edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteThe question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to the proposed amendments set out in Supplementary Order Paper 343 in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean be agreed to:Delete the amendments to clauses 17 and 18.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 343 in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 93New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 26Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 408 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to insert new clause 7A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 343 in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 343 in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to the schedule be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 343 in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to insert new schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 93New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 26Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 343 in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 343 in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to clause 3 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clauses 2 and 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 93New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 26Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Clauses 2 and 3 as amended agreed to.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill without amendment the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill with amendment and the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill with amendment. Report adopted.
Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 352 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 1 and schedules 1 and 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clauses 1 to 10 and schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Clauses 1 to 10 and schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
11. Regional Culture and Heritage Fund—Cultural Facilities FundingSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Arts Culture and HeritageRegional Culture and Heritage Fund—Cultural Facilities Funding11. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage: What announcements has she made on support for cultural facilities through the Regional Culture and Heritage Fund?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): In the last couple of months I have had the privilege of announcing more than $10 million for projects supporting projects in Whangarei Hastings and Foxton from the Regional Culture and Heritage Fund (RCHF) with more to come. Most recently I announced a $900000 grant to complete the fit out of the ASB Theatre complex in Blenheim thanks in part to the advocacy of their local member. But specifically it was for the completion of the Anderson Theatre. The RCHF exists to support significant regional projects such as the ASB which has the potential to be a major cultural and economic asset for Blenheim and Marlborough attracting both local and international artists.Stuart Smith: What announcement has she made about funding from the RCHF for Rakiura Stewart Island?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: In the last adjournment the member for Invercargill and I beat the weather to visit Oban and announce more than $1 million from the RCHF for a complete rebuild of the Rakiura Museum. The Stewart Island community has done well to access other funding from the local council and philanthropic and community sources and I was very pleased that the Government was able to cover the rest of the cost of the project. It is time Stewart Island had the appropriate facilities to display its extensive heritage collections for islanders and visitors to enjoy and it will be a fantastic asset for the southernmost community.
8. Beneficiaries—3K to Work Grants Scheme and Other InitiativesBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentBeneficiaries—3K to Work Grants Scheme and Other Initiatives8. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding supporting New Zealanders off benefits and into work?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Today I announced that over 1200 New Zealanders have taken up the 3K to Work grant and moved off benefits and into sustainable employment. The $3000 grant totalling $3.6 million in the last year is to support people who have an offer of employment to relocate and take up work. The initiative follows the success of the 3K to Christchurch programme and has seen people employed in a variety of sectors right across the country. This Government is focused on helping people into work and congratulates all those who have taken up this opportunity to help themselves and improve their situation.Barbara Kuriger: How successful has the 3K to Work grants scheme been?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It has been very successful. As we saw with 3K to Christchurch the vast majority of people who move to take up employment stay in work long term. In the year to 30 June 2017 of the 1203 people who received grants over 90 percent of them remained in employment and off benefits for longer than 91 days. It is fantastic news as not only are these people—Hon Member: 90 days—come on!Hon ANNE TOLLEY: —getting the skills and experience—91 days—that are essential to staying off a benefit long term the programme is contributing to New Zealand businesses and the overall economy by moving people into key industries such as construction agriculture forestry and fishing.Barbara Kuriger: In what other ways is the Government helping to support beneficiaries into work?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Along with our usual supports such as Flexi-wage training allowances assistance for study costs and in-work support Budget 2017 invests $64.4 million in new operating funding to help people move off benefits and into work. This includes an extra $19.5 million to expand the intensive client support to help people achieve sustainable education training or employment outcomes. This Government is absolutely committed to breaking the cycle of welfare dependency and helping people live independent and successful lives. We have already had tremendous success with over 61000 fewer children now living in benefit-dependent households and the figures out today showing unemployment at 4.8 percent the lowest it has been since before the global financial crisis.
6. Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy—National Prevention ProgrammeDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of HealthSudden Unexpected Death in Infancy—National Prevention Programme6. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the Government has set a goal to reduce Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy by 86 percent over the next 8 years?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. Today the Government has announced that Hāpai te Hauora will be the provider to deliver the national coordination of sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) prevention services to support families whose new baby is identified as being at higher risk. To support this new approach we are investing an extra $2 million into SUDI prevention taking the annual budget for such initiatives to $5.1 million. This new national programme will help to reduce the overall rate of SUDI by 86 percent and by 94 percent for Māori by 2025. This would reduce the number of SUDI deaths from 44 to 6. This Government believes in supporting women and families to have healthy babies who grow up to be healthy kids.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the national prevention programme target the biggest preventable risks for sudden unexpected death in infancy?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: A major focus of this programme will be to tackle the risks of being exposed to tobacco smoke during pregnancy by better utilising innovative approaches to reduce smoking including incentive programmes. We will also be targeting the risks associated with parents and babies sharing a bed by providing safe sleep devices such as wahakura or pēpi-pods to families identified as needing them during the baby's first year of life. A range of other evidence-based risk and protective factors will also be incorporated into the national prevention programme including encouraging immunisation breastfeeding and sleeping babies on their back. This strengthened national prevention programme will help to protect the 60000 babies born each year in New Zealand to ensure that they have the best chance for a healthy and long future.
Lees-Galloway Iain; Borrows ChesterSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The House has made remarkably good progress this evening—in fact surprisingly good progress towards the end there—so I seek leave for the House to rise at this time.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Sitting suspended from 9.53 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): One of the benefits of having a bit of time to consider the provisions of the bill as introduced was that it gave us an opportunity to reconsider whether or not criminal sanctions were going to add anything or add enough to the pro-competitive anti - non-competitive nature of the amendments we were making to be worthwhile retaining in the bill. On balance the advice was inconclusive. Treasury was not in favour of criminalisation and concluded that the civil cartel regime appeared to be working well. The member did cite the Commerce Commission's powers and so I would say that the Commerce Commission still continues to receive a high volume of leniency applications. That suggests to me that businesses do not want to be prosecuted under the current civil provisions and so therefore the civil regime is working.I will give a brief example at the lighter end of cartel behaviour. If the Committee looks at the case of two online sellers of motor vehicle parts of car parts—one phones the other and suggests that perhaps if they sold a certain part for the same price then they would both benefit. The other person agrees to this does it for a while then reconsiders and thinks Hang on a minute. This doesn't feel good." The person rings the Commerce Commission and then applies for leniency provisions and is in fact prosecuted under those provisions and pays a penalty. But one has to question whether or not that cartel behaviour which was dealt with under the leniency provision was criminal in nature. I would be very hesitant to criminalise an activity that may not have been criminal in nature.I would also note individuals and bodies corporate are also subject to a range of sanctions under the civil prohibition. These can amount to tens of millions of dollars for bodies corporate. In fact there was an award of $7.5 million against a body corporate and against an individual of $100000 with a 5-year prohibition against management. So I argue—and the bill reflects the position—that the civil sanctions are a very strong deterrent."
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): It may be helpful to refer to the Commerce Commission's Competitor Collaboration Guidelines" just to provide the member with an example—Hon Simon Bridges: Great read.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Well it is a great read. It is very helpful. The member has raised concerns about the provision in the bill for collaborative activities. I would point out to the member that that collaboration must be through something like a joint venture and that collaborative activity focuses on the substance of an arrangement. I will just give you an example—thank you to the Commerce Commission. For example two computer manufacturers have different design and technology expertise. It happens all the time. They decide that by combining different capabilities or resources they will be able to offer more affordable computer hardware and software. That is the spirit of the collaborative activities exemption in this bill. So I do hope the member listened. I am very happy to table this document so that the member can have a look at it.The member also mentioned the fuel market study undertaken by the Hon Judith Collins and the frustrations therein whereby the study was not able to require information from market participants and therefore could not come to a conclusive decision about whether the market was operating efficiently and well for the benefit of consumers.Of course good news for that member: I announced a couple of weeks ago that we will be proceeding with a market studies power for the Commerce Commission. I do hope that the member and his party will be supportive of that amendment to the Commerce Act based on his comments this evening."
