edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. Well you know when a Government is in trouble when it has to filibuster a committee stage of a member's bill that had full support of the House. It even got worse when one member got up and told us her experience of completing an essay at university. I remember the day when the Labour Party was people who had work. They were working people; not pontificating academics telling us how to live. What's happened to the Labour Party? If a Labour Party doesn't look out for the vulnerable who does? That is exactly what the Canterbury District Health Board said. When they put in their submission for this bill they said legislating this process with shorter time frames will increase the relationship and improve it between the parents and the primary health organisations particularly for vulnerable population groups.If the Labour Party and a Labour Government are not going to stick up for vulnerable people what are they doing? What are they doing in Government? Here we have a bill that they're voting down purely for political reasons. Look at the editorial in the Sunday Star-Times by Stacey Kirk on the weekend: Stealth in health undermining Government—politics the overriding protocol" and that's exactly what we had: filibustering a member's bill that had support across the House. Why? It's because they don't want any bills being pulled out of the ballot. Imagine if it was Dr Shane Reti's medicinal cannabis bill. How embarrassed were they today? It says volumes of a Government that would be embarrassed by members' bills getting pulled out of the ballot.Out of every speech we've had tonight not one of those members has provided any evidence why this legislation would not work—not one bit of evidence. What they try and do is recant. Yes the Ministry of Health said "We've already got a policy in place." Well that's actually proof of why we need this legislation. The policy is only having an enrolment of 75 percent and sometimes less than 66 percent. On top of that the Canterbury District Health Board did the work the Government should have done and drilled down on the data and in fact there's a discrepancy even within the data because some young people who are presenting as enrolled—2589 were actually not enrolled. They were nominated for a general practitioner but had not been enrolled. All we're asking for here is that the lead maternity carer sends an enrolment request to a GP and they enrol a young person. How tough is that? And oh if they've got full workloads they can re-refer that young person to another GP. That's all we're asking for.I think Stacey Kirk was right: stealth in health undermining Government—politics overriding protocol. That's exactly what this Government's doing in voting down this bill and preventing vulnerable young people being enrolled and why do we know they need to be enrolled? All the evidence shows that if you are enrolled with a GP immunisation rates go up and health and social outcomes are improved. Tell me one party that doesn't want that because I can see three."
Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill — In Committee
Hayes Jo; Williams PotoJO HAYES (National): Thank you very much. I just want to extend my thanks to everybody who has contributed to this part of the process of the bill going through to its third reading.I'm standing just to answer some of the questions that have been asked of me tonight and I hope that the responses that I give—although there will be some responses that I won't be able to give in full detail because I don't know and that's around the work of the Family Court and how a judge actually works out who is going to do the cultural report. For me to get up and say—that would be usurping the role of the courts and it's not the role I believe of members of Parliament to be able to tell judges how to do their job. So I trust the Family Court judges will carry through with their due diligence because it will be their due diligence in being able to assess the applications from young people.We must understand that this bill has a very narrow focus and where it actually came from and how the narrow focus was brought about—as the member Louisa Wall outlined in her contribution—was from a meeting in which Jackie Blue was approached by Shakti over the issues that were facing young migrant women. So that's where this bill stemmed from.The first question that Anahila asked—how long the decision from the Family Court would take to get from the time the application is received to when whatever the decision of the Family Court judge will be. As I said in the start of my speech I don't know because there are the processes of the Family Court and it will be up to them as to how long the process will take. And it will be the information that is collected or given to the judge at the time and the discussions that they have.The Hon Andrew Little asked what the numbers were that we were talking about and over time there are around about 60 cases that we know of. There could be more but those are the ones that have come. The reason that we brought this bill to the House is because we wanted to prevent something that has the potential to blow out of proportion. This is Aotearoa New Zealand. We have rules and our own culture here and this is the way that globally the world is going as well. It is about the protection of the child and specifically the female child.Jo Luxton the MP asked what would happen after the cultural report. As I said this is at the discretion of the Family Court judge and that person will make that decision on the next process of the application.So I'm hoping that I have been able to answer all your questions. A lot of it is with the Family Court judge with the Family Courts and as I've said before in my opening contribution in answering your questions I'm not here to usurp any of the processes of the Family Court or a Family Court judge. So kia ora and thank you all again for your contributions.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call the member I just want to just advise the committee that we've had a lot of contribution around the cultural report replacement section 20 of the Marriage Act in clause 8. I'm looking for some other arguments bearing in mind that the member has given some answers to questions asked.
