edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brownlee GerryWEDNESDAY 12 APRIL 2017(continued on Thursday 13 April 2017)INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEEMembershipHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That under section 11 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 this House endorse Rt Hon Winston Peters as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee nominated by the Leader of the Opposition with the agreement of the Prime Minister under section 7(1)(d) of the Act. The Intelligence and Security Committee is a very important piece of the security architecture of New Zealand. It is a body where information that pertains to the best interests of all New Zealanders is able to be considered by generally senior politicians from this House. It is important that in all of our security arrangements there is an exercise of civilian control and in the matters that relate to this committee it is important that we have people sit on that committee who have a long experience or a significant responsibility for the delivery of the work of this Parliament on behalf of the voters of New Zealand.The Rt Hon Winston Peters has a long history in this Parliament huge experience of how to operate inside a democracy and has of course at one point been a Deputy Prime Minister as well as a Treasurer and a foreign Minister. His breadth of experience from both that appreciation of democracy and understanding of the security needs of New Zealand and his experience in this House make him ideally suited to sit on this particular committee. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
Tuesday 4 April 2017 - Volume 721
1. Health Services—Auckland Typhoid OutbreakDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of HealthURGENT QUESTIONSHealth Services—Auckland Typhoid OutbreakMr SPEAKER: I have allowed an urgent question from Dr David Clark to the Minister of Health.1. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: At what date and time was the Ministry of Health first made aware of the outbreak of typhoid in Auckland?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I am advised that it was on Friday 31 March at 2.14 p.m.Dr David Clark: Can he confirm that the woman who has died was a parish member of an Assembly of God church in Mount Albert not Mount Roskill as has been widely reported and can he assure the House that no children or adults from outside Auckland were in contact with the woman who died in the 72 hours either side of her death?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: With regards the woman's personal details as the member will appreciate some of that is private information. But what I am assured of by officials is that clinically the outbreak has been handled entirely appropriately.
11. Health and Safety Workplace—UpdatesDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyHealth and Safety Workplace—Updates11. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What update can he give on workplace health and safety?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Today marks the first anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work Act coming into force. The Act was the first major reform of workplace health and safety legislation in New Zealand in more than 20 years. It struck the right balance—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am quite keen to hear the answer.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It struck the right balance between ensuring workplaces are made safer without imposing unnecessary red tape on business. I am pleased to see the responsible and measured way New Zealand businesses and workers have responded to the change and although the reforms are still being bedded in we are on track to meet the Government's target of a 25 percent reduction in harm by 2020. We have made good progress in the last year and as a country we are better off. Kids are still climbing trees voluntary organisations continue to perform their vital functions and our workplaces are safer.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What changes has the Minister seen in workplaces so far?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Results of the 2016 Business Operations Survey showed a material increase in time spent on workplace health and safety since 2012. For the higher-risk agricultural forestry and fishing sectors the increase was even larger with 90 percent of those companies spending time and resources on health and safety. Although those targets are important and a strong legislative framework is a good grounding what are most important are changes in behaviours and attitudes because those are the things that will make sure all workers go home safely at the end of the day.