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thanks for the opportunity to take what I hope to be just a short call for the benefit of the members in the Committee. I do want to make specific mention of the amendments submitted in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove in the first part. Deleting the amendments to clauses 17 and 18—as in bringing back the criminal liability and the criminal sanctions—is absolutely the point of the first contribution I made in the Committee earlier. So if the Government could bring itself to realise that in having this permissive regime what we now need to do is make sure that those who would take advantage of that will be held accountable to the full extent of the law—and so should be held accountable—then we are in a position to say to the Government: You have done some good work in this bill." There is actually a lot to be commended in it and I have already said what that is in terms of alignment with international practice and making our operations more easily aligned with the Australian market. These are good things and we could support those. But we absolutely cannot support the bill because we have gone down this road and we need to bring clauses 17 and 18 back into the legislation. Can I just add that in relation to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 408 there has been—and the Minister in the chair Jacqui Dean alluded to it—a lot of work and a lot of conversation around whether we establish the purpose of involving a legitimate business rationale. Do we ask the question on the purpose or the effect—the actual impact—of the intent? Rather than look at just the intent and the purpose of the individual or the company what is the actual impact on the market? I concede that the Minister is absolutely right that this is a contentious issue and the conversations do go both ways but the reality is that this is a strong and powerful way to send a message. In the past you have been able to hide illegitimate activities and couple them up with what could easily be defined as legitimate activities with other players in the market and it has been incredibly hard to establish any kind of guilt in that kind of regime. I think that Mr Cosgrove's SOP has hit the nail on the head. It has actually gone further than we would have gone ourselves but I completely agree with it. I put it to the Minister that these two amendments being added to a bill that I am sure she would argue will do wonderful things for our economy would not only make it workable and have those positive outcomes but when we needed it we would be able to hold individuals to account. We absolutely need to send that message and we need that in our legislation. Unless these amendments are passed as I have said New Zealand First cannot support the bill itself. But we look forward to the Minister's agreeing to what are good additions—or deletions of deletions as the case may be—in this legislation. Thank you."
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I will just make a couple of brief comments around the Hon Clayton Cosgrove's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 408 regarding section 36 of the Commerce Act. While we will not be supporting that SOP I do thank the member for his thoughtful contribution in this debate and other members as well.The amendments that the Hon Clayton Cosgrove proposed will not be covered by the bill. It is not to say that the issues around section 36 have not been considered very closely. In fact the issue around the provisions of section 36 formed a part of the target review of the Commerce Act. The counterfactual test which is whether or not the person or the company that has market dominance would have undertaken that anti-competitive behaviour if they were not dominant is a particularly hard point to prove.I do note and it has been mentioned that the Australian Parliament is currently putting through legislation moving to an effects regime which is essentially what Clayton Cosgrove is proposing in his SOP. I am not convinced that moving to an effects test or moving away from the counterfactual test is actually going to achieve much in terms of greater competition for New Zealand business. So I have instructed officials to keep looking and if a case can be put up for making a change then I think we should consider that. But at the moment I do not see and officials cannot provide sufficient evidence that making a change in section 36 will actually increase competition in the Commerce Act.With regard to the Australian Parliament let us just see how its changes to its commerce Act bed in and that is something that I believe we could have a look at in the future.
Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I rise to speak about the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We are also deeply concerned about the long delay in getting this legislation presented before this House. Initiated in 2001—it is a very long period of time. We regard the context for this bill as being the need to ensure proper competition between firms in a small society. We have to remember that New Zealand is a society where competition rules are particularly important given our small scale. I think that the public is rightly concerned about a lack of competition and as the Productivity Commission has repeatedly shown New Zealand is paying high prices for goods compared with other countries. We have seen a long list of scandals over rip-off prices including in building materials and in construction real estate telecommunications electricity petrol supermarkets and the banking sector. The context here is that vigorous competition is absolutely vital for a fair deal for most New Zealanders. Instead what we see is a situation where regulation is falling behind international best practice. The Green Party supported this bill to the Commerce Committee. Subsequently we were—let us say—surprised when in late 2015 the then commerce Minister Paul Goldsmith suddenly did a rapid about-turn and overruled his department's advice and MPs' advice by removing criminal liability provisions from this legislation. We believe that this U-turn significantly weakens the legislation and lets collusion between big business off the hook. Fines however big are no substitute for potential criminal sanctions.We note that our main trading partners—Australia USA Canada UK Japan Ireland and Korea—have criminalisation provisions and we think that through removing these from this legislation the Government is missing an opportunity to align our regulations with those internationally. This we believe is an absolutely crucial aspect to this bill and therefore the Green Party will no longer support this bill. We will oppose this bill without criminalisation sanctions.We also would like to raise questions in the discussion around the exclusion from provisions of international liner shipping services. We have not seen an adequate justification for that. We are concerned about the breadth of some of the allowance of collaborative activity as being too permissive and allowing cooperative activity or collaborative activity where really a collusive element may be present. We see clearances as being too broad and we would like to come back to that in the discussion of this bill. Finally we see transitional arrangements potentially presenting a huge loophole for cartel activity to be again disguised as cooperative activity.Overall we are disappointed with the omission in particular of the criminalisation aspects of this bill. We would like the Government to reconsider that and we would certainly like to hear a sound justification for why this course of action is being proposed. Thank you.
