edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Court Simon; Seymour DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Minister Seymour I'm interested in what is the fate of some of the assets that the Productivity Commission may be generating even as they proceed to the end of their agency. I note in clause 4 Interpretation" under "assets" it "includes real or personal property of any description whether tangible or intangible (for example intellectual property) money rights or interests". I note with interest that the commission is working on a report on improving economic resilience which is due to be finalised in February 2024.In terms of work that the commission was asked to do and where there may be some value to it such as this report—an inquiry into the resilience of New Zealand's economy to supply chain disruptions might be quite useful. Now the people of New Zealand issued their own opinion on economic resilience supply chain disruptions and all the negative effects on that on 14 October 2023 when they indicated to the previous Government that the way they managed the supply chain—all the red tape they imposed on the economy or costs on employers or raising the minimum wage without increasing productivity at all—were unacceptable to New Zealanders who voted to remove the last Government. However the work the Productivity Commission was doing to improve economic resilience to understand how the New Zealand economy can be made more resilient to supply chain disruptions is no doubt one of those assets that if it is published may yet become another taonga of the commission and their body of work. So Minister I'm interested in terms of Part 1 clause 5 "Transitional savings and related provisions".When we look at Schedule 1 in terms of its Part 1 clause 1(1) it says that "All proceedings and other matters involving the Commission [that are] yet to be determined or completed at the commencement of this clause are to be determined or completed by the Ministry as if the Ministry were the Commission." So Minister I'm interested in respective work that the Productivity Commission has yet to table or finalise. Would the Minister expect that that work—this particular report improving economic resilience I mean sounds laudable. That sounds like something that may well be of value and may well turn out to be one of the taonga that the Productivity Commission is leaving for us in perpetuity. Is it your view Minister that that report would be completed by the ministry? And which ministry is that just to be clear Minister?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I think I've created a monster! In answer to the member's questions first of all the commission will be wound down at the end of February—interestingly 29 February; can't do that every year.Second of all the final report the member's referred to I'm advised will be reported back around mid-February. So that report will be added to the set of assets that New Zealand will always have from the great work that has been done by the Productivity Commission to date."
Seymour DavidHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Just in response to a few questions and points raised we had a question from Stuart Smith in relation to—I think it was Part 1 of Schedule 1 and specifically clause 2 about registers. It considers the possibility that if a keeper of say property titles had a reference to the Productivity Commission they would not be required to update their register to say the Treasury being the ministry that will now take on the roles and duties—or at least the obligations—of the Productivity Commission commercially. So it's simply to remove a potential small administrative obligation on to people that have little to do with this. And I was asked about what my thought process was for including that. I'd love to tell you that I thought of it but actually that is a job of the Parliamentary Counsel Office who are absolutely brilliant—and I think some of them are here—in the work that they do to anticipate the impacts of legislation on other pieces of legislation across the Government statute book.Then there is a question—well it wasn't really a question—from Joseph Mooney. It sort of started off autobiographical then his speech sort of got into the pseudo-philosophical and then he made the point that red tape and regulation are bad for business when it's done badly and when it's excessive. I agree with that and we're going to be doing a lot to ensure that that is less and less the case over this term of Government. But as James Shaw has rightly pointed out this is a debate about the Productivity Commission rather than the new ministry for regulation.Then I had a question from Andy Foster about clause 3(c) of Part 1 and in particular the purpose of the bill being to provide for the consequences of that disestablishment;". The consequences being provided to that are referred to in this bill are not the wider policy consequences that both he and James Shaw have tried to refer to—for example were there other ways to achieve a policy objective? As I've said earlier in a speech it's very simply to deal with the knock-on consequences in legislation. For example with any contracts that the Productivity Commission may have entered into to ensure those persons' interests are served they still can expect the ministry the Treasury to take over the obligations of the Productivity Commission to make good on those obligations. So potentially there's a bit of confusion about what that word "consequences" means in the context of this bill."
