edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
6. Question No. 6—Prime MinisterDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 6—Prime Minister 6. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's policies? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes and while there are so many to choose from I'm going to particularly single out the Government's Families Package today which it was confirmed today has seen 1 million New Zealanders warmed by the winter energy payment 36000 families bank the Best Start payment in the first year and 6000 more families receive the family tax credit. This shows that we are focused particularly on those families who need support the most and we are making a difference on significant long-term challenges like child poverty. David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government's policy as expressed in the Arms Legislation Bill that a person who provides incorrect information to the proposed register such as by filling out a form wrong or failing to provide correct information when asked is liable for a $10000 fine or two years' imprisonment? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by the action we're taking around gun legislation and reform. The member will know there are two parts to that. The first is the buy-back which has had a significant impact: 38000 prohibited and unlawful firearms have been handed in as a result and 142000 prohibited parts. The second tranche of course relates to our wider system and includes bringing in a registry. That's a part of our system that we are now consulting widely on and giving the public full say over. David Seymour: Could a person accused of entering incorrect information into the proposed firearm register use as a defence that actually their firearm was registered through a foundation and anybody claiming otherwise was psycho? SPEAKER: Order! I think the member is asking for legal advice which is something he will ask for elsewhere. David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'm asking about the Government's policy. SPEAKER: Well that's not what the member said. David Seymour: Well it is what I said. Kieran McAnulty: Has she received an update on the impact of the Government's Families Package on the wellbeing of children? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes indeed. As I pointed out we've already seen a huge number of families benefit but in particular this demonstrates that we are on track to lift between 50000 and 74000 children out of poverty. We are also a House that as members will recall voted in favour of a child poverty reduction Act which only a handful of countries in the world have. It is still disappointing to me that I cannot say that that was with unanimous support. I do say to Mr Seymour I would welcome his support of future action around reducing child poverty in Aotearoa. David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I to take it that any question around how the Government intends its laws to work could be interpreted as requesting legal advice? SPEAKER: No and Standing Order 23 also applies.
4. Question No. 4—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 4—Education4. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to promote vocational training and career options that help address New Zealand's skill needs? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): More good news. The Government has put in place a range of measures to encourage more young Kiwis to take up trades and other vocational careers. This includes more gateway and trades academy places and initiatives to create stronger links between employers and the education system. Apprentices and trainees are also eligible for fees-free making training much more affordable. In fact the policy supports two years of industry training rather than one year for provider-based study and since fees-free was introduced at the beginning of last year 7600 apprentices and trainees have benefited from it. Jan Tinetti: Has fees-free helped with the cost of training within the building and construction sector and if so how? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Indeed it has—a very good question—3900 apprentices and trainees enrolled with industry training organisations this year benefited from fees-free and they were training in the building and construction - related fields. Jan Tinetti: What is the Government doing to raise the profile of vocational training within senior secondary schools? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As of 20 November 344 secondary schools have nominated students for the Prime Minister's Vocational Excellence Award and 208 of those schools have already presented the $2000 award at their prize-giving ceremonies. The Prime Minister's Vocational Excellence Award is helping to raise the status of trades and other vocational education and celebrate the success of young people already training in those areas. Jan Tinetti: What else is the Government doing to strengthen the pipeline from secondary school into vocational training? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Schools currently have the opportunity to apply for a $3000 grant to showcase trade and service industry careers and earn and learn opportunities in intermediate and secondary schools including families whānau and educators. Funding is also available to run events like the SpeedMeets where employers get to meet with a range of students who might be interested in their industries and discuss the range of options that are available to them.