Kuriger Barbara; Borrows ChesterCOMMERCE (CARTELS AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave to consider all parts and clauses of the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave for that purpose is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Having listened to the contribution of Minister Adams actually I learnt more about the bill than I did reading it. But I want to comment on a couple of things. Firstly in regard to new section 40 Reporting entities to report suspicious activities" inserted by clause 18 and the period of "no later than 3 working days"—it seems to me to be an arbitrary period but I would be interested in the Minister's response regarding that time frame because if the intent of the bill is to gather evidence for prosecution given the way in which transactions occur so quickly these days I wonder whether or not it will achieve its intended purpose.As I was reading this part of the bill new sections 40 and 41 inserted by clause 18 and considering the contributions that were made by colleagues one of the things that occurred to me was the issue of an oral report. In new section 41(2) it reads: "If the urgency of the situation requires a suspicious activity report may be made orally to any Police employee authorised for the purpose by the Commissioner but in any such case the reporting entity must as soon as practicable but no later than 3 working days after forming its suspicions forward to the Commissioner a suspicious activity report that complies with the requirements in subsection (1)." Again going back to the purpose of that subsection if an oral report is intended to propel action then what amount of evidence or what types of things in an oral report could give urgency for action to be taken? It is not that clear to me and I would appreciate a clarification from the Minister as it seems to me that while a suspicious activity report is intended to be occurring in a formal way there is an exception. If the exception is intended to address the issue of time frame or action to be taken within a quicker period then what are the things that must be captured in an oral report?The third point that I want to come to having listened to the contributions of my colleague Rino Tirikatene is "occasional activity": whether that definition may be so broad that it may capture the 99 percent that you were referring to and whether or not that may mean that there could be an unintended consequence of people being captured under that definition. If that is not the case then I am sure we would all benefit from a clarification but if that may be a prospect then what remedy might there be for people who are inadvertently captured under that definition?Those are just three simple questions to the Minister. Again I am not going to prolong the contribution but I think as people try to figure out the intent and purpose of the bill to ensure that it achieves its objectives those will be helpful clarifications."
Kuriger Barbara; Borrows ChesterBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave to take all parts and clauses of this Committee stage as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. I just need to restate the question. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Mallard TrevorSocial Development and Housing SectorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We come now to the votes in the social development and housing sector volume B.5 volume 10. The question is that Vote Building and Housing Vote Social Development Vote Social Housing and Vote Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki stand part of the schedules.
Points of Order — Written Questions—Use of Interim Answers (continued)
Points of Order — Written Questions—Use of Interim Answers
Carter DavidMr SPEAKER: Order! I was reluctant to interrupt the member through his speech because he was certainly battering against a considerable amount of interjection but throughout his speech he frequently referred to members by their Christian name only. I have asked him not to do that in the past. He needs to watch that in the future; it will lead to disorder.
Mark Ron; Carter DavidPOINTS OF ORDERWritten Questions—Use of Interim AnswersRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order from Sue Moroney earlier on I have received advice from our office on an issue that you addressed last week regarding the short amount of time left to lodge written questions and have them answered in a timely fashion.We notified your office over Minister Bennett's overdue answer where we do not have a time frame for a monthly cost for robots inside Pike River and we complained over Minister Flavell limiting his answers to only his tenure—an experience we do not think is unique across the Opposition benches—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to interrupt the member. As I said to Sue Moroney bring these matters to my office at the end of question time and I will look into them.
Bindra MaheshORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 9 to MinisterMAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance to find out what the criteria are for unparliamentary words such as stuff-up". I just noticed that Dr Clark used the words "stuff-up" and you did not stop him whereas when I used those words during question time when asking a question of the Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga you stopped me immediately and reprimanded me.Mr SPEAKER: As I have said many times at the end the day I think the members themselves use language for which they are responsible and they will be judged by the public of New Zealand for the language they use. Having said that there are times when depending on the context in which some words are used and the decorum of the House at the time I may then intervene. On this occasion I did not intervene. I think Mr Clark can justify whether in his own mind he should have used those words—that is his business."
