edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tinetti Jan; Rurawhe AdrianJAN TINETTI (Labour): On the absolute polar opposite from that particular speaker Tim Macindoe I think this is the best day in our education system. Today we are righting a vicious attack that was made on our education system over the term of the previous Government. Today we reflect this Government's commitment to having a high-quality public education system and I am so excited about what we are seeing.I was really surprised when I heard a member over in the Opposition talk about the fact that they don't believe in a one-size-fits-all approach. However in 2008 through urgency they introduced national standards. We absolutely couldn't get more of a one-size-fits-all approach to education. They did that without any consultation. Today we are putting that right. What did that mean? That meant for me in my school at that time that creativity and that ability to actually form our localised curriculum became narrower. That actually meant that the ability for us as a school with a predominantly Māori population of children where we had made great gains to get those vulnerable children all achieving by combining our curricula and teaching through Te Marautanga o Aotearoa even in our mainstream classes—we could no longer do that because we had to report our mainstream classes against the national standards. So therefore we were forced to actually teach from the New Zealand Curriculum which is a great document but it didn't meet the needs of our school. They talk about meeting the needs of the pupils and meeting the needs of the school and yet they introduced those national standards that took that right away from those schools and today we are putting that right. The schools are happy and contrary to what that side might say parents are happy. I have an email box that was flooded from last year by parents who said We are happy that our children are going to be valued." because not many people realise but all children were subject to national standards evaluations—all children. That means even the children that struggled at school due to special learning needs had to meet those national standards. That became really difficult for them and they were labelled as failures the whole way through their schooling. So I'm happy to see this bill being passed today. I'm happy for the New Zealand education system and I am absolutely delighted for all of our New Zealand children.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Nicola Willis—five minutes."
Parker David; Mallard TrevorQuestion No. 11 to MinisterHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I should have done this at the end of my question. I seek leave to table a speech setting out the economic development vision for the Government. It is not on the web. I delivered it on 16 October and I think the member opposite who asked the question would like to read it.SPEAKER: I'll put that leave to the House. Can I say that in the future there is a relatively simple system for ensuring that is made available; it is called an envelope. The question is should the document be tabled. Is there any objection? No objection.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hipkins Chris; Peters WinstonTHURSDAY 18 OCTOBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. Next week the Commerce Amendment Bill and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) Agreement Bill will complete their remaining stages. The committee stage of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill will proceed and the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill will receive its second reading.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I wonder whether I could ask Mr Hipkins as to whether he's given any consideration to the courtesy of giving a valedictory to Jami-Lee Ross of at least half an hour because he's got things he wants to tell us. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Based on past precedent if a member retiring from Parliament requests a valedictory that's either a matter for the Business Committee—and the Government would look favourably upon that if that was presented—or for the Speaker if they wish to do a valedictory before the Business Committee met.
Wednesday 17 October 2018 - Volume 733
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 64New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.
Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clauses 1 to 4 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 62 Noes 56.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill without amendment.Report adopted.
Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill — In Committee
11. Question No. 11—Building and ConstructionMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Building and ConstructionQuestion No. 11—Building and Construction11. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What action if any is the Government taking to address skills and labour shortages in the construction sector?Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Fakalofa lahi atu kia mutolu oti Mr Speaker. Earlier this month along with my ministerial colleagues I announced the Government's Construction Skills Action Plan to address skills labour shortages in the construction industry. We're working as a ministerial team together with the sector to improve the construction industry's ability to deliver skills and training and careers in order to build more houses. Together with industry we will ensure the construction sector is better able to deliver the right people at the right time with the right skills to build the houses New Zealanders need. The Construction Skills Action Plan will deliver at least 4000 new people pursuing construction-related careers over the next three years.Marja Lubeck: What are the key priority areas of this Construction Skills Action Plan?Hon JENNY SALESA: The Construction Skills Action Plan has six initial priority areas and they are: first leveraging Government procurement led by the Minister for Economic Development; second growing construction careers and credentials led by the Minister of Education; third expanding skills for industry led by the Minister for Social Development; fourth further changes to immigration settings led by the Minister of Immigration; fifth establishing additional jobs and skills hubs; and sixth Mana in Mahi - Strength in Work both led by the Minister of Employment.Marja Lubeck: Why is the construction sector so important to the economic well-being of New Zealand and its people?Hon JENNY SALESA: The construction sector is one of our largest employers with nearly 10 percent of our workers engaged in construction-related occupations. The construction sector is rapidly evolving. Embracing the opportunities provided by innovation and technology through prefabrication and new ideas for achieving sustainability over time is one of the things that we're doing. Our construction action plan anticipates the changes ahead supporting new skills that will be required to achieve the Government's ambitious housing and economic objectives.
