edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): In that case I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The ruling that was last issued in this House in 2010—the Speaker's ruling actually refers to the member in the Chair being Eric Roy but actually I have checked Hansard and I note that it was indeed the Hon Rick Barker. It was in respect of ironically the amendment to the ACC Act which was in the name of the Government and which was being passaged through by the Hon Dr Nick Smith.The issue here is that in his ruling Mr Barker was very specific that he was going to rule out specific amendments not classes of amendments. Now there have been a good number of them and the ruling you have made makes it quite difficult for my colleagues to know whether their amendments are in or out of order. The previous Chair Mrs Tolley has already ruled that the question of whether they can be voted on is separate from the question of whether they can be part of the clause 1 debate. So I am trying to clarify whether or not the debates are out of order or the amendments are out of order and if the amendments are out of order can the Chair please be specific in order to aid my colleagues through this debate?
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we are receiving a large number of proposed amendments to the title clause that do not appear to me to be either a serious or an objective description of the bill. Therefore I am indicating to members now that amendments they have tabled suggesting names that are in my opinion neither serious nor objective amendments to the bill are out of order. Members cannot address their remarks to those amendments.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's not a point of order; that's a ruling.
Points of Order — Leave to Treat Bill as Omnibus Bill — Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill
Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I'll just make a brief submission because I was the chair of the Privileges Committee which examined the Parliamentary Privilege Bill—now Act—in some detail. As you know it arose out of the decision of the Supreme Court in Attorney-General v Leigh but the opportunity was taken to at least partially codify the law of parliamentary privilege and so that legislation was passed in 2014. So to a certain extent the authorities relied on by the Minister of Justice have limited effect because of course the legislation was not in force at the time of the Awatere Huata case. I'm very concerned that unless the committee has an opportunity to look at these issues the interrelationship between the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 and the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill this House and this Parliament could be in danger of legislative negligence.I certainly don't want to get into the substance of the debate but simply say that a number of people who have made submissions to the Justice Committee have emphasised the importance of Parliament addressing the relationship between the two pieces of legislation because at the present time if the bill is passed in its current form without any amendment there could be a clash set up for the courts. So that's the reason why there needs to be a debate.I am very conscious—I don't want to get into the substance. But I simply refer to the submissions of the Clerk of the House the New Zealand Law Society and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee which have all pointed out the need for the committee and indeed the House to grapple with this interrelationship.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The Government opposes this motion on two principal grounds. The first is that the very clear prohibition in the Parliamentary Privilege Act relating to a motion of this House being the basis on which a member is expelled from this House is not encroached upon by the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. There is no doubt or confusion about that. That is very clear. Any decision under the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is effectively a decision of a member's party or his or her caucus; it is not a decision of this House.The second point is that in the case of Prebble v Awatere Huata it was very clear that the judiciary were very sensitive to the relationship of comity between the judiciary and Parliament. Although they did not come up with a unanimous conclusion—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I did warn members at the end of Dr Smith's speech that I would not entertain discussion on the substance of the amendment and the member is now arguing the substance of the issue.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it will be very difficult for anyone following this debate to understand what was actually being discussed relating to the motion without there being some degree of promoting its intent and in this case attempting to defeat its intent so I would seek leave of the House for this to be a slightly wider debate than would normally be permitted. I'm not trying to challenge your authority Mr Speaker. In the end you determine how many people speak on this but I think it would be better for people listening if there could be some elucidation of firstly the point of the motion which we've had—and you've been generous in that regard—but then also hearing from others who might either add to that or in the case of the Hon Andrew Little wish to refute some of the claims made about that motion.SPEAKER: The member has sought leave for a wider than the normal narrow debate on a motion of this type to be held. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.So I'm just going to go back and say once again I think we've had a clear explanation of what this is about and the reasons for it from Dr Smith. All we are talking about now is whether we should change the rules for the committee stage in order to have the debate which has been outlined.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My concluding remarks are simply that the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is itself very narrow. It does not encroach on any other principle in any other legislation and therefore—Chris Bishop: How can you say that?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —it is possible for the next stage of the debate the committee of the whole House to focus just on the bill—Chris Bishop: You haven't even read the submissions.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —without raising any concerns about constitutionality in any other dimension at all.SPEAKER: And I'm just going to ask Mr Bishop to wait till he gets a call before he starts bringing me into the debate.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Before I do hear from the member—and I don't want to appear to be prejudicing anything the member might say—I have let the Hon Dr Nick Smith go into the substance of the debate because it is an important area and I thought it was at the margin OK to stretch the Standing Orders with that regard. That will not continue from—I was actually preparing to hear other members from this side. But I'm going to give the call—sorry. I'll take the next member.
