edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12606. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12606. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes50New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes71New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 313 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to clause 38 be agreed to.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12605. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 308 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to insert new clause 39AA and to add new clause 41 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.add to section 6(1) the following new paragraphs:(g)to examine the policy and the operation of each intelligence and security agency on the receipt ofintelligence from foreign security agencies in circumstances where it would be unlawful for the intelligence and security agency to gather such intelligence:(h)to inquire into the extent of surveillance by the intelligence and security agencies including whether mass surveillance has occurred:(i)to inquire into the operations of the intelligence and security agencies as much as is necessary to determine whether the intelligence and security agencies look into the content of emails:(j)to allow the Committee to look into operational matters as much as is necessary to discharge the functions of the Committee notwithstanding section 6(2).
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12605. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 305 in the name of David Shearer to insert new clause 37A be agreed to.
Roy Eric: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12604. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The question is that the question be now put. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a bill of fundamental constitutional importance. The Committee has only recently embarked on it. I do ask your consideration of this.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well the member is trifling with me so he ought to be brief.Hon David Cunliffe: Yes Mr Chairman. In no way would I trifle with the Chair or with you. To my understanding there have been only a limited number of speakers on this part—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well let me clarify that. Please sit down. Let me clarify that. Part 3 has four clauses. There have been 16 calls on this particular bill. I have been listening off air. There have been a number of closure motions. There is a degree of repetition. All of the measures that I say the Committee needs to determine whether it wants to continue or not have now been met. So I am putting the question.Hon David Cunliffe: A fresh point of order Mr Chairperson—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): A fresh point of order.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are accepting everything that you have said. I seek your guidance in the situation where members of Parliament have only recently had the opportunity to come to the Chamber and have not had the opportunity to make a contribution on this part or on the previous one. Although this part is a short part by the number of clauses it goes to the heart of the issue that is the most controversial in this bill which is the degree of the independence of the oversight and the scrutiny of functions which it is accepted are in many ways important but are highly controversial. So I would again submit being one of those members who has not had an opportunity to speak to this part of the bill—and I know there are other colleagues here around the Chamber who are finding themselves in the same situation because of other duties—that you would use your good judgment and your balance—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): And that I have done and I will now put the question.
Ross Jami-Lee: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12604. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I moveThat the question be now put .
Robertson H V Ross: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12603. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): When I look around I see quite a few people calling and I am going to call—this is hard. Oh all right. I call the honourable member Jacinda Ardern.
Dean Jacqui: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12603. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):I moveThat the question be now put .
Smith Nick: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12602. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation):I moveThat the question be now put .
Upston Louise: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUpston Louise: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12599. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National):I moveThat the question be now put .
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12597. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill that it reconsider Part 1 of the bill for the purpose of considering and if it thinks fit adopting the amendments in the name of David Shearer set out on Supplementary Order Paper 331.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12597. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.
Ardern Shane: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Shane: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12597. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country):I moveThat the question be now put .
McKelvie Ian: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12595. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei):I moveThat the question be now put .The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a very narrow debate but I will take one more.
Upston Louise: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUpston Louise: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12593. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National):I moveThat the question be now put .
Robertson H V Ross: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12589. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that it had been read into the minutes of the House but a typographic mistake does not make the instruction invalid. I call the honourable member Russel Norman.
Mallard Trevor: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12589. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’ve finished now.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I know.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): A point of order the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am just making it clear to the Leader of the House that I was being polite and waiting until he had finished. I just want to seek from you a ruling with regard to the numbering within the motion that I moved. I used a piece of paper that had been supplied to me which noted that the motion related to Supplementary Order Paper 305 when in fact it should have been Supplementary Order Paper 331. The question is whether under the typographical error clause you will just change what I moved or whether it is necessary for an amendment to correct that to be moved. It is a matter I have discussed with the Clerk but I think we had better get—Hon Gerry Brownlee: You’d need the leave of the House for that.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am happy to seek the leave of the House if members opposite are willing to substitute Supplementary Order Paper 331 for Supplementary Order Paper 305.
