edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Carter David: Points of Order — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing OrdersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7295. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: And again this point I have covered quite adequately earlier in response to a point of order raised by the member’s colleague Grant Robertson. You cannot define the difference in substance exactly at this stage; it will depend on the circumstances. In the particular case I am dealing with in one bill the only change that has been identified to me was that the previous bill had the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority as the monitor of the situation. This one changes it to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment but of course the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority actually comes under its auspices. So in this case I am quite satisfied that the change was minimal and so minimal that we are dealing with the same situation but I accept the point the member has made around tax rates where what looks like a relatively minor nominal value could be quite a significant impact. That will be a discussion that will occur at the time between the Clerk and the Speaker of the day. [Interruption] Is there a further fresh point of order? Because I do not intend to litigate this any further but I am happy if it is a fresh point of order.
Parker David: Points of Order — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing OrdersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Points of Order — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7295. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): No no I am not. My point of order relates to what is meant by a difference of substance. If for example the Labour Party was to present a bill to say that income tax rates should go up or down by 1 percent and it failed and then another party was to present a member’s bill that said tax rates should go up by 2 percent or down by 2 percent that would be a difference in substance. I do not think it has to be a different subject matter for it to be a difference of substance. I think that we get on a slippery slope if you as Speaker try to interpret what a difference in substance is in such a narrow and particular way.
Carter David: Points of Order — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing OrdersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7294. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: No I need no further assistance. The member has had plenty of opportunity to explain his position. I have given considerable thought to this matter and I think I have charted a very fair way forward on this case. The member’s very first point is right—this is the first time that this has ever happened. The member may well have read the ruling. I think I added a little more to the ruling when I delivered it but I made the point that in my mind this bill should never have been accepted. If advice was given that it was acceptable I do not accept that that advice was right. Mistakes do happen. I therefore needed to chart a way forward subsequent to the bill being drawn out of the ballot and I think I have found a very fair mechanism for that to move forward. But I stated at the very end of the ruling that I expect far more scrutiny to take place from the Clerk and his staff before bills are accepted into the ballot in the first place. I think we are creating history here; I hope we do not have an opportunity to see it repeated. But I think I have given a very fair way forward for this particular case and I do not intend to review the decision at all.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: This is a fresh point of order I take it?Hon David Parker: Yes it is.Mr SPEAKER: I certainly hope we are not relitigating.
Macindoe Tim: Points of Order — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing OrdersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Points of Order — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7294. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): It seems to me that the difficulty with the particular Speaker’s ruling that the chief Opposition whip Chris Hipkins is relying upon is that that essentially refers to two bills that are drawn out of the ballot at the same time whereas your ruling relates to one where a bill has already been defeated in the same calendar year. So I want to suggest that the two are not the same. I accept the fact that there is a significant issue for you to look at but I just make the point that I do not believe that the two situations are the same.Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker.
Hipkins Chris: Points of Order — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing OrdersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Points of Order — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7294. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the beginning of question time you made a ruling on the member’s bill introduced by Andrew Little the Healthy Homes Guarantee (No 2) Bill.Mr SPEAKER: Yes can I have the point of order please.CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes thank you Mr Speaker. I thought I had to tell you what it was about. I have had the opportunity to read that ruling carefully and it is an unprecedented ruling. We could not find any example of where a member’s bill has been deemed out of order after it had been introduced. I want to draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 115/1. In that particular Speaker’s ruling it deals with the issue of where two member’s bills are lodged in the ballot with basically the same content similar content or content that could be deemed to be similar. In that particular instance it establishes very clearly the precedent that the issue should be resolved before a ballot is taken. So in this case there would have to be a pre-ballot if two bills were drawn out of the ballot with the same content. Therefore it establishes a fairly clear expectation by members that if there is an issue—a problem with the content of the bill—it will be resolved before a ballot is taken.I draw your further attention to Standing Order 278(3) which says that it is possible for a member to have only one bill in the ballot at any given time. Therefore if there is a problem with a bill that a member has in the ballot—and this bill has been in the ballot and published on the website for 4 months—it is incumbent and I think there is a reasonable expectation on the part of the member that this would be resolved before a ballot is conducted.I have been further advised that the office of the Leader of the Opposition sought advice from the Clerk’s Office and was assured that in fact this bill met the Standing Orders. The members of this House must be able to have confidence that the advice they receive from the Clerk’s Office is in fact accurate. I therefore ask that you withdraw the ruling pending further consideration of the matter by either the Standing Orders Committee or the Business Committee.