Smith Nick; Mallard TrevorPOINTS OF ORDERLeave to Treat as Omnibus Bill—Electoral (Integrity) Amendment BillHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House for the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill to be an omnibus bill for the purposes of considering amendments to the Parliamentary Privilege Act as recommended by the Legislation Advisory Committee and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There is objection. That will not proceed.
1. Economy—ReportsDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceTUESDAY 7 AUGUST 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSEconomy—Reports1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Treasury yesterday released its Monthly Economic Indicators—a very popular topic it seems—for July 2018 noting that there are risks to their growth projections for the next fiscal year. In terms of the risks Treasury noted that the housing market was cooling slightly faster than expected international trade tensions had risen and business confidence had fallen since the Budget. Their 3.3 percent growth forecast for the coming fiscal year may therefore need to be lowered. But Treasury also reported a number of positives in the economy. These included a boost in building consents an increase in export values stronger wage growth for Kiwi workers and solid employment growth under the coalition Government.Dr Deborah Russell: How do Treasury's comments on the housing market wages and employment fit with the coalition Government's economic plan?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What the Treasury report shows is that more houses are being built under the coalition Government meaning greater prospects for Kiwis to own their own homes. It also shows that more Kiwis are in work under the coalition Government and that they are receiving higher wages. The ANZ chairman John Key said recently that growth under the previous Government had been driven by migration and the housing market something that had to change. This change is happening under this Government's policies as we transition the drivers of growth towards the productive economy regional development and innovation to lift employment and wages and ensure that growth actually delivers for all New Zealanders.SPEAKER: And I am going to warn the Minister of Finance that the answer to the next supplementary is going to be shorter.Dr Deborah Russell: What other recent reports has he seen on employment in the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Picking just one: on Friday ANZ released its job ads report which showed job ads rose 3.1 percent in July with an annual increase of 4.7 percent up from an annual increase of 3 percent in June.Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on CEO views of the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Reports released by KPMG and Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) have shown that New Zealand CEOs are concerned about global conditions and changes in the economy. However as KPMG CEO Godfrey Boyce said We are in a period of realistic rebalancing not a faltering of confidence." The PwC survey noted that almost 90 percent of New Zealand's CEOs expected their companies to grow this year. As the report says "It's important to look beyond the day-to-day headlines and at the bigger picture.""
Thursday 2 August 2018 - Volume 731
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 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 52 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stuart Smith to clause 12 be agreed to: insert after subclause (2) the following new subclause:(3)In section 17(2) insert section 17(2)(h): These factors should be considered in light of any other offers received including international and domestic affairs.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.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 Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Part 2 as amended agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.
Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill — Procedure
12. Police—Deputy Commissioner of Police Inquiry into the Appointment ProcessCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Internal AffairsPolice—Deputy Commissioner of Police Inquiry into the Appointment Process12. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: If she could redo the appointment process for the membership of the Government inquiry into the appointment process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police would she do anything differently; if so what?Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Just to be clear as Minister I do not undertake the appointment process; the Department of Internal Affairs does. However since we have just had a highly respected New Zealander resign as the chair of an inquiry due to issues raised regarding historical social media interactions it does appear that the process developed by the National Government in 2009 and amended by them in 2013 and 2015 may need further attention.Chris Bishop: Ha ha!SPEAKER: Does the member have a question? Chris Bishop: A supplementary yes.SPEAKER: Well the member better get to it.Chris Bishop: How many candidates did Department of Internal Affairs officials place before her for consideration for selection as the member of the independent inquiry the Government Inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police and what due diligence did she and her office do on the candidates?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: If I recall correctly there were at least five in the first tranche and then another five in the second tranche that were placed before me but I would have to go and confirm that with my officers. With regard to due diligence it was the standard procedure that has been in place since 2009. Chris Bishop: Can she confirm then to the House that she hand-picked Pauline Kingi to conduct the Government Inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police in preference to at least nine other suitably qualified candidates and what was it about Ms Kingi that made her the right choice for the job in comparison to at least nine other candidates?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The answer is no.Chris Bishop: Does she stand her statement on Facebook on 24 July: I know for me particularly the process is everything. Process is here to protect us all so I make sure that when I do something I do it well and I do it properly." and does she think she handled the appointment of Pauline Kingi well and properly?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? Which member made that noise? [Interruption] Order! Chris Bishop will resume his seat. Which member made the noise? [Interruption] No. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. That level of grunt is not acceptable. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. SPEAKER: Thank you. Chris Bishop: Did she consult with any ministerial colleagues when deciding to appoint Pauline Kingi as head of the Government Inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police as paragraph 43 of the Cabinet paper establishing the inquiry envisaged she would and if so what Ministers did she consult with? Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes and the Cabinet."