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Xero recently released its Small Business Insights for September showing 55.2 percent of Kiwi small business customers were cash-flow positive in the month. Xero said that this was a 10 percent jump from August—higher than the same month last year and well above the annual average of 50 percent. There was more good news with payment times for small businesses with times averaging a quarter of a day faster than in September 2018. The data also showed an increase in the total number of people employed in small businesses—up 0.8 percent in September. This is real data from real businesses showing that they continue to perform solidly amidst the challenging global conditions. Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on the outlook for the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Today Westpac economists released their economic overview saying that signs of spring were emerging in the New Zealand economy. Westpac chief economist Dominick Stephens said that while economic growth did likely slow in the September quarter—Hon Simon Bridges: That Dominick Stephens is always glass half-full. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —more recent data suggests the economy will grow more strongly from here. He's a good friend of yours I'm sure Mr Bridges. Obviously the September quarter data will be released on 19 December giving many people a chance to be negative about the past but it is welcome to see more positive outlooks emerging about the future. Dominick Stephens went on to warn that Westpac expects the global situation to worsen as the US economy slows. That's why we are managing the books carefully and making important investments in the economy to boost growth particularly in infrastructure businesses and wages. Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on the global context for the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand is a small open economy meaning we always need to look at it in the global context. Last week it was reported that the Australian unemployment rate rose from 5.2 percent to 5.3 percent in seasonally adjusted terms in October. The data showed that the number of unemployed people was up 8.6 percent over the past year while the underemployment rate also rose in Australia. The Australian unemployment rate is more than 1 percentage point above New Zealand's unemployment rate at our third-lowest in a decade. This is another indication that the New Zealand economy is in good shape particularly compared to the economies we traditionally compare ourselves to.
Yule Lawrence; Tolley AnneLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I wish to talk about clause 3 specifically because this typifies the cynicism of this bill. It typifies exactly why we shouldn't be supporting this bill. At the end of the day we have a piece of legislation put before this House at the convenience of the Greens in some backroom deal that said We want to have a referendum on legalising cannabis." That's what this bill is about and I notice the co-leader of the Green Party sits there quietly listening to the Leader of the House yet at the end of the day in any normal environment he would be outraged—outraged—that this was happening because for 165 years the Parliament of New Zealand has decided what the wording of a referendum would be when it's going to be done and how it's going to apply.This specific clause says that after this election after we've had a referendum on legalising cannabis—and now we know on end of life choice—this provision vanishes. So 165 years a coalition agreement comes along the Greens do a deal in the back room—because legalising cannabis in New Zealand is so really important to the future of this country!—they do a deal and everybody on the other side laughs. They jest at what's happening here but this is a piece of legislation of convenience—no other reason no integrity no commonality with the history of the importance and the sanctity of this decision making. We can't even debate in this House what the question is and at the end of the day this House should be paramount. What we are doing here is allowing the executive of New Zealand to determine by Order in Council the wording of the referendum.We've heard from the Minister tonight that at some stage next year we will see a clear draft of the wording of the legislation. We don't actually know yet whether the referendum is going to be binding and here we are at nearly 10 p.m. deciding as part of this that after 2020 this will vanish off the radar.Hon Scott Simpson: Into the ether.LAWRENCE YULE: Into the ether. In the meantime there is nothing whatsoever to stop Cabinet by Order in Council from promoting other referenda at the 2020 election. Now the Minister has shaken his head tonight when other people have suggested that but so far I haven't heard him stand up and say there is not going to be another topic discussed at a referendum. So we could have through the rest of this Parliament a decision made by Cabinet to simply put another issue before us.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for us to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Referendums Framework Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m."