Hudson Brett: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHudson Brett: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7292. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Small Business: How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement benefit New Zealand small business?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will enable New Zealand’s 6000 exporting small businesses to sell more products and services to the world creating more jobs and higher incomes for all New Zealanders. Of course it will also benefit the thousands of small businesses that are servicing those same exporting businesses. Small businesses across New Zealand will benefit from being able to have better and fairer access to almost 40 percent of the global economy and over 800 million customers. This is especially important in areas such as Southland Tasman Marlborough and Hawke’s Bay where around 40 percent of all jobs in those regions are related directly to the export sector.Brett Hudson: What reports has he seen from small business organisations supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I have seen many reports from those in the small business sector supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. John Milford Chief Executive of the Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce said: “This is one of the most significant trade deals New Zealand has ever signed and we must see it for exactly what it is—free access for many of our products to growing markets”. Phil Gregan Chief Executive of New Zealand Winegrowers says: “This is an excellent outcome for the New Zealand wine industry”. They are but some of the many comments.Brett Hudson: How can we ensure that small businesses are able to enjoy the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership?Hon CRAIG FOSS: New Zealand small businesses can have confidence that this Government will adhere to the agreement because of the benefits I have outlined previously and many others. This is in contrast to a report that I have seen that a “Government will make laws without regard to the … Trans-Pacific Partnership and if necessary face the consequences”. That is the position of Labour’s—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has no responsibility for that.
Logie Jan: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7290. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied with the number of women who hold Cabinet positions in the Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of thePrime Minister: Yes but he is even more satisfied with the outstanding performance of all the women who hold Cabinet positions.Jan Logie: Of the 1.8 million working-aged women in New Zealand are there 10 who are qualified to be Cabinet Ministers under this National Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of the 1.8 million working-aged women I think there would be literally thousands who could carry out the functions of a Cabinet Minister. However many of them choose to exercise those capacities in running their own businesses in studying and in looking after families and some of them fortunately enter politics and end up in the Cabinet of a National-led Government.Jan Logie: Does Judith Collin’s comment “So don’t tell me that it’s easy being a woman in the National Party.” indicate to the Minister that there needs to be more than 16 women in National’s caucus and more than six women in National’s Cabinet?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is actually the National Party and the voters who decide who is in the National Party caucus. But the Prime Minister is very impressed with the calibre and quality of women who join the National Party. In fact I would say that one of the distinctive advantages that the National Party has over other political parties is the breadth of experience the competence and the achievement of our women politicians.Jan Logie: In sharing that esteem for your female colleagues will he commit to making 50 percent of National’s Cabinet female in the next reshuffle?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I hope the member does share the Prime Minister’s esteem for the female members of our Cabinet which would be quite a change for the Greens who are generally pretty nasty about most people in the National Cabinet including the women. And no we will not be committing to a quota. The Prime Minister as I understand it selects Ministers on merit and that is reflected in the excellent teamwork and performance of the current Cabinet.
Muller Todd: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMuller Todd: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7290. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will benefit New Zealand horticulture?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The horticulture industry is worth around $7 billion and it is a very important part of the overall New Zealand economy. The good news is that all tariffs will be eliminated on New Zealand’s horticultural exports once the Trans-Pacific Partnership is fully implemented. This will save our growers around $26 million a year in tariffs once fully implemented and indeed I agree with Horticulture New Zealand which says that this is a very significant trade agreement and a new era of trade for New Zealand’s horticulture industry.Todd Muller: Which parts of our horticulture industry will benefit the most from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very important question from the local member. One good example is the removal of kiwifruit tariffs which will save the industry around $15 million a year equating to an average of around $6000 for each grower per year. For the wider industry the Trans-Pacific Partnership will have a positive impact for growers of crops like apples capsicums squash onions and virtually all other horticultural exports. This improved market access will be a key part of the industry’s goal to achieve its $10 billion industry growth target by 2020.