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to build on the point raised by Andy Foster just there which is that one of the central arguments for the disestablishment of the Productivity Commission is that successive Governments have ignored some of its more important findings and recommendations and still acknowledging that some Governments have picked up some elements of some recommendations of some of the work that the Productivity Commission has done but on balance that that has been ignored. I just wanted to build on this point because you can make the argument that New Zealanders continue to get sick and therefore we should disestablish the health service because we haven't healed everybody yet and actually that argument doesn't follow that just because Governments are too self-interested or captured by vested interests to act on recommendations isn't a good reason to get rid of the people who thought of the recommendations. It is a reason to try and ensure that Governments are actually accountable for doing something with that work.So my question to the Minister for Regulation which he did appeal to us in the second reading debate to come back to some of the policy decisions which is not easy to do within Standing Orders clause by clause here which maybe is why he suggested it in order to ensure that we had as little debate as possible about the substance of the bill. Then given that Mr Foster raised this point about the consequences of repealing the Productivity Commission can I ask the Minister whether he considered other options given that the central argument for its disestablishment—other than to use the money somewhere else in Government—so far that's been outlined tonight has been that Governments don't listen to it. I would argue and I have argued in previous readings that that is not an argument for getting rid of the Productivity Commission; it's an argument for improving the framework within which it sits. If he did consider those options what were they and if he did not consider those options why not?
Foster AndyANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I've heard a lot in this discussion about an entity which has in some cases been seen to have run its course. There are others on the opposite side of the Chamber who are saying they're very concerned about its loss which I find slightly ironic. But I'm really interested to ask the question to the Minister. In clause 3(c) we have provide for the consequences of the disestablishment;" and we've got a lot of administrative consequences which are written into the bill but I think really the important thing—we just heard that comment being made by my colleague behind me—is that we've all been focused very much on productivity. We know the need to improve productivity in this country because if we don't do that we can't afford all the things we that we want to do all the great public services we want we can't afford to pay ourselves the sort of wages that we want to pay and we are all the worse for it. But I'm really interested in the Minister's responses to what are the strategic consequences of the disestablishment of the Productivity Commission because my understanding is that by in large the Productivity Commission has produced a lot of great work but not a lot has been done with that work. So I'm really interested in the Minister's response as to the impact of the disestablishment and how that great kind of work will be carried on elsewhere."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well thank you Madam Chair—that was a tough choice! But thank you—thankfully I won that one. I would like to turn the Minister's attention to Schedule 1 Part 1 Registers" clause 2(1) which says "The Registrar-General of Land or any other person charged with keeping books or registers is not required to change the name of the Commission to the Ministry in those books or registers or in a document solely because of the provisions of this Act." I'd really like to know some detail around how the Minister came to the decision to word that clause in such a way. Was there widespread consultation with the register of land or other entities—are they the right entity to actually be charged with this entity? The Minister might like to take some advice—perhaps the officials might like to give him some advice on that. But I think it's a really important point because this is an important bill and the technicalities are the meat of this and if we get this wrong well we won't be very productive and that would not be the whole point of it. I think the "commission" to the "Ministry"—the name—what is the implication of getting that right or wrong; and the registry. So if the Minister could address that I'd really appreciate it."
Webb Duncan; Seymour DavidHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I won't trouble the Minister too much but I'm just interested in Schedule 1. In particular it does seem to me that in Schedule 1 we've got this new ministry assuming the obligations. Members of the public will have entered into contracts with the Productivity Commission on the basis that they're entering into a contract with the Productivity Commission. It appears that no one's entitled to cancel their contractual arrangements on the basis that they've got a new entity even though they don't want to contract with the ministry—whatever ministry that might be. How does that gel with freedom of contract and the ACT Party's approach to freedom of contract?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Well it's very simple: the schedule provides that contracts will be honoured. The identity of the counterparty will change but what they get will be delivered as if the Productivity Commission was still the counterparty.