Bishop Chris; Williams PotoCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much. I'm sure my colleague on the Justice Committee Ms Radhakrishnan will get an opportunity to speak on this bill. It is a genuine pleasure to take a call on this bill and I want just at the outset to acknowledge you Madam Chair because I know that you've been part of the cross-party—Hon Ruth Dyson: You don't mean to bring the Chair into the debate do you?CHRIS BISHOP: I'm sure the Chair won't mind indulging me for a moment to acknowledge her contribution. I also want to acknowledge Joanne Hayes and her team which includes many parliamentarians from across the House who have worked hard on this bill. As someone who's had two members' bills now pass into law I know it's a good feeling and it looks like this piece of legislation is going to work its way through its committee stage this evening and its third reading I'm sure in a few short weeks. So I do want to acknowledge the member who's worked very hard on this.Look we had a good debate around this at the select committee. It's one of those bills which sound pretty simple when you first hear them at first blush and then when you get into the details they can get quite tricky and that is something we did find at select committee. We did consider the issue of civil unions and of course de facto relationships which is made mention of in the select committee report.In my short contribution I want to make just a mention of firstly the name change which is given effect to because of the omnibus nature of the bill. It was recommended by the select committee and I think that's a sensible one—changing it to the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill which recognises really the fact that this is not just about marriage. The original name of the bill focused on court consent to the marriage of minors but of course we are also dealing with de facto and civil union relationships; so that name change is very important.The other thing I want to make mention of in this committee stage is replacement section 19 in clause 8 of the bill which allows the court to appoint lawyers in proceedings under replacement section 18 and that's very important. This is a good bill and I'm looking forward to it proceeding through the House.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan.Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh excellent choice.
Kuriger Barbara; Williams PotoBARBARA KURIGER (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I move that all parts of the debate be taken as one question.Hon Ruth Dyson: Seek leave.BARBARA KURIGER: I seek leave sorry that all parts of the debate be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I put the leave I just want to remind members that that leave should be sought at the beginning of the debate and given that condition leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any disagreement with that course of action? There appears to be none.
Hayes Jo; Williams PotoJO HAYES (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a call on the third reading of the Domestic Violence—Victims' Protection Bill in the name of Jan Logie and I want to add my congratulations to you Jan. It must be an amazing feeling to have a bill go down in the history of this Parliament now and into the future with your name on it. So congratulations.What many of my colleagues have said in previous contributions—and even the Hon Tracey Martin has also said it—is that National does support the intent of this bill. A lot of the discussion of the impact around businesses has been and will be our concern—and I just want to reiterate the sentiments that my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro shared in this House. I think that domestic violence is one of those things that cannot just be wiped out through one bill. We need multiple approaches to actually reduce domestic violence in whānau and I think that this particular bill with its narrow focus starts to do that.I think the contribution from the member Angie Warren-Clark who was saying that it will stop family violence domestic violence—it won't. It's that narrow focus—it's focused on businesses. It's focused on employment and leave entitlements and that's what it does. I was really pleased to hear from the Minister of Justice the Hon Andrew Little applauding the many businesses that already have the flexible entitlements for leave that they support in their workplaces and I also say that there are a number of ratbag operators out there which I think this bill is really targeted at. So my contribution will be very small because a lot of the sentiment that has actually been spoken on this side of the House—I share in that and in the words of the Hon Tracey Martin as well.So I just want to say that yes the National-led Government had a number of approaches to reducing family violence and that I was a little bit disappointed and continue to be because the Government has not picked up some of those policies that we have had and that I think have done well to protect victims of family violence. It would be great and I'm pleased to hear that the sponsor of the bill Jan Logie has been and met with Integrated Safety Response in Christchurch as well. So I think that a lot of the groundwork that you've done Jan has been really good and I also share the sentiments as to why your bill wasn't actually picked up by the Government and really taken forward.So without any further ado I cannot support this bill. But I want to congratulate Jan again so kia ora.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call Golriz Ghahraman—you have five minutes.
Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill — Procedure
Points of Order — Leave to Introduce Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2)
Hayes Jo; Mallard TrevorBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEJO HAYES (National): I seek leave for the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill to be set down as members' order of the day No. 2 today.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none; that will occur.
Reti Shane; Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 25 JULY 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.POINTS OF ORDERLeave for Introduction and Setting Down as Members' Order of the Day No. 1—Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2)Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2) a member's bill in my name and for the bill to be set down as members' order of the day No. 1.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is objection; it will not be set down.
Tuesday 24 July 2018 - Volume 731
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Audit Vote Communications Security and Intelligence Vote Finance Vote Internal Affairs Vote Office of the Clerk Vote Ombudsmen Vote Parliamentary Service Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet Vote Revenue Vote Security Intelligence Vote State Services and Vote Statistics be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Votes agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Customs Vote Defence Vote Defence Force Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade and Vote Official Development Assistance be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Votes agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Conservation Vote Environment and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Votes agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Education Vote Education Review Office Vote Labour Market Vote Pike River Re-entry and Vote Tertiary Education be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Votes agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Business Science and Innovation and Vote Transport be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Votes agreed to.
12. Housing—Warmer Kiwi Homes ProgrammePAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesHousing—Warmer Kiwi Homes Programme12. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent initiatives has she announced that will help keep Kiwis warm and healthy and make it more affordable to heat their homes?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): On 1 July I had the pleasure of launching the Government's Warmer Kiwi Homes insulation and heating programme in Christchurch. While there I visited the first home to be insulated and met many of the people who will benefit from having a warmer home. This is possible because of the Government's allocation of $142.5 million to the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme in Budget 2018. Our new programme will cover 67 percent of the cost of fit out and we expect that over the next four years 52000 families will benefit. This compares to the previous Government's scheme that only covered 25 percent of the cost per fit out. This means that thousands of Kiwi families will have warmer homes and lower electricity bills reducing the cost of living for those most in need.Paul Eagle: What response has she received about this programme?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I've received positive feedback on how much of a difference a programme like this will make for Kiwis. There have been numerous positive media reports on Warmer Kiwi Homes with Age Concern Canterbury calling the shift in funding to two-thirds of the cost of insulation a game-changer making the cost of insulation manageable for a lot more people. Pam Wootton-Peters whose house was the first to receive insulation under the programme said it was like living in a different home. Bev and Wattie Meadowcroft also relayed to me at the launch that they wouldn't have to sit outside to keep warm as it was often warmer outside their home than inside before their insulation. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has also informed me there's been a surge of interest in the new programme via the website traffic and through their call centre and service providers.Paul Eagle: How does this work link with the Families Package and the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is all part of a Government plan to give New Zealanders warmer drier homes. The Warmer Kiwi Homes programme the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act and the winter energy payment part of the Families Package are all part of a suite of measures this Government has introduced as part of its commitment to warm healthy housing.