8. Question No. 8—Social DevelopmentPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 8—Social Development8. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What approaches if any has this Government taken to get people into sustainable and meaningful employment?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Fakalofa lahi atu Mr Speaker. For this Government it's about more than just getting people into any job; it's about supporting them to find the right work for them that is sustainable and meaningful. Building industry partnerships and developing relationships with business and local communities is crucial to this. Last week I visited Turners and Growers in the Hawke's Bay who are working closely with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to develop new initiatives that meet the growing needs of their business while adding value to workers' lives.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What impact is this initiative having on the local community?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Hawke's Bay is a leading producer of pipfruit which is a growth industry. The work under way by Turners and Growers in Hawke's Bay ensures that training and development is in place to meet the growing needs of industry and local workers are equipped to participate and thrive in this industry. Turners and Growers have partnered with the Ministry of Social Development through a number of programmes including a sole parent initiative and Mana in Mahi. The labour manager at Turners and Growers told me his number one priority used to be the apples but since changing focus and catering to the needs of the workers the apples are fine and business is booming.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does this approach support sustainable employment?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In the last year MSD have placed 204 people with Turners and Growers in Hawke's Bay and they consistently achieve over 80 percent sustainable employment contracted outcomes for people previously on benefit. A big part of this can be attributed to their focus on pastoral care for workers flexible hours for working parents and the provision of healthcare. One sole mother of three who'd been out of work for six years says getting a job with Turners and Growers has been life changing. She said It feels good knowing that your kids are fine and you've got a good job behind you as well.""
6. Question No. 6—Housing and Urban DevelopmentPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 6—Housing and Urban Development6. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What progress has he made towards the Government's KiwiBuild homes targets up to 2020/21?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): A few weeks ago the Government announced the very first South Island KiwiBuild development in Wānaka where there will be 211 KiwiBuild homes built over the next two years. Queenstown Lakes District is one of the fastest-growing districts in New Zealand and it has an acute housing crisis. The first 10 KiwiBuild homes to be balloted at Northlake include four two-bedroom and six three-bedroom modern stand-alone homes. Prices for these homes range from $565000 to $650000.Paul Eagle: What reports has he seen on this announcement?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well I've seen reports of KiwiBuild fever" in the Otago Daily Times. Cardrona skifield workers Emilee Laurie-Fendall and James Leech have lived in Wānaka for 18 months and have begun the KiwiBuild pre-qualification process. They said they'd been "seriously looking for a house for six months but everything in our price range just gets snapped up so fast."Paul Eagle: What interest has there been for KiwiBuild homes in the Queenstown Lakes District?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Over 3000 people have registered an interest in KiwiBuild in Queenstown Lakes District out of over 44500 people nationwide. KiwiBuild is restoring the dream of homeownership to thousands of families priced out of the housing market not only in Queenstown Lakes but across the country.Paul Eagle: How do these KiwiBuild homes compare to homes on the market?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well for just over half the median price in Wānaka these homes are fully landscaped with offstreet parking and a Fisher & Paykel home appliance package. They're built in durable and low-maintenance materials in colours which reflect the natural beauty of the Wānaka area. The homes are backed by a 10-year Master Build guarantee.Hon Judith Collins: Is the Department of Building and Housing correct when it has stated that there are only 70 KiwiBuild houses presently under construction after a year of him being the Minister?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There is no Department of Building and Housing."