11. Youth Unemployment—ReportsANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of EmploymentYouth Unemployment—Reports11. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Employment: What recent reports has he seen that demonstrate the progress young people not in employment education or training are making under this coalition Government?Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Yesterday we saw the release of the latest household labour force survey and I'm happy to share with the House that in the latest quarter the youth neets" rate was 10.9 percent down from 12.4 percent in the last quarter.Angie Warren-Clark: Does the survey also demonstrate how Māori rangatahi are currently progressing?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That's excellent news as well I'm proud to say. Our Government are very proud to inform the House that the rate for Māori young people who are classified as "neets" is now 15.6 percent down from 19.6 percent just over a year ago when the National Opposition were in Government. That means—Hon Gerry Brownlee: All gone to Australia.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —Mr Brownlee—that more of our rangatahi—that means young Māori—are either learning or earning and that's great news for them and their whānau.Angie Warren-Clark: What does he consider to be the reason for these outstanding results?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I said when I became employment Minister that this Government is one that cares and our Prime Minister has put that view many times—that we are a compassionate Government unlike the Opposition last year. We want to see our young people do well—Hon Gerry Brownlee: They're going to Australia. They're on the plane.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —so we got out there and worked with our communities unlike Gerry Brownlee and the Opposition. We worked with our communities—SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He's going to learn not to react at some stage if he wants to finish his answers."
10. Land Information New Zealand—Sale of Mt White StationHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Land InformationLand Information New Zealand—Sale of Mt White Station10. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Land Information: Does she agree with Forest and Bird that the Government has failed to clean up the historic anomaly around the ownership of Mount White Station and is it in any way related to the 126 pastoral lease reviews that have completed the review process and are presently awaiting her ministerial sign-off?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: On behalf of the Minister in response to the first part of the question I disagree. In fact tomorrow a representative of the owner and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) are meeting already to start discussing how to resolve the status of Riversdale Flats. Regarding the second part of the question there are no pastoral lease applications awaiting ministerial sign-off. I think the member may be confused—126 pastoral leases have completed tenure review and need no further sign-off; they are done. Land has been freeholded and the other land returned to the Department of Conservation estate. If the member would like the details of the 126 completed reviews he could do no better than to look on LINZ's website—all the information is there.Hon David Bennett: Does the Minister agree with the following statement on the recent sale of Mt White Station to a Czech-born businessman: It's astonishing that the Department of Conservation and LINZ haven't got it sorted" and that "it should be part of the national park. The Green Party would protect our high country landscapes and stop the sale of more than a hectare of land to overseas interests."?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: To be clear the lease was purchased by a New Zealand permanent resident. Citizens and New Zealand residents are allowed to buy property in New Zealand.Hon David Bennett: If the Minister says that it was purchased by a citizen or New Zealand resident why did it have to go through the office approval process?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There is a very specific answer to this question which I've seen—and in fact I have it before me now conveniently and it will be somewhat embarrassing for the member I suspect. Because the buyer is a New Zealand permanent resident the Overseas Investment Office could not impose conditions. It is normal for it to go to the department in that situation.Hon David Bennett: If the Minister didn't impose any conditions in this case then how does he reconcile that with the comments of Forest & Bird that this is an "outrageous" and "gutting" decision?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I said I respectfully disagree with them.Hon David Bennett: Can the Minister assure the public that there will be no more sales of Crown pastoral-lease land to overseas interests until the Government has changed the laws around the overseas ownership of such land?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government takes overseas purchase of New Zealand interests very seriously in contrast to the Government that's gone before."