Pugh MaureenIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the House is in committee on the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill. Members we now come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 7 Preliminary provisions" and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Kuriger BarbaraDEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is—Joseph Mooney: Madam Speaker?DEPUTY SPEAKER: I've actually started taking the vote—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. The vote had begun?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes that's what I just said.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: OK.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Thank you.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): For the benefit of the public at home who must be bemused by the filibustering that's going on by the coalition Government that would be because their productivity isn't that great and they're not ready.So what I'm going to do is cut to the chase here. This is a really serious issue because we have an economy that has been really built a long time ago on very low wages. And one of the things that happened in that time was that the ACT Party in fact—the predecessor to David Seymour—proposed the Productivity Commission. And you could hear tonight some of the comments that were made about the scepticism over that.But I for one have been very convinced by the work of the Productivity Commission. I have one report here. You can see it's rather dog-eared—that's because I read it. That's because it's really important to the work that I need to do in my portfolios which includes the small business and manufacturing portfolios. And those are areas where we have woeful issues of productivity. We have a lot of little businesses. The average business size in New Zealand is less than four fulltime-equivalents.Stuart Smith: How many?HELEN WHITE: Less than four Stuart—less than four. And we need those businesses to build up and we need them to be high wage. And we're not going to do it through cups of tea and what we saw at the port; we're going to do it through good evidence. That's what we need. Not cups of tea not what my nana would have told me at the rest home.I would like to actually hear from people who know this stuff and can do deep dives and that's what our Productivity Commission was doing. It wasn't following an ideology; it was independent. So it's a tragedy to lose something that maybe we could have done better and strengthened. Maybe we could have listened to it more. It's a tragedy to lose that for something that is in fact as many people have said tonight a vanity project—and it's one based on arrogance. Because in this situation we have not even had a select committee look at this. We have not had any chance for the public to take part.I suspect there are some people on the other side of the House who think that it is about a cup of tea. It's what they learnt from the people who were their mentors in the 1980s and 1990s and that's all they have to do: just apply a paint by numbers approach. Well it didn't work. It's meant we've got a low-wage economy—I'd like to see a stronger one. So I am very sad that we are looking at this repeal tonight and I do not commend this bill to the House.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Isn't it ironic?" Sorry Madam Speaker but I am so reminded of the Alanis Morissette song listening to the debate in the House tonight—1996 for those of you who might not be as old as some of us in these chairs. It is so humorous or it would be if it wasn't for the implications of clause 11 of this bill the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill and what it will do for the staff of the Productivity Commission.The irony is that this commission was set up by the ACT Party and now it is the ACT Party that actually want to disestablish it. And while they disestablish it the ACT Party are singing its praises while taking a knife and committing hara-kiri to the very commission that they set up and they're doing this ostensibly to be able to fund a ministry of regulation. Now I don't put "the ACT Party" and "regulation" together normally in one sentence. For a libertarian party it's a strange dichotomy and I actually wonder whether the ACT Party should be called the "hij-ACT Party" because they seem to have hijacked the Government agenda not only with the Treaty principles bill but now with this bill—with 8 percent of the vote. So I do tip my hat to the Minister David Seymour for doing an incredible job as the de facto Leader of the Opposition.When I think about "Why would they be doing this?" there can be only one reason. As my learned colleague the Hon Duncan Webb said this is about a vanity project. It is about a Minister wanting to control a ministry so that he can have a legacy because he is not probably sure how long his time in this House will be given that we will be election-ready in 18 months' time. The Prime Minister needs to be held accountable for this. Because even though tonight all of the focus has been on David Seymour at the end of the day as Grant Robertson quite rightly said it is the Prime Minister's circus; it is the Prime Minister's clowns. We cannot support this bill. We do not commend it to the House."
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry this is a split call.Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Split call. Yes thank you Madam Speaker. It's good to be able to take a call and I've just sat through what I believe really encapsulates what this bill is about and that was encapsulated in the speech by the Minister. I have never in my Public Service career or in my time in this House heard such an arrogant speech. It was an arrogant speech. And then I realised this is what the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill is about. This bill is about control.The Productivity Commission was set up to provide a high level of debate which Bill English in 2010 did say. That was the whole point of the Productivity Commission. It wasn't about implementing actions—that was very clear in the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act. It was about being able to provide a high-level debate. Since 2011 there has been a number of inquiries into different areas: housing frontier firms. They're currently in—or they were in the middle of an economy review. But what I heard in that second reading speech by this Minister is about controlling the evidence that's coming towards him because they didn't want to have a high-level debate where the public could submit or have a high-level debate where other experts and where sectors can come together and talk to an independent body—yes funded by the Government but still very independent of the Government—to be able to provide evidence and reviews. So for me that only points to one thing which is this Minister wants to control the evidence that is brought to him because he can control it if it's a department which he controls and which he's the Minister for. The Productivity Commission was independent. This bill is all about control.I do not support this bill and that Minister needs to be aware he is no longer in Opposition. You are a Minister of the Crown. Take with that the responsibility. If you're not even going to allow select committees any more—because it's again another bill under urgency—provide the public the ability to submit so we can have high-level debate for intergenerational problems that are affecting our country. I do not support this bill and I really truly wish that the Minister could take the time to be able to absolutely have that debate but he doesn't want to because he wants to control this debate.
