edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mark Ron: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7977. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): My question is to the Minister of Finance—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can start his question now.RON MARK: My question is to the Minister of Finance and asks: does he stand by all of his questions to oral question No. 1—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to get the member to read the question again. [Interruption] Order! Ask the question again.RON MARK: Sorry?Mr SPEAKER: The member used the word “questions” rather than “answers” in his reading. Just read the question again.RON MARK: It actually says—sorry—it actually says “answers” on what a bloody—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: That is right. [Interruption] That is exactly my point.RON MARK: Thank you Mr Speaker for your tolerance and guidance. We will have a better day tomorrow.Mr SPEAKER: Order!RON MARK: To the Minister of Finance does he stand by all of his answers to oral question—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am now specifically looking for someone to my right whom I am going to ask to leave. So the next one I hope will be easy for me to pick.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7976. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I expect silence when this question is being asked from members to my right. The member might have to start her question again.
Ardern Jacinda: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7976. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): My question is to the Minister for Social Development and asks: does she stand by her statement when asked whether child poverty was—[Interruption]
Bayly Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBayly Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7975. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Revenue: What recent announcements has he made on how the Government is making tax simpler?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): Yesterday I released two consultation documents as part of the Government’s Business Transformation programme to modernise and simplify tax administration. The first is making it simpler for businesses to manage PAYE and GST with proposals to make PAYE and GST systems fit with business processes rather than the other way around. The second discussion paper looks at the Tax Administration Act and how the current systems might be made simpler for everyone and more flexible for the future. The Government is also focused on making business tax simpler and will consult on this in 2016.Andrew Bayly: How is the Business Transformation programme progressing?Hon TODD McCLAY: The Inland Revenue Department’s Business Transformation programme is now planned to be completed within 7 years instead of the 10 years originally indicated. This is because we have selected a core tax system that is built for tax proven in a significant number of other tax jurisdictions around the world and that will require minimal customisation. I also expect the project to come in well below the high end of projections of $1.9 billion. It is now likely that new Crown-funding requirement will be under $1 billion. I am pleased that the programme will also deliver more benefits for New Zealanders and businesses than originally proposed.Andrew Bayly: What opportunities are there for New Zealand companies in the Business Transformation programme?Hon TODD McCLAY: We have always said that the programme will use a mixture of New Zealand and international expertise. New Zealand companies have received 67 percent of the spend to date—supporting businesses and creating jobs. Yesterday I announced that next month a sample of Xero and Mind Your Own Business (MYOB) customers will be able to file GST returns straight from their accounting software to the Inland Revenue Department rather than having to file a separate return. This will be rolled out to all Xero and MYOB customers and in time will be extended to all other software providers. This has very practical benefits for businesses cutting the amount of time it takes for them to meet their tax obligations and it is an early step in integrating business and tax processes.
Fox Marama: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFox Marama: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7974. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party) on behalf of MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: What is he doing to ensure vital services to promote the understanding and management of asthma and respiratory conditions amongst Māori are maintained given that funding to the only Māori Asthma Society in New Zealand will be discontinued at the end of 2015?Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just seek some clarification. I have not had a chance to look it up in the Standing Orders yet but I am sure you will be able to. My understanding is that Ministers cannot ask primary questions in the House. My understanding may be wrong—I have not had a chance to check that—but if you could clarify that that would be useful.Mr SPEAKER: To the best of my knowledge I was aware that Marama Fox was called away urgently. I will ask the Clerk because this is an important issue. Ministers can ask questions. So yes the answer can now proceed.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): District health boards are responsible for providing health services for their populations and for allocating their share of the record $15.9 billion health budget in a way that meets the needs of their local populations. The Māori asthma society to which the member refers has a contract to provide train-the-trainer courses but the review of the contract showed low uptake and the decision was made to spend the money in a way that would deliver better health outcomes.Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: How many contracts for Māori health providers were cancelled over the last 2 years and to what value?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The ministry has hundreds of contracts across the sector and we would need to go away to check them. If the member would like to set down a written question I would be happy to provide a considered answer. What I can tell the member is that recently the ministry reported on the health literacy demands on both whānau and health services around asthma management for Māori children. The ministry is using this report to improve care and is also currently considering an asthma and respiratory indicator for the 2016-17 district health board Māori Health Plans.
