edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker and greetings also to our guests. It's a pleasure to take a short call on this bill. The first reading of a bill is the opportunity to review the frameworks of the bill that will then carry it through to select committee and onwards—as I gently break down the mechanics of the bill certainly to help me better understand it. The application of the bill is clearly applicable to peoples of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. The instrument is pensions and veterans benefits. The legislation currently as placed is twofold: firstly the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and secondly the Veterans' Support Act 2014. I'll come back to the portability amendment Act shortly.In 2015 the amendment Act that I was talking about allows people from these islands to apply for their benefits from the Islands rather than physically—a proviso to the other provisions being that they're 65 years or older and that they meet the other residency requirements that have been thoroughly described in this House today as the 10 years in New Zealand since age 20 and the five years since age 50. The change that this bill brings into account is the five years in residence since age 50 can now be as a resident of the Cooks Niue or Tokelau.I wanted to conclude this short call—I was looking back over the third reading of the 2015 Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. The Minister responsible at the time was Anne Tolley. I thought some of her concluding comments at that time carry through the aspirations today that we had then with that bill. I'd like to read some of them. This is in the voice of Anne Tolley: As I mentioned earlier this bill is also about ensuring the economic and social viability of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Depopulation and its related social and economic consequences is a longstanding issue for those islands. The current 'resident and present in New Zealand' requirement has been described as a disincentive for Cook Islanders Niueans and Tokelauans who are established in New Zealand to return home before the age of 65 … People returning at age 65 would have the capacity to contribute to the workforce 10 years in advance of the age of qualification for New Zealand superannuation. As pension payments are paid in gross it is expected that more income and value-added tax will be paid by returning migrants to contribute to the local economy."The final sentences were: "I want to reiterate that this Government wants to make sure that those countries and territories that have close constitutional ties with New Zealand are recognised and that their ongoing economic and social viability is supported." I think those aspirations from the sponsor of the 2015 bill carry through to this bill. It's with pleasure that this side of the House supports it all the way through to select committee and onwards."
Doocey Matt; Williams PotoMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): What a great bill and what a great bill to end this week. It's been a tough week for the Government. It's great to see we can come together and finish on a high note. I do want to take the time to apologise to that last speaker Marama Davidson because I did interject and it was the wrong thing to do. It wasn't rude or flippant. I said Life begins after 50." and my point was now those people whose lives are beginning after 50 will have a choice of what country they can stay in and I welcome that.I just want to acknowledge the members that have gone before me who have talked about the history of this bill the symbolism. I don't want to traverse that but I do want to raise four points—it is a debate—and the first is: I did hear some chatter that people think we're taking away that five years after 50 residency rule which we're not. All we're changing is what country you do that in either the Realm country or New Zealand. Because I think it is important—that five years after 50 rule.Also I think this bill actually is an acknowledgment for advocacy because if I look at the amendments the past National Government made in 2015 allowing people from the Realm countries to apply—but it didn't go that extra step allowing people in the Realm countries to stay there after 50. There's a risk now because I'm going to mention names—I won't remember them all. But if I think back to members like Poto Williams and Carmel Sepuloni who were very fierce in those debates and I think this bill demonstrates how they've continued with that advocacy and that's how this bill has ended up here today.I would like to give a heads-up to the select committee that is going to receive this bill. I've already had a lady in my Kaiapoi office who came in. She went to Australia at age 49 never thought about the implications and now she's back at 65 and obviously hasn't triggered that five years after 50. So it is going to be one of those things where scope will be challenged in the select committee process and good luck to the select committee for that.My final point I think is that this bill is a direction of travel and I think some in this House have already alluded to that. New Zealand is becoming a very diverse place and I think that should be applauded and celebrated. It's fantastic. And equally nation States; people are choosing to live in multiple places over the course of their life and it is something that we are going to have to think in the Westphalian nation system of our nation States—retain their sovereignty but allow that flexibility as people live in different countries along their life course. So I'd like to commend this very good bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call—Paul Eagle five minutes."
Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise in relation to the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill. I've not spoken on Treaty settlement bill before but it does seem to me that the character and nature of these things is somewhat special and unique. I'm conscious of perhaps a sense of history for those involved: those who are present—physically present here today—and I acknowledge them but also those who might be following from afar; and also those who are in the present time but also future generations who will see the benefit of the significance of what is being decided in effect here today. I acknowledge all those who have been involved at prior stages of the passage of this legislation including the Māori Affairs Committee and also Minister Little and—as he then was—Minister Finlayson for their passage in conjunction with the many affected parties who it appears to me—somewhat from the outside in terms of my own involvement—have played a constructive role in good faith to bring some resolution to a matter of some historical pain and distress. I just wanted to focus briefly on a couple of words from the introduction to the bill that to me seem significant in terms of what it is that we are deciding or deliberating on here today. The first is the word alienation". The historical claims of these people from the Hawke's Bay include the alienation of land through the failure to implement the terms of pre-Treaty land transactions. That word "alienation" of course has a technical meaning in the sense that it was lands alienated or taken away but I also think that it's got another significance in the sense of making the parties alien to each other alien from the land made other or made separate in that sense. So it seems to me as part of the healing and the acknowledgment that we are undertaking as part of this process that we acknowledge that separation and that we can bring at least to some extent a land and a people back together in that way that is both physical but also emotional.Similarly the word "settlement" in the bill's title of course is inherent to the nature of the process that we are undertaking. "Settlement" again has a technical meaning in terms of land law—meaning of course the completion of a transaction. But on another level we might think of settlement as being the act of settling or the act of bringing some calm or resolution to a matter—again almost in an emotional as much as a physical or certainly a material sense. So for all those reasons it seems to me that this is very worthwhile opportunity for Parliament to go some way towards completing a process that has been very long running and very significant. It is a privilege to be part of it and I acknowledge all those others who have also been a part of it and wish all those concerned the very best for the future."
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Ki ngā hapū ngā whānau o ngā uri o Heretaunga Tamatea nau mai ki tēnei Whare.[To the various tribal groups and descendant families of Heretaunga Tamatea I welcome you to this House.]It's a pleasure to take this call and acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee and the work the many hours that they've put into what we have before us here this afternoon as a second reading. The committee report recommends a small number of technical changes to the bill arising from the submissions and changes that are agreed to by the Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust. I acknowledge the work undertaken by He Toa Takitini the mandated entity on behalf of Heretaunga Tamatea. I know that anything that gets to this point involves many hours of personal historic but also just work and sentiments and undertakings so for me to be here is just one tiny sliver in the narrative.I'd just like to acknowledge that this deed of settlement will include a package of acknowledgments an apology cultural redress financial and commercial redress—all things that are incredibly important and are as I said before historic personal and just. We would always want through the passage of this Parliament settlements that are final and that are durable and I believe that this particular package is well on its way to achieving that. It's about strengthening partnerships between Crown and iwi. So what I'd like to do is just simply acknowledge our collaborative agreement for the passage of this bill and for this the second reading and acknowledge once again Heretaunga Tamatea. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.
Points of Order — Speakers' Rulings—Privilege (continued)
Brownlee GerryPrivilege—Freedom of SpeechHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A further point of order? Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No no. It's speaking to the point of order. You interrupted my flow. SPEAKER: The one that I've already just ruled on? Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well no the previous one. SPEAKER: Well Mr Brownlee I think you're beginning to trifle—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I'm sorry but here we've got a situation where you now appear to have clarified for the public of New Zealand that if a member of Parliament threatens another member of Parliament saying that if they take a particular action in the House—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat.
Points of Order — Oral Questions—Questions Ruled Out of Order
Points of Order — Speakers' Rulings—Privilege
Sio Hon Aupito William; Mallard TrevorOral Questions—Questions Ruled Out of OrderHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I observed earlier today when Mr Seymour was given the opportunity to ask questions—and I think there were two or three questions in rapid repeat—that each time those questions were out of order by you nodding in silence it concerned me that whilst people in the House knew that those questions were not in order I don't know whether the record would state that those questions were not in order because by you nodding to Mr Seymour that they were not in order my ministerial colleague was unable to answer. My concern there is that if the record does not record that those questions were not in order it may appear that we were not answering the questions.SPEAKER: I'm quite sure that the record will be clear.