Robertson Grant; Kuriger Barbara; Seymour DavidHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to raise a point of order in the context of the comments made by the Minister in his second reading speech and the view that he expressed around what members of the House need to do in a second reading in order for him as the Minister in the chair to respond during the committee of the whole House stage. The Standing Order that the Minister is referring to is Standing Order 310(1) which says—it's quite brief so I'll read it out—A committee of the whole House considers a bill to determine whether the bill properly incorporates the principles or objects of the bill as read a second time by the House."That Standing Order quite clearly simply refers to the state of the bill at the end of the second reading not the second reading debate itself as in the debate in the committee of the whole House will be about the bill as it looks at the end of the second reading not what people said during the second reading. So you might want to take some advice on this but I don't think what Mr Seymour said is at all accurate and I think that actually it's important for the House that we get a very clear understanding of what that Standing Order means.There is a relevant Speakers' ruling as well which is Speakers' ruling 125/8 by Speaker Rurawhe and also Jacqui Dean as well and that also speaks about the particular circumstances of a committee of the whole House stage when there has been no select committee process at which point there has in the past been some leniency about what material is introduced. But my primary concern is that the way the Minister described what is allowed to be debated in the committee of the whole House stage is not what is in Standing Order 310(1). DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that point of order. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Speaking to the point of order—thank you Madam Speaker. I fear that Grant Robertson may have mischaracterised my point which is simply that the next stage—the committee stage—is a debate on whether the bill as passed at the second reading incorporates the principles and objects that were agreed at that reading. I make the point that if someone can't be bothered bringing it up in the second reading then you have to wonder if they're sincere bringing it up in the committee stage.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well look what I'm going to say at this stage is to go to the second part of your point of order first and Speaker Dean's ruling about the fact that there has been no select committee. We are in a different environment under urgency. I will take advice on your first point of order and before the committee stage I'll make sure I come back to you. Thank you."
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well the difficulty is that the policy of this bill is simply to disestablish a perfectly good agency.Hon David Seymour: Oh the member can sit down then.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: And here we have a member who stands on the hustings and talks about scrutiny and good law and good regulation and putting things through their paces and then doesn't want to send this to a select committee doesn't want an examination of it doesn't want to hear from the public on it doesn't even want a regulatory impact statement on it. And I mean I've got to give him credit—he does seem to be running the show right now. He's got his way with this and he's got his way with this ridiculous Treaty principles bill and the Prime Minister's all over the place trying to answer questions on it.So it's no wonder he's looking smug but the fact of the matter is that this is just a switcheroo. He's got a vanity project called the ministry of regulation and he's gone into the coalition negotiations and said I want my ministry of regulation and I want it now." and the Minister of Finance has said "Well we can't pay for it. We're going to have to take something away; we've got to put a line through something." So they've done a dirty deal. They've said "We'll take away this little ACT vanity project and give you that ACT vanity project." That is really what they've got. Because that's what the ACT Party is—it's a party of individuals. They've all got their little projects their favourite little things they want to achieve. And here we have it: this is David Seymour's legacy—abolishing a perfectly good Crown agency that has evolved over time; that by his own admission is doing great work in helping us become more productive so that he can have a ministry of his own.Now that's just one of the many reasons we won't be supporting this bill and if Mr Seymour isn't going to answer our questions in the committee stage it could be a long night."
Voting — Correction—Urgency Motion
Kuriger BarbaraVOTINGCorrection—Urgency MotionASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Members just before we move forward to the second reading I have a correction of a vote here. So members the result of the vote on the question that urgency be accorded to the first and second readings and committee stage of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 74 Noes 49. The correct result is Ayes 68 Noes 55. The record will be corrected accordingly.