3. Question No. 3—DefenceDARROCH BALL (Junior Whip—NZ First) to the Minister of DefenceQuestion No. 3—Defence3. DARROCH BALL (Junior Whip—NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What recent reports has he received regarding support given by the New Zealand Defence Force?Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I know the House appreciates being updated on what our defence force is up to and I can assure you that while Parliament has been in recess our women and men in uniform have been very busy. On 3 October the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) responded to the devastating earthquake and tsunami in western Sulawesi in Indonesia. During the operation they flew seven missions transported 646 people including 158 evacuees and delivered over 56000 kilograms of aid and relief supplies. The New Zealand Defence Force and the C-130 Hercules in particular is a very important tool the Government use to assist in times of natural disasters both overseas and here at home as well.Darroch Ball: Is the Minister aware of any recent examples where the NZDF has delivered value to our nation and region?Hon RON MARK: Yes. The New Zealand Defence Force recently helped out the Department of Conservation surveying the number of southern right whales. Additionally they've been gearing up for a very busy Antarctic season. As members might have seen on television last night deployments got under way. We will soon see 220 personnel working on the programme making it once again New Zealand's largest military deployment in support of science. In this operation we will see the C-130s in action with about 10 planned flights to McMurdo Station with another six planned flights with the Royal New Zealand Air Force Boeing 757s. Darroch Ball: What else does the NZDF have planned in the coming months?Hon RON MARK: Alongside our work in Antarctica over the summer we will be sending an offshore patrol vessel down into the Southern Ocean to monitor fishing vessels. In this deployment HMNZS Wellington will work alongside a P3K Orion and ensure vessels operating in the area are doing so within the boundaries of their catch limits and are not using illegal methods like drift-netting. And of course they'll be looking for and reporting on any illegal unregulated unreported fishing activities that they may find.
Swarbrick ChlöeLAND TRANSPORT (RANDOM ORAL FLUID TESTING) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 5 September.CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party on the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill. I would like to state that if we are talking about harm reduction when it comes to drugs we particularly obviously support regulations that reduce harm. So things such as impairment testing when it comes to driving are critical. We don't want people driving impaired but there is a difference between drug testing and impairment testing.The issue with this bill as proposed is that it will not necessarily test for impairment of either prescription or illegal drugs. Indeed the tests that are proposed to be used are slow expensive and identify only three types of drugs and only will detect their presence not the impairment that they may be providing. There is therefore a risk of false positives. We need a better strategy and we need something that's comprehensive and that works and indeed something that picks up impairment.So I would like to state that the Green Party MP and Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter—who in her maternity leave absence is being covered by the Hon James Shaw—is working with the Minister of Police Stuart Nash on what that comprehensive response would look like. I'd just also like to state that if members in the House are genuinely interested in cross-parliamentary work on drug-harm reduction then they are more than welcome to join the group that I have been working to bring together for the past six-odd months. Kia ora.
Consumers' Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill — Second Reading (continued)
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I've got a very short contribution. I do also want to commend Mr Browning on his contribution. I'm sure it's not enough for him but it is a start as many speakers have said tonight. And I commend this bill to the House.
Voting — Correction—Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill
Rurawhe AdrianVOTINGCorrection—Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment BillASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members before I call the next speaker the vote on the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill was announced as the Ayes 62 and the Noes 56. The correct vote should have been Ayes 63 Noes 56. The record will show the correct vote.
Consumers' Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill — Second Reading
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The Consumers' Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill is a bill for which the credit needs to be given to Steffan Browning as he was the original owner of this bill. I had quite a bit to do with Steffan Browning back in the last Parliament where he and I had several good discussions around his idea for an origin of food bill and really the reality of how we were going to make that bill work and put it into practice. I just want to really acknowledge Steffan Browning because he was a member of Parliament with really strongly held beliefs very strong convictions and this was one of those issues that he did feel passionately about. So Steffan Browning if you're around and if you're watching or listening to this debate thank you for being the member of Parliament who sponsored this bill which is why we're standing here today supporting the bill.We need to acknowledge that the bill has had a substantial rewrite and that is in order for the bill to be workable not only for consumers and customers who have so strongly asked for and supported the introduction of country-of-origin labelling with foodstuffs but also for those retailers on the offering side who have to comply with the requirements of any piece of legislation that this House brings through. I do think that this current bill—which was adopted by Gareth Hughes—does that and I think it does it very well. I did not sit on the select committee that considered this bill but I think they've brought back to the House a regime which will receive wide support and acceptance.I note that the New Zealand Pork board is particularly pleased that cured pork products are included within this regime as is single origin food with a staggered introduction with fresh foods and then frozen foods and so on being brought in. Again that is a pragmatic way of dealing with this issue so that—upon the passage of this bill and in a bit of time—we can all go to our green grocer as I do or the farmers market or the supermarket and know exactly where our produce comes from. Support New Zealand products is all I'd say in conclusion. Thank you very much.