10. Earthquake Commission—Remedial Claims SettlementDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake CommissionEarthquake Commission—Remedial Claims Settlement10. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he confident that the Earthquake Commission will meet their commitment of settling all remedial claims by 30 June 2017?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): The Earthquake Commission (EQC) remains committed to remedial repairs being resolved in a timely fashion. However since all repairs undertaken through the Canterbury Home Repair Programme are subject to provisions in the Building Act depending on the type of repair that is carried out it may carry up to a 10-year liability. Given this warranty period it would be inappropriate for EQC to provide a date for when all remedial repairs would be completed because some may not yet be materialised. It may be the member's desire to limit remedial claims; it is not mine.Dr Megan Woods: How many second-time repair claims are not settled in Canterbury as of today?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not have that number in front of me but what I can say is that where there are claims dealt with by EQC they will be dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner within the constraints of the Act and the cover that is provided by that insurance. What is important here is that homeowners who have had their houses repaired by EQC through the Canterbury Home Repair Programme have a place to go if they are dissatisfied. That is the purpose for setting it up in the first place and it is working.Dr Megan Woods: Is the Minister saying that the chair of the Earthquake Commission was wrong to give a commitment that all remedial claims lodged by 30 June 2016 would be settled by 2017?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No I am sure that was the intention. Remember that when a person lodges a claim there is then an assessment. If there is an obligation that comes from that assessment—and that is not always the case—there is first a cash settlement available or a repair.Dr Megan Woods: Does he think that it is unreasonable that people have had a gutsful after 6 years and they just want their homes fixed properly and the job finally done?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I look at what might have happened had we not had this programme in place and conclude that if it had been the laissez-faire approach that some wanted—including the Opposition—then we would have had complete chaos out there runaway inflation and a whole lot of people getting seriously ripped off by the cowboy brigade. What we are seeing here is people being able to recognise that something is not right with a repair and then having a place to go with the understanding that they will get dealt with fairly. That is happening. It is a good thing.
9. Trade—Trade Agenda 2030 and China Free-trade AgreementJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of TradeTrade—Trade Agenda 2030 and China Free-trade Agreement9. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Trade: What reports has he received on trade issues?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Trade): On 24 March the Prime Minister launched Trade Agenda 2030—Securing our place in the world. The agenda sets an ambitious path for New Zealand's trade strategy over the next 10 to 15 years and aims to get the best possible export outcomes for our country. Our exports of goods and services have risen from $29 billion in 1995 to $70 billion in 2016 and Trade Agenda 2030 charts a course to dramatically increase these gains.Jami-Lee Ross: How will Trade Agenda 2030 achieve success for exporters?Hon TODD McCLAY: Trade Agenda 2030 sets an ambitious target of 90 percent of our goods trade being covered by free trade agreements (FTAs) by 2030 up from 53 percent currently. It sees $91 million of new funding our biggest ever investment in trade policy and it provides more resources for the Government to tackle non-tariff barriers that our exporters face. It increases our focus on services and investment and digital trade and it will do more to help exporters succeed by providing them with practical assistance.Jami-Lee Ross: What progress has been made on an FTA upgrade with China?Hon TODD McCLAY: Last week the Prime Minister announced during the visit of Premier Li that our two countries will begin FTA upgrade talks on 25 April. This is an important step in modernising our trade relationship which has evolved over the past 8 years. Since the FTA came into force in 2008 two-way goods and services trade has nearly tripled to $23 billion and created jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders.Jami-Lee Ross: How will Trade Agenda 2030 help the Government to engage New Zealanders on the benefits of trade?Hon TODD McCLAY: There has been significant engagement with New Zealanders on trade over the last year. In a demonstration of our commitment to engagement I have recently established a ministerial advisory group on trade which includes representatives from NGOs iwi unions industry stakeholders and exporters. We will continue to meet stakeholders to ensure all New Zealanders can share in the benefits that trade agreements present.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a 2008 document from the National Party promising to increase exports from 26 to 30 percent of GDP.Mr SPEAKER: And what is the second document?Hon David Parker: The second is a report from the Parliamentary Library last week showing that exports have dropped to 26 percent of GDP.Mr SPEAKER: The first one is freely available to members to get. I will put the leave for the second one which is a research paper from the Parliamentary Library showing a drop in exports. Is there any objection to that particular paper being tabled? There is not; it can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
4. Children and Young People Care and Protection—Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki and System ChangesSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for ChildrenChildren and Young People Care and Protection—Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki and System Changes4. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Children: What updates can she provide on the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): Last Friday along with the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Bill English I welcomed the launch of the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki which became operational on 1 April. This launch signifies the end of Child Youth and Family and the beginning of a move to a more child-centred care and protection system that is focused on prevention and early intervention and that will work with families and whānau to ensure children and young people get access to the care and support they need. It was fantastic to attend the launch along with a number of young people who have had experience in State care who have helped to develop the system and will continue to be involved in the transformation to ensure it is truly focused on the needs and safety of children.Stuart Smith: What support is in place to ensure the new ministry is properly supported and resourced?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I absolutely agree with those who say that the new ministry needs to be properly resourced and that social workers need support in order to deliver the best for these kids. That is why Budget 2016 invested $347 million to fund the transformation process and to address cost pressures within the system. We are implementing changes to the way that services are provided to ensure children will be able to access specialist services like child psychologists and mental health professionals as and when they are needed.Stuart Smith: What other changes have been made to the care and protection system?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In December last year this House passed legislation raising the age of State care to a young person's 18th birthday. We have mandated that children and young people's views are taken into account both in decisions about their individual circumstances and also in the development of services and policy. We have also supported the establishment of an independent youth advocacy service VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai. More changes are on the way to allow young people to remain in care until the age of 21 and receive support until they are 25 which will greatly help their transition into adulthood.