Brownlee Gerry: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12588. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):The reality of everything that Mr Mallard has said in support of his motion is that nothing has changed in the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill or otherwise from last week when the Committee of the whole House gave this particular part of the bill Part 1 a very considerable amount of attention. To make acase that effectively says “Over the weekend we woke up and had another good idea and therefore we want to delay the passage of this bill as long as possible by instructing the Committee to go back on to areas that it has previously covered.” is completely inappropriate.One of the things that I think stands out here is the claim by Mr Mallard that any comment made in a speech in Parliament has no relevance to any piece of law. He is not the only member who has found himself quoted at various times by judges who have considered how a piece of law is to be interpreted so that is a spurious argument that is being mounted in favour of reserving the Committee an additional amount of time for consideration of Part 1. I would also say that when the Committee does spend so much time on one part of one bill and when the speaking arrangements for that part are so heavily weighted toward those who are opposing the part it seems quite unreasonable that when the House has made a decision in favour of that part those who oppose it should come back in here and say “Look we want to have another go. We want to take some more time.”What this is all about essentially is trying to back up Mr Shearer who found himself last night in front of a crowd who for once was interested in what he might have to say and then overstepped the mark by indicating that he was going to take this matter back to Parliament. [Interruption ] Well using the provisions of Standing Order 173 to try to achieve a bit of face-saving for the Leader of the Opposition is not acceptable either. I do not believe that any case has been made at this point for the House to consider supporting the motion moved by the Hon Trevor Mallard.
Carter David: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12588. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Just in relation to that last comment by the Hon Trevor Mallard it was not that I was telling him to get narrower; it was just that the speech was becoming highly repetitive and I give that as a warning to all other people who are contributing.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Meridian Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions—2020 TargetText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Meridian Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions—2020 Target[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member is making. The second point she made was certainly included in her letter and I acknowledge that. I have ruled that it is not of significant importance and sufficient importance to warrant a debate today. That is the end of the matter. But I am quite happy to meet with the member in my office after question time to explain further my decision.
Street Maryan: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Meridian Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions—2020 TargetText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Meridian Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions—2020 Target[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12585. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand the requirement for authentication. I have exactly four footnotes authenticating the assertions I have made and the need for the debate. Secondly the last time a debate of this nature was sought by my colleague Grant Robertson at the end of last year the Speaker then said that because there were Government decisions pending it was not appropriate to take up the time of the House. Last week’s announcement represents the decision that has been awaited and that was the grounds on which I thought it was time for the House to put aside time for this debate.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Meridian Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions—2020 TargetText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Meridian Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions—2020 Target[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12584. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s announcement about details of the float of Meridian Energy. The announcement today simply confirms that instalment receipts will be used in the Meridian share offer expected in November. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be a new situation of significant and sufficient importance to warrant a debate being held. The accumulation of information in regard to an issue is not of itself a particular case of recent occurrence. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters of importance that have occurred. Furthermore where the House has only recently considered an issue in principle every subsequent decision under the legislation will not necessarily justify setting aside the business of the House. The application is therefore declined.I have also received a letter from the Hon Maryan Street seeking to debate the decision by the Government to set a target of a 5 percent emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. The member has not provided any authentication with her application which in itself is a reason not to accept it. The announcement allows for action to be taken in the interim while the Government works towards a binding agreement under the United Nations framework convention that will apply from 2020. It is part of an existing situation. I am not convinced that it heralds a new development ofsignificant importance and sufficient importance in itself to warrant a debate being held today. The application is also declined.
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12582. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman)to theMinister for Primary Industries: Does he have confidence in the Ministry for Primary Industries’ standards for approving recognised agents?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):Yes because the base requirements confirm that agencies must have the right competencies qualifications skills and experience and meet performance standards. These have not changed since 1999. Many of these standards are based on international standards from the International Organization for Standardization and these are used worldwide. However it is worth noting that yesterday the Government announced details of a proposed ministerial inquiry into the recent whey protein concentrate contamination issue. Part B of the inquiry will report back on any recommended legal regulatory or operational changes and the Government will consider these recommendations very carefully.Hon Damien O’Connor: Has the establishment of a joint venture between AsureQuality and China’s No. 1 dairy company Mengniu in any way compromised the ability of New Zealand food producers to have the world’s best testing and monitoring of their products prior to export?Hon NATHAN GUY: No I do not believe so.Hon Damien O’Connor: Given the discovery in China of high nitrates dicyandiamide and melamine in our dairy products and the failure to detect these in New Zealand does he believe that the $26 million in cuts from the Ministry for Primary Industries have affected the quality and capability of the food safety system?Hon NATHAN GUY: The member keeps using that $26 million figure and that is factually incorrect—factually incorrect. The latest food safety budget has decreased by only $340000. The member should get his facts correct.Hon Damien O’Connor: Given the statement by the Prime Minister in a speech to the New Zealand - China forum in April this year in China that “we have very high food safety standards backed up with world-leading technology so that consumers can have the utmost confidence in our products.” does the Minister consider that both he and the Prime Minister have failed in their promise to the Chinese people?Hon NATHAN GUY: No. The reason why we have established the ministerial inquiry—and it is worthwhile for the member to have a read of that because Part B is going to address some of the issues in order to show to New Zealand domestic consumers and to our international trading partners the seriousness with which we treat our food safety systems. We need to reassure them that we have strong and robust systems in place.Hon Damien O’Connor: Supplementary Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: No. I am advised that Labour has used its full number of supplementary questions.