6. KiwiBuild—Māngere DevelopmentANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentKiwiBuild—Māngere Development6. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress if any has he made towards the Government's target of building 1000 affordable KiwiBuild homes in 2018/19 5000 in 2019/20 and 10000 in 2020/21?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The Government has announced that it will transform Māngere with an ambitious programme to build 10000 new homes for Kiwi families. Under our plan 2700 worn-out State houses will be replaced by 10000 new homes made up of 3000 new State houses up to 3500 new KiwiBuild affordable homes and 3500 homes sold on the open market. The first stage of the development is under way; 35 State houses are being demolished to be replaced by 66 more State houses and 100 other homes at least half of which will be KiwiBuild. The first KiwiBuild and affordable homes in this development will be completed towards the end of 2019 and early 2020.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How will the Government ensure the local residents are able to rent or buy homes in the completed Māngere development?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I am determined that the local community will benefit from this redevelopment and not be priced out of the new homes. HLC is working hard to keep the prices of KiwiBuild homes as low as possible. We're also working on long-term rent and shared-equity options. And for KiwiBuild we'll be using priority ballots to ensure that local residents get the first shot at owning their own home in their own community.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How does the Māngere development fit within the Government's plans for large-scale urban development?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Māngere development is the first fully integrated transport and housing development. HLC and the KiwiBuild unit are working closely with the New Zealand Transport Agency - led light rail project to ensure that these two projects make Māngere an even better place to live. Integrating transport and housing is how we invest in the infrastructure to get ahead of growth. Māngere joins Unitec Northcote and Tāmaki as the initial large-scale developments where this Government is building modern starter homes for young Kiwi families.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What interest has there been in the KiwiBuild scheme and these large-scale developments?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well over 35000 Kiwis have registered their interest in KiwiBuild. For aspiring homeowners the next step is to start the qualification process in order to be ready to enter the ballot on their chosen KiwiBuild properties as they go on sale in the coming months and years.
5. Transport—Fuel TaxJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of TransportTransport—Fuel Tax5. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes when described and reported accurately.Jami-Lee Ross: Does he stand by his answer to written question No. 13789 where he outlined that New Zealanders will be paying more than $1 billion in new fuel taxes over the next three years?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.Jami-Lee Ross: What advice did he receive from the Ministry of Transport on the impact on the cost of living of charging New Zealanders an extra $1 billion in new fuel taxes over the next three years?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The Ministry of Transport agreed with the modelling that was done by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment which said that as a result of the full roll-out of three years of consecutive fuel excise duty increases and the Auckland regional fuel tax the average family in Auckland will pay typically $5 extra per week.Jami-Lee Ross: Did he take into account before he announced a billion dollars in new fuel taxes that fuel prices had already increased on average by 20c a litre since he took office?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well I take my cue on this from an earlier Government that increased fuel taxes in 2015 after petrol prices had gone up by 40c a litre between January and June 2015. The Government then increased excise tax in July as that decision had no impact on the economy and petrol prices later fell as international fuel prices moderated. I think Simon Bridges is a very good role model here.Jami-Lee Ross: Can he confirm that after this 20c a litre price movement his fuel tax increases and regional fuel taxes will mean that his Government is responsible for Kiwis paying over 40c a litre more for petrol than what they were paying a year ago?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No I don't believe that this Government or any previous Government is responsible for international commodity prices and their volatile fluctuations.
Craig Liz; Rurawhe AdrianDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Chairperson. It's a pleasure to take a call in the Estimates debate on Vote Health. And I actually want to change tack a little bit and talk a little bit about health targets and actually think about the smoke and mirrors of the previous Government and what this Budget is going to do to actually address the underlying things that have been happening in the health system. I think for me listening to some of that scaremongering that's been happening over the last month about how the health sector is going to implode if the ministry stops reporting the previous Government's targets—but I think the problem with targets is that they can be used very well to focus the health sector's attention on important issues.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I apologise to the member for interrupting but it has come time for me to report progress.Debate interrupted.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