Simpson Scott: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7974. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Associate Minister of Tourism: What contribution is tourism making to diversify the New Zealand economy?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Tourism): The tourism industry is continuing its impressive growth. The total tourism spend in the year to March 2015 was nearly $30 billion up more than 10 percent compared with the year before. Tourism now represents 17.4 percent of our total exports up from 15 percent and is our second-largest export. The growth in tourism along with success in other export industries such as international education ICT wool and wine is contributing to our increasingly diverse and growing economy.Scott Simpson: What contribution is tourism making to job growth?Hon PAULA BENNETT: One in every eight jobs is now directly or indirectly related to tourism. There are 168000 New Zealanders who are directly employed in tourism with a further 128000 indirectly employed. Tourism is worth $10.6 billion or nearly 5 percent of our GDP. Many regions are benefiting directly including places like Matamata. Hobbiton Movie Set and Farm Tours has hired 92 new staff in the past 3 months and now employs more than 200 people.Scott Simpson: What evidence is there that the tourism industry will continue to grow?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are actually ahead of track to reach the ambitious target of generating $41 billion in tourism revenue by 2025. We are seeing growth in the number of visitors from our major markets such as the US and Australia and we have had a 35 percent increase in the number of visitors from China. And of course just yesterday Qantas and American Airlines announced a new direct service between Auckland and Los Angeles making New Zealand an even more accessible destination for American tourists.
Martin Tracey: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7972. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Did the question get heard by the—Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): Yes I heard the question. Yes.Tracey Martin: Does he stand by his statement in Hansard that “the police and other social agencies had worked very hard to ensure that there will not be a repeat of this.” with reference to the Roast Busters case?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes.Tracey Martin: Does he stand by his statement in Hansard that “… I am confident hopeful and optimistic that this does not reveal a culture of ambivalence towards the complainants.”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes.Tracey Martin: Has he in recent meetings with the Commissioner of Police inquired whether the law on intimate covert filming was considered in the recent case of young men taking photos of unconscious young girls where they dangled their penises over the girls’ faces?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As the member is probably aware by law the Commissioner of Police must act independently of the Ministers of the Crown particularly in relation to the enforcement of law and the investigation and prosecution of offences. However I have made inquiries about the incident that was the subject of media reporting earlier this week. I would say—and I caution the member—that on the advice I have received not all the facts were present in the media reporting. I cannot go into the operational detail but I am satisfied on the information I have been given that the investigation was conducted thoroughly and sensitively that the decision not to lay formal charges was made after legal advice and that the young woman involved in the incident is satisfied with the outcome and the police’s support.Tracey Martin: In light of that answer why should young girls and their families have any confidence in this Minister and the New Zealand Police if cases such as this continue to merely result in a warning to perpetrators?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is not for me to judge the utility of that warning as the member suggests. My role is to make sure that police activities are such that the public can have confidence in the quality of investigations and the feedback from the young woman involved is a very good barometer of that.
O'Rourke Denis: Points of Order — Speaker’s Rulings—Notification of Ruling Standing Orders—Proposed SuspensionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Points of Order — Speaker’s Rulings—Notification of Ruling Standing Orders—Proposed Suspension[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move under Standing Order 4(1) that the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of permitting me to move a motion for a debate straight after question time today on a matter of very serious and urgent significance being that the House debate the differences—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member may well have studied Standing Order 4(1) but he also needs to study Standing Order 5 because his action is not in line with the Standing Orders.