Wedd CatherineCATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I support this bill. There's no doubt that we need to increase productivity in this country. That means increasing our exports so we can strengthen our economy and afford the public services that we need. But that is not achieved by the Productivity Commission; it's achieved by supporting our food producers and primary industries. I represent the food producing region of Tukituki. Hastings is the engine of horticulture in this country. In fact our apple industry is the most productive in the world. Yet our growers have been restricted by regulation compliance and red tape. The best way we that we can improve productivity in this country is by reducing red tape and reducing regulation. We need to drive productivity by less regulation. This would be a better use of the resources and funding so I commend this bill to the House.
Patterson Mark; Pugh MaureenHon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you Madam Speaker. New Zealand First rises to support this New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill. Essentially the Productivity Commission has become superfluous replaced by the new ministry of regulation. I'd actually like to commend the Minister the Hon David Seymour for actually walking the talk. I think he's been someone that's been quite outspoken about the need to cut red tape and this is really hard detailed stuff. I think all New Zealanders would wish him well in getting to the bottom of a lot of this stuff. We have simply become a country that is incredibly good at writing reports and setting up working groups but it has become impossible to get anything done. This is part of a suite of policies that the coalition Government is bringing forward. It's complementary particularly I think to the fast-track consenting legislation that the Hon Shane Jones will be bringing forward. It's a piece of the puzzle and New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.Hon Grant Robertson: Madam Speaker—because no one else seems interested—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Sorry has there been a transfer?Hon Grant Robertson: No no; there wasn't anyone taking the call.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker and it's great to speak in the House for the first time in 2024 although I had a supplementary question this afternoon—I don't think that actually counts. But it's great to be back.I commend Minister Seymour for bringing this bill to the House. Actually like him I have huge respect for the original commissioner Murray Sherwin and I think they did fantastic work. Unfortunately the work that they did didn't transfer into actions and actions actually matter. Having a regulations ministry gets to the pointy end the bit that makes the difference the little bits that actually unblock the blockages and allow people to actually get on and be more productive. So it's far better that that revenue be directed—because what we are talking about is directing tax revenue to the best use and in my view the regulations ministry is a far better use than the Productivity Commission so I commend this bill to the House.
Brown SimeonURGENCYHon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the first and second readings and committee stage of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill.The Government is moving urgency this evening so that we can pass through the necessary stages of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill which will allow the House to pass the first second and committee stage of this bill this week. The Government's priority in this urgency motion is to pass this bill to disestablish the New Zealand Productivity Commission as part of our 100-day plan in order to use the resources freed up to improve the quality of regulation through the establishment of a ministry for regulation.
Pugh Maureen; Brown SimeonASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good evening members. The House is resumed for the Address in Reply debate. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That this debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This debate is adjourned and set down for resumption next sitting day.
Brownlee GerryURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDUnited Nations Relief and Works Agency—Government FundingSPEAKER: I have received an urgent debate request from the Hon Marama Davidson and Ricardo Menéndez March seeking under Standing Order 399 to debate the Government's decision on funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. This application did not make out a convincing case for setting aside the business of the House to debate this matter. The application is therefore declined.