Rurawhe AdrianHealth SectorCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we come now to the vote in the health sector B.5 volume 6. The question is that Vote Health stand part of the schedules.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): Now I will focus on Vote Statistics. It is now clear that Census 2018 has counted only 90 percent of the population and we have missed out over 400000 people. This is the lowest response rate in 50 years—50 years. The data of over 400000 people is missing; that is equivalent to the population of Christchurch. So this will have huge implications. But first of all it will have implications for the Budget in the coming year because Statistics New Zealand will have to do more work and spend more to make up the shortcomings of the census.I'm not really surprised by this particular announcement from Statistics New Zealand simply because I have seen numerous signs of Census 2018 heading towards a disaster. Now there are many issues there—firstly the access code. Many people did not receive the access code although they made repeated efforts request their access code. And also many people in rural areas did not receive the census papers simply because they are living in rural areas and sometimes they do not even have a letterbox. Also the helpline was not particularly helpful. It was a very frustrating extremely difficult experience very hard to get through. Many of my colleagues had tried that. Also people with disabilities—they did not get enough support. They were not able to complete their census form online.Then we have commercial accommodations problems with commercial accommodations namely those non-private dwellings. In Northland for example 822 non-private dwellings had ordered census material but by 12 March six days after census day 263 of them still had not received any information any material. So all these signs indicate that this year's census was really problematic. It turned out it is indeed a shambles.All along statistics Minister the Hon James Shaw has been very confident that this census would be a great success right? All along. On 12 April I asked Mr Shaw in this Chamber How will these many problems affect the integrity and accuracy of the 2018 census?" Minister Shaw replied "They won't. We are actually on track to deliver the census exactly according to the plan." He even claimed that "Census completion rates are never 100 percent; it's in the high 90s and it looks like this census will be on track as with historical trends."—right? But the truth is that by that time Statistics New Zealand had become clearly aware that there was an issue of low response rates. They made that a priority issue to deal with. So that was actually the case. Then on 13 June at the Estimates hearing Minister Shaw continued to assure us to emphasise the census was a success. But less than one month later Statistics New Zealand published a low-key press release confirming that only 90 percent of the population were counted in the census. That is really disgraceful. This is really a shambles. There are huge implications for our democracy because our democracy is based on equal representation. Our funding is based on equitable distribution and the census will not be able to deliver that. Thank you."
Tolley AnneFinance and Government Administration SectorCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members we come now to the votes in the finance and Government administration sector B.5 volume 5. The question is that Vote Audit Vote Communications Security and Intelligence Vote Finance Vote Internal Affairs Vote Office of the Clerk Vote Ombudsmen Vote Parliamentary Service Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet Vote Revenue Vote Security Intelligence Vote State Services and Vote Statistics stand part of the schedules.
Tolley AnneExternal SectorCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members we come now to the votes in the external sector B.5 volume 4. The question is that Vote Customs Vote Defence Vote Defence Force Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade and Vote Official Development Assistance stand part of the schedules.
Rurawhe AdrianEnvironment SectorCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we come now to the votes in the environment sector B.5 volume 3. The question is that Vote Conservation Vote Environment and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment stand part of the schedules.
Urgent Debates Declined — Census 2018—Data Release Delay and Participation Rate
Points of Order — Ministerial Statements—Procedure
Ministerial Statements — Armed Forces Public Service—Industrial Dispute
Williams PotoEducation and Workforce SectorCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members we come now to the votes in the education and workforce sector B.5 volume 2. The question is that Vote Education Vote Education Review Office Vote Labour Market Vote Pike River Re-entry and Vote Tertiary Education stand part of the schedules.
Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to focus my comments this afternoon on the appearance of the regional economic development Minister Shane Jones at the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. Wasn't it an extraordinary appearance? What we saw wasn't an open and upfront Minister willing to answer questions. What we saw instead was an hour of the Minister bluffing and blustering.He started off talking about his so-called billion-dollar fund. He claimed that regional growth funding was increasing from $11 million to a billion dollars. Well less than a minute later—less than a minute later—he had to backtrack on that myth; because it is a myth. He had to admit that it's not $11 million and it's not $1 billion; it's going up from $228 million. A lot of the billion-dollar fund that he tries to talk about as new funding isn't new funding at all. It is in his own words re-designated money"—re-designated money. So it's not $1 billion. He recycled the money from existing Government programmes in regional growth.But more concerning than the make-up is how he's spending it. We all accept that Northland needs assistance. Indeed Northland was one of the five regions that the previous Government identified as needing help and that was the genesis of the Regional Growth Programme. We did a lot of work through things like the QRC campus in Paihia and through things like the Kaikohe Growing Regional Opportunities through Work programme which engaged young people to break the cycle of unemployment. But it can't escape anyone's attention that more than half of Shane Jones' fund has gone to that one region of Northland alone.Hon Scott Simpson: How much of it?ANDREW FALLOON: More than half has gone to Shane Jones' home region of Northland—coincidentally the one region that he's hanging his hopes on to save New Zealand First in the next election.The troubling aspect of this "Shane Jones election fund" is that there's nothing robust about it. Mr Jones has admitted that Northland has in fact only asked for $40 million and they've received $60 million. They've actually received more provincial growth funding than they've asked for. I compare that to the entire South Island—the entire South Island—which in Mr Jones' own words has asked for 15 percent of the fund. But how much have they received? How much have they received Mr Jones? Two to three percent.Hon Scott Simpson: How much?ANDREW FALLOON: Two to 3 percent. And why is that? Well Mr Jones was pretty upfront about that; he chose to attack the mayors. Mr Jones' response was to attack every mayor in the South Island. He claimed they lack "the skills and advocacy of Far North Mayor John Carter." Now John Carter is a good mayor; I'll give him that. But is he half a billion dollars better than every single mayor in the South Island? I would argue not. It's an outrageous slur on every single mayor in the South Island and Mr Jones should apologise."