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLotu-Iiga Sam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12581. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie)to theMinister of Housing: How is the Government making KiwiSaver support for first home buyers and the Welcome Home Loan scheme fairer?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):The two schemes are about helping families on modest incomes get into modest first homes. But the income and house price caps have been out of date and this has created unfairness. For instance as many people in Southland are getting assistance as those in Auckland where the housing challenges and population are far greater. We are increasing the house price caps by $100000 in Christchurch $85000 in Auckland and $50000 in areas like Hamilton Tauranga and Nelson. Lifting these house price caps and the income limits will help KiwiSavers access a bigger deposit when buying their first home. We are also trebling the number of Welcome Home Loans to 2500 per year. This will ensure in light of today’s announcement from the Reserve Bank that first-home buyers who are buying modest homes will get preference in respect of mortgage finance.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What specific progress has the Government made in the last month in its housing affordability work programme?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Work is progressing at pace on the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill which has been reported back to the House and is crucial to increasing land supply particularly in Auckland. Major reforms to the Resource Management Act were announced on 10 August which will require councils to make provision for at least a 10-year supply of land. We also announced changes last week to development contributions. These have risen more than any other component of new house price over the past decade and can be as much as $64000 per section. The previous Government in 2002 expanded these charges and took away any right of appeal. We will be introducing amendments to Parliament later this year that will constrain these costs and help both the affordability and supply of housing.
Ngaro Alfred: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12578. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.ALFRED NGARO (National)to theMinister for Social Development: What announcements has she made to better protect children from abuse and neglect?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development):More than 50 children have died in the last 5 years because of extreme abuse and we know many of their names. We have all had enough and it just has to stop. In the next month we will be introducing to the House significant legislation with sweeping changes to protect vulnerable children.Alfred Ngaro: What changes does the legislation introduce to get tougher on those who abuse children?Hon PAULA BENNETT: One of the changes that this legislation will introduce is the new child harm prevention orders targeting adults who pose a high risk of going onto hurt more children by imposing tough conditions and restrictions. The court will be able to place these new civil orders on adults with a history of serious convictions or those who on the balance of probabilities are believed to have been responsible for seriously abusing or killing a child.Alfred Ngaro: How will these changes better protect children in situations where children have previously been removed from parents?Hon PAULA BENNETT: This is an area that has been of concern for some time but under these changes parents who have seriously abused or killed children will have to prove they are safe to parent again if they go on to have another child. Currently it is only when those abusive parents have a subsequent child and come to the attention of Child Youth and Family that the child’s safety is assessed. Child Youth and Family then has to prove that the child would be unsafe in order to remove them. We will reverse this burden of proof and the parent will have to prove that their child will be safe in their care.Jacinda Ardern: How much in total has been budgeted to fully implement her child protection legislation across the next 3 financial years?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would need to go back and have a look but from memory around $20 million.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12576. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister of Trade kept him abreast of all aspects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is fair to say that the Minister of Trade keeps me up to date on an ongoing basis. We do not go through every chapter line by line but he does give me an indication of how things are progressing.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has his Minister of Trade informed him as to whether or not contained within the secret pages of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the ability for foreign companies to sue the New Zealand Government—yes or no?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What the final parts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership look like in relation to companies and the way that they can operate have not been concluded yet so it is not possible to say whether that would or would not happen. There are various technical provisions that might be contained in the legislation when it ultimately goes through the agreement but they have not been finalised yet.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Finalised or not in these negotiations are there provisions within the Trans-Pacific Partnership thus far draft form or otherwise that would see or enable foreign companies to sue the New Zealand Government—yes or no?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not going to go through the individual parts of it now because this is a negotiation that is being held with all of the interested parties—in fact the Minister is in Brunei at the moment undertaking those negotiations—and they have not been finalised yet.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the deal is for the betterment of the New Zealand people why is he keeping this matter secret from them and also from this Parliament in contrast to the US Government having kept its US Congress members informed? Why are we—both outside this Parliament as New Zealanders and inside this Parliament—being treated differently?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My understanding is that this is a fairly stock standard way of New Zealand undertaking free-trade agreements—that there are negotiations that occur and they for logical reasons occur behind closed doors but fully in the knowledge ultimately that not only will the deal be made fully public but it actually has to be ratified by Parliament—Rt Hon Winston Peters: No what about now?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well there is no point in doing it now—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well we do not know what is actually on the table and what is off. We will know that when we get to see a final deal. Even I have not seen that yet.
