with a healthy market place. The report shows that big fuel companies' margins have been climbing since 2008 during a period where the National Government did nothing and New Zealanders steadily paid more at the petrol pumps. During that lack of leadership National—SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! Two reasons for ruling it out: one it's a shot at the Opposition off a patsy and the second is it's getting repetitious.Dr Deborah Russell: What will the next steps be?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you Mr Speaker. Well as I mentioned earlier to the House this is a draft report. We shall wait until December when the Commerce Commission comes back. What we can assure New Zealanders is we won't sit around on our hands doing nothing for nine years while New Zealanders get ripped off at the petrol pumps. We will do something to make sure New Zealanders get a fairer deal.Dr Deborah Russell: What will be the Government's response?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I said this is a draft report. The Commerce Commission has proposed some options for recommendations and is looking for feedback on these issues. I encourage interested parties to take part in that consultation process—perhaps even the Opposition. The Government will respond to the Commerce Commission's recommendations following the report in December.
9. Question No. 9—Social DevelopmentPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 9—Social Development9. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has the Government made on homelessness about providing extra support for individuals and families?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On Sunday Minister Faafoi and I announced additional measures to prevent and reduce homelessness—$54 million in Government funding will be put into initiatives that will provide additional wraparound services for at-risk individuals and families in emergency housing and extra support for families to stay in their existing tenancies. We will be investing in intensive case managers and navigators and in more social services to support people with complex needs and unstable circumstances including homeless families with children and people with mental health needs. Minister Faafoi is also expanding the Sustaining Tenancies programme to ensure that tenants who may be at risk of losing their tenancy receive practical support to help them get back on track.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What support will the intensive case managers and navigators provide?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As part of the announcement we are investing $31 million over the next four years for 67 intensive case managers and navigators. The intensive case managers and navigators will be a single consistent point of contact for each family or individual. The case managers will be a Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff member and will take a whole-of-person approach to people's needs but where more support is needed navigators will coordinate services and provide ongoing support for people with housing needs. Navigators will be from a local community organisation contracted by MSD. They will work with the community health professionals Government agencies and NGOs to ensure that people get the help they need.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is it important to work with social services and community partners?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Government is working to ensure we have more people on the ground to support people with complex needs in unstable circumstances. We are committed to tackling the long-term challenges facing New Zealand and homelessness is one of these. That's why on top of the extra support through navigators and case managers we are putting a further $16 million towards social services to support people staying in emergency housing including services for mental health needs family violence and addiction as needed. As a Government we know that people face a range of complex issues that can be a barrier to finding and keeping a home of their own. That's why we're taking a balanced and holistic approach to support them and ensure they are able to access the support they need.
6. Question No. 6—DefenceDARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of DefenceQuestion No. 6—Defence6. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What announcements has he made regarding capability for the New Zealand Army?Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): On Saturday I announced that the coalition Government has approved tranche two of the Network Enabled Army programme. A capital investment of $106 million will be rolled out over the next four years to give our men and women in uniform the tools they need to function in today's environment. This announcement reinforces the coalition Government's continuing commitment to the men and women of the defence force and our delivery of the Defence Capability Plan 2019.Darroch Ball: What will the Network Enabled Army programme mean for soldiers in the field?Hon RON MARK: The programme equips the army with a wide range of hardware and software—this includes radios; satellite terminals through modern secure digital capabilities; command posts; and power generators. This will allow for better command and control on operations getting real-time information to soldiers and commanders maximising our resources in order to achieve more at home in the Pacific and further afield when engaged—be that in resource protection civil defence humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations or combat. These technologies will help our people to respond to events quickly with the right assets and to maximum effect whilst reducing the risks of losses and casualties.Darroch Ball: What will tranche two of the programme deliver?Hon RON MARK: Tranche two will extend the network enabled army communications technologies across a light task group of around 250 personnel including logistics medical and engineering and other support elements. It will also expand network enabled army capabilities to include intelligence reconnaissance and surveillance sensor systems and will help commanders and personnel see beyond their immediate vicinity and feed that information back into a common picture so providing among other things enhanced real-time situational awareness. The work to deliver this set-up and capability will commence this year.Hon Mark Mitchell: How much of this equipment and technology is being made in New Zealand?Hon RON MARK: Oh I couldn't give a blow-by-blow but I can tell the member—former Minister—that as he knows from tranche one it's very similar as was introduced in terms of the ratio of home-grown technology and technology which has to be imported to ensure that we have compatibility and interoperability—something that that member was a strong champion of.