Moroney SuePOINTS OF ORDERWritten Questions—Use of Interim AnswersSUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order with regard to your ruling about interim replies on 26 July when you said: Every endeavour must be made to provide a full reply within the period specified in Standing Orders." On 24 July I asked a question of the Minister of Health: "When was the Minister first made aware of concerns held by the Waikato DHB about CEO Nigel Murray's expenses?". That question was due yesterday and the Minister's office gave me an interim reply. I have contacted the Minister's office subsequently and asked for that question along with a range of others to be addressed. As of right now I still have not had a reply to a question that is—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough and I will look into the matter. But I would be grateful if members if they have difficulties around receiving answers to written questions—I advise them as indeed Sue Moroney advises that she has in this case to take it up with the Minister's office first and then certainly take it up with my office or through the Office of the Clerk to me. I will look at it. It is probably not helpful to raise it on the floor of the House as a point of order.Question time resumed."
Thursday 27 July 2017 - Volume 724
10. Schools Buildings—WellingtonCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Associate Minister of EducationSchools Buildings—Wellington10. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements have the Government made on school property in the Wellington region?Hon TIM MACINDOE (Associate Minister of Education): This morning the member who is asking the question Chris Bishop and I visited Wainuiōmata High School to announce that the Government will be investing around $12 million in a major redevelopment to address issues with ageing and leaky buildings. The member and I also visited Maungaraki School to announce that Budget 2017 will provide an additional $1 million for new classrooms at Maungaraki and Berhampore schools. I have also recently announced that Houghton Valley School will receive $500000 in funding from this year's Budget for a new classroom to accommodate roll growth.Chris Bishop: What will this $12 million investment in Wainuiōmata High School mean for the school?Hon TIM MACINDOE: This considerable $12 million investment will go towards weathertightness remediation modernisation of existing facilities and building new flexible learning spaces. Despite the constant interjections from members opposite the Ministry of Education will work closely with the school in the planning phase which is about to commence to ensure that their new and improved teaching spaces are not only fit for purpose but also support the school's vision for learning and raising student achievement. Work is already under way to upgrade electrical infrastructure and fire protection systems. We will also conduct work on the student bathrooms and canteen to ensure that they are comfortable and suitable to use while the redevelopment progresses.Chris Bishop: How will these Wellington schools benefit from the $1.5 million in roll growth funding?Hon TIM MACINDOE: So far Budget 2017 has as I have mentioned provided three new classrooms in the Wellington region. This investment will see one new classroom each for Maungaraki Berhampore and Houghton Valley schools to accommodate their increasing rolls. As with the Wainuiomata High School redevelopment that we announced this morning these three new classrooms will be designed alongside the school authorities working with them to ensure they meet the unique requirements of each of the three schools. Maungaraki School in the Hutt South electorate where the member asking the question is based and extraordinarily active has been recognised for its stimulating learning environments and impressive student achievement which alongside population growth has seen this school's roll increase rapidly. This new classroom will give the school the opportunity to help even more children in the area to reach the very best of their potential.
9. Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Pare Hauraki Collective SettlementHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi NegotiationsTreaty of Waitangi Settlements—Pare Hauraki Collective Settlement9. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he believe that the signing of the Pare Hauraki Collective Settlement with the inclusion of redress disputed by Tauranga Moana iwi is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Let me emphasise that no deed of settlement has been signed. There is no secret deal. There are difficult overlapping issues that the Minister for Māori Development and I are seeking to address at the present time.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What advice did he receive to determine that Pare Hauraki historical interests as set out in a Waitangi Tribunal report equated to contemporary rights under a Treaty settlement process; and might that advice lead to further contentious precedents?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am very conscious of the desire not to have any overlapping interests lead to further contention. The starting point was the 2004 tribunal report that referred to the interests of some of the Hauraki iwi in the Te Puna - Katikati blocks and that is the issue that I am trying to address at the present time.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Is it reasonable for Tauranga Moana to request a tikanga-based approach with Pare Hauraki to determine matters of whakapapa ahi kā mana whenua mana moana and kaitiakitanga to determine a durable outcome for settlement redress options?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes most definitely it is and that is exactly the kind of approach I am very keen along with the Minister for Māori Development to progress because I cannot deal with those matters. I do not have the expertise. I think a tikanga-based approach is an excellent one.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Will the Minister support the position of the Minister of Māori Development to not sign the Hauraki settlement until all issues currently in dispute with Tauranga Moana iwi are resolved?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes I will because I think these are difficult issues. The last thing I want to do through a Treaty settlement or rushing through a Treaty settlement is to create further grievances. These matters need to be handled sensitively and the Minister for Māori Development is doing an excellent job in assisting me in that regard.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Will he give an undertaking to revisit the Tauranga Moana framework seeking fresh terms of reference to assure the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective that their mana whenua mana moana rights have primacy in the planning and decision-making regime for Tauranga Moana?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: If it helps bring a just and durable conclusion to these difficult issues I will certainly look at the framework with my colleagues from the Tauranga Moana iwi. These as I say are difficult issues and I can see that it is the subject of deep feeling which is why I am treading very warily at this time.