Ardern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12576. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country)to theMinister for Primary Industries: What announcements has he made on a Ministerial inquiry into the recent whey protein contamination situation?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):Yesterday the Minister for Food Safety and I announced that the Government has agreed in principle to establish a joint ministerial-led inquiry. We have released the draft terms of inquiry for the Government’s investigation into the whey protein concentrate contamination incident. We also announced that we have invited Miriam Dean QC to chair the inquiry. The terms of reference and the appointment of the chair will be formalised once the Inquiries Bill has completed its legislative passage.Shane Ardern: What will the ministerial inquiry cover?Hon NATHAN GUY: The inquiry is split into three parts. Part A will report into how the potentially contaminated whey protein concentrate entered the New Zealand and international market and how this was subsequently addressed. Part B will report into the regulatory and best-practice requirements that govern the food safety regime against the background of this incident in relation to the dairy industry. The final part compares practice across international jurisdictions.Shane Ardern: Why is the Government establishing a ministerial inquiry?Hon NATHAN GUY: New Zealand’s primary sector exports are crucial to our economy making up over 70 percent of our total merchandise exports. New Zealand has a strong reputation as a trusted exporter—in particular a trusted exporter of safe and quality food. This inquiry is about strengthening our already strong system and ensuring that New Zealand continues to uphold this strong international reputation.
Goff Phil: Motions — Egypt—Internal Conflict and Restoration of DemocracyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Motions — Egypt—Internal Conflict and Restoration of Democracy[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12570. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I seek the leave of the House to introduce without notice and without debate a motion condemning the violence in Egypt and calling for the restoration of democratic process.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move a motion without debate. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.Hon PHIL GOFF: I moveThat this House condemn the killing and the violence occurring in Egypt and in particular the shooting of hundreds of unarmed protesters and call on all sides to desist from violence and for immediate steps to be taken to reinstate democratic process the rule of law and elections.Motion agreed to.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United FutureText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United Future[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Has the member finished?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United FutureText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United Future[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking you about the question of parliamentary support. Are you saying that your announcement today means that what was the pre-existing situation before all this arose has now been restored as to parliamentary support as well—financially that is?
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United FutureText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United Future[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Yes well the Clerk has advised me that you actually wrote two letters to me and both letters have been replied to. But in regard to the continued support for the United Future party my decision stands from today. From today United Future is again recognised as a parliamentary party.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United FutureText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United Future[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I gather that what you have said relates to recognition in the House. It goes now to the question of taxpayer support for the United Future party which you have readmitted. The question is what is your answer on that issue which is why I wrote to you in the first place?
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United FutureText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United Future[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I can advise the right honourable member that I certainly have considered that letter and considered it carefully in reaching the decision I made earlier in regard to the United Future party and certainly in the decision I am again making today.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United FutureText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United Future[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I ask you as to whether or not you have considered the letter I wrote to you that related to your last judgment in the House on the question that you have just covered now? If you recall I asked you to outline for me the legal authority that you thought you would be acting under. I am still waiting for that reply.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United FutureText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of United Future[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members on 13 August 2013 the Electoral Commission determined that the United Future party be registered in accordance with section 67 of the Electoral Act 1993 following the cancellation of its registration on 31 May 2013. Standing Order 34(1) provides that every party that is registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act and in whose interest a member was elected at the preceding election is entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes. The United Future party is a registered party. It remains a party in whose name a member was elected at the 2011 general election. It meets the requirements for recognition. Furthermore the Electoral Commission advises that it did not treat United Future’s application for registration as an application from a new party. The party did not cease to exist when its registration was cancelled.However in recognising a party I am not concerned with the general membership of political parties and whether that has changed; I am concerned only with the parliamentary membership of the party. The Hon Peter Dunne was a member of the United Future party at the 2011 general election. He remained a member of that party despite being declared an independent member for parliamentary purposes. The parliamentary membership of the United Future party has not changed. Therefore now that the United Future party is again a registered party it will from today again be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes.