Brownlee GerryPOINTS OF ORDERPrivilege—Freedom of SpeechHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a point of order where I am going to ask you to provide a ruling to the House. It relates to Standing Order 410 particularly paragraphs (j) (l) (m) and (n) of that Standing Order. Those particular parts refer to the duty of members. It could be argued that that duty stops and starts inside the House but it would be the public expectation that the duties of a member of Parliament start the day they're elected and end the day they are no longer a member. So sir noting your response to a privilege complaint which has been rejected I'm asking that you bring to the House a ruling on how and where you see a member's duty beginning and ending in relation to House business.I do this because if it is limited or contained just within the House then that would mean that almost all the interaction that MPs have with their constituents or with each other in connection with the business of Government or before the House is separated while it's outside the House from the business that's conducted within the House and that makes quite a difficult sort of circumstance. If you then go particularly to paragraph (l) does that now mean that the activity described in paragraph (l) if it is conducted outside the House notwithstanding the material reason for the activity relating to the matters being considered by the House is deemed to be outside of any breach of privilege?SPEAKER: I don't think I need to come back. I think the matter's relatively clear and the member who normally sits next to the member again could explain it to him. Privilege only applies to the proceedings of the House. It does not apply—there's no privilege for MPs doing wider duties as a number of us have experienced including a member sitting not far behind him.
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 5 APRIL 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week the annual review debate will continue. The House will consider the first readings of the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill the Privacy Bill the Commerce Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. The Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman will make his valedictory statement at 5.40 p.m. on Wednesday 11 April and on Thursday 12 April the House will adjourn until Tuesday 1 May. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thank you to the Leader of the House. Does he anticipate that the annual review debate would conclude next week or will it run beyond the recess? Also would he consider moving item No. 20 on the Order Paper further up so that it might be dealt with in an expeditious manner? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In answer to the last part of the question no. In answer to the first question that depends on progress on other matters.
Wednesday 4 April 2018 - Volume 728
VoteA party vote was called for on the question that the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill be now read a first time. [Interruption]DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry there will be silence while the votes are being taken.A party vote was called for on the question That the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail To Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Motion not agreed to.
Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Crimes (Increased Penalty for Providing Explosive to Commit Crime) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Crimes (Increased Penalty for Providing Explosive to Commit Crime) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion not agreed to.
12. Product Recall—Takata Alpha-type Air BagsKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsProduct Recall—Takata Alpha-type Air Bags12. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What is he doing to ensure the safety of New Zealand consumers?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Today I announced the compulsory recall of more than 50000 vehicles installed with Takata Alpha-type air bags in order to protect New Zealand drivers and passengers from these unsafe air bags. A voluntary recall has been in place since 2013 but I am not satisfied with the progress to date. Alpha-type air bags pose a significant risk of misfiring in an accident and sending shrapnel fragments towards vehicle occupants. Although no deaths have occurred in New Zealand there have been 23 deaths globally as a consequence of these faulty air bags. The Government will not take this risk by continuing the approach of the previous Government which was to do nothing. The safety of our passengers and drivers is paramount and New Zealanders can be assured that this Government is committed to ensuring that these unsafe air bags are removed and replaced as quickly as possible. Kiritapu Allan: How will the compulsory recall provide certainty for the motor vehicle industry and consumers? Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The compulsory recall has been welcomed by the motor vehicle industry. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of new vehicle sellers to replace the faulty air bags while the recall was voluntary as replacement of air bags was undertaken at their cost. Making the recall compulsory will provide guidance to suppliers of both new and used vehicles so that replacement air bags can be sourced and installed as quickly as possible. Consumers can rest assured that if their vehicle is affected they can seek replacement air bags at no cost to them. I encourage vehicle owners to find out more information and to check the status of their air bags at the website www.recalls.govt.nz. In order to ensure progress is made in a timely manner under this recall I have set up a monitoring group to provide monthly reporting on the progress of the recall. Kiritapu Allan: Why is the Minister taking action now given reports of issues with faulty air bags date back to 2013? Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Upon first—SPEAKER: Yeah very carefully. Hon KRIS FAAFOI: OK. Upon first learning of the seriousness of the issue the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter and I commissioned an urgent report into the matter. Following a compulsory recall in Australia and after advice and discussions with agencies and the sector the compulsory recall was decided as the most appropriate action. This Government inherited a situation where 50000 vehicles being used every day by New Zealanders were exposed to a significant safety risk. This Government will not allow this issue to go unaddressed and risk the safety of New Zealanders.