Tolley AnneESTIMATES DEBATEIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The House is in Committee for consideration of the Appropriation (2018/19 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the Estimates divided into 10 separate debates covering the sectors set out in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2018-19. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of the select committee nominated by the Government as the major committee reporting on the sector. Other calls will be allocated to parties on a proportional basis and may be taken as parties see fit during the 10 sector debates.At the end of each debate the question will be put that the votes in each sector stand part of the schedules. The time taken on each question is in the hands of members depending on the parties' use of the allocation of calls. However this debate expires after 11 hours. The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government's current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. All of the votes are available for debate. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I've just listened very carefully to your explanation of what may be debated particularly your extolling the Chamber to be somewhat forward looking when it comes to examining the Estimates. I'd simply ask how that aligns with the Speaker's decision this afternoon not to have the House discuss what has been a financial failure: Census 2018. Does that in fact mean that some of the questions that should be asked of the Government and answered by the Minister cannot be posed in this Estimates debate?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Speaking in response to that no I think the Speaker was very clear that all of that may well be discussed in the Estimates debate concerning Vote Statistics. Those questions can be asked of the Minister retrospectively. We come first to the votes in the economic development and infrastructure sector B.5 Volume 1. The question is that Vote Business Science and Innovation and Vote Transport stand part of the schedules.
Hipkins ChrisSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for further consideration in committee of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill consideration in committee of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and the interrupted debate on the second reading of the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill.
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDCensus 2018—Data Release Delay and Participation RateSPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Nick Smith seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the delay in the release of census data and the participation rate in the census. This is a case of recent occurrence; the announcement that the release of census data would be delayed was made during the recent adjournment period. The census is a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. The fact that the matter can be raised in a general debate such as the Estimates debate is a relevant factor—Speaker's ruling 199/2. Dr Smith seeks to debate what occurred as well as future actions. These are matters that could be debated in the examination of Vote Statistics. In light of that fact I'm not convinced that the matter is urgent enough to warrant setting aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.
