edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Rurawhe Adrian: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRurawhe Adrian: Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8910. Text is subject to correction.]ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I am happy to take a call in the Committee stage of this amendment bill. I have just a few comments. When I spoke in the first reading I mentioned the families that are sitting at home listening and wanting resolutions. So it is good that we have a bill before the House thatwill hopefully resolve these real issues. I would like to thank the Osborne family for having the tenacity to take it to a place to force the Government to provide this amendment bill. I think that removing the doubt around the validity of claims in new section 164 under clause 7 of this amendment bill can be almost directly attributed to the Osborne family.One of the other things that I spoke about was the number of bills including this one that have come before the House to tidy somethingup. I have been a member of this Parliament for only 15 months and I think this might be about the sixth or seventh piece of legislation that I have spoken on that has needed to be tidied up. I certainly do hope that in the future there is legislation that comes to the House that does not need to be fixed up and that we get it right first up.I cannot talk about being inundated with constituent inquiries in my electorate of Te Tai Hauāuru. I am sure there are some within the general electorates but considering the low homeownership rates of my constituents I am hardly likely to get any inquiries about it. But I do feel for those people who are affected by leaky homes. I think they can draw some comfort from the clauses in Part 2 and now that these clauses in Part 2 have been put in place they can get some comfort that they have applied for adjudication and they can go through that process.Also for those who have made claims these claims are now eligiblethrough this legislation. I think the Minister should be commended. I thank him for his earlier clarification of the questions that we put to him on this side of the Chamber. Widening the definition of a “qualifying claimant” is important as well as we have heard from other members from this side of the Chamber. It did strike me as to why we do not hear of the same kinds of stories that must be going to the members opposite. Although it is important for the Opposition to be putting forward its views on these clauses I think we should also ask the Government to put its position forward as well—from members of the National Government who surely must be getting inquiries from their constituents.As I say I feel for those families who are waiting patiently for this legislation to pass and I will not take up any more of the Committee’s time except to say that we will support this bill.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 125 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Ross Jami-Lee: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRoss Jami-Lee: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8900. Text is subject to correction.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Woodhouse Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionWoodhouse Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8892. Text is subject to correction.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): I want to take just a short intervention on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill which is my first as Minister of Revenue a portfolio that I picked up from my predecessor the Hon Todd McClay. I want to wish him all the best. He has had I think a cracking good start as Minister of Trade in being able to sign that fantastic agreement the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.I want to address just a couple of things that Mr Nash has raised in respect of the title and commencement clauses. In his broad overview he pointed out firstly a potential duplication in a clause. I have checked with my officials and I am very happy to report that there is no duplication; there are minor changes to it and they affect different parts of various pieces of legislation. But I do applaud him. I was not sure whether he was even awake at one stage prior to his intervention but he is clearly trying very hard to make that contribution.What we heard from Mr Nash’s intervention is classic Labour Party. It wants to raise income tax. It wants to get back into Government and be the tax and spend Government that it always was. Mr Nash made it clear that as soon as Labour gets back into Government it will raise tax. It will take money from every hard-working New Zealander in this country because it knows how to spend it better than the New Zealand taxpayer. So there it is. Campaign 2017 has already started with a $1.5 billion bribe to the citizens of New Zealand which Labour knows it cannot pay unless it takes more money out of the pockets of the New Zealand taxpayer.I can reassure this Committee and the people of New Zealand that the National Party and the National-led Government are very clear that the path to prosperity is not tax and spend. So when confirming the annual rates for 2015-16 which need to be in place and commenced by 1 April 2016 I can confirm with confidence not only that the tax rates will remain the same as they are now but also that if the New Zealand taxpayer wants to see the burden on their pockets maintained or reduced then only a National-led Government will give them that. I think we heard it directly from the horse’s mouth. Mr Nash has confirmed unequivocally that a Labour-led Government will want to take more money out of the pockets of New Zealanders and we will not.
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8889. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes. We have a number of calls here—18 calls over an hour and a quarter.
Ross Jami-Lee: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRoss Jami-Lee: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8889. Text is subject to correction.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8883. Text is subject to correction.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is just debate on Part 4 and this is clauses 221 to 267.