11. Whānau Ora—ReviewJO HAYES (National) to the Minister for Whānau OraWhānau Ora—Review11. JO HAYES (National) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: Does he agree with his reported comments to Māori Television on 31 October last year that he expected the review process of Whānau Ora to begin within the first 100 days of Government?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Yes.Jo Hayes: When will he announce the terms of reference and the reviewers for his proposed review—more than 150 days after he first became the Whānau Ora Minister?Hon PEENI HENARE: For the benefit of the member she and the House can expect an announcement imminently. It has gone through a thorough and robust process to make sure that the administration of the review is proper before the review starts proper and they can expect an announcement very soon.Jo Hayes: How much longer will Whānau Ora service providers commissioning agencies have to wait for security around their futures in the Whānau Ora space?Hon PEENI HENARE: Their security has never been in question. We're talking about the review here and the review will take place very shortly. Jo Hayes: Will he commit to continuing to fund Whānau Ora at its current level? Hon PEENI HENARE: Nothing's happening with the funding for Whānau Ora. In fact the review I hope will actually increase it but let's have the review first.
9. Schools—Tomorrow's Schools ReviewJAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of EducationSchools—Tomorrow's Schools Review9. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made in setting up a review of the Tomorrow's Schools model?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you Mr Speaker. The terms of reference have been released and this morning I announced the membership of the Tomorrow's Schools review independent task force that will be charged with leading the biggest review of the way our schools are governed managed and administered in 30 years. The task force will be chaired by Bali Haque and will include Dr Cathy Wylie Mere Berryman Professor John O'Neill and Barbara Ala'alatoa a very distinguished group of people who have a wide variety of views on how our schools should be administered.Jamie Strange: How will he ensure that the expertise of the teaching profession and others within the school sector is incorporated into the review?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I've already discovered as Minister of Education that when it comes to schooling almost everybody in the country has a view on how it should be done and it's important that everybody with that view has the opportunity to contribute to this review process. So I've set up in addition to the task force a cross-sector advisory group that will sit alongside the task force to ensure that all of those groups who represent and advocate for different people and different players in the education field have the opportunity to participate. That group will include for example school trustees unions principals teachers and many many others with a view on education.
8. Health Services—Conflicts of Interest and National Oracle SolutionDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Conflicts of Interest and National Oracle Solution8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: What steps has he taken to ensure Deloitte as independent reviewer of the $90 million National Oracle Solution Programme is independent of the companies under review?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): As I indicated to the member yesterday I am advised that the potential possible and actual conflicts of interest were considered as part of the consultancy services order. Previous work done by Deloitte on the National Oracle Solution programme was listed in the conflict of interest declaration within the consultancy services order. This includes services provided by Deloitte subsidiary Asparona. I've been assured that no individual who had anything to do with Asparona's involvement in the National Oracle Solution project has any involvement in the Deloitte review.Dr Shane Reti: Will he release Deloitte's conflict of interest declaration referred to in oral question No. 9 yesterday; and if not why not?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'll take advice on whether that's the normal course of action. The ministry advises me that at all points through the process the ministry and Deloitte fully complied with the guidelines of the all-of-Government procurement processes and conflict management procedures which are the same processes used by the previous Government.Dr Shane Reti: When he said in oral question No. 9 yesterday The conflicts of interest perceived or actual were declared before the review was commenced." does he believe a conflict of interest disappears because it has been declared?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No. The important thing with any conflict of interest is that it's managed appropriately.Dr Shane Reti: When he said in oral question No. 9 yesterday "Yes" to the question of whether Deloitte or Deloitte-related entities had received funding for the $90 million programme will he then release how much Deloitte have received over the life of the programme; and if not why not?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I would expect that that would be part of the normal annual review process. That's where the Opposition gets to scrutinise the spending of the Government. This followed a normal process in terms of using the all-of-Government panel that that previous Government used. This one is no different."
7. Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media Minister—Contact with the Chair of Radio New Zealand and Meeting with Carol HirschfeldMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital MediaBroadcasting Communications and Digital Media Minister—Contact with the Chair of Radio New Zealand and Meeting with Carol Hirschfeld7. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media): Yes in the context they were made and taken.Melissa Lee: When she was first made aware on 1 March of Radio New Zealand (RNZ) inadvertently misleading the parliamentary select committee why didn't she notify the clerk or the chair of the select committee?Hon CLARE CURRAN: My office rang Radio New Zealand to advise of the discrepancy. I stand by the fact that that was the appropriate action at the time.Melissa Lee: If she was so concerned about ensuring the select committee record was corrected regarding her meeting with Carol Hirschfeld why did she wait more than three weeks to tell the RNZ chairman Richard Griffin to correct the record?Hon CLARE CURRAN: My office rang Radio New Zealand twice during that time; so there wasn't a gap of three weeks.Melissa Lee: At the Astoria meeting in December was she offered any documents or did she receive any documents from Carol Hirschfeld?Hon CLARE CURRAN: No.
6. Transport Infrastructure—Draft Policy Statement on Land Transport and Fuel Excise DutyKIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of TransportTransport Infrastructure—Draft Policy Statement on Land Transport and Fuel Excise Duty6. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: Why does the Government's draft policy statement on land transport contain increases in investment in safety and local and regional roads?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): So far this year more than 100 people have died on our roads. The new draft Government policy statement rebalances spending away from massive expenditure on a few low-value hand-picked expressways and towards reducing the increasing number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Regional and local roads are in desperate need of increased spending after years of neglect and vast amounts of money being spent on expressways.Kieran McAnulty: Will fuel excise duty be increased?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Rebalancing the Government policy statement on land transport towards safety and value for money means we will no longer need the 20c-a-litre fuel excise duty increase considered by the previous Government—Hon Members: And rejected.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —considered and left open under active consideration—SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. It's a very simple question and the member will address it directly. I mean I can't insist on yes or no but that was a yes or no question.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Fuel excise duty will be increased because spending more money on making our roads safer and investing in local and regional roads where most people drive and where most people die on the roads is a sensible and prudent approach to saving lives.Kieran McAnulty: What reaction has there been to the draft policy statement?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: One highly respected business editor today praised the Government's transformative land transport package and its long-overdue focus on safety. She said that through the package the Government is in the driver's seat when it comes to delivering on its election promises. Another commentator said and I quote One big change is that the Land Transport Fund will now cover spending across all land transport modes [meaning] the new … strategy [can] fully integrate planning for roads and rail public transport … existing bus and rail services and the proposed new [urban] rapid transit network.""
1. Government Financial Position—ReportsDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSGovernment Financial Position—Reports1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the Government's financial statements?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Treasury this morning released the Crown financial results for the eight months to the end of February. The Government's accounts continue to track slightly better than expected with the Government surplus nearly $500 million higher than the Treasury forecast in December. This reflects underlying economic conditions with surveys of business and consumer confidence pointing to sustainable growth rates of about 3 percent over the next few years for the New Zealand economy. Dr Deborah Russell: What did Treasury say led to the better than expected results? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A strong jobs market this year has meant employment growth has been higher in recent months than Treasury expected meaning PAYE is above forecast. Greater residential investment and private consumption has boosted GST receipts while a rise in customs and excise duties has also contributed to core Crown tax revenue coming in $692 million better than expected. Dr Deborah Russell: What other recent economic reports has he seen? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A consumer confidence report out from ANZ-Roy Morgan today shows that consumers are feeling assured". The current conditions index and the future conditions index are both considerably higher than they were at the end of 2017. As ANZ chief economist Sharon Zollner said "Consumer confidence remains high. And why not? Jobs are plentiful there's talk of higher wages and the Auckland housing market has found a floor." This is also off the back of another improvement in business confidence for their own activity with both reports pointing to sustainable economic growth rates of about 3 percent a year."
Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Kieran McAnulty has actually now sort of carved out a reputation as the filibuster king of the bills. He either speaks off the bill and has to be corrected to be brought on to the bill and when he does speak on the bill he actually doesn't read the bill. He's gone on and on. He's talked about—he's waxed lyrical about a whole lot of things bar talking about the bill. So what that tells us very clearly is that he's carved his reputation. He tried to be sympathetic and empathetic about all of the things there but what Mr McAnulty doesn't know—and if I was to ask him—is how many not-for-profit organisations are out there in New Zealand?Kieran McAnulty: A few.Hon ALFRED NGARO: 114932. How many charitable registered trusts are there? 27900.Kieran McAnulty: That's right.Hon ALFRED NGARO: That's right. So what's the current contribution to GDP? 4.4 percent of the GDP which equates to $9.4 billion. So the member can talk a lot about his experiences and what's out there but if he did a little bit of work if he concentrated on the bill he'd realise what this bill is actually trying to do. We live in a country where people are generous—and thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I didn't interrupt my colleague in the final minute of her speech but during the outburst of interjections the honourable member of Parliament for Selwyn made an unparliamentary comment and I'd like to ask you to ask her to withdraw and apologise.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I didn't hear an unparliamentary; I heard a lot of—but I'll ask the member if she made an unparliamentary comment if she would withdraw it.Hon Amy Adams: Madam Deputy Speaker I did call her a hypocrite and I withdraw and apologise.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Is someone seeking the call?
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. Well we've heard it all tonight but a thing that is missing out of all of the debate that I've heard here tonight is that we are actually talking about criminals. These are people who have been to court and they have been convicted of a crime. The difference is they have been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence. A lot of these people end up in our communities they end up doing community work and for me I'm extremely grateful for the contribution they make back to those communities. They've seen the product of their toils. We have seen some wonderful community projects completed by people doing their non-custodial sentences. Most of them I have found to be really good people who have just done something quite stupid that's ended them up in this situation.I was most impressed by one young man who was convicted of a crime. He did his community service and worked on a special project in town in Hokitika. His community sentence was up before the project was finished and he had invested so much of himself in that and got so much pride out of what he had done that he came back to finish the project as a volunteer. I think that's a huge credit to the corrections staff that work with these people doing their community service. I want to give a shout out to the corrections staff because it's not always easy for them. I've seen the effort that they put in in helping the people that are doing this community work to actually achieve their sentences and put things right.But as we've heard tonight there are a few that are hard to reach and they are the 5 percent that are the most difficult. They're the ones that are non-compliant with their non-custodial sentences. So what are the consequences for these people that fail to turn up? Well there actually is a precedent for this bill—that precedent is the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Act of 2013. That Act actually withholds benefit payments for people who have outstanding warrants and they are on benefits. So there is precedent for this bill.I think my last closing comment I would like to make to the other side of the House is if you do the crime and don't do the time don't expect the taxpayers to pay you when you don't turn up. We on this side of the House are not soft on crime and we simply want those people who have been convicted to do their time. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise to take a call on the Crimes (Increased Penalty for Providing Explosive to Commit Crime) Amendment Bill. It seems to me that it's worth starting with a constitutional nicety if I may. There's been some talk on the other side of the House about Parliament increasing penalties for people who commit the acts to which this bill will apply.In fact of course it is the judiciary the judges themselves who will apply the penalty in any given case. So it's worth noting that as a Parliament what we will be doing if this law is to pass is not in fact to increase the penalties but the maximum penalties. Therefore what we are doing in fact is providing a greater range and we are increasing the discretion available to the judge in her or his discretion in any given situation. So to me that's the first point to be made. Then we come to the point that it is true however to say that a piece of legislation of this nature does send a signal—or a message is the language that is sometimes used—to people who might be contemplating offences or who have indeed carried out such offences. That signal is important to have consistency with other equivalent legislation and certain sections of the Arms