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Well I've been listening here tonight and taking the odd call on this Referendums Framework Bill. Here we are talking about clause 3. I had to do a double take. I could not believe that this bill is only for the next election and in fact is repealed after that in 2022. So while we have been debating the substance of the bill and whether Parliament should retain the authority to decide the question and the options for referendum now we come to the piece of the bill which talks about repealing the law so that it's only available for the next election.Now I have been thinking to myself: why is it that this only relates to 2020? If a bill is good enough for one election why is it not good enough for other elections?Kieran McAnulty: Have a go Yule.DAN BIDOIS: Take a call Kieran McAnulty. Please tell me why this law is only relevant for the next election and therefore will be repealed. To me there can be only one reason and one reason alone why this bill is only applicable to the next election and that is because it is a rort. It is rort and this Government wants the ability to control the question and the options for the cannabis referendum and that will only be decided by Cabinet of which Labour and New Zealand First are party to.I really would like someone on the other side to take a call and to explain. Otherwise the public of New Zealand and members on this side of the House can only draw one conclusion: that this law is designed to game the system in a way that determines the question and the options only for the next Government in the next election.This is clause 3 that we're debating. I have yet to hear anyone from the other side—I have been in here since dinner time and I have heard no one from the opposite side explain to me very clearly why it is that this bill relates to only 2020. If it is good enough for the House to consider at the next election then surely it's good enough for proceeding elections after that. So I would appreciate it if somebody even the Minister in the chair who's gotten a bit comfy—he hasn't gotten up in some time—could please explain to me and the public of New Zealand why this Act is applicable only in the next election—Raymond Huo: It's all in the departmental report.DAN BIDOIS: Well take a call—take a call—and explain to the public of New Zealand why it is. Take a call Raymond—take a call. All you have to do is take a call and you can explain the departmental report for the public of New Zealand and for members on this side of the Chamber who may not have read the departmental report.So what we're talking about here is very simple—why it is that this law applies to only one election—and we can draw only one conclusion from that and that is that it is a rort to game the system and members on that side of the Chamber all they can do is laugh about it. All they can do is laugh. For them this is a game. This is unbelievable that they are talking about taking the powers away from Parliament and putting them in the hands of a select few and all they can do is laugh about it.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Just to respond to the points raised by Chris Penk just now—in relation to the provisions in clause 40 relating to the definition of referendum expenses" that is pretty much taken out of the Electoral Act. It is what I would describe as mutatis mutandis the same provisions about electoral expenses in the Electoral Act as apply to general election campaigning. So there won't be anything that members who've read the Electoral Act as they've prepared for their campaigns will be unfamiliar with. I wasn't quite clear about what the member's concerns were in relation to clause 42 and the regulated period except to say it is pretty clear that whatever the regulated period is for the general election will be the regulated period for the referendums. Then finally in relation to the meaning of "published" I get the member's point about trying to find a generalised definition that means we don't have to list every detail and the member is correct—a principle interpretation means that the more detail you provide then the less scope there is for a judge to read in something that doesn't look like it's provided for but should be included. But this is the list that has been developed. A lot of this is kind of a "for the avoidance of doubt" - type sort of drafting so to be absolutely clear about what is included and then effectively to exclude a meeting—that it must be possible to have a meeting that doesn't get caught up in definitions of "publish" and therefore whether that contributes or is attributable to or least accountable to your electoral expenses. So I think that's the intention there because in the end whether it's a referendum or whether it's the general election electing political representatives we want good free-flowing debate. We just want to make sure that those with deeper pockets don't dominate. But we want you know the basic thing the old street-corner meeting the stump meeting the town hall meeting—we want those things to take place. They should not be included in a definition of "publish" or "publication". So that I hope explains the drafting in that respect."