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to go back to a couple of points. Firstly thank you to the people that have just asked some questions. To the member Mark Patterson area schools fall within section 1A(4A)(d) set out in clause 4. The bill allows for consultation with the governing bodies of all schools so that's where they come into there. But the bill also doesn't prevent consultation with individual schools so if that is part of the work plan at the time and that is particular then there may be that opportunity to have consultation with the individual schools—and believe me area schools are an area that I'm very passionate about too.Also there was a question around how this work fits in with the Kōrero Mātauranga or the Education Conversation. This bill is very much in line with it. When this bill was going through the select committee process the Children's Commissioner who has an oversight of that particular work stated that he would proceed with the bill because the wording is wide enough to accommodate any changes and certainly this can be developed and also then inform the new work that's coming through. So there's not any clash there. That's because we did the work around looking at those enduring objectives and taking those out of this particular bill at the time.What might consultation look like? Again that can be very fluid at this point because it will depend on what the statement looks like—the statement that is developed at that point in time—and so it would be a shame if we narrowed it down too far that we didn't allow good consultation to occur. Certainly consultation—I heard there that at times there's a fear that consultation might be secretive or done under the cover of darkness. The whole intent of identifying groups of who the Minister must consult with is so that that doesn't happen. We are giving people surety that they will be part of that consultation that it will be open and frank consultation with those particular groups that it isn't just at the whim of any Minister and this particular bill is identifying who the groups are that the Minister must consult with so it is not done in a secretive way.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. I do take that advice on board. If I could start with what I'm sure has been some repetition could I congratulate the member Jan Tinetti on bringing this bill before the committee. I have the privilege of serving on the Education and Workforce Committee with Jan and her experience as a highly respected educator within that committee is invaluable. We're seeing that come forward in this bill because she knows full well the importance of consultation with the broader sector.Of course we're seeing within the clauses of this bill teachers principals schools themselves boards early childhood disability Māori and Pasifika needing to be consulted and they will be consulted more on changes to education under this bill.One measure hadn't been specified and I'd just like to ask the member—as a member of a board of an area school—will rural and area schools that do have specific needs maybe be one of the groupings that will be included in this consultation? I think that's something that needs real consideration within this bill because we do in area schools have different needs. We do face isolation. We don't necessarily have the resources that bigger schools do have. So I would ask that maybe if you could bring an answer forward for that in your response.New Zealand First has been a big supporter of this bill. Tracey Martin the Associate Minister—I know she has played a role in pushing this forward. She really believes strongly in a stronger education system in a strong public education system and she has played a role I know behind the scenes helping to guide this through with Minister Hipkins. So once again it shows this Government taking education seriously moving it in a different direction back away from privatisation as we've seen in other Governments trying to do that and back into building a strong public education system. So I think that this bill goes a long way to doing that. You can't make the changes that we are making without consultation and this bill will see this happen. Of course there are a raft of other measures that we've put forward in this education space. So without further ado I would like some fleshing out around the area schools because I do think that that is important certainly to me and New Zealand First is a party that does look to represent regional New Zealand's interest and we'd like to see maybe where the thinking is going around that the area schools in particular. Without further ado I will commend the member on the bill and look forward to that response. Thank you.
Tinetti Jan; Williams PotoJAN TINETTI (Labour): Madam Chair thank you. I'll just start with the questions of the previous member Jamie Strange. The first one—it wasn't his first one but the first one I will address—is about the enduring objectives. If you look at the front of the bill as it stands now we've actually removed the reference to the enduring objectives of the national curriculum the reason being that there's some fantastic work being done by the Government at the moment on the Kōrero Mātauranga which is the Education Conversation and I really feel that that work needs to actually be included in those objectives so that has been removed at this point in time. So I won't need to talk much about that at this point in time. The minor changes and I note the submission from the Office of the Children's Commissioner but any amendments any—by virtue of definition—minor amendments will be uncontroversial. So I don't personally see that need for that because they're going to be small minor and technical so there is no need for that recommendation to proceed.I was asked about Pacific education organisations by the Hon Jenny Salesa. This bill talks about consulting with the national bodies that are representing so that's where this bill points towards at this stage. My colleague Willow-Jean Prime asked about the importance of Māori education and consulting with the groups involved in Māori education. As an ex-principal involved in a school that had a very strong Rumaki unit and also up to at one stage about a 95 percent Māori role across the total school I see that importance is absolutely critical. For too long in many education settings we actually haven't heard the authentic voice of Māori and we really need to hear that authentic voice and them guiding and teaching us about the best way to progress Māori achievement and what Māori achievement looks like because it doesn't necessarily look like what we see from a Eurocentric viewpoint. So we need to take that Māori lens and we need to listen and we need to really listen. We need to become the learners in those situations when we hear those particular groups and consult with those groups.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call the member I just want to encourage members—this is a small bill with some technicalities in it however we've heard lots of argument around the specifics of clause 4. I'm looking for some new argument and for a little less repetition of the arguments we've already heard.