Bridges Simon: Debate on Prime Minister’s StatementText is subject to correctionBridges Simon: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8880. Text is subject to correction.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): I move that this debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.Debate interrupted.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s StatementText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8875. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Meka Whaitiri—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s StatementText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8873. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry the member’s time has expired. I call Kris Faafoi—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s StatementText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8872. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry the member’s time has expired. I call Steffan Browning—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s StatementText is subject to correctionTisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8871. Text is subject to correction.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. David Clendon—5 minutes.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionPeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8846. Text is subject to correction.]3.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill: What are the main objectives of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill?Dr JIAN YANG (Member in charge of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill): The main objective of my bill is to protect children from sex offenders by preventing people convicted of a child sex offence from changing their names legally.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would he agree that a paedophile hiding in a community behind a new name is just as bad as a paedophile hiding behind name suppression?Mr SPEAKER: This is an opinion question. In so far as there is responsibility I will allow Dr Jian Yang to answer the question.Dr JIAN YANG: It is our responsibility to protect our children under any circumstances and to make sure that children have a safer environment.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionPeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8846. Text is subject to correction.]2.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill: What problem does the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill seek to address?Dr JIAN YANG (Member in charge of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration) Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill): At this stage sex offenders can change their names legally so my bill will address that problem.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he believe this could be beneficial for the people of my electorate who are concerned that they might have a paedophile hiding amongst them?Dr JIAN YANG: I believe—Mr SPEAKER: Order! In so far as—the member can answer the question but certainly not refer to any specific case he may be aware of it.Dr JIAN YANG: The bill is trying to protect the environment for all children so it applies to all of New Zealand.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionPeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8845. Text is subject to correction.]1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill: Why did he draft the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill?Dr JIAN YANG (Member in charge of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill): I believe it is necessary to better protect our children from child sex offenders. However I did not originally draft the bill.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What was behind his decision to introduce a limited bill to protect children from paedophiles and will he support amendments at the select committee to capture paedophiles hiding behind name suppression; if not why not?Dr JIAN YANG: Yes I am open to any suggestions at the select committee.
Robertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionRobertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 10 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8835. Text is subject to correction.]4.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the Governor of the Reserve Bank; if so is he confident that the Policy Targets Agreement he signed with the Governor in 2012 is being fulfilled?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: Yes and yes.Grant Robertson: If he thinks that the agreement is being fulfilled why did he introduce the 2 percent mid-point target for average inflation to that agreement given that it has not been met for 4 years and is not forecast to be met for another 4 years?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Meeting the policy targets agreement is ultimately the governor’s responsibility. So over the medium term we would expect to see inflation move back towards the middle of that band. The bank’s forecast shows that happening. The trick will be seeing that occur in practice and that is the bank’s responsibility.Grant Robertson: Why will he now not revisit the overall monetary policy framework in light of his own statement: “The whole framework was devised to bring inflation down. No one ever thought it would be used to lift inflation and central banks that have tried to lift inflation have found that pretty difficult.”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I draw the member’s attention to the last part of the quote that he just gave. I would also draw his attention to the other quote that has been given in the last couple of days which has indicated a bipartisan understanding of the Reserve Bank Governor’s role and challenges. I quote his own leader who said yesterday that the Reserve Bank Governor has “been around in his job a lot longer than I’ve been in mine … He brings a lot of wisdom to his job. … I accept that yes” he is doing a good job in taking a medium-term horizon. I think that is something that is agreed with by both myself on behalf of the Minister of Finance and Mr Little. Mr Robertson is a little out of step.Grant Robertson: Has he considered that what he is currently calling “unusual circumstances” in respect of low inflation might actually be the future norm and that he should take some action to review monetary policy instead of just sitting around waiting for something to happen?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member should note that inflation has been outside the target of the agreement at times in the past. For example back in 2008 inflation was at 5.1 percent which was well outside the target range and in that year real wages increased just 0.1 percent. I am confident that New Zealanders would prefer what we have now which is the other way around: real wages up 3 percent inflation at 0.1 percent.
Draft transcript - Thursday 18 February 2016First draft - subject to correction.
Draft transcript - Thursday 18 February 2016Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Thursday 18 February 2016
Draft transcript - Wednesday 17 February 2016Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Wednesday 17 February 2016
Draft transcript - Tuesday 16 February 2016Published as advance copy.Draft transcript - Tuesday 16 February 2016
Brownlee Gerry: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill Legislation (Confirmable Instruments) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill Legislation (Confirmable Instruments) Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8716. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill and the Legislation (Confirmable Instruments) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Bills read a third time.