Dyson RuthREFERENDUMS FRAMEWORK BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The House is in committee on the Referendums Framework Bill. Members this bill has been drafted with an extra clause that sits outside the parts' structure which will give rise to an extra debate. The committee will first debate each of the four parts separately. These parts form the substance of the bill. The committee will then debate clause 3 separately. This is the clause that would repeal the bill in 2022. After voting on the Schedules the committee will then debate the title and commencement provisions at clauses 1 and 2.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is pretty exciting that New Zealand gets to host APEC 2021 because it gives us a chance to show our leadership right here in the region. Of course having been part of APEC since 1989 with APEC being a forum that has facilitated economic growth cooperation trade and investment in this region it has been a really good thing for us. So to be able to host world leaders and international media is a great thing. However as others have said before me we need to make sure we do it well. As hosts we need to be responsible hosts and make both our guests feel safe but also members of the New Zealand public feel safe at the same time as well and that's really what this bill does. APEC New Zealand which is the team lead by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has analysed the situation and found that we need some specific legislation in order to be able to play our role as good hosts and make sure that everyone feels safe when they're here and that's what this bill is about. It's about ensuring that the New Zealand Police have the resources that they need to be able to do so. There's just one point that I wanted to emphasise in case there is some fear that this will be opening up our borders to a whole bunch of people with weapons coming in here to New Zealand. I just want to emphasise that during the leaders' events period there will be certain foreign protection officers who will be allowed to carry firearms subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Police and subject to conditions that the commissioner may impose like the type of weapon and like the number of weapons that can be brought in that is appropriate. They will be carried only by highly trained protection officers while they are here protecting their leaders. These weapons will also be recorded on entry and exit from New Zealand as well. The other point that I just wanted to emphasise is that this is for a limited period of time it's for a specific purpose and it's to keep those who are coming here safe. Different countries have different levels of security requirements and we're catering for that as a good host. That's pretty much what this bill is about. Clause 3 of the bill provides that the bill will self-repeal on the close of the leaders' event period which is 21 November 2021. So this is a practical bill that will go a long way to keep our guests who come here for APEC 2021 safe and it will protect New Zealanders during that period as well. It's for a specific purpose and for a specific time and I commend the bill to the House.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Well yet again the Greens have demonstrated why they are an irresponsible party that can't be trusted in Government. APEC is very important to New Zealand as numerous speakers have noted. We haven't hosted it since 1999—and it is in 2021 I say to Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki the previous speaker; not next year—and it will provide an opportunity for New Zealand to talk to Prime Ministers from around the world and world leaders but also to show off New Zealand to the world. The APEC in 1999—some members will remember it. I was 16 I think at the time. It's an opportunity to show New Zealand to the world so we've got to get it right. The Green Party will not even vote for this bill to go to a select committee. There are I think legitimate issues you can talk about when it comes to people coming into the country having essentially a waiver of New Zealand law temporarily to provide security. There are legitimate questions around that and around the appropriateness of special legislation around special events and in a perfect world that's not how you would make law in the country. But the Greens say No no. Actually it's so beyond the pale we can't even send the bill to a committee." So yet again the National Party is going to help out the Government and make sure that the bill can go to a committee because we're a responsible party of Government and we realise that you actually need sensible measures in order to host events like this. When you've got I hope the President of the United States—whoever that is—coming to New Zealand and you've got world leaders with millions of people behind them and economies worth trillions of dollars and we're a small country of not yet 5 million people you do have to make sensible precautions and sensible measures. So the bill does that and yet again the National Party will save the Government and provide sensible constructive support to make sure that they can actually govern the country in the interests of New Zealanders. It's a shame the Green Party won't even vote for it at first reading to send it to a committee. That just demonstrates why they will always be a minority party that New Zealanders do not trust with the Treasury benches. Thank you."
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It's an absolute honour for me to stand today to speak on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill. I want to remind the House that in 1999 our leader at the time was a woman and again the world is going to look at us in terms of the leadership of our Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern.Chris Bishop: She won't be PM then. It's post-2020.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: OK if you get my dates wrong. But I also want to acknowledge the speech from the Rt Hon Winston Peters the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In his first two minutes what stood out for me were the words [building] strong trusting relationships" and New Zealand taking leadership in this region which is vitally important. He spoke about how it will be "our chance to host world leaders and international media [to] show New Zealand [can do it] and how we can do it."I want to also acknowledge the words that the Hon Aupito William Sio spoke about that it's inherently just a New Zealand value and that's about the value of manaakitanga. The value of manaakitanga is about how the travellers to our shores experience how we host them—experience our hospitality experience how we care for them as visitors and experience how we as a people live in this land that we live in in terms of Aotearoa New Zealand.That also is about the policy objectives of this bill. It is about safety and security. The policy objectives of the bill are about supporting the safe and secure APEC of 2021 events for all world leaders attendees and the general public. But that is also about the experience of the traveller reaching our shores and it's about the experience of those who are on these shores and how we will host our travellers with manaakitanga. On that note I commend this bill to the House."