2. Economy—Reports and Fiscal PositionTODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of FinanceEconomy—Reports and Fiscal Position2. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received about New Zealand's economic outlook?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): During the adjournment the credit rating agency Moody's reaffirmed New Zealand's highest possible triple A sovereign credit rating with a stable outlook highlighting the country's high economic resilience and effective policy-making and a very strong fiscal position. Moody's states that it expects that New Zealand will be one of the fastest-growing triple A rated economies over the next few years. It also notes that New Zealand's strong population growth including through immigration helps lift the country's economic potential.Todd Barclay: What does Moody's say about the Government's fiscal priorities?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Moody's statement is actually a very positive endorsement—almost an embarrassingly positive endorsement—of the Government's and New Zealand's economic performance and policy settings and underlines the benefits of all the work that New Zealand as a whole has done over the last few years to strengthen our economy and our country's finances. It highlights the Government's targeting and subsequent achievement of a Budget surplus in 2014-15 as evidence of the country's effective policy-making. It also notes that the Government's focus on preserving strong public finances provides New Zealand with the room to buffer the economy from any future economic shocks or natural disasters.Todd Barclay: How will the Government ensure New Zealand retains its strong fiscal position?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government will continue to prudently manage public finances with one of our key priorities being to reduce net debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020-21 to ensure that we can manage any shocks that may happen in the future. I appreciate that there are other views of that target and I have seen recent reports of organisations seeking to postpone debt targets for 2 or 3 years apparently in the name of fiscal responsibility. However it is important to note that New Zealand has recent experience with economic shocks and natural disasters and it is important to have the capacity to respond to those and to return to those as soon as is reasonably possible and that is why we have the target.Todd Barclay: Has he received any other reports that highlight New Zealand's economic outlook?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes—busy times in the economic outlook division. Today the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research released its Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion which indicates that it expects economic activity to continue to grow at a moderate pace. While overall confidence eased slightly likely reflecting wider geopolitical issues businesses remain upbeat about their prospects with a net 21 percent of firms reporting stronger activity over the last quarter and a net 25 percent of firms expecting improved activity in the quarter ahead indicating that growth is expected to continue through this year.
Tisch LindsayThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We move to the Hon David Parker's amendment inserting new clause 30AB as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Those of that—David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise. I would have liked to register a vote on the previous Supplementary Order Paper 281 and I seek leave—and I suspect some of my colleagues might like to seek leave—to have the vote corrected.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I announced the result. The only way that that can be done is by leave. If you wish to have your vote recorded against then seek leave because I have already announced the result.David Seymour: Well I seek leave of the Committee to have my vote recorded.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for the ACT Party to cast a vote opposed to Marama Fox's amendments. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. The record will be amended accordingly.David Seymour: That it is opposed.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): As opposed yes. So I will just announce the result on that now. [Interruption] Sorry anyway it is recorded and the record will be amended accordingly.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 30AB be agreed to.David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As I raised with you earlier this precise matter—word for word clause for clause—has already been dealt with by the Committee and voted against.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No that is not the case. I have scrutinised the amendments I am putting the question and the Committee will decide whether it proceeds or not.