Tabuteau Fletcher: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7288. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he intend to issue a new directive letter to the Overseas Investment Office; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No because there is no reason to.Fletcher Tabuteau: Is the Minister aware that we have sold two farms a week to foreign investors in the last 8 months of this year alone—41000 hectares?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Whatever sales there have been will have complied with the Overseas Investment Act. As the member is aware whether or not they comply can be reviewed judicially.Fletcher Tabuteau: Would a company engaged in corruption and bribery meet the Overseas Information Office’s good-character test?Hon BILL ENGLISH: If it was the case that a company was involved in that behaviour I would suspect it would not meet the criteria. If the Overseas Investment Office mistakenly indicated that a company had passed that test that could be reviewed in the courts.Fletcher Tabuteau: Is the Minister aware that Hunan Dakang which faces allegations of corruption and bribery was an approved buyer of the Crafar farms Synlait farms and potentially Lochinver Station; if not why not?Mr SPEAKER: In responding to the answer I do not want any mention of the last farm mentioned because I understand that is now before the courts. I will invite the Minister to comment on the rest.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware that that is the usual standard of New Zealand First—making allegations about things it does not like but any applicant is tested under the Overseas Investment Act. It is a very transparent and robust process.Stuart Nash: Will the Minister direct the Overseas Investment Office to start collating the benefits of overseas investment in our farmland; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is part of its function under the Overseas Investment Act.
Parmar Parmjeet: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParmar Parmjeet: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7283. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Finance: How does New Zealand’s fiscal position compare to other advanced economies?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The slim surplus yesterday of $414 million as an operating balance excluding gains and losses means that New Zealand is one of seven advanced countries—out of 35—that achieved surplus in 2015 on that measure. The operating balance including gains and losses was a surplus of $5.8 billion but that includes a lot of re-estimates of values of assets. We choose the more conservative measure.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the Crown’s net debt as a percentage of GDP and how does this compare with other OECD countries?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Treasury’s measure of net debt is 25 percent of GDP—Hon Member: How much?Hon BILL ENGLISH: 25.2 percent which compares well with other countries. If you use the IMF international comparisons which include Crown-owned financial assets that are excluded from Treasury’s conservative measure New Zealand’s net debt would be the sixth lowest among advanced economies. Either way we are in a pretty strong financial position and the importance of that is that people do not have to worry about the Government’s finances so much and they know that if they are dependent on our services or on income from the Government then that will be sustainable.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What are the next steps in the Government’s fiscal strategy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The next steps are not to change too much because it is working pretty well. We now need to generate ongoing surpluses in order to reduce debt levels. We need to continue though to focus particularly on improving the effectiveness of our spending because when the Government does a good job of changing people’s lives with health and education services corrections services—when that is done well we almost always save money by avoiding costs in the future.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What reports has the Minister seen on alternative approaches to fiscal policy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some confusing alternative approaches which on the one hand accuse the Government of running up too much debt one day and then on the other accuse us of cutting spending too much. Both of those reports come from the Opposition spokesman on finance.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing OrdersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7282. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I am happy to make further comment for the benefit of the member. The interpretation of “substantive” will not be defined exactly; it will depend on particular legislation. It will be a discussion that I have with the Clerk at the time. In this particular case the original proposal was scrutinised by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority as I understand it. The new bill proposed is scrutinised by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. I do not believe that that is a significant difference and enough to warrant it having been included in the ballot on this occasion.
Robertson Grant: Speaker’s Rulings — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing OrdersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Speaker’s Rulings — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7282. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry I apologise for not getting up immediately Mr Speaker and thank you for that ruling. One of the questions that we on this side of the House would have is around what is a “substantive difference”. I do not propose to take the House’s time now to explore that with you because you have ruled but we do believe that there was a substantive difference in terms of the different departments that were managing the process but that perhaps is something that can be taken up at a later date with you.
Carter David: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—International Transparent Treaties BillText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—International Transparent Treaties Bill[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.
Business StatementText is subject to correctionBusiness Statement[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:1. Text is subject to correction.]Business StatementHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):When the House resumes on Tuesday 20 October the Government will look to advance a number of second readings and Committee stages on the Order Paper including the Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill. Dr Russel Norman will make his valedictory statement on Thursday 22 October at 5.40 p.m.
Bridges Simon: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon: Business Statement[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 20 October the Government will look to advance a number of second readings and Committee stages on the Order Paper including the Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill. Dr Russel Norman will make his valedictory statement on Thursday 22 October at 5.40 p.m.