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National): Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation it's a huge event: 21 countries 21 world leaders 12 months of a series of events culminating in the leaders' week in November in 2021—20000 people coming to New Zealand participating in that. Rightfully so the world will be looking at New Zealand and how we handle this event New Zealand being an original signatory to APEC in 1989 and hosting it in 1999. So many years have passed and the change in the world scenario has greatly enhanced the need for security arrangements to be correctly set.The bill seeks to address just that particularly dealing with security for the visiting world leaders making sure that the protection they need will be handled well and sufficiently rightfully placing control over into the hands of the Commissioner of Police assisted by the New Zealand military who will be trained and empowered as constables. It seems that all of this is absolutely necessary so that people who will be coming to and watching New Zealand over 2021 over the whole APEC will see and experience a New Zealand that is at the world stage exceeding its abilities and doing so well.Having in the past been involved in arranging for the visit of two Philippine presidents in New Zealand in 2012 and recently the times that we spent dealing with security discussions with the accompanying security detail of the presidents were long long hours and the diplomacy of the New Zealand police force in having to deal with a foreign security detail was amazing to watch. But that was just one president and we have 21 world leaders.The need for security is something that most New Zealanders might find unusual out of our experiential worlds but the world leaders that will be coming where they are experiencing huge threats to themselves in what they do their protection detail are to a high degree tasked with making sure that they're OK and that's what they will bring with them when they come here.The world has also changed in many ways: wireless technology and the ease of getting into a transport vehicle and ramming into a crowd has been shown to be very effective in many parts of the world already. So rightfully so for APEC in New Zealand focus must be on security and this bill just does exactly that. We support this bill. Madam Speaker thank you.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be able to speak on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC 2021) Bill. To a great extent it goes to the point—and it's already been mentioned today—how important our APEC friends are to us in order to sustain the ongoing wellbeing and economic development that New Zealand currently sustains. It's great to see that we have a fantastic opportunity on the global stage to be able to connect and demonstrate our value as a key player within the Pacific region. It does advance us and it plays well.It has been a long time since 1999 the last time New Zealand hosted APEC and the world has significantly changed in that time. In accordance with the changed dynamics in which New Zealand operates in a global context it's important that we are adequately equipped to host our friends in our country and to be able to secure them to make sure that we have a safe and a well-run APEC in 2021. This bill does exactly that. It ensures that New Zealand police are adequately equipped to be able to ensure they have the resources they need in terms of both people and technology to give New Zealanders and our visitors safety and security during that time.The bill provides for temporary security and safety areas around key places and key meetings as well as for motorcades during the three-week leaders' event. It's important to note that this legislation is in fact temporary. It provides just for the period of time in which we will be hosting this international event and many aspects will only be enforced during the leaders' event. When all APEC meetings are concluded and finished and our visitors have left our shores this legislation will expire and things will be the way they were. So I think that's an important point to make.We're really lucky to have this opportunity and it's good to have a bill that makes sure that we provide accommodation venues key sites; that our roads are closed at the appropriate times; that we are securing our maritime areas and managing water areas surrounding hotels or other locations to make sure that the general public have a strong sense of feeling safe within New Zealand at a time when many eyes internationally will be upon us.So this legislation essentially seeks to minimise the impact of APEC in 2021 on New Zealanders and it's great to see support from across the other side of the House. It supports our preparation and also our ability to respond to any risks that may arise in 2021. It also means that we can welcome our guests with a strong sense of confidence that we can provide and be proud of the show that we will host in that time. It means that all those guests from APEC economies will operate in a safe and a secure environment that works to really enhance not only the economic prosperity of our country but also our long-term wellbeing. I commend this bill to the House.