Smith Stuart; Faafoi KrisSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I move That the question be now put.KRIS FAAFOI (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know you have taken the closure motion but can I point out that the Chairperson in the Chair at the very outset of this debate noted that he expected it to be longer. I note that it has gone on for some time but I would ask that—I have been in the Chamber and there are three Māori caucus colleagues of mine who wish to make a contribution. I do not believe that they have been able to make a contribution and this piece of legislation as was said in the last contribution does relate to the iwi.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. The debate has gone on for just under 4 hours—3 hours and 57 minutes in fact—with 46 calls. What I have done is that those who have sought calls and have been on the Local Government and Environment Committee have actually had calls. Some of them have had their full allocation of calls. It is not for me to decide whether the Committee accepts the closure. That is for the Committee of the whole House to decide. I am going to accept Stuart Smith's closure motion so I will put it and then members can decide whether the debate continues in Committee.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I move That the question be now put.
Kuriger Barbara; Tisch LindsayBARBARA KURIGER (Third Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to call Steffan Browning.
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Tēnā koe e Te Whare. Tēnā koutou e te whānau o Te Whare Pāremata tēnā tātou katoa. Members I just want to point out at the beginning of this session that the Committee stage of this bill or of any bill—the Committee stage of the House—is about discussing submissions that came before the select committee it is about speaking to Supplementary Order Papers that may be in it is about asking questions of the Minister in the chair and it is about speaking to the clauses that are currently under debate. We have a campaign later on in the year; that is not for now. Those sorts of speeches are for the first second and third readings of the bill. This is the Committee stage of the bill and I intend to make it so.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I just want to make a brief intervention to respond to a couple of points that members have raised. Mr Twyford challenged the Government on the use of national policy statements (NPS) and national environmental standards (NES). I would point out to that member that this Government has achieved seven of those as compared with just two under the previous 9 years. This Government has made more extensive use of NPSs and NESs than any other Government.The second point I wish to make is that Mr Robertson made the claim about the process. Actually this is a 300-page bill there is only one Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name and it makes no policy changes; it simply addresses some of the—Grant Robertson: That's pretty disingenuous about the process of the bill.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I will give a reminder to the member. He may remember in the dying days of the previous Government it introduced a 900-page SOP under urgency on the emissions trading scheme bill that it passed through all stages. Actually this has been a very thorough process.Can I quickly deal with the issues of new section 360D. One of the difficulties is that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is so wide that councils see it as a mandate to be able to for instance overrule Parliament's decision around what is an earthquake-prone building. Parliament decided it was 34 percent of new building standards; some councils say: Well we don't agree with that and we're going to use the RMA to set a higher standard." I have got other councils that do not agree with the five-star insulation standards and that want to overrule that. I have got other councils that are using the RMA to get into the areas of fisheries regulations making different decisions around telecommunications. New section 360D actually does what I think is absolutely essential to this reform and that is that we avoid duplication with other Acts of Parliament. Being able to use new section 360D to be able to pass regulations to ensure that those issues are not relitigated either in plans or in consent conditions is actually at the core of what we want to achieve with this legislation—good quality environmental regulation but not duplicating other areas. That is why that provision is included in the bill.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m."