Carter David: Visitors — Timor-Leste—Delegation ParliamentText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Visitors — Timor-Leste—Delegation Parliament[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome a parliamentary delegation from Timor-Leste led by Adriano do Nascimento First Vice President of the National Parliament who are present in the gallery.
Visitors — Timor-Leste—Parliamentary DelegationText is subject to correctionVisitors — Timor-Leste—Parliamentary Delegation[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:1. Text is subject to correction.]Thursday 15 October 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsTimor-Leste—Parliamentary DelegationMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome a parliamentary delegation from Timor-Leste led by Adriano do Nascimento First Vice President of the National Parliament who are present in the gallery.
Voting — Correction—Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3)Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVoting — Correction—Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3)[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7328. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]VotingCorrection—Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3)CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): With apologies to the House for stepping out at a very injudicious moment I seek leave to correct the number of votes cast on behalf of the Labour Party on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) to 30 votes in favour.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Leave is sought to that effect. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That will be done. So I will just redeclare the result: the result is now Ayes 91 Noes 28. Thank you very much. It will be read a third time still and it has already been so we will not do that again.
Speaker’s Rulings — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing OrdersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSpeaker’s Rulings — Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing Orders[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Speaker’s RulingsHealthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)—Compliance with Standing OrdersMr SPEAKER: Honourable members the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) was drawn from the member’s ballot today. The bill has the purpose of ensuring that every rental home meets the minimum standards of heating and insulation. It requires the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to set the standards and requires the landlords to meet them.On further study the purpose and effect of the bill are the same in substance as the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill which was defeated at its first reading on 18 March 2015. Standing Order 264 provides that a bill that is the same in substance as a bill that received or was defeated on its first second or third reading may not be proposed. In my opinion this bill should never have been accepted for the ballot.Now that the bill has been drawn I need to find a way forward. The point at which a bill is proposed to the House is when the member in charge moves its first reading. If the first reading of the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2) is reached in the current calendar year I will then rule the bill out of order. However if it is reached later than that it will not trigger the prohibition in Standing Order 264 and will be in order.I have asked the Clerk to ensure that bills proposed to go in the ballot are scrutinised more carefully for compliance with Standing Order 264. In future bills that are the same in substance as ones read or defeated in the same calendar year will not be permitted into the ballot.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry I apologise for not getting up immediately Mr Speaker and thank you for that ruling. One of the questions that we on this side of the House would have is around what is a “substantive difference”. I do not propose to take the House’s time now to explore that with you because you have ruled but we do believe that there was a substantive difference in terms of the different departments that were managing the process but that perhaps is something that can be taken up at a later date with you.Mr SPEAKER: I am happy to make further comment for the benefit of the member. The interpretation of “substantive” will not be defined exactly; it will depend on particular legislation. It will be a discussion that I have with the Clerk at the time. In this particular case the original proposal was scrutinised by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority as I understand it. The new bill proposed is scrutinised by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. I do not believe that that is a significant difference and enough to warrant it having been included in the ballot on this occasion.
Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—International Transparent Treaties BillText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—International Transparent Treaties Bill[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderLeave for Introduction and First Reading—International Transparent Treaties BillFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the High Court ruling on Mr Groser’s unlawful actions with regard to the—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just have the point of order please.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yes thank you Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the International Transparent Treaties Bill to be set down for first reading immediately—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.
Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBusiness Statement[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Business StatementHon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 20 October the Government will look to advance a number of second readings and Committee stages on the Order Paper including the Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Legislation Bill. Dr Russel Norman will make his valedictory statement on Thursday 22 October at 5.40 p.m.
Visitors — Timor-Leste—Delegation ParliamentText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVisitors — Timor-Leste—Delegation Parliament[Sitting date: 15 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7281. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 15 October 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsTimor-Leste—Delegation ParliamentMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome a parliamentary delegation from Timor-Leste led by Adriano do Nascimento First Vice President of the National Parliament who are present in the gallery.
Vote: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7274. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Keep Kiwibank Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 61New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Vote: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7259. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill be read a first time.Ayes 61New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.
Vote: Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7246. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7234. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; United Future 1.Noes 62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion not agreed to.