Tisch Lindsay: Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8716. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): In accordance with a decision of the Business Committee the bill has been divided and set down for third reading forthwith.
Hipkins Chris: Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8716. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to make a very short contribution to this debate—Grant Robertson: Keep saying that.CHRIS HIPKINS: —well my last contribution was very short—in supporting the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill. I have spoken to the Labour members on the Regulations Reviews Committee who are supportive of the bill progressing but do want to I guess make clear that our support for Part 2 of this bill progressing was on the condition that there is a review of the terminology in the Legislation Act 2012 which was something that the Attorney-General engaged very constructively with the Regulations Review Committee on. Can I congratulate the Government on the need once again to review a piece of legislation it has only just passed through the House—or certainly in its term of Government. But we on the Opposition side here of course are very happy to engage constructively—Grant Robertson: Clear the House.CHRIS HIPKINS: —and help with this. I am being told to sit down already. We will be supporting the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill and a very merry Christmas to all the members.Bill read a second time.
Brownlee Gerry: Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8715. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a second time. As foreshadowed in the discussions at the Business Committee the bill’s second reading will be followed immediately by its third reading without debate. This is because the Regulations Review Committee has recommended technical and drafting amendments that can be adopted by the House at the end of the bill’s second reading. The bill does not therefore require consideration in the Committee of the whole House.The bill is in two parts. Part 1 is the annual bill confirming and validating orders or regulations. It covers 24 items under 13 different Acts. It must be enacted by 31 December 2015 to avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing. I thank the Regulations Review Committee for ensuring Part 1 can be amended to include two additional items.The National Animal Identification and Tracing (Levies) Amendment Regulations 2015 also require confirmation. They were made after the bill was introduced. The Veterans’ Support (Rates of War Pensions Act 1954 Allowances) Order 2015 is also included just in case its past operation is invalid if it is not confirmed and validated. The committee was satisfied that all of the Part 1 confirmations and validations are justified.Part 2 would replace all existing confirmation provisions with standard provisions in the Legislation Act 2012. Part 2 introduces to the Act the new term “confirmable instruments”. The Regulations Review Committee supports Part 2 and this new initiative as simplifying and clarifying the law. One central set of provisions we think is critical. Currently there are over 50 kinds of instruments that are covered by up to some seven different confirmations and provisions over 30 Acts.Clear bipartisan support exists. I am very happy to note that this is enabling this bill to proceed. In closing can I again thank the Regulations Review Committee the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their successful collaboration on this bill relating to ongoing work. I commend this bill to the House.
Hipkins Chris: Statutes Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8715. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to give a very brief contribution in the debate on the Statutes Amendment Bill which the Labour Party will be supporting. I want to assure any members of the public who are watching this debate that the 28 different Acts being amended will be given the scrutiny they deserve at the Government Administration Committee. This is an efficient way for the Parliament to deal with quite an array of technical minor and almost in some cases what would seem to be relatively trivial matters without choking up a huge amount of the House’s time. Therefore I do not see any need to choke up a huge amount of the House’s time contributing much more to the debate that we are having at the moment other than—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Other than? Oh—other than.CHRIS HIPKINS: —some people want to go home—simply to say that we will ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of it.Perhaps I could also point out to Government members sitting opposite that many of the members’ bills that seem to have appeared in the ballot of late could well be advanced much more efficiently and promptly were they part of a Statutes Amendment Bill such is the lack of controversy surrounding many of those pieces of proposed legislation.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Brownlee Gerry: Statutes Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Statutes Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8715. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of theAssociate Minister of Justice: I move That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. As the House will be aware the Statutes Amendment Bill is a legislative vehicle that makes it possible for minor technical and non-controversial amendments to be made to a number of Acts at once. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament.The bill amends 28 Acts administered by 13 different Government agencies. Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors omissions or incorrect references. Some amendments are non-controversial and support refinements to machinery provisions. Although all political parties in the Parliament support the amendments proposed in the bill I look forward to hearing the committee’s examination and views on these matters as well as the views of the public. I look forward to the passage of the bill through all its stages and working constructively with parties as the bill is put together in the future. I commend the bill to the House.