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am flattered and amazed to see that David Parker and Denis O'Rourke—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no—what is the point of order? This is not a discussion. Specifically I am giving you the call on a point of order. What is the point of order?DAVID SEYMOUR: I was just about to get to that Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well I want you to get to it now.DAVID SEYMOUR: —have directly word for word except for one possibly typographical mistake in the case of Denis O'Rourke plagiarised my amendments.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no that is not a point of order that is a—[Interruption] DAVID SEYMOUR: I seek your guidance.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No I am and the guidance is simply this—[Interruption] Order! The member will sit. The member will sit please. This is a debating point and it is not a point of order. When you get a call you could bring that issue up. That is a debating point about someone else who may be using that material; it is not a point of order in terms of the process of the House. So that is my ruling and I am calling the Hon Dr Nick Smith.David Seymour: Mr Chairman?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is this new material?DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well put it this way: I will move that the Speaker be recalled if that is your ruling because I do not think that is fair at all.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well I have ruled your point is out of order—DAVID SEYMOUR: Would you allow me to speak a little bit further to the point of order Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No I will not because it is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate between what someone else may have used in terms of their material and what you consider to be your material. Those are debating points. It is not a point of order in the sense of the process of the House—all right? That is the ruling that I have made. Now David Seymour has sought that the Speaker be recalled. Are you asking for the Speaker to be recalled?DAVID SEYMOUR: Absolutely because I do not think you have properly understood what I am saying.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well you need to move then that the Speaker be recalled.DAVID SEYMOUR: I move That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the matter.Motion not agreed to.
Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Urgent Debates Declined — Inquiry—Afghanistan Raid
Mallard TrevorRESOURCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members we now turn to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill is in five parts. Members will be aware that Part 1 amends the Resource Management Act 1991 which is the main piece of the legislation governing the use of natural resources in this country. The amendments in Part 1 are substantial and form the majority of the bill's text. There is significant interest in allowing these proposals to be debated. For these reasons I anticipate that the debate on Part 1 is likely to be considerable and will take longer than normal.
Macindoe Tim; Borrows ChesterTELECOMMUNICATIONS (PROPERTY ACCESS AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeTIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): With the agreement of the whips across the House I seek leave for the separate debatable questions of the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to be considered in one debate with voting on those questions to be taken separately at its conclusion.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDDefence Force—Afghan Civilian Deaths AllegationsMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Dr Kennedy Graham seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the decision by the Prime Minister not to order an inquiry into the raid carried out by New Zealand SAS troops in Afghanistan in 2010. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government to account for a particular case of recent occurrence for which it is responsible. There have been many rulings by previous Speakers that the absence of an action on the part of a Government is not a particular case of recent occurrence. I refer members to Speaker's ruling 212/2. I also restate my ruling on Metiria Turei's application for an urgent debate on 22 March that allegations can never constitute a particular case of recent occurrence. I refer members again to Speakers' rulings 212/3 and 212/4. The application is therefore declined.
Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 276 in the name of David Seymour to insert new subpart 3A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 72New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 agreed to without debate.
Tuesday 21 March 2017 - Volume 721
Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 77New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 43New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11.Motion agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Intelligence and Security Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14Green Party 14.Bill read a third time.
Intelligence and Security Bill — Third Reading
10. Air Services—Trading PartnersDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of TransportAir Services—Trading Partners10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Transport: What steps has the Government taken on strengthening New Zealand's air services with trading partners?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Last week I announced that New Zealand will benefit from a number of new air services agreements with for example Kenya Botswana the Dominican Republic and Guyana and an amended agreement with Italy. Other successful negotiations to expand and enhance air services opportunities were conducted with Belize Nicaragua and Spain. We have also signed an air services agreement with Colombia providing opportunities for code-sharing between each nation's airlines. New Zealand's approach to liberalising air services has allowed for an open competitive market facilitating increased air traffic lower airfares and stronger international trade links.Dr Shane Reti: What economic benefits will the new air services agreements bring to New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Of course as an island nation New Zealand relies heavily on its international air links. These new agreements will further enhance New Zealand's international air connectivity between Africa Asia Europe and the Americas. International visitor arrivals set a new record in 2016 with 3.5 million for the year. This figure was up 12 percent on 2015. Worldwide New Zealand has air services agreements with 61 countries and territories and 20 are awaiting signature. I am excited that the new air services agreements will boost tourism create new trade opportunities and strengthen the existing strong personal ties between New Zealand and the rest of the world.