Act have been discussed by this House on both sides already so I don't intend to traverse that ground further.In absolute terms however I do think it's important to note that the excellent member's bill by my colleague Alastair Scott includes an understanding that explosives are by their nature somewhat indiscriminate in their effect so their effect in legal terms by way of punishment for those who dabble in them should also be not insignificant.I also wanted to make a point regarding the purpose of this legislation. It seems to me that the parties opposite have focused rather narrowly on the deterrence aspect of our criminal justice system in somewhat sarcastic terms at times. But of course punishment and also prevention are also valid objectives of our criminal justice system and indeed this bill—namely that if a maximum penalty of five years as opposed to two for example is exercised then that's a three-year period for which the community can feel safe against those who would knowingly supply explosives to people who would use those to harm others.So for those reasons it seems to me this bill is very worthy of support and I am very pleased to do so along with other members of my party.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on this bill and I'd like to start by congratulating my colleague the MP for Wairarapa Alastair Scott for working hard on this bill and getting this bill through here to its second reading. Well done. On this side of the House clearly you can see we're making no apology for being tough on crime and clearly providing explosives to commit a crime is a serious offence and warrants a tough penalty. Surely there's no one who cannot see that sort of linkage. Now the current penalty is two years and during the Justice Committee process Alastair Scott pointed out that the crime of conspiracy has a penalty of seven years. Surely we can see the disproportionality between those two.Furthermore as the committee was looking into this disproportionality the committee was informed by officials—and I actually found it quite interesting too as I was reading through the document—as to how penalty levels are actually set. I wanted to read from the transcript here. When assessing appropriate penalty levels for offences the Ministry of Justice does not take into account just one element of the offence. A range of factors including the mens rea (mental element) the actus reus (the physical element) on whom the burden of proof lies the nature of harm being addressed and the proximity of the acts being criminalised [in] the commission of a prohibited (harmful) act are all taken into account. In addition the relativity of the penalty to other offences dealing with the same or similar subject matter is [also] taken into account in assessing the appropriate hierarchy of penalties." So I learnt something there as to you know how we come to have two years and seven years and so on and so forth.Now there were three submitters to the select committee all in favour of the bill. There was one supplementary also. Ben Fraser made three points. He was very much in support of the bill. He recognised the risk of explosives and cited international incidents. He also said that the increase in penalty for the offence would be proportionate to the risk and harm and he thought that increasing the penalties would be beneficial. The second submitter Mr Forsyth was also in support of the bill and the third submitter Mr Bryce again was in support of the bill. He wondered if it could also be extended to include safety ammunition and propellant powders. This was kind of interesting. Officials came back and said "Look that's probably actually covered under section 272 in that where it says 'any explosive substance or any dangerous engine instrument or thing' it's likely that the court will also interpret that into existing legislation." So in summary all the submitters supported this bill. We clearly support this bill. It makes sense and I commend this bill to the House."
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to stand and support Alastair Scott's bill. I think it is a very sensible bill which addresses an issue which was raised by the Law Commission. Increasing the penalty makes sure that we address the issue which was raised. National has been tough on crime and we know that this present-day Government is very soft on crime. The contribution by Ginny Andersen clearly shows that they are going to be soft on crime.I would like to acknowledge the contribution by Raymond Huo the chair of the Justice Committee—a very sensible contribution which talked about the bill. Some of the Government members did not even mention about the bill but were having a personal vendetta—for example the Hon Ron Mark. He clearly in his speech wanted to just say that Alastair Scott—he lost the election to him by 13000 votes but he could not say that. He kept on targeting Alastair Scott—that he won by 16000 but he did not mention that he lost to him.Coming back to what Raymond Huo mentioned—the intent of the bill is very clear and that's what is the crux of this bill: that we have to address the issues which have been identified. The identified issue was that imprisonment of two years is too low; it should be five years. That's what this bill intends to do. I hope that there could be a change of minds still—there are a few more speeches—that the Labour Party might change their mind and support the bill brought by Alastair Scott. I commend this bill to the House.