McAnulty Kieran; Williams PotoEDUCATION (NATIONAL EDUCATION AND LEARNING PRIORITIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave that the committee stage of the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceWEDNESDAY 17 OCTOBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Acting Minister of Finance): Fakalofa lahi atu. Last week the International Monetary Fund released its October World Economic Outlook showing an upward revision in New Zealand's growth forecasts. The IMF is forecasting growth of around 3 percent over 2018 and 2019 recognising the sound fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. This upgraded view follows the IMF's review of Budget 2018 which included growth-friendly policies like the R & D incentive and the Provincial Growth Fund and record transport infrastructure investment.Dr Duncan Webb: What does the IMF report say about the global economy?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The report shows a downward revision in the global economic growth forecasts over the next two years. The IMF's forecast of 3.7 percent in both 2018 and 2019 is down 0.2 percent compared to its April forecasts largely due to rising international trade tensions and disappointing global activity. The average forecast New Zealand growth rate over 2018 and 2019 is therefore stronger than forecasts for Australia the United States the euro area Japan—SPEAKER: Order! That's enough thank you.Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has the Minister seen that demonstrate New Zealand's resilience to international risks?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The IMF also released its October 2018 Fiscal Monitor which used New Zealand as an example of good fiscal management. The IMF expects the New Zealand Government's financial position to remain better than peers including Australia Canada the UK the US and the euro area while our public debt will remain lower than these other advanced economies'. We remain committed to managing the Government's books responsibly so that we continue to be in a position to respond to any external shocks that might come our way.
Tuesday 16 October 2018 (continued on Wednesday 17 October 2018) - Volume 733
Education Amendment Bill — In Committee (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 56.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Denise Lee to clause 1 be agreed to: replace Education Amendment Act" with "Education (Abolition of National Standards) Amendment Act".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Erica Stanford to clause 1 be agreed to: replace "Education Amendment Act" with "Education (Abolition of Partnership School Kura Hourua) Amendment Act".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nicola Willis to clause 1 be agreed to: replace "Education Amendment Act" with "Education (University and Polytechnic Council) Amendment Act".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.A 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 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 120 in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of Simeon Brown to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 55New Zealand National 55.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green 8.Amendments not agreed to.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh; Mallard TrevorKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to participate in the first reading of this bill. I stand in opposition to this bill. There are a few points which I would like to touch upon. If we go through some of the notes which I have been provided one group which has been left out is the group of victims. It is very important. We need to understand that they also have got the right.As has been rightly pointed out by the Hon Nick Smith and Mark Mitchell this group should have been consulted when this policy was being formed. The consultation which has been mentioned has been taken with the convicted individuals which is important. We understand that everyone has got rights—they should get the real justice. The Governor-General was consulted for this. Courts were consulted. Māori and Pacific people were consulted. No doubt we need to consult with the people who are most affected. Civil society was consulted lawyers and members of the judiciary were consulted but victims were left out. That is my point: we should have had this consultation done before this policy or the bill was formulated.The second thing which I would like to touch upon is the composition of the commissioners. I see that this commission is going to play a very important role. I can see the chair of the Justice Committee sitting over here. He himself has got a legal background—that's why he is the chair of the Justice Committee. During the select committee process I would like to bring to his attention that the composition of the commissioners without legal background will be a challenge. We want to have a system if it is being formulated that is formulated in a manner where everyone has access to justice. If the commissioners don't have a judicial background at all or a law background then it will be a challenge for them to deal with some of the complex cases which have been mentioned in the Minister of Justice's speech and by other members of the Government. But I want to make sure that the composition of the commission is equally important whereas it is important to get the victims into this role.This commission has been formulated in the UK Ireland and other European countries from where the idea has been taken. I think that makes a real challenge for us. We should have learnt some of the things which those commissions—SPEAKER: Order! This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 1 p.m.
Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill and in obvious support of it. It's part of the commitment of the coalition agreement of this highly successful coalition Government. I would just like to make a few quick points that I'd like to highlight but before I do I'd just like to thank the Minister for bringing the bill to the House. In his speech he actually outlined in quite a lot of good detail how the commission would work why it would work the progress of the bill going forward and the entity itself.New Zealand First has actually campaigned on the need for this entity for quite a number of years—at least for the last two elections that I've been involved in—but I think it's quite important to note that this isn't actually a reinvention of the wheel that we are trying to achieve here. This sort of independent entity is established in several jurisdictions around the world including the United Kingdom Scotland and Norway and they provide some very good examples for us about the strength and the need in the basis for an independent sort of commission that we are wanting to achieve here in New Zealand through this legislation.The main reasoning behind why we are pushing for this commission I think is quite obvious. We've heard from both sides of the House already about the number of cases in recent years and quite high-profile cases of miscarriages of justice. I think the point is that often those who are convicted feel that there are quite severe miscarriages of justice and unfortunately it is just a reality that they do occur. What we need to do is try to minimise those and have I think most importantly with this commission those people who are convicted not having to have ad hoc associations of their supporters brought together and trying to raise funds to try and correct something that is wrong in the justice system and instead have a process that doesn't rely on just how much fuss they can make about it and how much money they can raise. This is one way of doing that and we can learn from overseas jurisdictions as I have noted previously where it works.It's important to note and for people to understand that the primary stakeholders within this jurisdiction were consulted with. There are a number of them but they range from the convicted individuals themselves the Governor-General police academics lawyers and the public themselves. The justice officials undertook targeted consultation with the investigative bodies being the Independent Police Conduct Authority the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and all of their comments were positive and in support of the establishment of this independent commission.New Zealand First is obviously pleased that this bill is going through the House as part of the coalition agreement. We fully support it and I commend this bill to the House.
Henare Peeni; Rurawhe AdrianHon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members relevancy is becoming an issue in my mind but I will call the Hon Nikki Kaye.
Kaye Nikki; Rurawhe AdrianHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I seek leave to table a press release that has gone out in the last four minutes by Sir Toby Curtis entitled Urgency sought for hearing to address Māori being prejudiced by the Crown's destruction of Kura Hourua Partnership Schools". CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is an extraordinary situation and I would like the time of the committee to be able to read this press release that has gone four minutes—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Order! I've put the leave. The committee has not accepted it.Hon Nikki Kaye: But it's a separate point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes and I'm ruling on both of them. We've put the leave. The committee has not accepted that. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of that matter. If the member has another point of order she can make it.Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. So I accept that Labour members—I hope that it has not been Green members—have denied leave around me tabling the press release. Now I am asking the committee to have leave to be able to read out a statement by iwi leaders which involves them putting an urgency application to the Waitangi Tribunal in the last 10 minutes.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection."
Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe AdrianHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The arguments around the establishment or disestablishment of charter schools were well canvassed earlier. The question before the committee is around two amendments put forward by the National Party—one in the name of Simeon Brown and the other in the name of Nikki Kaye—to delay the commencement of the provisions relating to the removal of charter schools. The Government does not support either of these amendments.With regards to Simeon Brown's amendment he seems to have plucked a date out of thin air 1 August 2020 from which they would apply. Actually there are two separate issues here: one is that there's a contractual process that the Government is going through with those schools at the moment. The timetables for that are all clear and have all been agreed and I don't want to create further uncertainty for those schools. There's no need for an extension in the timetable for that because the transition provisions cover any issues that have arisen from the existing contractual discussions.With regard to Nikki Kaye's amendment around the Waitangi Tribunal claim I'm not going to break with the previous practice which is that I'm not going to comment on a claim that is before the Waitangi Tribunal. That's not been the practice of Ministers in the past and my intention as is the Government's intention is that we will follow the standard processes and practices that the Government follows in responding to that claim.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the call to the Hon Nikki Kaye can I just say that this is a very narrow debate on clauses 1 2 and 3. I have allowed the discussion to go a fair way beyond those clauses but I'd like to encourage members to speak and relate their arguments to those clauses.