8. Code of Conduct for Teaching—Progress and Education Sector ParticipationMAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of EducationCode of Conduct for Teaching—Progress and Education Sector Participation8. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made on the development of a code of conduct for the teaching profession?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I am advised that the aptly named Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand has worked very closely with teachers education leaders and peak bodies to develop a draft code of professional responsibility and standards for the teaching profession. The draft code was launched for consultation by the Education Council on 10 March and it will help to inspire confidence and a high level of trust in the teaching profession by those who are at the very centre of learning: children and their whānau. It will also help to ensure that the profession is honoured as one of high quality and integrity. The draft code underpinned by standards will also provide employers with a strengthened disciplinary framework to better ascertain what types of behaviour would be determined a breach.Maureen Pugh: What role has the education sector played in the development of this draft code of conduct?Hon HEKIA PARATA: It bears repeating that the Education Council has involved the education sector extensively in the development of the draft code of professional responsibility. Teachers education leaders and peak bodies have participated in surveys workshops focus groups and meetings and their views have been instrumental in the development of the draft code and accompanying professional standards. I would like to acknowledge the very hard work of the Education Council and thank all those who have been involved so far for their dedication and commitment to such an important framework. I am advised that the draft code is out for public consultation until 21 April and I would encourage everyone to provide their feedback to the Education Council.
5. Family Violence—SummitJOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of JusticeFamily Violence—Summit5. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has the Government made about family violence?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Following on from last week's introduction of the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill today Minister Tolley and I announced that the Government intends to hold a family violence summit in June. We have always been clear that family violence is not something that the Government can solve on its own. Getting people together to reflect on the changes that have been made so far and that are continuing to be made is important. We need to challenge people across society to think about how we can act differently and the part we all have to play because making real lasting change requires all of our communities to work together and the summit will be an important part of this.Joanne Hayes: How will the family violence summit help to inform the work of the ministerial group on family and sexual violence?Hon AMY ADAMS: The summit provides an opportunity for us to reflect with the sector on the work to date and to help shape the work programme going forward. For example one thing that the legislation introduced last week focuses on is creating early intervention points before violence escalates. The summit gives us the opportunity to discuss with the sector how we can best make use of these earlier intervention points and how a social investment perspective could help determine our responses.
Hudson Brett; Mallard TrevorBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of this bill a bill that makes technical changes to improve strengthen and update our tax rules so that they continue—continue—to work well for taxpayers and the Government. Let us take note of something that Mr Wood remarked upon earlier when he talked about multinationals and tax and he specifically used the example of Apple. Well in actual fact Apple does pay tax in New Zealand but it so happens that the tax it pays in New Zealand is remitted to the Australians. Why is it remitted to the Australians? The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. This debate is interrupted and set down for further consideration next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking—Hon Member: It was better when you didn't have a voice.ANDREW BAYLY: —in this third reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17 Closely Held Companies and Remedial Matters) Bill. Yes I have got my voice back. Last time I was talking about the fact that Opposition members were saying about this bill that we were doing too much too fast—things we should not be doing—and that we should be slowing it down. And of course that is not what we are going to do; we are going to push through stuff.I just heard that previous speaker Michael Wood talking about making our tax system fairer. Well this is what this bill is about. It is precisely about making the tax system fairer. This is a continuation. And everyone knows that New Zealand has one of the best tax systems in the whole of the world—the whole of the world. So I am just going to talk for a couple of minutes or perhaps for just a minute about a couple of the examples in this thing.One of them is about closely held companies. Not many people know about closely held companies but these are all about look-through companies. What this bill does is it looks at the dividend rules and how those are paid out. One of the things that this hard-working Finance and Expenditure Committee actually did—and I am just looking across at the other side there at a couple of the members over there—was we actually changed and made an amendment there about reducing the overreach of one of those provisions. So this is the good work that this committee has done. I commend it. I think it is a great bill.