8. Tertiary Education—Vocational Institutions' Financial SupportJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationTertiary Education—Vocational Institutions' Financial Support8. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is he taking to address serious financial viability issues affecting New Zealand's institutes of technology and polytechnics sector?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): On becoming Minister of Education I put in place an immediate programme of work to deal with the serious structural issues facing vocational education and training in New Zealand generally but particularly facing the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector. While that work is under way there are some immediate issues that we need to deal with and last week I announced that I have dissolved the Unitec Council and appointed a commissioner at Unitec. I am doing this after receiving the final submission from Unitec's council which supported the move. Unitec needs urgent and significant financial support and I believe the commissioner is needed to ensure that both the Tertiary Education Commission and I have the oversight that we need.Jan Tinetti: Who has been appointed as commissioner?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The new commissioner is Murray Strong who is also the Government-appointed Crown manager at Tai Poutini Polytechnic on the South Island's West Coast. He'll be supported by an independent financial adviser already in place and I will soon be appointing an advisory group to support him. Murray Strong is extremely experienced in working with tertiary education organisations that are experiencing some difficulty. I hope that his appointment will give real confidence to students and staff about Unitec's future. This Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that Unitec's role as a major provider of vocational education and training in the Auckland region is secured.Jan Tinetti: Why are many of our polytechnics and institutes of technology struggling?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The majority of the sector is projected to be—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Fees-free—no one turned up.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —in deficit within two to three years under the current settings due to the unsustainable financial position the sector was in when we became the Government Gerry. The complete—SPEAKER: Order! The member will withdraw and apologise. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat
5. Housing—Urban Growth AgendaRAYMOND HUO (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentHousing—Urban Growth Agenda5. RAYMOND HUO (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How will the Government's Urban Growth Agenda enable the construction of affordable homes for young families?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: On behalf of the Minister yesterday at the Environmental Defence Society I announced the Urban Growth Agenda an ambitious and far-reaching programme to address the fundamentals of land supply development capacity and infrastructure provision so that the market can build more homes for young families. The Urban Growth Agenda joins KiwiBuild—the 6400 more State and public houses—in making life better for renters and tackling property speculation as part of our comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis.Raymond Huo: How will the planning initiatives in the Urban Growth Agenda reduce the cost of new homes?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two drivers of house prices are high land prices and the cost of building infrastructure in both greenfield and brownfield developments. The Urban Growth Agenda will reform our planning system and allow cities to make room for growth support quality built environment and enable integrated transport housing and commercial planning so that urban land prices reduce.Raymond Huo: How will infrastructure-financing initiatives working alongside the Urban Growth Agenda reduce the cost of new homes?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are also working on a broad range of infrastructure-financing mechanisms so that long-term debt financing is available to developers willing to build trunk infrastructure financed over a longer term rather than in the upfront purchase price. This will mean it will be more affordable to build and buy new homes.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I've just got to say I've got to congratulate my colleague here before. There are not many people who can see into the future and know what's going to go on. When Mr Bennett was talking about the future and saying to mark his words I think we should mark his words.If you're talking about people really doing work it's a little bit disappointing. On this side of the Chamber we have people actively engaging seeking the call wanting to talk to the matter because this is an important bill. But the most disappointing thing—I've got to acknowledge the Minister in the chair Damien O'Connor. I've got to congratulate him because he is doing a good job standing and responding to well-asked questions about this bill. We need to understand more about this bill so I do congratulate him. But the disappointing thing as I look across the other side of the room is people have buried their heads and not one of them is taking the call other than to close this debate down. I just invite them all to stand up stand up for what they want to vote for and talk to the bill especially Part 3—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And I invite the member to speak to the bill.ANDREW BAYLY: I am. I am Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No—no you are not.ANDREW BAYLY: Especially anything starting after page 26 of the bill for you people across the other side.Just to a matter I do want to talk about which is enforcement I particularly want to turn my mind to the issue of new sections 51A 51B and 51C inserted by clause 31. One of the issues we had about enforcement is that when we were hearing from the officials we asked them a simple question: how many consents do the Overseas Investment Office process a year? The number was about 150 I seem to recall—150. So in the context of the Overseas Investment Office and with this new bill coming through we naturally asked the next question. We were informed that they couldn't tell for sure and I understand that entirely but I seem to recall—and I'm looking at Mr Carter—I believe the answer they said is an approximate figure—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm afraid I have to interrupt the member. It has come time for me to report progress.