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Monday the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index showed New Zealand's services sector expanded in July at its fastest rate this year with a reading of 54.7 above the historical average. This did follow a mixed Performance of Manufacturing Index survey released on the Friday which indicated some softness in the indicators although production in the manufacturing industry remained expansionary. In his commentary on Monday BNZ economist Doug Steel said that following the manufacturing survey they were awaiting the services numbers with some trepidation. But he said and I quote It turns out we shouldn't have [been] worried." written beneath the headline "Don't Worry Be Happy".Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on how the New Zealand economy is being affected by global economic headwinds?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: ASB economists on Monday released their latest quarterly economic forecasts which show that they expect the New Zealand economy to keep growing at about 2.5 percent over the next year and for the unemployment rate to remain near 4 percent. In their commentary the ASB said there are growing global headwinds noting the US-China trade war and Brexit as key uncertainties. They added that slowing global growth in part due to escalating trade tensions is likely to impact New Zealand's export performance over the coming year. We are aware that the volatile international situation is feeding through to the New Zealand economy which is why this Government's plans include supporting businesses to become more productive to keep the economy growing which means higher wages for New Zealanders. Dr Duncan Webb: What measures is the Government taking to make sure the economy is resilient in the face of these global headwinds?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: At Budget 2019 the Government announced increased investment to build more classrooms hospitals and other infrastructure such as rail. This builds on our record investment plan for transport infrastructure support for low- and medium-income families in Budget 2018 and our moves to raise the minimum wage. We've also announced a number of policies to help businesses become more productive and grow including the R & D tax credit to boost investment in new research and science and investment in new technologies to take advantage of the opportunities created by a shift to a lower-carbon economy. We are making these investments to support activity in the economy particularly in the face of global headwinds that are affecting many advanced economies around the world in a far more dramatic way than in New Zealand."
Penk Chris; Rurawhe AdrianCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you sir for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the National Party to continue our contribution on this side of the House in relation to the Statutes Amendment Bill. In keeping with the general nature of these types of bills this case is no exception in that we support changes that are merely technical—largely non-controversial for that reason. The previous contributor Meka Whaitiri who I acknowledge by the way as the chair of the Justice Committee has referred to the large number of—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. However this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
SpeechRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Contempt of court is an important area of law. I have lots to contribute but given the progress of this bill what I really want to stress is that Minister Little's Supplementary Order Paper 289 strikes the right balance. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a surprise to take a short call on this Contempt of Court Bill this evening. It has been quite interesting listening to the debate as I have sat here. I am quite surprised because of course last Parliament I was the chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee and it was a very collegial committee one in which people worked well together. So I was very surprised to learn of the passage of this bill and the fact that new clause 24A was inserted at the last minute without the members on this side of the House knowing and without proper consideration and debate after it was agreed that this clause and the intent of this clause should be removed from the original bill. Of course from our point of view this is quite a travesty because as it states in new clause 24A (1) A person commits an offence if—(a) the person publishes a false statement about a Judge or a court;". Now "false statement" is not defined. We have heard debate that that is a high threshold but quite frankly this is a frightening piece of law that means that no one can legitimately disagree with the actions of a judge or a court in the outcome or passage of that outcome. So what that means for example is that with respect to perhaps Mr David Bain and the fact that he continued on his crusade to prove his innocence those people that criticised that process from go to whoa could potentially be found in contempt of court. That is ridiculous. It is legitimate if you truly believe that a process is flawed that you should be able to speak out and go through the motions of proving that. It is a travesty that free speech is being overruled with respect to this Contempt of Court Bill. Of course we support the codification. Of course we support a fair and just legal system. But this goes too far and for that reason we do not support this bill."