Carter David: Points of Order — Speaker’s Rulings—Notification of Ruling Standing Orders—Proposed SuspensionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Speaker’s Rulings—Notification of Ruling Standing Orders—Proposed Suspension[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I give my absolute assurance that I discussed it with no member of the National Party whatsoever. I spent a lot of time on it. I was still working on the final wording of it as I came into the House. I certainly did not discuss it with members of the National caucus.
Hipkins Chris: Points of Order — Speaker’s Rulings—Notification of Ruling Standing Orders—Proposed SuspensionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Points of Order — Speaker’s Rulings—Notification of Ruling Standing Orders—Proposed Suspension[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday prior to question time you gave a considered ruling on a matter that I am not going to re-traverse here. We have heard in the last 48 hours from National Party sources that they were aware of your intentions prior to that ruling being delivered in the House. I just seek some reassurance from you that that is not in fact the case and that if you are giving any advance notice of your intentions in the House prior to doing so all members of the House are made aware of that not one side and not the other.
Bridges Simon: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon: Business Statement[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): When the Government has made final decisions the member will be the first to know.
Hipkins Chris: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Business Statement[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could give us an indication of whether the Government intends to use any urgency between now and Christmas; if so what the approximate timing of that would be.
Bridges Simon: Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon: Business Statement[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House):When the House resumes on 17 November the Government intends to make progress on the Support for Children in Hardship Bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill and other bills in Committee on the Order Paper.
Sittings of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSittings of the House[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8014. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Sittings of the HouseJOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): It has been a very busy and eventful week for the House this week and so I seek the leave of the House to rise early.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is anyone brave enough to object to that? There appears to be no objection.
Urgent Debates Declined — National Council of Women of New Zealand—Enabling women's potentialReportText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — National Council of Women of New Zealand—Enabling women's potentialReport[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7979. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedNational Council of Women of New Zealand—Enabling women's potential ReportMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Sue Moroney seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the release of the National Council of Women of New Zealand’s white paper Enabling women’s potential: the social economic and ethical imperative released today. In order for an urgent debate to be held there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. There is no ministerial responsibility for a National Council of Women of New Zealand report. The Minister for Women may have commented on the report but she has made no decision that reveals a new development of significant importance in itself to warrant a debate being held today. The application is therefore declined.
Points of Order — Speaker’s Rulings—Notification of Ruling Standing Orders—Proposed SuspensionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Speaker’s Rulings—Notification of Ruling Standing Orders—Proposed Suspension[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderSpeaker’s Rulings—Notification of RulingCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday prior to question time you gave a considered ruling on a matter that I am not going to re-traverse here. We have heard in the last 48 hours from National Party sources that they were aware of your intentions prior to that ruling being delivered in the House. I just seek some reassurance from you that that is not in fact the case and that if you are giving any advance notice of your intentions in the House prior to doing so all members of the House are made aware of that not one side and not the other.Mr SPEAKER: I give my absolute assurance that I discussed it with no member of the National Party whatsoever. I spent a lot of time on it. I was still working on the final wording of it as I came into the House. I certainly did not discuss it with members of the National caucus.Standing Orders—Proposed SuspensionDENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move under Standing Order 4(1) that the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of permitting me to move a motion for a debate straight after question time today on a matter of very serious and urgent significance being that the House debate the differences—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member may well have studied Standing Order 4(1) but he also needs to study Standing Order 5 because his action is not in line with the Standing Orders.
Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBusiness Statement[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 12 November 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House):When the House resumes on 17 November the Government intends to make progress on the Support for Children in Hardship Bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill and other bills in Committee on the Order Paper.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could give us an indication of whether the Government intends to use any urgency between now and Christmas; if so what the approximate timing of that would be.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): When the Government has made final decisions the member will be the first to know.
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7948. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7939. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Noes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7916. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.