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you Mr Chair. I'll just take an opportunity to clarify a few things in Part 3 of the bill Enforcement and other miscellaneous matters" and it does provide provision there for regulators to get access to more information. One of the things that have happened with overseas investors is that they've come in purchased made promises and not delivered. This will increase the ability of people in charge—the Overseas Investment Office—to follow through.There were a couple of comments made—questions I guess. Firstly I want to acknowledge that the coalition Government does support overseas investment but for the good of New Zealanders. You see what we are passionate about is actually having investment into this country for New Zealanders. Those who want to come and live here are New Zealanders. So they can come here and bring themselves and their families and be residents and they can invest and we welcome that. The reason for forestry is—the National Party may not have heard of greenfields investment and if ever there was an example of that it's forestry. You create greenfields—forests—where they would not have otherwise been and that's why we welcome that investment.There was a comment made by one of the members of the National Party that this is a dog of a bill. Well I don't disagree. In fact this is an amendment bill—an amendment to the Overseas Investment Act. The Overseas Investment Act run by the National Government was a lapdog bill. We are going to change it to a watchdog bill—a dog bill yes—because it now will be able to be a watchdog on the investments that come into this country and be an appropriate level of scrutiny that ensures the objectives of the bill which should be—they certainly are under the coalition Government—to invest for New Zealanders' benefit. Then we have watchdog provisions in here—particularly through Part 3—that enable the regulators to check on that investment and have those people deliver on their promises.There will be members of the National Party who are happy to clip the ticket on the sale of anything to anyone around the world just to make a quick buck. We're not into that game; we are into long-term strategic investment. We welcome partnerships. We welcome people who want to come in and invest in greenfields projects like forestry and other things that add to the value of the economy in this country. But just being a lapdog bill as it was prior to the amendment where the previous National Government allowed anyone to come in to make their capital gains and to take their money—we are not going to sit on our hands and allow that to continue. So Part 3 of this piece of legislation will provide the tools to turn this bill from lapdog into watchdog and I know each and every New Zealander will appreciate that overseas investors are welcome but they've got to add to this country and work with us."
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth): Thank you Mr Chairman. I'm very pleased to take the opportunity to answer some of the questions put forward by the previous speaker David Carter. No this piece of legislation has not been rural proofed. We are going through a thorough process of implementing this because what happened last time in Government—we did rush to get it in place it wasn't entrenched and then the National Government threw it out. In spite of being the so-called champions of rural New Zealand they threw out rural proofing.I don't want to take the committee's time for too long other than to say no it hasn't been covered in this legislation but if it was I'd have to say that I'm sure the vast majority of rural New Zealanders would actually support this because the one thing that they are most concerned about across rural New Zealand is succession. Succession is not transferring a New Zealand farm into foreign hands; it's actually transferring it into the hands of another keen New Zealand family. The National Party as it always does just wants to sell—sell sell sell sell—and give all their mates an opportunity to clip the ticket along the way. Frankly we are here for New Zealanders and this piece of legislation is unashamedly for New Zealanders.Around the world—that previous Government may not have realised—there are trillions of dollars slushing around. A lot of it's just been printed actually and if you can get a 1 percent return on your money somewhere you're very lucky. So the opportunity to bring that money into New Zealand where there's currently no capital gains tax and where you know you can get 5 or 6 percent for your money is just a goldmine literally for them at the expense of hard-working New Zealanders and farming families. So I have to say that in defending and answering some of the questions we're unashamedly for New Zealand farming families.The previous member and his colleagues might want to sell every farm to foreigners; we don't. Quite frankly we don't and we don't want those foreigners to set unrealistic values based on them paying 1 percent for their capital when poor challenged hard-working Kiwis have to pay 5 or 6 or 7 percent for their money. We just want succession in the rural sector.I don't want to take too much time in the committee but I hope that answers the previous speaker's question. We are unashamedly for New Zealanders not for foreign investors.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you Mr Chair. I rise to speak to clause 19(d) which inserts schedule 3 of this bill and in particular I wish to speak to a series of SOPs—Supplementary Order Papers—introduced by the Opposition.Hon Judith Collins: What's a SOP" dear?Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The "SOP" a slop a slip a slither a slew a slaw—a veritable salad of SOPs indicating that all they want to do is mess with the House. Let me read you one of the amendments that have been introduced by the Opposition.The amendment introduced by the Rt Hon David Carter talks about horticulture. He wants to introduce an exemption in respect of horticulture. And on the very same form—the very same form virtually the very same words—the Hon Alfred Ngaro wishes to introduce an exemption in respect of bananas. Simeon Brown wants one in respect of mānuka. Chris Penk wants on in respect of apples. These are all the same. Chris Penk goes on to strawberries. Todd Muller is going for kiwifruit. Melissa Lee is cabbage Judith Collins is blueberries Matt King is blackberries Simon O'Connor is tamarillos Jian Yang is gooseberries and Simeon Brown is here again on mandarins. Maureen Pugh has hops Louise Upston has lavender Jacqui Dean has nectarines and more to come from Jacqui Dean: it's apricots. Jacqui Dean can't stop there—swedes. Lawrence Yule is interested in fajitas Dan Bidois has raspberries and then he has tulips—perhaps he's tip-toeing through them.I can understand why the Hon Gerry Brownlee gave the last speech: he's keen on pine nuts. Simon O'Connor is interested in grapes and also in almonds. Jonathan Young is interested in exotic edible mushrooms. There is Jonathan Young again on plums. Tim van de Molen is interested in corn and also in maize. Matt Doocey is into quinoa and also into beans and also into peaches. Denise Lee favours cherries and lentils—that's not a good mix Denise Lee. Melissa Lee's amendment has at least something pretty going for it—it's sunflowers but also flax. Denise Lee is back with pears and olives; Hamish Walker has wheat and oats; the Hon Judith Collins has sorghum sometimes pronounced "sour gum"; Paul Goldsmith has barley—and on it goes. Paul Goldsmith also has rye; Andrew Bayly has potatoes and hemp—what is Andrew's interest in hemp?—and hard nuts not pine nuts. David Bennett—ah that's not horticulture; he's going to move on to equine bloodstock. Good on him. But David Bennett also has canola—a healthy man is David Bennett—and peanuts.A mix a melange a mess—I suggest that the Opposition is messing with the committee messing with this bill. They are not interested in actually debating the substance of this bill. This is simply a way to delay progress and one can only suggest that they should eat their salad not present it to the committee."
Smith Nick; Williams Poto; Huo RaymondHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek the leave of the House to table the draft select committee report on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and the amendments proposed by National that the Government members would not want so that they can be included on the record of the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that action. Is there any objection? Yes.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): To make Dr Smith happier and help him even further given he has tried three times I seek the leave of the House to table the draft report of the Justice Committee on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.Brett Hudson: With the amendments?RAYMOND HUO: That's what the draft report was.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Let the member put the leave. Can you put the leave again please?RAYMOND HUO: I seek the leave of the House to table the draft report prepared by the Justice Committee.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Leave of the House is sought for that course of action. Is there objection? There is none. It can be done.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Smith NickELECTORAL (INTEGRITY) AMENDMENT BILLDischarge and Referral to Justice CommitteeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move That the order of the day for the second reading of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be discharged and referred back to the Justice Committee to enable the many amendments proposed by officials and submitters to be considered.
Hipkins ChrisSUBORDINATE LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL (NO 2)First ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 3 December 2018.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 3 December 2018.Motion agreed to.
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 2 AUGUST 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week the legislation to be considered by the House will include the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill the first readings of three cognate regulatory systems amendment bills and the remaining stages of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).On the morning of Thursday 9 August there will be an extended sitting. Wednesday 8 August will be a members' day.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Is the extended sitting on 9 August an extension of 8 August and if so why does it suddenly no longer become a members' day?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Because that's the way the rules of the House work. It worked several times under the previous Government where Treaty settlement bills were considered the day after a members' day. It has happened that way ever since the extended sittings were introduced.
Wednesday 1 August 2018 - Volume 731
Overseas Investment Amendment Bill — In Committee (continued)
VoteIn CommitteeDebate resumed.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hamish Walker to clause 4 be agreed to: in paragraph (a) of the definition of residential land in section 6(1) in clause 4(1) insert the following subparagraph:(i)for the purposes of this Act residential land excludes land with a QV value above $2.5 million within the Queenstown Lakes District boundaries as set out in Local Government Act 2002A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.