Whaitiri MekaHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. As the chair of the Justice Committee can I just say I wasn't part of it while they debated this particular bill but I stand in support. Clearly there's been some issues around the other side not supporting a very comprehensive bill that does address and modernise our contempt law. It puts it into one piece of legislation. We've heard the outline by the Minister. It is to address a very critical part of our law system. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I'm still trying to work out what it was exactly that the last speaker Clare Curran was referring to—whether it was casting aspersions on Parliament or quite what. Like much of what the member has said in the past it's a little bit murky and probably best left unanalysed. We speak about a bill that was initially very good indeed. We liked it. It came from the Hon Chris Finlayson as many have said. There was a lot that was good about this bill. All was going well until the Minister of Justice intervened with his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 289. This was never intended to be a bill that would protect judges from criticism; it was about protecting public confidence in the just the speedy and the inexpensive administration of the justice system. It sought to do a whole lot of things to modernise to make in one place and to collate it in a single piece of legislation to make the law more accessible in this regard. So to us at the beginning it was all fine and it was going very well through the select committee process and I was on the Justice Committee and marvelled at the flip-flop and the changes that did occur. The SOP from the justice Minister which proposed a different offence—and therefore something we could not support—was that it now uses the phrase false statement". A person must have known or ought reasonably to have known the statement would undermine confidence—six months' imprisonment or for corporations up to $100000 which was the same as the original bill. But frankly by imposing the different offence it has removed this bill from our ability to support it. It has gone overboard. It is a mystery to us why that did occur but we now oppose this bill as a whole on the basis that it does contain a highly objectionable aspect. We need to make it clear though that we supported all the remainder of the bill and had the justice Minister not sought to intervene on this we would have probably been supporting it tonight. But as it happens we do not support this bill and I do not commend it to the House."
Rurawhe AdrianHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'll just make a few points. The law of contempt is an important area of law. It protects the administration of justice and our current laws are vague out of date and inaccessible to New Zealanders and need updating. As the Minister said this is about modernising and codifying rules around contempt of court. Nobody—no citizen—in our country is above the law no matter what Dr Smith might think. I want to talk about the separation of powers briefly because the term trias politica or separation of powers was coined by a baron actually: Baron de Montesquieu who was an 18th century social and political philosopher. But the concept came from ancient Greece where the State was divided into branches each with separate independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch—the legislature the executive or the judiciary—were not in conflict with the powers of the other branch. That unfortunately is what we're talking about tonight and that's where Dr Smith refers to the chilling effect and the undermining of freedom of speech. The guts of Supplementary Order Paper 289 which Minister Little has put up is not about criticising the courts; it's about not making false statements. No one is above the law free speech is not an absolute right and this is ultimately about the separation of powers. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Maggie Barry—five minutes.
SpeechKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak in opposition to the third reading of the Contempt of Court Bill. The previous speaker Golriz Ghahraman just mentioned the word falsehood" which is not in the bill. It is the criticism of the judge of the court. So let me clarify to start with that this bill doesn't include "falsehood". So the word time and again being used by the Government benches is not right. It is the criticism which this bill is dealing with. We supported this bill during the first and the second readings. In the first reading we said that there should be some improvement in this bill during the select committee stage and at the Justice Committee all the members together—from the Government side and from the Opposition side—made some amendments to this bill to improve it. That was the intention and that is always the intention of the select committee—that bills should be improved and reported back to the House so that the best can come out of any legislation. But at the committee of the whole House stage the Minister introduced Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 289 which was exactly the opposite of what the select committee has recommended. So we have got that reservation. The select committee decided to drop that particular clause but the Minister wanted to bring it back during the committee of the whole House and because they have the majority that SOP was passed and again included in this legislation. The National Party will keep opposing this and will not support this even though we know that this was a member's bill introduced by the Hon Chris Finlayson. This Government we have seen in the past 18 to 19 months have picked up the majority of the bills which were introduced by the National Government during our days and they are continuing to work upon them because they were really good bills introduced under us. I oppose this bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call the Hon Clare Curran—five minutes."
Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill — Committee of the Whole House