Williams PotoCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call the next member I just want to encourage members that it's not really good practice to just repeat arguments that have already been presented. I'm looking for new material. This is quite a specific part of the bill—we're dealing with clauses 21 and 22—and while the arguments are well made I don't necessarily want to hear them several times. So I would encourage us to be looking to provide new arguments to these two clauses in Part 2.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I'm happy to take a call on the second part of this bill which is on changes to the education update legislation passed by the previous Government. I hope most of the provisions in this second part will be less controversial than those in the first part although I'm always open to being surprised.The Education (Update) Amendment Bill among other things passed what are some of the most significant changes to school planning and reporting requirements compliance requirements that New Zealand has seen in quite some time and replaced the requirement for schools to have a charter with the requirement for schools to have a four-year strategic plan setting out the board's strategy for achieving its objectives. It requires them to prepare an annual implementation plan to give effect to the strategic plan and to prepare an annual report.The amendments in this bill make some minor but significant you could argue changes to that. The first thing it does is it moves out the requirement for these new provisions to come into force from the beginning of next year 2019 to the beginning of 2020. As I indicated these are quite significant changes and schools have indicated that they would like to have more time in order to prepare for those. I think that that's reasonable given the significance of the change.It changes the term of the strategic plan from four years as proposed to three years. One of the arguments that schools and boards have made in favour of that is that that would align that with the board of trustees' electoral cycle and that's something that I think does make sense.It reinstates a requirement that the Secretary for Education consult with the Auditor-General on the form of the annual financial statements. This was a mistake in the previous legislation in that it was omitted so we are fixing the mistake in that. And it supports the transition to the new arrangement by allowing for example a school that has only recently adopted a charter to adopt that charter as its first strategic plan and not have to go through the whole exercise all over again.So these are relatively straightforward I hope and common-sense amendments to what is quite a significant change to schools' planning and reporting requirements.
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member for his point of order. The rule is that it's solely up to the presiding officer as to when the member returns. I will discuss this matter with the Serjeant-at-Arms and he will be informed of that decision.
Macindoe TimPart 2 Amendments to other enactmentsHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I'm just seeking your guidance in light of an earlier ruling and I'm in no way questioning that but in light of the fact that partnership schools were the policy of the ACT Party and the member for Epsom was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Education in the previous Parliament who did much of the work on this I'm just seeking clarification as to whether he is able to take part in the debate on these particular amendments given that partnership schools are a significant aspect of the bill we're debating and I'm not quite sure whether he is allowed to return to the Chamber in order to take part in the debate.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I will keep this reasonably brief. There are two things to respond to: one is all the additional typescript amendments that were tabled at 9.25 last night. I did go through those after the committee rose last night to check through them. They are largely what I would describe as filibuster amendments. I'm well familiar with those; I've done plenty of them myself—things like replacing 5 years" with "3 years" replacing the word "may" with "shall" replacing the word "must" with "may" all basically amendments designed to ensure the committee spends its time voting on amendments rather than debating the content of the bill. And so the Government will be opposing all of those.Nikki Kaye in her contribution just late last night did raise issues around false declarations and I think she raised some substantive issues which I'd like to respond to. In the debate last night I indicated that I was not aware of any fraudulent activity which was absolutely true at the time. I thought I'd better go and check to see whether there has been any and was informed last night that there are a couple of cases that are being investigated. If you put that into context we're talking about 50000 or 60000 - odd applications. If you considered it in proportion to say welfare applications or ACC applications or so on there is nothing in there that suggests that there is a significant problem and they are actually being detected. I've asked for more details of that so if the member does want to put down some written questions for example I'm happy to supply the information to that. I haven't had the information myself yet but I will be getting it.The question she asked was "Why not a $10000 fine?" Why settle it at that $5000?" And I think the point to make clear is that the $5000 fine was recommended—because I asked this myself actually and I was initially inclined to go with a higher fine—by the Ministry of Justice as being consistent with fines of comparable offences in other parts of the law. And an important point to respond to which the member raised around "What if the fees were more than the fine?" is that they still have to pay the fees back. So the fine is in addition to the fact that they would have to repay whatever they had obtained through the fraudulent activity. So the fine is comparable to fines for comparable offences and that answers that point. So I hope that addresses the issues that have been raised thus far."