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the very detailed outline of what's in this bill and appreciate the point he makes that this is a very big deal for New Zealand and one that we can benefit from. So while the bill does for a very short time allow some inconvenience for some New Zealanders we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this is an opportunity that could see the prosperity of New Zealanders greatly enhanced. In this exercise with the leaders of the three largest economies in the world potentially coming to New Zealand we also see a number of countries inside APEC where there have been some tensions. To have all those leaders in New Zealand at a time where they may speak I think does the world a great service.APEC has been one of the most successful international organisations that focuses on economies for the entire time of its existence and it is responsible for lifting literally tens of millions of people up the scale as far as the quality of their lives is concerned. New Zealand is a country that enjoys a lifestyle far in advance or in excess of what might be afforded if we were totally an internal economy. We are able as an economy to access the markets of the world and a lot of that access is facilitated through the sort of organisation that APEC can provide. We are a trading nation and for us to take this lead which only happens about once in every 20—in this case 22—years is an opportunity that we should not in any way diminish.I want to just talk for a moment about the roles that various people will have in the special powers that are granted under this Act. Those are there only for the protection largely of New Zealanders. While the Deputy Prime Minister and foreign Minister outlined that there will be some provision for security services for world leaders who are coming here that is specific to them. Many of the other provisions in here are to try and minimise for New Zealanders particularly for those living in Auckland the disruption that inevitably occurs at big events like this.But the value of those about 21 days—and it won't be every day that we see that disruption—to the New Zealand economy cannot be underestimated. So rather than relitigating everything that has been now put on the House's record as being part of this bill can I just say that we will participate in the select committee process fully. There are a few aspects that will have to be clarified particularly around the provision of security services held by those who might have a diplomatic clearance and what that would mean for their accountability under New Zealand law. But that's something a select committee can work through; what the committee of the whole House will be able to work through. I simply want to record that the National Party thinks this is a great opportunity for New Zealand and we'll be facilitating the passing of this bill through its process into an Act.
Motions — Pacific Parliamentary Forum welcome—Leave granted
Visitors — Parliament of the Czech Republic—Vojtĕch Pikal Vice-President of the Chamber of Deputies
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. On a very different note I suspect that we all in this House along with most other New Zealanders know what it's like to be ignored left out or bullied for being different. I have a very vivid memory of myself sitting under a tree crying by myself after being bullied as a kid. I also have really clear memories of seeing other kids being bullied for being different and really wanting to do whatever I could not to be like them so that I could protect myself from further bullying. That was one of the reasons that for me it took me so long to come out as a lesbian even to myself. After first invisibility and then years of public debate about lesbians and gays being mentally unwell a threat to children and a danger to our society I couldn't even begin to imagine that I might be one of them. This took a toll not just in my slow coming into myself and all the acting out that came along the way with that but also years of quite significant mental distress and suicidality and that was because that experience was backed up by a history and a contemporary reality of State violence against people like me. The impact of that was profound and I recognise that many people in this House will have had that similar experience from a range of different perspectives. I talk about that today because today is the Transgender Day of Remembrance the day when we remember and honour the lives of trans and non-binary people who have been murdered or harmed through discrimination and hate. We know that this country as well as many other countries across the Pacific has had a history of inclusion of people who don't fit the traditional roles of men and women yet the Human Rights Commission found in their seminal report of 2006 that being trans is not a lifestyle choice but it's simply one dimension of the rich diversity that is humanity—they are us; we are them. But they showed the profound impact and prevalence of discrimination in our society and that that threatened the person's safety and wellbeing of that community and those people in our country. This has been recently backed up by a survey through the Waikato University research of around 1200 trans and non-binary people that shockingly showed that over half of those people had seriously considered suicide in the last 12 months that the rates of discrimination against those people are twice that of the general population and that those who experienced that discrimination were twice as likely to have attempted suicide in the last 12 months. Mr Speaker my colleagues we need to do better and I would ask every member in this House and members of the public to reflect on what we can do to celebrate our rich diversity and improve the lives of our trans and non-binary constituents and friends and families. For me a good starting point is Do unto others" when it comes to challenging discrimination and I really hope that if more of us pick up that motto we might just save some lives and create a society where all of us have the ability to flourish."