Urgent Debates Declined — United Nations Relief and Works Agency—Government Funding
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Jas Mcintosh requesting that the House make attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder assessments accessible and affordable for all entitled to healthcare in New Zealand. Petition of Muhammad Dahlan requesting that the House urge the Government to create a temporary special category visa for Palestinians in Gaza who have family members in New Zealand.Petition of Mohamed Soliman requesting that the House urge the Government to limit the diplomatic relationship between New Zealand and Israel.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Papers have been delivered.CLERK: 2022-23 annual reports of the:Accreditation CouncilCommerce CommissionExternal Reporting BoardNew Zealand Green Investment Finance LtdNew Zealand Post LtdOranga TamarikiRetirement CommissionTe Puni Kōkiri.2023-24 statements of performance expectations for:Callaghan InnovationNew Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd.Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement and Financial Stability Reportreports in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2023 for the following portfolios within Vote Business Science and Innovation:emergency managementresearch science and innovationreport of the Registrar of the Environment Court for the 12 months ended 30 June 2023.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement November 2023 report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee.SPEAKER: The Monetary Policy Statement is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK: New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill introduction.European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Well it's easy isn't it when things happen a long way from New Zealand to think it's not our problem? But this is our problem. It's our problem because these indiscriminate attacks by the Houthi on ships of all nations are hitting all of us in the pocket—all Kiwis. That's you me our family and our friends. These attacks are actually forcing ships to take the long route around the Cape of Good Hope and that's adding 10 to 15 days on to that journey—10 to 15 days of extra fuel and of wages—and it means fewer journeys.So what does this mean for a country that sits at the bottom of the supply chain? It means fewer goods and it means price increases. We saw what happened during and post COVID when supply chains were disrupted; costs skyrocketed and that was if you could even get the item that you needed. I'm sure none of us wants to have a return to those days and nor can we afford to at a time when so many people are struggling to make ends meet.But this deployment isn't just about money; it's about doing the right thing. New Zealanders are not freeloaders—certainly not under this coalition—and that's not going to happen. We will not sit back and wait for someone else to sort things out for us. We are fair-minded people and we want to do our bit and we want to contribute. We've made it very clear that we've been asked to assist. We are a partner with the United States the United Kingdom Australia Canada and other like-minded countries when it comes to playing our part. New Zealand has long done this and it's the right thing to do. We have a defence force for a reason. They are highly trained and they're ready to step up and do the job they signed up to. We cannot just sit in blissful ignorance and naivety and think that everyone else needs to protect us and protect our shipping lanes. We cannot sit back and wait for someone else to sort it out for us. So for the benefit of members opposite I'll say it again: New Zealanders are not freeloaders; we are going to do our bit.
Ministerial Statements — New Zealand Defence Force—Deployment of Personnel to Protect Red Sea Shipping
Cameron Mark; Brownlee GerryMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the ministerial statement from the Minister of Defence the Hon Judith Collins and as part of the coalition Government. The ACT Party supports the deployment announced 23 January of the six New Zealand Defence Force personnel to the Middle East to help and assist our partners with current and future military actions against the Houthi targets based in Yemen and the Red Sea.The multiple Houthi attacks against merchant naval shipping are both highly illegal and extremely damaging to our freedoms and that of international trade furthermore. Freedom of navigation is a core tenet of the international rules-based order. The attack on vessels in the Red Sea by the Houthi rebels is eroding the sovereignty afforded to all law-abiding countries that transit the Red Sea and the Suez Canal whilst in international waters.ACT fully supports the deployment of our military personnel to help aid and assist our allies and our international partners nullify this threat. New Zealand like so many other countries rely heavily on our trading relationships and our ability to access markets around the world. The disruptions in the Red Sea are having a profound effect on the 15 percent—and I clarify that nearly 15 to 16 percent of all the global trade uses these traditional shipping lanes.ACT stands proud in support of the New Zealand Defence Force personnel and those that have been deployed to assist in this vital mission. We as a country cannot wish the evils of the world away. We must stand as a partner in a global society and play our important part in it. This deployment signals our commitment to our shared values of protecting all things democracy global security and the importance of global trade. SPEAKER: Thank you. Other speakers? In that case the Minister has a brief right of reply.