4. Earthquake Kaikōura—State Highway 1STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of TransportEarthquake Kaikōura—State Highway 14. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Transport: What update can he provide on the reinstatement of State Highway 1 following the Kaikōura earthquakes?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): While the reinstatement work is ongoing the Government is also taking the opportunity to invest a further $231 million to improve a 60-kilometre stretch of State Highway 1 to the north of Kaikōura between Clarence and Ōaro. The improvements will include wider shoulders additional safety barriers more passing opportunities and improved access and stopping areas for motorists. A new separated cycleway and walkway between Ōkiwi Bay and Mangamaunu will also be built which will provide a safer and more enjoyable way for people to experience this section of the iconic coastline on foot or by bike. These improvements will make the road better than it was before and enhance the experience of all motorists using this stretch of highway.Stuart Smith: What recent reports has he received on progress on the reinstatement of State Highway 1 following the Kaikōura earthquakes?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Government's priority is to restore the pre-earthquake transport links to Kaikōura and its surrounding communities and ensure that these vital links are resilient long term. We are doing just that and that is why we announced as part of this year's Budget the $812 million that is being invested to restore State Highway 1. I am pleased to report to the House that the various crews of workers are making really good progress on getting State Highway 1 to the north and south fully reinstated and that as recently as this week I have been advised that the road will be open before the end of this year.
Ball Darroch; Mallard TrevorDARROCH BALL (NZ First): I just want to take a quick call to cover a few of the points that I did not manage to in my first 5 minutes and to actually respond to a couple of things that have been said in the meantime. Paul Foster-Bell just mentioned the biggest boost in funding for numbers in the Police. I would just like to remind him that in 2008 John Key made a pledge of keeping the police-to-population ratio at 1:500 and this Government has totally underfunded and continues to underfund the police to get to a ratio of I think it is 1:520. The simple fact is that no matter what the Government says or what Mr Paul Foster-Bell says this increase in police numbers will not get that ratio to 1:500. That is why New Zealand First has a policy to increase police numbers not by 800 or 1000 or 1200 but by 1800 police to get to that 1:500 ratio. It is the same ratio that the Australian police force has and it is the ratio that has been understood for a long while in New Zealand to be needed to be maintained in order to ensure that police can do their job properly and are properly resourced. So no matter what the Government spits out about this being the biggest increase in the numbers it just is not enough.I think that one of the most important things—and you know I talk about the youth justice system and youth crime all the time—that the Government has not actually stated is this: of the 800 front-line police how many will be youth aid officers? The Government knows that youth crime especially serious youth crime has increased—and we are talking about aggravated robberies and that half of them are committed by 15- to 19-year-olds. Logic dictates that we need to have those youth aid officers who look after those youth offenders properly resourced. Right now the fact of the matter is that those numbers of youth aid officers are not enough.I know in Palmerston North we have got four youth aid officers and they do not leave their office. There is no proactive nature in stopping youth crime and in fact they are more like youth offending prosecutors because they just channel countless numbers of offences committed by youth. Bear in mind that those youth offences do not get counted by the youth crime measurement because they are not going into the court. So they get a pile—a stack—of youth offences committed by young people but they are not counted. And the youth aid officers cannot do anything with it because they are not resourced enough.Another fact that I would just like to state—I mentioned it earlier—is that there was a billion dollars going to be spent on a youth prison. Half of all of the current adult prison population have been through the youth justice system. If the youth justice system was working we would not have to be spending a billion dollars on new prisons. I think it was last year—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. I will report progress.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.
Mallard TrevorJustice SectorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members we now come to the votes in the justice sector volume B.5 volume 7. The question is that Vote Attorney-General Vote Corrections Vote Courts Vote Justice Vote Parliamentary Counsel Vote Police and Vote Serious Fraud stand part of the schedules.