Urgent Debates Declined — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Meridian Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions—2020 TargetText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Meridian Energy Greenhouse Gas Emissions—2020 Target[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12584. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedState-owned Energy Companies Sales—Meridian EnergyGreenhouse Gas Emissions—2020 TargetMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s announcement about details of the float of Meridian Energy. The announcement today simply confirms that instalment receipts will be used in the Meridian share offer expected in November. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be a new situation of significant and sufficient importance to warrant a debate being held. The accumulation of information in regard to an issue is not of itself a particular case of recent occurrence. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters of importance that have occurred. Furthermore where the House has only recently considered an issue in principle every subsequent decision under the legislation will not necessarily justify setting aside the business of the House. The application is therefore declined.I have also received a letter from the Hon Maryan Street seeking to debate the decision by the Government to set a target of a 5 percent emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. The member has not provided any authentication with her application which in itself is a reason not to accept it. The announcement allows for action to be taken in the interim while the Government works towards a binding agreement under the United Nations framework convention that will apply from 2020. It is part of an existing situation. I am not convinced that it heralds a new development ofsignificant importance and sufficient importance in itself to warrant a debate being held today. The application is also declined.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand the requirement for authentication. I have exactly four footnotes authenticating the assertions I have made and the need for the debate. Secondly the last time a debate of this nature was sought by my colleague Grant Robertson at the end of last year the Speaker then said that because there were Government decisions pending it was not appropriate to take up the time of the House. Last week’s announcement represents the decision that has been awaited and that was the grounds on which I thought it was time for the House to put aside time for this debate.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member is making. The second point she made was certainly included in her letter and I acknowledge that. I have ruled that it is not of significant importance and sufficient importance to warrant a debate today. That is the end of the matter. But I am quite happy to meet with the member in my office after question time to explain further my decision.
Motions — Egypt—Internal Conflict and Restoration of DemocracyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMotions — Egypt—Internal Conflict and Restoration of Democracy[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12570. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MotionsEgypt—Internal Conflict and Restoration of DemocracyHon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I seek the leave of the House to introduce without notice and without debate a motion condemning the violence in Egypt and calling for the restoration of democratic process.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move a motion without debate. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.Hon PHIL GOFF: I moveThat this House condemn the killing and the violence occurring in Egypt and in particular the shooting of hundreds of unarmed protesters and call on all sides to desist from violence and for immediate steps to be taken to reinstate democratic process the rule of law and elections.Motion agreed to.
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLole-Taylor Asenati: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12101. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First):New Zealand First acknowledges that social development is a massive portfolio and it is imperative that this Government closes as many loopholes as possible. The reforms come with an admirable yet somewhat out-of-touch goal of getting more beneficiaries into the workforce through placing restrictive requirements on solo parents couples widows convalescents and the unemployed.Mike Sabin: Out-of-touch goal—getting beneficiaries into work!Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I hear the member for Northland interjecting quite a lot of the time. That member sounds like somebody who can resist everything except temptation—everything except temptation. The domestic purposes unemployment and sickness benefits have been replaced by three new categories. These categories are known as job seeker support for those actively seeking andavailable for work; sole parent support for single parents with children under the age of 14 years; and supported living payments for people significantly restricted by sickness injury or disability.With over 40 percent of jobs advertised with Work and Income requiring a drug test beneficiaries must now oblige or risk losing their entitlement. We do not see a problem with drug testing; after all we did support that part of the legislation. Parents will face reductions to their benefits if they do not enrol their children in Well Child /Tāmariki Ora checks with a general practitioner and in early childhood education or day care. This has created major concerns for many who see this approach as bullying and dictatorial. Furthermore all people previously categorised as sickness beneficiaries sole parents—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress reported.Report adopted.