Sio Hon Aupito WilliamMOTIONSPacific Parliamentary Forum—WelcomeHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate acknowledging the Pacific Parliamentary Forum being held next week at Parliament.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: I move That the House note that the New Zealand Parliament will host its third Pacific Parliamentary Forum next week and welcome our Pacific colleagues with whom it is a significant opportunity to further build relationships and promote wellbeing prosperity security and good governance in the region.Motion agreed to.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSCzech Republic—Vice-President of the Chamber of Deputies of the ParliamentSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would want to welcome Mr Vojtĕch Pikal Vice-President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic who is to my left and the delegation who are present in the gallery. Members I will note that to the best of my knowledge this is the first occasion when we've had a Pirate officially here.Vojtĕch Pikal accompanied by the Assistant Speakers entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Tuesday 19 November 2019 - Volume 743
Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill be reported to the House by 30 March 2020.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.
Referendums Framework Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Referendums Framework Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1. Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross. Bill read a second time.
10. Question No. 10—Research Science and InnovationDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationQuestion No. 10—Research Science and Innovation10. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: Has she met with any National Science Challenges panel members to discuss alternatives to 1080?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: On behalf of the Minister I have met with the chairs of the National Science Challenges but alternatives to 1080 were not on the agenda.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is she committed to providing more support to the biological heritage National Science Challenge for piloting alternatives to 1080 as promised in the Speech from the Throne?Hon DAVID PARKER: The alternatives to 1080 include biological controls; the uses of organisms that are natural predators parasites or pathogens to control pests by disrupting their ecological status; chemical disruptors; hormones to interfere with reproductive systems to limit or prevent breeding success over time; and new killing or barrier techniques to rid ourselves of these pests.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is she aware that the biological heritage National Science Challenge has funded Landcare Research for their efforts to eradicate invasive pests using gene technology?Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister I'm not aware of that particular application of those resources but if the member desires more information she could put down a specific question in that regard.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she agree with the advice provided to her that gene technology is the only option that can work at the scale required to replace 1080?Hon DAVID PARKER: I would recall the advice of the Royal Society of New Zealand this year who said the development of gene drives is still very much in its infancy and the possible implementation of a gene drive approach in New Zealand is still a long way off."Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I would like to table a document—the document number is 34 and the title is "Future directions for alternatives to 1080: the advice provided to the Minister."SPEAKER: Advice provided to the Minister?Dr Parmjeet Parmar: This was obtained under the Official Information Act by Newshub.SPEAKER: Well I think at that point we could well say that it is in the public domain so I won't put it."
7. Question No. 7—EducationHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 7—Education7. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statements and actions in response to the Tomorrow's Schools Independent Taskforce Report?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Absolutely—yes I stand by the Government's set of reforms that are going to put more front-line support closer to schools to give every child the best possible chance to succeed in their learning including providing better and more targeted support to schools that need it; a reset of the relationship between schools and the Ministry of Education; free local complaints and dispute resolution panels; and a raising of the standards of criteria for the eligibility for school principals.Hon Nikki Kaye: Can he confirm he intends to introduce legislation shifting the responsibility for developing and consulting on enrolment schemes from boards of trustees to the new Education Service Agency by May 2020 of next year?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes.Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he anticipate that he will make any decisions or introduce any legislation that could lead to out-of-zone caps prior to October of next year?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Can I just get the member to repeat the question?Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he anticipate that he will make any decisions or introduce legislation that could lead to out-of-zone caps in schools prior to October of next year?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don't intend to change the current policy and practice around the acceptance of out-of-zone students. The legislative change will be around how the boundaries for zoning are set not the way they are applied.Hon Nikki Kaye: Can he absolutely rule out that via legislation that he intends to put before Parliament it will be easier to have out-of-zone caps in New Zealand?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: From my memory—and I'm happy to come back to the member if this is incorrect—the legislative change that we're currently having drafted makes no change to the acceptance of out-of-zone students. Under the current law schools can only accept out-of-zone students if they have space for those students and there's a very clear process that's put in place for how they do that; we're not proposing to change that process.