Brownlee Gerry; Mallard TrevorPOINTS OF ORDERMinisterial Statements—ProcedureHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I bring it up now before we start question time. Look we just saw a ministerial statement read in the House a statement read by a Minister of the Government—a Cabinet Minister—to the House which was then replied to by the Opposition and then there was a further comment from another Minister in the same Government to the same ministerial statement. Is that something new for the House or something that is just for today or something we can look forward to in the future?SPEAKER: I think it's something which has happened regularly since MMP which has involved Governments of more than one party. It is very clear that each party leader has the ability to respond. I assume in this particular case Mr Bridges delegated his to Mr Woodhouse and no one from the Labour Party had spoken before Dr Clark.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A new point of order? Because we've dealt with that one.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It's just pointing out that in fact this situation hasn't arisen before because other times when it has occurred—when parties supporting a Government have contributed to a ministerial statement—they have not sat in Cabinet alongside those other Ministers.SPEAKER: And?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well is it new or not?SPEAKER: I think people—[Interruption] Order! I just want to make it clear that the Standing Orders are very clear and that is that the leader of each party speaks or someone who's delegated to do so by them. That's not a new Standing Order; it's been around for a very long time.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Can I echo the comments of the Minister of Defence and thank the Defence Force for supplying 17 nurses to work in district health boards (DHBs) during the nurses' strike. I also want to thank the individual Defence Force nurses who undertook these duties. The Defence Force also supplied of course medical support during the Christchurch—SPEAKER: Can the member talk into the mike and can the people who are looking at them make sure that they're turned on please?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I apologise Mr Speaker; I have a quiet voice. I'll start again.Can I please echo the comments of the Minister of Defence and thank the Defence Force for supplying 17 nurses to work in DHBs during the nurses' strike. I also want to thank the individual Defence Force nurses who undertook these duties. Of course the Defence Force was also involved in the Christchurch earthquake where they supplied medical personnel to help out with that effort. We are always grateful for their support.As this was the first industrial action by nurses in a generation it was prudent to do all that we could to ensure our hospitals had enough nurses in place for the duration of the strike. It was for that reason that as Minister of Health I requested support from the Defence Force. Their contribution was part of a much larger effort to ensure patient safety remained a priority during 24 hours of strike action.With that in mind I'd also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the constructive way the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and district health boards worked together to make sure life-preserving services—SPEAKER: Order! It's a narrow debate.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It's a reflection on the professionalism and dedication of all involved that despite the disruption caused by industrial action our hospitals continued to provide quality emergency care. It's not my place to comment in detail at this stage on the ongoing process though I remain hopeful a deal can be found and we will not need to call on the Defence Force for further support. Ultimately we all want our hospitals to be sustainable safe working environments. That is certainly what this Government is committed to and it is nothing less than our nurses and the patients they care for deserve.
Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): I seek leave to table a document evidencing when the armed forces employed personnel in an industrial dispute—namely National's Warren Cooper in 1993 in the prison system strike.SPEAKER: What is the document?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It's the Hansard.SPEAKER: Are there any further comments to be made?
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I want to begin by expressing my party's admiration for all our Defence Force personnel both regular and reservists who serve our country with distinction and have done for generations—often in very dangerous places. And our medical staff have done so as well in places as far flung as the former Yugoslavia Somalia East Timor and Afghanistan and they have provided excellent care both to their own forces and to the local community. I suggest it wasn't the expectation of those fine men and women of the Defence Force medical teams that they be delivering life-preserving services in New Zealand in our hospitals. Indeed the stated goal of the New Zealand Defence Health is to be tasked with 'maintaining improving and restoring the health of the defence force' in order to maintain the operational effectiveness of the [New Zealand Defence Force]. … The NZDF medical officer will be expected to provide this care to NZDF personnel as required on land at sea or in the air."So while the Minister of Defence has provided us with a statement on the deployment under section 9 of the Defence Act as he is required quite frankly this revelation that we have only just found out about this morning raises far more questions than the Minister has answered. Indeed this is unprecedented. Only three times—three times—in the last 70 years has section 9 or its predecessor Act been invoked: firstly the 1951 waterfront workers' strike; in 1993 and in 2001—the second and third of those were in corrections facilities following industrial action.It would never have been envisaged that Defence Force medical personnel be deployed to our own hospitals to provide life-preserving services to New Zealanders in peacetime. And the Minister of Health assured us that everything was being done to make arrangements so I would ask this—this is the fundamental question: what happened in the breakdown of the relationship between the Government and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation that life-preserving services from the 27000 nurses in this country could not have been arranged that led to the need for the Government to invoke section 9?I wonder if the Minister of Defence actually scrutinised what this request really meant for Defence Force personnel. It just shows quite how ham-fisted the industrial relations management of the nurses' industrial dispute has become. When we're calling in the army to man our hospitals to staff our hospitals during an industrial dispute it behoves this Government to settle this action and actually to be a little bit more upfront with New Zealanders about what they're doing and when. It has been nearly a fortnight since that strike and we only find out today that we had Defence Force personnel propping up our health services. And the dispute remains unsettled. I'm sure the Minister of Defence is very very concerned to avoid having to take this extraordinary action again and it falls to the Government and it falls to the Minister of Health to sort this thing out quickly."