Dean Jacqui: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections FacilityText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections Facility[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8714. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The Department of Corrections has decided not to renew the contract for Serco to manage Mt Eden Corrections Facility. That decision was made and staff were informed of that decision this morning. I want to acknowledge those staff whether they are Department of Corrections staff or Serco staff. I want to acknowledge the hard work that they have done over many years in Mt Eden prison including under the time of the Serco contract.I want to acknowledge the work of Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga as well as the Minister of Corrections who has done a very good job over a couple of years—Hon Trevor Mallard: Sounds like a eulogy.JACQUI DEAN: The member rudely calls across the House that it sounds like a eulogy. Actually it is me acknowledging that the Minister of Corrections oversees a portfolio that has inherent difficulties within it and those difficulties are the fact that the incarceration of those people is something that is not welcomed by them and a number of them will do anything within their limited powers to make life difficult for those warders and corrections staff who look over them. They are extremely unhappy angry disturbed and violent people and that is something that the Opposition would do well to remember as they are flinging overheated insults around the House about the Minister and about the Department of Corrections itself.We are dealing with a population who simply do not wish to be incarcerated and will take every opportunity to display their anger. So the very fact that the Minister has welcomed the move by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to invoke the step-in power with this contract should be welcomed by this House. It should be welcomed because it proves the point that this contract with Serco provides an additional level of accountability within our prison system. That is something that should be welcomed around this House because there is and will continue to be a full investigation into the events that have happened in Mt Eden prison.One of the Opposition members noted that Serco is primarily motivated by profit. I would dispute that. Of course they are motived partly by profit—this is a public-private partnership and they have entered into a contract—but primarily it is the point I will dispute. I have been to the new Wiri Prison unfortunately before that facility was opened but the very set-up of that modern prison with its focus on rehabilitation and reintegration into the New Zealand population is done by Serco. It is not motivated purely by profit. It is motivated by and aligned very closely with what the Minister of Corrections is also trying to achieve for those New Zealanders who are incarcerated in New Zealand prisons. Thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections FacilityText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections Facility[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8712. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak in this snap debate. There is no doubt that the events at Mt Eden Corrections Facility were totally unacceptable to this Government. When these allegations were made the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections initiated the step-in clauses available to him under the provision of the contract of Serco. The chief executive does not have to provide a reason to break a contract as per the provision of the agreement.We need to understand what prison is. Prison is a facility in which inmates are forcibly confined and denied a variety of freedoms under the authority of the State as a form of punishment. To run such a facility is a complex task and we need to understand that when the convicts are dealt with it is a challenge for the prison officers to deal with that.The safety of the staff and the prisoners is paramount for this Government. The Government is acting to ensure the best outcome for Mt Eden Corrections Facility and the wider prison system. This decision not only reviews Serco’s contract it will also allow the Government to move forward on deciding the best future for Mt Eden Corrections Facility. The decision does not prejudge the chief inspector’s report into the events at Mt Eden Corrections Facility—its outcome of any consequence that might come from it.We need to understand that when these allegations were made immediately an inquiry was set up and we are waiting for that inquiry’s result. As the chief executive mentioned in his statement because Serco has gone for a judicial review of its report it is not possible to talk about that. Currently the Department of Corrections is managing Mt Eden Corrections Facility after invoking the step-in clause in the contract in July this year. This followed the serious allegations surrounding the safety of the staff and the prisoners and the emergence of video showing the fight club and the use of contraband.These allegations were very serious. That is why the chief executive immediately took over the management of Mt Eden Corrections Facility. We have to understand these things in the context of how these facilities are managed. I think it is the right decision that the Minister is supporting the decision of the chief executive and we hope in the new year on his recommendation that the Government will consider how to manage the private prisons and we look forward to that. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections FacilityText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections Facility[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8712. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi—5 minutes.
Carter David: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections FacilityText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections Facility[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8699. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection from any member? There is none. That will be the course that may well be followed.
Hipkins Chris: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections FacilityText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections Facility[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8699. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt my colleague Kelvin Davis. I wanted to do this before this debate gets under way. In light of the fact that there will now be an urgent debate I seek leave for the House to continue sitting beyond 6 o’clock if the adjournment debate has not yet been completed by the time—
Carter David: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections FacilityText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections Facility[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I am sure that there is no doubt that Iain Rennie will be aware of my decision already.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections FacilityText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections Facility[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We obviously appreciate the time that you took to put that ruling together and your decision. There is no question about that but I would ask that you convey your decision to the State Services Commissioner in order that he might make some representations about the limitations of the State Sector Act when it comes to Ministers being able to direct the chief executives of departments who make decisions that Ministers cannot effect but then of course now by your decision are held accountable for in this House.