Lee Melissa: Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLee Melissa: Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7280. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call this evening on the Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill. I begin by commending the member Gareth Hughes whom this bill belongs to and congratulating him on the ballot. He has been very lucky.I have to say that I agree with what Stuart Nash said. The technology is not actually quite there to do it now. I think this is something for further down the track when technology actually catches up with us. It is sort of like mobile phone technology. Mr Hughes and I have talked about the price of mobile phones many many times over at the Commerce Committee during our time here. When mobile phones first arrived in New Zealand they were so expensive that they were available only to those people who really wanted to have that technology and they paid a high price for it. Look at where mobile phone technology is now. Back in those days you could not even text people. You could not even have memory on the phone for 10 people—10 of your best friends perhaps. Mobile phone call charges have dropped humongously as well. So technology needs to get to where it is feasible for people to use it. I think we probably need to actually wait for that.The National Party opposes this bill because it seeks to change the current regime of solar and renewable energy generation in New Zealand. It seeks to change it in a way that is not in the best interest of the electrical market or consumers at large and it should not be progressed to further readings. I do not support it going to a select committee. We oppose it because we do not believe that interfering with the market to support one form of electricity production over another is a benefit to taxpayers and consumers alike.I think that Minister Brownlee actually called it price control and that is exactly what Mr Hughes is proposing—that we should actually control the price of solar generated electricity feeding back into the grid and that it be paid a specific price a higher price than what the power companies are prepared to actually pay. Do you know that as Minister Brownlee said New Zealand already has at least 80 percent of electricity being generated in a renewable form? I come from a country where traditionally our ondol the warm floors that we love in Korea were generated by coal and many many places in that country still use carbon coal power to generate that. We in this country are very very lucky and I think this is a bill that we do not require.Debate interrupted.
Mallard Trevor: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7272. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes—the member will sit down. There is an appropriate time to take that point of order and in any case if a member is suggesting that someone deliberately misled the House it is a matter of privilege and has to be addressed in a particular way. If the member thinks that it was an accidental misleading and that the member responsible should correct it then the proper thing to do it now being so late is to go and have a discussion with that member and see whether he does want to make that change.
Prosser Richard: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7272. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a concern that Mr Ross may have misled the House in his comments about Winston Peters. I wonder whether you might like to invite him to withdraw and apologise around comments about the sale of airports particularly.
Mallard Trevor: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Keep Kiwibank Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7266. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s time has expired. I did not want to interrupt the member in his final flow but I do want to warn Mr Faafoi. When he insults me like that it hurts.
Borrows Chester: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7260. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the Official Information—[Interruption] Do not squander the opportunity. [Interruption] Order! The question is that the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill be considered by Government Administration Committee.Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Sepuloni Carmel: Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7246. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I commend this bill to the House.
Scott Alastair: Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7246. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I rise to oppose this bill. But I would also like to pick up where Mr Hague left off when he described the vast range of types of social workers who are out there today practising social work. We even heard Jono Naylor the qualified the graduated social worker. We know there are youth workers as Mr Hague described. There are scout leaders. There are volunteers. There are people sitting on the end of phones on citizens advice bureaus on helplines—all doing social work all calling themselves social workers. In some cases these people will require to be police checked because of the work that they are doing and the people whom they are interacting with. In some cases a graduate degree is required or perhaps even a postgraduate qualification is required for a particular role that they are doing in the community. But of course they are all doing social work.The main reason that I oppose this bill is that the Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley is already putting in place a review of the whole system around the Social Workers Registration Act and it is only sensible and practical that we wait for that review to be completed before we jump and make any ad hoc decisions that might be consistent or inconsistent with that review. Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7233. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Speaking of her dear friend the Hon Phil Goff.
Mallard Trevor: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—International Transparent Treaties BillText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—International Transparent Treaties Bill[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7222. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to the proposal? There is objection. Leave is not agreed to.
Tabuteau Fletcher: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—International Transparent Treaties BillText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and First Reading—International Transparent Treaties Bill[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7222. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the High Court ruling on Mr Groser’s Official Information Act stance and the fact that we have not signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership yet I seek leave for the International Transparent Treaties Bill to be set down for first reading forthwith.