Mark RonTUESDAY 24 JULY 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MINISTERIAL STATEMENTSArmed Forces' Public Service—Nurses Used During Industrial DisputeHon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 356 in relation to the use of the armed forces to perform a public service in connection with an industrial dispute. I'm required under section 9 of the Defence Act 1990 to inform the House that this authority has been given and the reasons for giving it and to table it at the House at the first opportunity.Following a request from the Minister of Health for New Zealand Defence Force assistance in the event of industrial action by nurses I approved under section 9 of the Defence Act 1990 the provision of a small detachment of up to 20 regular force nurses able to perform general nursing duties if required in accordance with the priorities as provided by the Ministry of Health. This modest provision was made to assist the overall effort by the Ministry of Health and district health boards to maintain life-preserving services and continuity of care at locations across New Zealand in the event of industrial action on 12 July 2018. Written approval for this action was provided by me to the Chief of Defence Force on 10 July and I will table a copy of this letter today.On 12 July 17 New Zealand Defence Force nurses undertook nursing duties at five Ministry of Health priority locations across New Zealand to support the provision of life-preserving services agreed to between the district health boards and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. One nurse in Taupō two nurses in Palmerston North two nurses in Invercargill six nurses in Canterbury and six nurses in the Waikato. Fifteen of the nurses worked in emergency departments while two of the nurses worked in Waikato intensive care. I commend the Defence Force for being able to move quickly and provide high-quality support.This effort reinforces the wide range of other tasks the Defence Force performs for our communities and underlines their dedication and professionalism. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Tuesday 24 July 2018 (continued on Wednesday 25 July 2018) - Volume 731
Courts Matters Bill and Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill — Second Reading
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee
Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — In Committee
VoteMILITARY JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971Amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 37 in the name of the Hon Ron Mark to Part 1.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to Court Martial Act 2007CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We come to Part 2—the debate on clauses 22 to 29 and schedule 2.Part 2 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Motion agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment and divided into three bills presently.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Andersen Ginny; Tolley AnneVIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill. It's really good to see that these two bills been put together as they are largely relating to the same areas in terms of trying to make our court system a modern and effective court and tribunal system. There are two key areas that these bills are addressing. Firstly it's the time it takes to proceed through any tribunal or court process. There are still very long waiting times for people experiencing that and so it is good to see that these bills are endeavouring to ensure that the system is running as fluidly as possible. Secondly these bills address security within courts and in tribunals. There have been a number of cases over recent years of either judges or juries or others within the courts having their security threatened and so helping people feel safer within the courts and tribunal system is important. So overall what these bills are endeavouring to do is not only improve the fluidity of our court system but also improve people's experiences of the court system itself. In the Justice Committee we received 16 submissions on the Courts Matters Bill and 34 submissions on the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill and they were from a range of different areas including the judiciary private people interest groups and professional organisations. Before winding up I'd like to briefly say thank you to officials who undertook a huge amount of work on these two bills. If you pick one of the bills up from the Table you will see that there is a substantive amount of work and while they don't look overly exciting it is a large job indeed to make sure all the parts are aligned and that they are working effectively and work well together. The last point that I will touch on is the key change that has been brought about to the Human Rights Review Tribunal which has already briefly been mentioned. There's been a significant backlog that has developed over the years. In fact as of June 135 active cases were in front of the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Previously the last Government appointed a second chairperson for a period of 12 months to help with that backlog but that was insufficient to address it. Of course as we all know justice delayed is in fact justice denied so this bill takes the good action of the ability of having two more deputy chairs who have the same and equal power as the chairperson who can conduct hearings simultaneously in order to work through that large backlog that has accrued over the years. So that's great to see and I am really happy to see all of the work and all of the submissions come together and to bring these two bills to the second reading point. I would like to commend both these bills to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Chris Bishop. [Interruption]