Carter David: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections FacilityText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates — Serco—Decision to End Contract for Mt Eden Corrections Facility[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I have received a letter from Kelvin Davis seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the decision not to renew Serco New Zealand’s contract to manage Mt Eden Corrections Facility. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. I acknowledge that the decision not to renew the contract is made by the chief executive of the Department of Corrections. However he is not answerable to this House. The Minister of Corrections is. It is absolutely critical that the public has confidence in our corrections system.The decision not to renew Serco’s contract is a significant development. Given that it has been announced on the final sitting day of the year there will be no reasonably foreseeable opportunity to debate the issue. I accept that the matter requires the urgent attention of the House and I therefore call on Kelvin Davis to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! He is not in the House. I have looked for the member; he is not in the House.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that that member was here today in the select committee.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: We were to now move to questions to members but as the member in charge of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill is not in the House those questions are held over until the next sitting day.
Delahunty Catherine: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDelahunty Catherine: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8694. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: What specific action will he take to clean up waterways such as Lake Tūtira whose algal blooms are so toxic that children have been banned from boating and kayaking there?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I can confirm that as part of the Te Mana o Te Wai Fund the Government is committing over $400000 to improve the water quality at Lake Tūtira. The problems at this lake go back over 20 years and this is the first Government commitment to any funding to address the water quality problems. This is one of nine projects that will be delivered as part of the $4.5 million commitment that I announced earlier this year in partnership with the Māori Party.Catherine Delahunty: Which of the rivers and lakes on this map which have algal bloom so toxic that they are unsafe for swimming does he think should continue to be off limits to kids in order to grow the economy through intensive dairying?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would point out—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Put that map down and listen to the answer.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would point out that this Government has committed $450 million to freshwater clean-ups which is more than sevenfold the amount that was committed by the previous Labour-Green Government. So I find it extraordinary that the Green Party has not acknowledged the significant steps that this Government has taken to address freshwater quality.Catherine Delahunty: Does he think it is the birthright of all Kiwi children to swim in our country’s rivers or of only some Kiwi children?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government is very committed to improving freshwater quality. That is why we introduced the first national policy statement on freshwater in 2011. That is why we introduced minimum quality standards nationwide in 2014. That is why we are the first Government to nationally regulate for water metering. That is why we have invested in the Land and Water Forum. And that is why next year we will be taking further steps to improve freshwater quality.Catherine Delahunty: Which of New Zealand’s lakes and rivers is he hoping to go swimming in this summer?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Nick Smith if there is ministerial responsibility.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I do every summer I will be taking my family to swim in wonderful water bodies like the Lee River in my own community. We will be going to beaches as many of my National colleagues will be. What I will not be doing is what the Green Party does every summer and that is discouraging New Zealanders from getting out and enjoying this beautiful country.Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table this map showing the summer algal blooms that are already—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That information will be available to members if they so need it or so want it.
Parmar Parmjeet: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParmar Parmjeet: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8694. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Social Development: How does the Child Hardship Package help families on a benefit?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Last week the child hardship package passed its final reading in Parliament. The package will substantially raise the core benefit rate for the first time in 43 years lifting the income of over 100000 families with children. It will also increase work obligations for sole parents on a benefit and increase the childcare assistance rate helping families into paid work and out of poverty. These measures will help ease the depths of hardship experienced by families and children in New Zealand’s lowest income households.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will work obligations for parents on a benefit change under the child hardship package?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Evidence shows that the best route out of poverty is work which is why this Government is focused on helping those on a benefit into employment. The child hardship package will require sole parents and the partners of beneficiaries to be available for part-time work once their youngest child turns 3. Additionally all beneficiaries with part-time work obligations will now be expected to find work for 20 hours a week. As we know that two-thirds of children who live in severe hardship have a parent on a benefit it is important that we focus on supporting those parents into work.Darroch Ball: If the Government has a “focus on 15 to 19-year-olds” as previously stated by Bill English how can she explain that cohort’s unemployment rate as reported in the latest labour force survey having increased over the last 12 months by over 5000 youth to be at over 21 percent?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have those figures in front of me to make sure that that member is accurately quoting them but what I can say is that this Government has done more than any other over the last decade focused on young people. There are now fewer young people classified as “neets” than we have ever seen before. We are absolutely confident that the number of young people who are gaining National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 is at the highest it has ever been.Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table two documents. The first document has been prepared by the Parliamentary Library and is titled Youth Unemployment Rate and Number comparing 2010 and 2015—Mr SPEAKER: Order! And the second document?Darroch Ball: The second document has been prepared by the Parliamentary Library entitled Youth NEET Rate Number showing that the September 2015 number of 11 percent—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The documents have been appropriately described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.