Lees-Galloway IainIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chairman—a fine choice. I would like to speak very very briefly to new section 5A of Part 2 which relates to the keeping-in-touch days. In this clause we are inserting one single word—the word paid"—before parental leave. It is a very important distinction to make because the parents who make use of this new keeping-in-touch-days provision are able to work for up to 40 hours. If they work over 40 hours during their paid parental leave period then any parental leave paid to them at that point is considered an overpayment. So it is really important to make a distinction between the paid parental leave and the unpaid parental leave people can take because a parent can come back for as long as they like during the unpaid period of parental leave work for as long as they wish and still be entitled to unpaid parental leave and they are entitled to keep any pay that they receive. It is actually a very very important distinction that we make between the period of paid parental leave and the period of unpaid parental leave. The addition of that single word "paid" before the words "parental leave" is very important.I said that my comments would be brief. It is half past 9 so I am happy to relinquish the floor at this point.Part 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bills to be reported without amendment presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment without amendment the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill without amendment and the Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill without amendment.Report adopted."
Regulatory Systems (Workplace Relations) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Curran ClareClauses 1 and 2CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I will use my dulcet tones again tonight on this bill. I just take a short call because I want to make a point. The point is that earlier in the debate on the previous bill which is part of this omnibus legislation the building and housing bill the Minister in the chair at the time Michael Woodhouse got to his feet very helpfully to give some commentary and some response which is always good. It is always good to get a Minister who is actually prepared to respond in the Committee stage of the House because for those listening at home it is actually an important part of the debate. But what the Minster said was that this is an omnibus bill. It is a step above a statutes amendment bill so therefore it does not deal with matters of substance and he said that those matters of substance are being considered in a separate review—this was in relation to the previous bill the Regulatory Systems (Building and Housing) Amendment Bill.However what we have just been doing in this bill particularly in Part 4 is I put to you debating matters of absolute substance. I do want to acknowledge the work that officials have done on this: the fact that they went away and came back listened to the submitters and went away and came back with a revised process that was trying to meet the needs of industry and to be responsible in response to some major collapses—financial collapses—in our country. Really you cannot say that is not substance so therefore I question what the logic was behind what the Minister in the chair previously was on about when he said that an omnibus bill does not deal with matters of substance; it is only a step above a statutes amendment bill. Clearly maybe he had not read it or had not done any of the work.I think it is an important point to make. We have got another bill to come another bill to have a debate on and I am sure there are some matters of substance in there that my colleagues will be drawing out because as you would have noticed all the work is going on on this side of the Chamber in terms of actually doing the work reading the bill asking the questions and having the debates. We know that the reason this bill is coming before this House this week and needs to get passed is so that that retention scheme can be put in place by 31 March which is at the end of next week.I just want to make the point that when there is commentary by Ministers on bills such as this that they do address the issues of substance. We had questions around substance. Very few of them were answered and I do not think it is good practice for them just to get flicked off as being not relevant not relevant out of scope". I do question why we get the answer that issues of policy are out of scope in bills such as this. We have raised a number of them tonight in this debate and I think that that should be on the record.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently."
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Part 4 agreed to.Schedule 1AA agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 1A agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Before I give the member the call I just want to pause for a little bit of in-service training. The Committee stage of a bill is where members refer to submissions that were made before the select committee and draw out questions for the Minister in the chair stating the case that submitters have made and adding to this Committee stage. That is what this is about. The speeches that we have had so far are second and third reading speeches in many ways. They are telling the public or maybe telling the Committee what the bill does what it might do and applying various scenarios and anecdotes as to how that might be effected. That has got nothing to do with the Committee stage.The last speaker had 120 seconds left before he was able to tell us about a submission and the previous one had 47 seconds left before she was able to refer to any submission before the select committee. The Committee stage is about relating submissions that were made to the select committee and the points that were raised in respect of that and how they apply to the clause under debate or asking the Minister specific questions. I look forward to that from Mr Kris Faafoi.