Borrows ChesterFinance and Government Administration SectorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members we come now to the votes in the finance and Government administration sector—volume B.5 and volume 5. The question is that Vote Audit Vote Communications Security and Intelligence Vote Finance Vote Office of the Clerk Vote Ombudsmen Vote Parliamentary Service Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet Vote Revenue Vote Security Intelligence and Vote State Services stand part of the schedules.
Urgent Debates Declined — Human Rights Commission—Report on the Experiences of Disabled Children and Adults in State Care
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDDisability Issues—Human Rights Commission Report on the Experiences of Disabled Children and Adults in State CareMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Poto Williams seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Human Rights Commission's report Institutions are places of abuse": The experiences of disabled children and adults in State care. This is a particular case of recent occurrence; the report was released today. The purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government to account for an action for which it is responsible—Speakers' ruling 207/2. Several previous Speakers have ruled that the absence of an action on the part of the Government is not a particular case of recent occurrence and I refer members to Speakers' ruling 212/2. The Government has not yet responded to the release of the report. It may be that an urgent debate would be warranted if a new Government policy or action is subsequently announced. In the meantime I note that the House is holding the Estimates debate which is an opportunity to debate the Government's future spending plans. The health and social development sectors have not yet been debated. The member may wish to use that opportunity to debate this matter—Speaker's ruling 215/1. The application today is therefore declined."
Bridges SimonTHURSDAY 27 JULY 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 1 August the Government will look to make progress on the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill the Land Transport Amendment Bill the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper.
Tuesday 25 July 2017 - Volume 724
11. Extreme Weather Events—Otago and CanterburyHon JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Civil DefenceExtreme Weather Events—Otago and Canterbury11. Hon JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What reports has he received on the impact of severe weather conditions across parts of Otago and Canterbury?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Civil Defence): Over the weekend I travelled to Otago to visit some local areas affected by the recent rain and flooding. The impacts of these floods will be felt for some time in communities in Canterbury and Otago. I spoke with the local mayors in these regions and the focus now is turning from response to recovery. I want to thank the tireless efforts of civil defence and council staff and emergency services volunteers lifeline utilities and a host of other agencies like the New Zealand Army which contributed to a number of local and regional responses.Hon Jo Goodhew: What advice does he have for those communities in any affected areas?Hon NATHAN GUY: Although local states of emergency are being withdrawn as the river levels continue to recede and authorities transition to recovery mode I am mindful that further rain is forecast in the days ahead. The public are urged to be cautious and take care. Farmers are encouraged to make contact for stock feed to Federated Farmers 0800 FARMING and the Government stands ready to provide support where it is needed. Financial assistance is available to local authorities that have been affected.
10. Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations Prime Minister's StatementsCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Prime MinisterTodd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations Prime Minister's Statements10. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of the statements that he has made or have been made on his behalf in this House regarding the Todd Barclay case?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes.Chris Hipkins: When he stated in his answer to oral question No. 2 in the House on 20 June that I would expect any Minister who became aware of possible breaches of the law to bring it to the attention of the authorities." was he aware of any allegations regarding breaches of the law by Todd Barclay that he had not brought to the attention of the police?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have made extensive comment on those matters already.Chris Hipkins: Does he agree that it is "slippery deceit" and a "disgrace" for a Prime Minister not to tell the police everything they know about a matter under investigation and that to avoid and refuse to tell the truth is a lie; if so given those are his words has he told the police everything he knows about the Todd Barclay matter?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility—the right honourable Prime Minister.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have commented extensively on that.Chris Hipkins: Did he use a Ministerial Services - funded phone when he discussed Todd Barclay with Glenys Dickson and was that conversation recorded by Todd Barclay?Mr SPEAKER: Again in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility—the right honourable Prime Minister.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no responsibility for that matter.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is responsible for whether he used a Ministerial Services - funded phone for that conversation.Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has given his answer to the question that was raised; the question has been addressed.Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the statement "This behaviour from someone in such high office is unacceptable … No wonder they are denying health cuts pretending there is no crisis in education and acting like we have no law and order problem. It is not leadership to cover up and hope it all goes away."; if so given he was the one who made that statement why will he not live up to his own words and fully and honestly answer questions about his role in the Todd Barclay saga?Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there; the Prime Minister can address one or the other.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The matter has been covered extensively by a 10-month police investigation."