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 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 52 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendments agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Vote Arts Culture and Heritage Vote Building and Housing Vote Oranga Tamariki Vote Pacific Peoples Vote Social Development Vote Social Housing Vote Sport and Recreation and Vote Women be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Votes agreed to.Clauses 1 to 10 and schedules 1 to 5A party vote was called for on the question That clauses 1 to 10 and schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Clauses 1 to 10 and schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
12. Tertiary Education—Micro-credentialsMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of EducationTertiary Education—Micro-credentials12. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to ensure that New Zealand's qualification system meets the needs of citizens and employers?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Good news: today I announced that micro-credentials will be rolled out from the end of this month to give employers and people who want to keep learning more opportunities to access new skills quickly—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Cowboy qualifications.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There's hope for you yet Gerry. Micro-credentials are stand-alone education products that certify the achievement of a set of skills and knowledge required by industry—it's going downhill for you Gerry—at professional associations iwi or the community. They fit well with the coalition Government's Future of Work programme bringing together businesses and workers alongside Government to plan how we face the changing nature of work and industry training.Marja Lubeck: What feedback has he had from industry about the micro-credentials announcement?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Business New Zealand has welcomed the flexibility and innovation that micro-credentials will bring saying This is a great new way of engaging with employees and responding to … employer skill demands". The Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation has called it a "great step forward" and says that it's "delighted" by the move and the Primary Industry Training Organisation says that it will help them to "respond to pressing industry demands including [things like] the eradication of … Mycoplasma bovis."Marja Lubeck: How are micro-credentials different from qualifications?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Qualifications tend to be larger and take longer to complete. They're normally 40 credits or more in size. Micro-credentials are more likely going to be in the 5- to 40-credit range. It's also important to note that the way they are going to be approved and funded will be different and that they are going to be developed very closely in association with business and industry to ensure they meet the real and pressing needs business and industry are indicating they have.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister or the Government be deterred by these constant attacks on this six-week programme from Gerry Brownlee because of the fact that it's actually longer in real terms than the tertiary education he had?SPEAKER: No no I think—[Interruption] No no I'm—I think that that was an out of order question. I also think that the right honourable gentleman knows that that was the case and therefore he has been disorderly and will withdraw the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise."
11. Mining on Conservation Land—Government PolicySARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of ConservationMining on Conservation Land—Government Policy11. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Conservation: Is it still Government policy that there will be no new mining on conservation land?Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Kia orana. Minister Woods and I are making good progress on how to implement the Government's policy of no new mines on conservation land.Sarah Dowie: Why if it is Government policy that no new mining is to occur on conservation land has she allowed access for prospecting in Mount Richmond Forest Park the Howard conservation area Victoria Forest Park and the Rock and Pillar Conservation Area if there is no intention to approve mining activity on successful prospects?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member might want to ask her colleague former energy Minister Simon Bridges about that as it appears that the previous administration was wanting to facilitate more extensive mining on high-value conservation lands across the board. That three-year moratorium on prospecting was something that the former Government put in place not to protect conservation land but to enable extensive aerial magnetic and geochemical surveys in order to identify the lands' potential for mining. That three-year moratorium came to an end in July.Sarah Dowie: Does she agree with conservation groups that Government actions in inviting new prospecting permits for these areas is evidence that the ban on new mining on conservation land is a charade?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member should check the facts. That was a moratorium put in place by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE). The end of the moratorium on 8 July simply meant that it returned to the status quo. The grant of a prospecting or an exploration permit by MBIE does not guarantee access to the land—that's the subject of a separate access arrangement application.Sarah Dowie: When regional economic development Minister Shane Jones made the statement that stewardship areas can be taken out of the conservation estate to be mined was that what the Government meant when it announced in the Speech from the Throne that there would be no new mining on conservation land?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Stewardship land is conservation land. On the West Coast quite a large part of the million hectares of stewardship land is part of the South West New Zealand World Heritage Area. It is internationally significant. It is conservation land and the whole status of stewardship land and mining on it is being considered as part of the development of the policy which will go out for consultation in September which the member will be able to make a submission on.Sarah Dowie: Will she remain as Minister of Conservation if new mines are approved by the Government on any of today's conservation estate?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Yes. I am very proud of the work that I'm doing as the Minister of Conservation and this Government's commitment to backing nature with the increased investment in conservation after nine years of neglect by that former Government.