Collins JudithMINISTERIAL STATEMENTSNew Zealand Defence Force—Deployment of personnel to protect Red Sea shipping (30 January 2024)Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Mr Speaker I wish to make a ministerial statement. Thank you. I rise to make a ministerial statement in support of Cabinet's 23 January decision to deploy six New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel to support any future military action against Houthi targets in Yemen and the Red Sea as part of coalition efforts to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea. The decision to deploy NZDF personnel was made in response to Houthis' actions which threaten commercial shipping and it represents the commitment of the Government to defending our national interests and supporting our international partners.The Houthi attacks against commercial and naval shipping are illegal unacceptable and profoundly destabilising. More than 50 nations have been affected in more than 30 attacks by the Houthi on ships in recent months. The international community including New Zealand has repeatedly demanded the Houthi cease their attacks on Red Sea shipping to no avail. The coalition response is an inevitable consequence of the Houthis' very deliberate actions in the face of these warnings.New Zealand's interests are global and include vital trade and economic interests. Freedom of navigation is an integral part of New Zealand's national prosperity and trade security. Disruptions to shipping in the Red Sea and Suez Canal mean higher costs for New Zealanders—in fact nearly 15 percent of global trade flows through this shipping lane.The NZDF personnel being deployed will support coalition forces to carry out precision attacks on identified Houthi military targets. They will be in roles in operational headquarters in the wider Middle East region and elsewhere. None of our personnel will enter Yemen. Our personnel are highly trained and this latest deployment will see them work alongside our traditional security partners to defend our values and protect our vital interests.New Zealand's contribution has already been appreciatively welcomed by coalition partners. Such collective action demonstrates our commitment to support efforts to address a serious threat to international stability. New Zealand cannot enjoy the benefits of global security without making a contribution when we can and when it is in our clear security interests. This deployment to the international coalition is operationally very separate but complementary to New Zealand's longstanding and enduring contribution to the combined maritime forces in Bahrain. Both deployments support New Zealand's interest in the freedom of navigation in the Middle East region.Finally I would like to conclude by again acknowledging our NZDF personnel and their families. I know that I speak for all New Zealanders when I state how appreciative and proud I am for their sacrifice and their service.
Ferris Tākuta; Brownlee GerryTĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): E te Māngai o te Whare e te Pīka tēnā rā koe. [To the Speaker Mr Speaker thank you.]Te Pāti Māori also adds its voice to conveying condolences on the passing of Sir Michael Hardie Boys.Nō reira tākiri tū ko te ata e kōrihi ana te manu koia te wā e rere kau nei te wairua ka whiti ki ōna otinga. Nō reira ko tēnei te mihi maioha te reo aroha e tukua atu ana i runga i te rau aroha me te ngākau iti. Ki te whānau tonu o Tā Mikaere rātou kua mahue mai ki muri nō rātou te haepapa nui he pīkau i tēnei āhuatanga te mate. I roto i te ao Māori ka tukua rātou ko te hunga wairua kia okioki i roto i te hāneaneatanga o te wāhi ngaro ahakoa te whakapono ahakoa te whakapae. Nō reira tēnei rā te whakatairanga ake i te matenga o Tā Mikaere Hardie Boys me te tuku i a ia otirā rātou katoa te rārangi mate o te tau kua taha ake nei kia oti atu i roto i ngā atawhaitanga o te wāhi ngaro. Waiho mai ko tātou e hika mā e pae nei i tēnei rangi me ngā mahuetanga iho o tēnei rangatira o tātou e mihi e tangi mō rātou kua ngaro. Nō reira tēnā tātou katoa. [And so the dawn breaks the birds sing that is the time that the spirit takes flight and transcends to its culmination. And so these are my kind regards and condolences that I impart with compassion and humility.To the family of Sir Michael they who are left behind who have the great responsibility of bearing this phenomenon of bereavement. In Māori society they those who are now spirit are sent on to rest in the comfort of the beyond whatever the faith whatever the belief.And so I would like to honour the passing of Sir Michael Hardie Boys and to send him on indeed all of the ranks of dearly departed of the year that's passed to spend eternity in the benevolence of the beyond. Leave us my friends that sit here today and the legacy of this noble leader of ours to acknowledge and to grieve for those who have passed on.And so greetings to us all.]SPEAKER: I thank members for those comments. For those of us who knew him he was truly a great New Zealander.Motion agreed to.
Obituary—Sir Michael Hardie Boys
Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First we would like to join the rest of the members of this House to extend our sympathy and condolences to the family of Sir Michael Hardie Boys. You've heard that he had a very distinguished career becoming member of the highest court back in 1989 in this country and being made a Privy Counsellor. He was appointed as the Governor-General as you know in 1996 and that was critical at a time when we were entering a new environment in widened politics and engagement in this country. He set out in a series of speeches conventions around Government formation that still hold force today. Indeed on one occasion in 2020 when we wrote to the then Prime Minister about delaying that year's election due to the varying COVID alert levels operating around the country his wisdom helped inform that constitutionally important letter.He was a great New Zealander and one who through his lifetime of service to the judiciary and our wider constitutional system leaves us a living legacy of measured guidance and constitutional insight. Now it's common in this forum more often than not for people to get up and say all sorts of grandiose things about a personality but in this case on this particular occasion these words have a special significance. His wisdom will be missed but we welcome the chance and the opportunity to remember a great New Zealander.