Hayes Joanne: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes Joanne: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7208. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for the Environment: What reports has he received on the environmental components of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and how do these compare with other free-trade agreements entered into by New Zealand?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I have received a report by the Ministry for the Environment and it states that the Trans-Pacific Partnership sets a new benchmark for environmental provisions in trade agreements and goes significantly further than the current eight agreements that New Zealand is party to. The most significant new features cover conservation of flora and fauna; illegal unreported and unregulated fishing; protection of sharks seabirds turtles and marine mammals; transition to a low-carbon economy; tackling alien invasive species; and also include provisions in liberalising trade in both environmental goods and services.Joanne Hayes: How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership strengthen environmental regulation across the 12 partner countries and what other tools does it support to ensure that there are environmental benefits from the agreement?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Nick Smith either of those two supplementary questions.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A key difference from previous trade agreements is that this is the first in which the environmental chapter is enforceable and includes dispute settlement processes. This means that if countries are not meeting their obligations around addressing issues like illegal fishing or conservation of endangered species or protection of the ozone layer there is actually an enforcement mechanism that strengthens those environmental components. The second part is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership also puts an obligation on countries to encourage tools like the Marine Stewardship Council and Forest Stewardship Council certification schemes for products like New Zealand’s important fish and forestry exports. That is important for New Zealand and creates opportunities because we manage both our fish and our forests more sustainably than most—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is very long.Joanne Hayes: What response has there been from environmental groups to the Trans-Pacific Partnership?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The World Wide Fund for Nature has noted that the Trans-Pacific Partnership goes further than any other trade agreement. It says that it is a game-changer in addressing pressures on fisheries on wildlife and on forests. The reality is that environmental issues like protecting our forests oceans and wildlife actually do require a coordinated international response and I would encourage opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership to take note of the World Wide Fund for Nature’s advice and actually support what makes not just economic sense but good environmental sense.
Kuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership will benefit New Zealand’s dairy industry?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Dairy will have the biggest tariff savings of any sector from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. When fully implemented the potential savings will be around $102 million per year—roughly 40 percent of the overall gains. New Zealand’s dairy exporters will have preferential access to new quotas in the United States Japan Canada and Mexico in addition to tariff elimination on a number of products. Although we are disappointed that there was not agreement to eliminate all dairy tariffs the Trans-Pacific Partnership still gives us better access than we have now.Barbara Kuriger: Apart from tariff reductions what other benefits will the Trans-Pacific Partnership deliver to the dairy industry?Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. Importantly the Trans-Pacific Partnership also reduces non-tariff barriers to trade and ensures fair access for New Zealand exporters in Trans-Pacific Partnership countries. It will give our exporters more certainty at the border with customs food safety and biosecurity rules more transparent across the 11 countries. This means fewer delays for goods to clear at the border more reliability of supply and fewer compliance costs for our exporters.
Robertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7202. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: What is the dollar amount of gross and net core Crown debt and by how much have these grown since he became Minister?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): When National came into office net debt was $10 billion and gross debt was $31 billion. In 2014-15 net debt was $61 billion and gross debt was $86 billion. On planet Earth we had the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquake. On “Planet Labour” nothing happened.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the Government is paying $13 million a day in interest on this debt or to put it another way he is paying nearly as much in interest a month as his surplus for the year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That may be right. Those numbers of course are too high which is why I was surprised last week when the member was advocating the Government borrow more money to invest in international sharemarkets.Grant Robertson: Do his Budget documents state that he will not pay down any of this debt until the 2019 financial year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That will be updated in the next round of forecasts. It is possible that generating a cash surplus to pay down nominal net debt will actually be a bit of a challenge. I know the member will support every step the Government takes to restrain expenditure so we can reduce that large growth in debt.Tim Macindoe: What alternative approaches to managing Crown debt has the Minister seen?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen alternative proposals that would require the Government to expand its borrowing programme—one just the other day was that the Government should borrow around another $12 billion to invest in international sharemarkets which are particularly volatile and that proposal came from the member who now says we have got too much debt.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that his failure to pay down any of his $60 billion debt until 2019 is the reason he will not resume contributions to the Superannuation Fund until 2021?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That I think is a sequence outlined in the Budget—that when the Government has some spare cash it will put it into the Superannuation Fund. The way to bring that forward would be to slash and burn spending. That is not the Government’s intention but if the member has some more intelligent suggestions than that we would be happy to listen to them.