McKelvie Ian: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8690. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: How is the Government encouraging young people to study offshore and develop international linkages?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): Yesterday I announced that the 2015 Prime Minister’s Scholarships for Asia have been awarded to 152 students from across New Zealand. These scholarships are a special opportunity for young Kiwis to study conduct research or take up internships in countries that are hugely important to this country both today and in the future. Now in its third year the fifth round of scholarships takes the total number of recipients to 617to date. The funding of $9 million over 5 years was provided in Budget 2013.Ian McKelvie: Why is it important to develop links with Asia?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is very important. Asia is a significant part of New Zealand’s future as it is today and it is crucial that we continue to develop relationships at all levels across the region. Recipients of the 2015 awards will do this in a number of ways. There will be 20 students from Lincoln University undertaking summer school in Indonesia learning about Indonesian culture and business; 15 students from Unitec who are undertaking a student exchange to Chongqing University of Science and Technology and Wuhan University this month; and a range of individual recipients including a University of Waikato student who will take up an internship with the Interpol Global Complex for Innovation in Singapore to continue work into cybercrime. These young people are embracing our 21st century globalised world.Ian McKelvie: Were any applications for scholarships turned down?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes unfortunately. There are always a few who miss out each time. In fact there were four applications that were not successful this year. Firstly there was a young man from Wellington named Grant who applied for a scholarship over the Christmas break to study Finance 101 and “What is work?”. There was young Philip from west Auckland—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am the Grinch! I am the Grinch! It will not help the order of this House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No doubt the Minister was quoting from an official document. I seek leave for him to table it.Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister was quoting from—[Interruption] It is very—[Interruption] Order! It is very easily resolved. I ask the Minister whether he was quoting from an official document. If he was it will be tabled. Was it an official document?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It was not an official document.Mr SPEAKER: I did not think for a minute that it would be.
Bayly Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBayly Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8687. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for ACC: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding ACC levies?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): Yesterday I announced that the Government is giving New Zealanders an early Christmas present: $450 million of ACC levy reductions. These levy reductions will be for businesses workers and motor vehicle owners. There will be a reduction of 11 percent for businesses 4 percent for earners and a whopping reduction of 33 percent in motor vehicle levies. These reductions are possible only because this Government has brought ACC into the black after the last Labour Government left a $5.5 billion deficit. This National-led Government is reducing levies and putting more money in Kiwis’ pockets.Andrew Bayly: What does this announcement mean in terms of motor vehicle levies?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Motor vehicle levies will be slashed by an average of one-third. I am also very pleased to confirm that the average annual ACC licence fee for every single petrol car in the four bands will be under $90. Under this Government in 4 years we have seen the average motor vehicle levy drop from $330 on average to $130 on average. That is about a $200-a-year saving. This is another example of this Government reducing costs for Kiwis.Andrew Bayly: What does this announcement mean for our great New Zealand businesses?Hon NIKKI KAYE: We are reducing the ACC bill for Kiwi businesses by $171 million. On average four out of five businesses in New Zealand will get an ACC levy cut. Some businesses will have dramatic cuts and about 140 employers in the accredited employment scheme will now pay very small ACC levies. This is the first year in our history due to the legislation passed in this House that ACC levies will be much fairer as they will be based on the true costs of injuries. The cuts will see some businesses get a third off their levies. Alongside the big cuts for some businesses we have now agreed to a long-term funding policy at the heart of which is fiscal responsibility stability and certainty for New Zealand businesses.Iain Lees-Galloway: Do these cuts to ACC levies amount to an admission from the Government that its excessive increases introduced by Nick Smith were totally unnecessary and placed a huge burden on ACC levy payers; and is the Minister concerned that with the return of Judith Collins to Cabinet she will be pushing her line of using ACC levies to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The first part of the question can be answered.Hon NIKKI KAYE: No because the Labour Government left us with a $5.5 billion hole and all of the advice shows that two-thirds of that was it expanding entitlements not collecting enough levies and complete mismanagement.
Carter David: Points of Order — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Withdrawal and ApologyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Withdrawal and Apology[Sitting date: 09 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8683. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member sincerely.