Bayly Andrew: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBayly Andrew: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be speaking on this Affordable Healthcare Bill—particularly after the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove. I would like to speak about something slightly more positive than the negativity that we heard from him. Of course I understand why the leader of New Zealand First is pushing this bill. It actually offers absolutely no downside for him to be seen to be promoting a bill of this sort especially given his constituency.Let us look at this bill. It really has three issues to it: one is that parental category which will have health insurance on arrival for migrants and maintained for 10 years; secondly it removes the fringe benefit tax on health care; and thirdly it introduces a SuperGold card—
Tisch Lindsay: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7958. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no that is not a point of order.
Martin Tracey: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7958. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The previous speaker seemed to be referring to notes around the figures. I wonder whether he could table the figures for the $150 million that he is talking—
Ross Jami-Lee: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7957. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I have to say that the parties opposite should really be going out there in the public and telling the public how many operations will not be delivered if a bill like this passes because $150 million in lost revenue would be the impact on the health budget—$150 million in lost revenue. When the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party say that we are underfunding health they forget the fact that we have poured hundreds of millions of dollars more into health. It has reached almost $16 billion. That is a huge amount more than the Labour Party was spending under Annette King as Minister of Health and we are seeing more operations being delivered. The risk to New Zealanders the risk to the health system and the risk to the elderly people whom this bill purports to support is that there will be fewer of them getting access to elective surgery and there will be fewer of those people getting access to first specialist assessments. Those are the negative aspects of this bill.Those are the negative ramifications of a bill like this. If they want to front up to the public that is what they should be talking about. There are 50000 more people a year getting access to elective surgery under this Government. That would fall off if we lost $150 million in revenue because of this bill. An extra 110000 people are getting access to first specialist assessments compared with 2008 because we are funding them more. If $150 million of the health budget was lost because of this bill that would be a negative impact for them. The 5500 doctors and nurses who have been poured into the health system—some of them would be put at risk as well because of the lost revenue under this bill.When the parties opposite go out and try to say that they are saving private health care for New Zealanders they have to talk about the fact that they are actually costing the health budget some money. The amount of funding that this would cost the Government in extra costs because of lost revenue would not actually be helpful to New Zealanders. There would be lost revenue and that is the impact that Tracey Martin and this bill are putting forward. Notwithstanding the fact that there are negative ramifications and there are discriminatory provisions in this bill overall from a financial perspective it is poor for health in New Zealand and it is poor for New Zealanders. This side of the House will not be supporting it and it should not go through this House.
Tisch Lindsay: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7954. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] I am going to call Eugenie Sage. I would like to hear her now.
Bishop Chris: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBishop Chris: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7953. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS BISHOP (National): This is an interesting proposal. A similar proposal put up by a New Zealand First delegate at the New Zealand First Party conference was described by one of the New Zealand First members as “discriminatory illegal disgraceful and would open the New Zealand First Party to ridicule.” I accept that that was of minute difference to the proposal contained in this bill but the rationale that Denis O’Rourke used in speaking at the New Zealand First Party conference applies absolutely to this bill. Why is that? It is because it is discriminatory.How do we know that it is discriminatory? It is because the Attorney-General has filed a section 7 report to Parliament about it. What does the Attorney-General say? Well he says it is not a justified limit on the right to be free from discrimination in section 19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act and it is not justified under section 5. The Attorney-General is required to make a legal judgment and he has done exactly that.I have some experience in these matters because I have also brought a bill to Parliament that has been found by the Attorney-General to be a breach of the discrimination provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But there are two types of discriminatory breaches. There are two types of section 7 reports. There are outrageous ones. There are ones that are literally the concept of the bill and to quote paragraph 14 of the section 7 report: “The explanatory note does not provide a rationale for applying the health insurance requirement only to migrants in the Parent Category nor is one immediately obvious. Indeed”—says the Attorney-General—“it would seem contrary to the general purpose of the Bill to require only this particular category of migrants to obtain health insurance.”So this is a condemnatory section 7 report—and then there are the other types of section 7 reports that are more technical ones and that is what my bill deals with which is a more technical objection. But this is a damning critique of the bill proposed by New Zealand First.Denis O’Rourke was exactly right in speaking about this proposal—exactly right. It is disgraceful it is arguably illegal and it will open New Zealand up to ridicule so he and Mahesh Bindra—another New Zealand First member—are exactly right. Good on you Denis O’Rourke for standing up at the New Zealand First Party conference and condemning your own leader’s proposal. Very embarrassing for you very embarrassing for Mr Peters but that is life these days in the New Zealand First caucus. With those brief remarks I do not commend this bill to the House.