Points of Order — Adverse Weather (Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands) Bill 2018—Leave to Introduce
List Member Vacancy & Member Sworn
Pugh Maureen; Mallard Trevor; Brownlee GerryPOINTS OF ORDERAdverse Weather (Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands) Bill—Leave to IntroduceMAUREEN PUGH (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Adverse Weather (Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands) Bill a member's bill in my name—SPEAKER: Order! The member's sought leave for a particular bill. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: A point of order. I hope we're not going to go backwards over a matter that's been dealt with Mr Brownlee.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I'm aware of what's in the leave motion. There is more in it.SPEAKER: Is the member proposing to introduce another bill or to do something further?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Mr Speaker on numerous occasions in here people have moved to have a bill introduced and read at a particular time. That is simply the balance of the motion that the member is moving and I think the House should hear it before it makes a decision.SPEAKER: OK I apologise for interrupting the member but her leave has been dealt with. Leave was not granted.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the leave motion was not completely put to the House then hearing part of a motion you sought from the Government their opinion how can it be reasonable to say that the House has considered the motion?SPEAKER: Well I'm not saying the House has considered the motion because there was no motion. It was leave. The leave to which bill it applied was absolutely clear. That's been put to the House and members have said no.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 4 APRIL 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.LIST MEMBER VACANCYSPEAKER: I have been advised by the Electoral Commissioner that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Nicola Valentine Willis has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of the Hon Steven Joyce. I understand that Nicola Willis is present and wishes to take the Oath of Allegiance. Would she please come forward to the chair on my right.MEMBERS SWORNNicola Willis presented herself to the Speaker took the Oath of Allegiance required by law and took her seat in the House.SPEAKER: As the member is signing I was just noting that the last person who had the name Valentine was Ross Robertson: HRV—Harold Ross Valentine Robertson.
Tuesday 3 April 2018 - Volume 728
12. Government Transparency—Minister's Contact with Carol Hirschfeld and the Chair of Radio New ZealandBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government)Government Transparency—Minister's Contact with Carol Hirschfeld and the Chair of Radio New Zealand12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government): Does she stand by all of her answers to oral and written questions?Hon CLARE CURRAN (Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government)): Yes except where they have been corrected in which case I stand by the corrected answer.Brett Hudson: When she said in answer to oral question No. 12 on 29 November 2017 that this will be the most open most transparent Government [that] New Zealand has ever had" does she consider her communications relating to the meeting between her and Carol Hirschfeld support that priority?Hon CLARE CURRAN: Yes. As soon as I became aware that I had incorrectly answered a written question I corrected the record at the first available opportunity as I am required to do and as a responsible member of Parliament.Brett Hudson: When she said in answer to oral question No. 12 on 29 November 2017 that this will be "the most open most transparent Government [that] New Zealand has ever had" how does her not advising Miss Hirschfeld to notify the Radio New Zealand chief executive ahead of their scheduled meeting support her priority?Hon CLARE CURRAN: As is well known out in the public arena when I arranged a meeting with Carol Hirschfeld I believed it was an informal meeting but it was an appropriate meeting. I stand by that.Melissa Lee: When she said in answer to oral question No. 12 on 29 November 2017 that this will "be the most open most transparent Government [that] New Zealand has ever had" is it open and transparent for the Minister if as reported today she or her office asked the chair of Radio New Zealand Richard Griffin not to attend the call-back select committee meeting scheduled for this Thursday to correct the records?Hon CLARE CURRAN: I reject the premise of that question. On learning that RNZ would not be appearing before the select committee last Thursday to correct the record at the earliest opportunity and on advice from the office of the Leader of the House I rang Mr Griffin last Thursday morning around 8.30 a.m. to advise him that it would be preferable to send a letter of correction that day before 1 p.m. rather than waiting until the following Thursday to appear in person. This was a voicemail message. I received a voicemail message from Mr Griffin at 3 p.m. that day to say that he had a prior agreement with the chair of the select committee to appear at the committee this Thursday and to call him back if I had a problem. I didn't call him back.Brett Hudson: Supplementary?SPEAKER: No that concludes oral questions."