Seymour DavidHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. On behalf of ACT I wish to join with other leaders in supporting this motion to offer condolence and sympathy to the family of Sir Michael Hardie Boys and admiration for 92 years tremendously well lived. As other leaders have shared he is somebody who excelled to the top of his profession. But he was also somebody who gave back throughout his career whether that was being a member of the Law Society in early days as Governor-General or helping children's charities. Long after most people had turned to playing bowls at their village he was out there helping people helping as he had throughout his life.As others have mentioned he helped New Zealand navigate what could have been and what many thought would be a tumultuous time in our constitutional history. Perhaps the fact that that period of uncertainty is such a distant memory rarely if ever thought of or acknowledged is actually a tribute to how well the Governor-General of the time was able to handle that situation and reassure the public. To those who survive him we give our deepest condolences and to his memory we give our greatest admiration. May he rest in peace.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I would like to extend condolences on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to the family friends and community of Sir Michael Hardie Boys on his passing. He was of course as has already been noted the first MMP Governor-General which was when the Green Party entered Parliament first as part of The Alliance and then under our own steam in the 1999 election and so we have that connection to him. I also want to acknowledge of course that an entire generation of voters has been born gone to school and come of age and got the right to vote since he left that post as well. So for many New Zealanders and many current voters they won't have that connection to him and so there are some things that I would like to acknowledge at this moment.Sir Geoffrey Palmer said that Sir Michael Hardie Boys was a judge of rare distinction a man of enormous dignity and human qualities and I think that it's hard to go past much higher praise than that. As the Leader of the Opposition just pointed out Sir Michael did believe that Governors-General actually had a duty to speak out about the community's concerns and he frequently did so on issues such as inequality family violence and child abuse which of course are issues that we are continuing to grapple with in this Parliament and at this time.He was as we made that transition from a first-past-the-post political system to a mixed-member proportional political system a very steady hand during a period of time when we had no prior culture of how to do this and I think it put us in very good stead.I do want to acknowledge Sir Michael's wife Mary Zohrab and their four children and several grandchildren. He dedicated his entire life to public service and outside of that managed to fit in interests like gardening and travelling and so on. We here are very grateful for his service.
Hipkins ChrisRt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of the Opposition can I join with the Government in extending our condolences to the family of Sir Michael Hardie Boys and also acknowledge his significant service to the people of New Zealand.Sir Michael Hardie Boys was a man of firsts. He was of course our first MMP Governor-General selected for that role because of his legal background and training and because of the new and potentially challenging circumstances that a Governor-General under MMP may face—or perceived challenges that a Governor-General under MMP may face—as they were envisaged back in 1996. Now of course for the political tragics in the House now this may not seem as significant but back then there was great concern about what would happen following our first MMP election if no Government had achieved a majority. Of course there's actually only been one one-party majority Government in the entire history of MMP in New Zealand but there was concern back in 1996 about whether or not this would politicise the role of the Governor-General and that they may have to choose who got to be the Government—of course it turns out that the man who gets to often choose the Government is still here. But no crisis was ever established and we have successfully had MMP Governments and Sir Michael Hardie Boys led us through the process of Government formation not once but twice after our first two MMP general elections.He was also our first Knight Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit—something many people would be unaware of. His career was underpinned by a pretty common theme: change. He was on the Court of Appeal when the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was enacted by the Parliament. He's been described as astute gentle fair and courteous. He did as Governor-General on occasion challenge the Government of the day. I want to reflect on one of his final contributions during his departure speech as Governor-General and I want to read a quote from him: Our very identity as a people requires us to commemorate our beginnings. How can we build a nation if we treat our founding as unworthy of celebration? How can we properly understand our present or intelligently plot our future without an understanding of our past?" Sir Michael Hardie Boys was a very thoughtful Governor-General who challenged New Zealanders in a very polite and gentle way and I'm sure that his words will continue to do that well beyond his passing."
Resignations List Members Elected Members Sworn