King Annette: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7953. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I seek leave to table the September issue volume 9 issue 3 of the Cover Stories:Health Insurance News—which is not widely available; it is not one of those that is widely available—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. We know what it is. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Affordable Healthcare Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7953. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member’s time has expired.
Tisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7947. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Clare Curran—5 minutes in reply.
Browning Steffan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7947. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise in support of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill. It is as my co-leader Metiria Turia said earlier a token towards getting some decent transparency around the security agencies in New Zealand.I recall not so long ago when the original full bill went through and we worked through it in the select committee to try to get some decent oversight into the telecommunications aspects of security. We tried to get oversight so that the community could have some confidence around what was going on. We have heard already tonight the raft of shortcomings that have happened even since then.What is very very concerning is how industry is forced to open the portals of communications to security agencies and into private communications in such a way that effectively human rights abuses could occur. People’s privacy—and industry’s privacy at times—should not be looked at. They should not be being peered at by those with interests beyond genuine—genuine—security for New Zealand. There has been a raft of shortcomings in the activities of both the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and the SIS and when members of the community wanted to know whether they were affected—whether they were one of the ones who had been looked at illegally—that was supressed. Yet the Government came through with its “Five Eyes” bills—the “TICS Bill” the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill as we call this one and the GCSB bill—to align with the US and its foreign policy aims and objectives and for their big corporates and for their major military machine.It is absolutely critical that we get more oversight and this bill thanks to Labour member Clare Curran goes some way to do that. So we congratulate her on trying to get some more oversight some fair representation of industry—for looking at that aspect of the agencies that are working underneath the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act.It is concerning and the National Party members may sort of nod or be carrying on while New Zealanders’ privacy is actually threatened and while industry has to jump through hoops for the security agencies at its own expense and at the same time working against its own customers. So the Greens will be supporting this bill and we congratulate again the member who has brought it to the House. Thank you.
Foster-Bell Paul: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7946. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o te Whare. It is a matter that I take very seriously—speaking about a bill that has anything pertaining to the interception and securing of our country’s telecommunications network.So in rising to speak on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill in this first reading debate I want to initially say that I will be opposing this bill but it is something that I have read very closely. As we are in the Remembrance Day period where we are mindful of the fact that people have laid down their lives that we may live in a free country with protections of our privacy and our right to be free here it is something that we should all take particularly seriously.There are a couple of issues that my colleagues on this side of the House have particularly addressed. One that I want to touch on is the comparison with the United Kingdom example that I think the member is trying to make. The United Kingdom version of the technical advisory board has a very very different scope to what is being proposed in this bill. In the United Kingdom it focuses on interception obligations but not on the wider network security that is at risk from the hackers and the people who would seek to damage our economy by disrupting the critical infrastructure that we rely on in this country: the phone networks online banking and air traffic control; all of those things that are now networked.I am afraid this is a bill that I personally cannot support and I think for very good reason other members on this side of the House have highlighted that there are significant issues with it. I will not be supporting it further.