6. Question No. 6—EducationJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 6—Education6. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What response has he seen to the Government's policy to provide funding to replace parental donations to schools?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): More good news. I'm very pleased to say there has been a fantastic response to the Government's school donations scheme with 90 percent of eligible decile 1 to 7 schools opting into the scheme. That means that at the beginning of term 1 next year 1563 schools are guaranteed extra funding and the parents of the students at those schools will not be under pressure to pay donations. The beginning of the school year can be a challenging time financially for parents and this will go some way to easing some of that financial pressure.Jan Tinetti: How many students are in the 90 percent of eligible schools who have opted in to the donations scheme?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. There are 416000 students whose parents will now not be asked for a donation because the Government will be providing their school with an additional $150 per student next year and every year thereafter that they continue to be in the scheme. This amounts to an extra $62.5 million in funding going to those schools next year to spend on providing kids with a high-quality education.Hon Peeni Henare: How many eligible schools in the Tai Tokerau region opted in to the Government's school donation scheme?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. I'm pleased to say that 134 schools in the Tai Tokerau region have opted in to the scheme—that's 96 percent of eligible schools in that area.Ginny Andersen: How many eligible schools in the Wellington region opted in to the Government's school donation scheme?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm very pleased to say that 163 schools in the Wellington region—or around 94 percent of all eligible schools in the Wellington region—have opted in to the school donations scheme.SPEAKER: I thought it was all a test for me to recognise the members. I got two out of two; I did pretty well.
4. Question No. 4—FinanceCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Finance: How much money did NZ Future Forest Products Ltd apply for from the Provincial Growth Fund and what was the application for?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Associate Minister of Finance): I can confirm that N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd applied for a $15 million loan from the Provincial Growth Fund. As the information is already in the public domain I can tell the member that the loan was to carry out a feasibility study for a new engineered timber operation in Gisborne. It's worth noting that the application has been declined by Ministers. Chris Bishop: On what date was responsibility for N.Z. Future Forest Products' applications to the Government for funding through the Provincial Growth Fund transferred from the Hon Shane Jones to him because Mr Jones had identified a conflict of interest? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The transfer occurred on 4 November. Chris Bishop: Does that mean that the Hon Shane Jones was the Minister in charge of the Provincial Growth Fund from March 2019 when N.Z. Future Forest Products' application was made up until 4 November when the responsibility was transferred to him? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I wouldn't characterise it as the member has. I'm not responsible for the period where Mr Jones—prior to the transfer on 4 November. Obviously it was transferred to my office on 4 November. I received advice and declined the application on 7 November. Chris Bishop: Is he aware on what date the Hon Shane Jones became aware of the N.Z. Future Forest Products' application to the Provincial Growth Fund? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No. Chris Bishop: Is he aware of what the conflict of interest is that meant the Hon Shane Jones transferred responsibility to him as Associate Minister of Finance? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm advised that Minister Jones took advice from the Cabinet Office and acted appropriately in transferring the matter to me for my responsibility to make the decision. SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to ask the member to—I mean he can say no if he—Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Mr Speaker I don't have that detail. If the member does wish to put it down in writing I'm sure we can find an appropriate answer. Chris Bishop: Is he aware of whether the Hon Shane Jones wrote to the Prime Minister advising of the conflict of interest as required by section 2.72 of the Cabinet Manual? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm not responsible for that. I can confirm that the responsibility was transferred to me obviously on 4 November and then on 7 November I declined the application.