Curran ClarePart 4 Building and housingCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Well here we come to this part of the bill. The reason why we are all standing here tonight debating the Committee stage of this bill so that it can get passed is that Part 4 of this bill contains clauses—I think clauses 138 and 139 if I am correct—that put in place the system for the retention framework for moneys to be put in place by lead contractors when a big construction is under way so that there is protection for the contractors who sit behind the lead contractor and for the subcontractors if that lead contractor goes bust.If we could cast our minds back to I think it was Waitangi Day 2013 when Mainzeal—and I am sure that name is etched in our brains—began that collapse that had such a huge impact on the construction industry in our country. I think off the top of my head it was around $161 million or $163 million owing that that collapse resulted in. We are not just talking about theoretical figures here; we are talking about contractors who were locked out with their tools inside following that collapse who lost their livelihoods who lost their tools of trade because they could not get in to retrieve them.As someone who has sat on the Commerce Committee I think for pretty much the longest time in the last 8 and a bit years I remember submitters coming before the select committee in 2014-15 on the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill which is now an Act who talked in real terms about the cost of those collapses to them and to their livelihoods. Let us hope that we all remember who one of the directors of that Mainzeal company was and that was Jenny Shipley. There has been an inquiry into that collapse which has gone on and on and as a result we had the Construction Contracts Amendment Act passed in 2015. Now we have before us today in this debate in the Committee in this bill at clause 138 the process through which the moneys in a retention scheme can be collected.Thank you officials for the work that you did on this. It was very thorough. There were several submissions on this and they were very passionate submissions can I say. They were submissions from the Registered Master Builders Federation of New Zealand and Contractors New Zealand or whatever they are called—Phil Twyford: Civil Contractors.CLARE CURRAN: —Civil Contractors New Zealand Inc.—who very passionately argued that the proposal in the bill was good and could we please get on with it but their concern was that it may disadvantage the industry and they may have to come up for extra money once this scheme is actually enacted. So the bill that came back to the House actually has two methods of collecting that retention money protecting that retention money—so it provides more flexibility—in ways other than holding cash.I am hoping to take a call again in this debate because this is such an important part of this bill. It is why we have to pass this bill this week in order for this clause to come into effect.
O'Connor DamienPart 3 Energy and resourcesHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Mr Speaker—Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Chairman.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Mr Chairman—sorry Mr Chairman. I apologise for that.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Elevation is fine.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I apologise. I was not a member of the Commerce Committee but it is a very important piece of legislation. I was reading through Part 1. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to speak to that but I accept your judgment Mr Chairman—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I thank you for that.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —and appreciate that. Part 3A inserted by clause 91 as we are talking about—Transitional provisions relating to Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Act"—to most people out there I guess unless you are in the commercial world it probably is a bit like watching grass grow or paint dry here. There are a number of issues in here and I have the Financial Markets Authority—I have to say that I have taken issue with it on numerous occasions because I do not think it does a very good job in general terms. I think that a country that has in 1 year gone from having 37 percent of its private sector economy in the hands of foreigners to 47 percent last year by calculations means that we have got a number of problems across our regulatory regime. I would suggest that most Kiwis would be wanting to see more of the private sector in New Zealand hands and that this passage of legislation will indeed protect the rights of New Zealanders.I was disturbed in previous parts—Part 1 there—that the right not have an annual general meeting was passed through. I cannot understand that myself but none the less that was one of many changes that we just kind of debated and moved through. Financial services providers—we have had numerous issues with those providers. I am not sure whether we should feel better—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I wonder whether the speaker can just indicate—Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Part 3A.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Part 3A? [Interruption]Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No no.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No? This is Part 3. Actually ironically it does have a lot to do with the distribution of gas which the member seems to be familiar with but I cannot see what he is talking about. Which clause?Hon Ruth Dyson: 131.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: 131? No I must have the wrong one there. Mr Chairman I would appreciate it if I could get another call later in the debate. That would be wonderful. I will just get a couple of other—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The member can seek a call but he should recall that life is not always fair. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I appreciate the judgment of the Chair. I will pass over to one of my colleagues.Part 3 agreed to."
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.