Yang Jian: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYang Jian: Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7945. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr JIAN YANG (National): The idea of establishing an independent technical advisory board is not feasible simply because the board would be ineffective in most of the decisions. Most of the decisions would relate to commercially sensitive matters. So it is not a feasible idea. Also a technically focused board would not be able to address the broad range of issues that the decision maker needs to address.At the moment we do have checks and balances in the current Act. All decisions to increase the interception obligations require consultation with the affected parties and also must take into account the effect on these parties. Affected parties already have the opportunity to submit advice to the Minister on the technical implementation. The current legislation is sound. We do not think it is necessary to add another clause to cover what has already been taken care of.Also since the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act came into effect we now have 140 registered network operators. Prior to this New Zealand had no record of the numbers. I oppose this particular bill. Thanks.
Borrows Chester: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7937. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call James Shaw in reply.
Macindoe Tim: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7935. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I must admit that I am surprised to hear Mr Nash supporting this bill because he is normally one member of the Labour Party who likes to see himself as one of its more commercially savvy members and what is important to note is that this bill actually cuts across what I would have thought to be a principle that he would believe in—that is the importance of the independence of fund managers in New Zealand.Let us be under no misapprehension. This particular bill which I think is a bizarre contribution from the Green Party would effectively ban public fund managers of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund the ACC fund and the Government Superannuation Fund from investing in companies that are directly involved in the mining and production of fossil fuels. Well we have always not only valued but also really upheld the importance of the independence of these publicly managed funds and I think that one of the really important things for us to take on board is that these particular managed funds are regarded as some of the models internationally. They are amongst the most ethical sovereign investment funds in the world at the moment and they have shown how to make good returns while maintaining these high ethical standards. These high ethical standards include a genuine respect for sustainability and best environmental practice.Here we have a bill that is effectively about the Green Party saying: “Let’s just secrete all the funds into our pet projects”—because that would actually be the end result of what it is wanting to do here tonight—“and take away the independence of some very experienced commercially astute fund managers.” Well I for one think that that is an outrageous suggestion. It would not serve the interests of our environment it certainly would not serve the interests of our economy and I cannot support this bill.
Borrows Chester: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7927. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora mai tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa. Members when the House adjourned for the dinner break it was the first reading of the Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill. Gareth Hughes was speaking on behalf of James Shaw who has 7 minutes and 30 seconds remaining to speak should he wish to avail himself of the opportunity.
Hughes Gareth: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green) on behalf of James Shaw (Co-Leader—Green): I move That the Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. This bill is part of the Green Party’s priority climate-change campaign. We want to make sure that kids growing up in New Zealand and all around the world can have a safe and stable climate future but when we have the public’s investment assets dedicated to fossil fuels we are actually counterproductive. Globally there is $620 billion invested annually in subsidising fossil fuels. We see it in New Zealand with tax breaks direct subsidies and direct promotion benefits for the oil industry and for the fossil fuel industry. Globally there is a debate as to whether the climate charge through an emissions trading scheme or a levy should be $25 a tonne but according to the International Energy Agency the current global fossil fuel subsidies are the equivalent of a plus $100 charge.When we are debating this—particularly under the Government at the moment where we have a minuscule carbon price—$25 seems far away. But when you are already $100 behind—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry—Mr Shaw must leave the Chamber while someone else is speaking on his behalf.GARETH HUGHES: It is hard when you already have those global fossil fuel subsidies. When it comes to the public assets in our public ownership these belong to all New Zealanders through the Superannuation Fund. We have seen some phenomenal returns but when you look globally at the economic and financial analyses of sovereign wealth funds and of other investment funds there is a clear correlation between those investing in clean energy and green technology and their performance. They significantly outperform fossil fuel investments. We have seen this week the writing on the wall for the lowest coal use in modern history.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Tisch Lindsay: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. I am sorry the member must move the bill first. If you do not have that information maybe you might come to the Table here. You have to move that the Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill—someone might like to give you a copy.
Hughes Gareth: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): I rise on behalf of Green Party co-leader James Shaw with his bill formerly in the name of—
Tisch Lindsay: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Climate Change (Divestment from Fossil Fuels) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is some member taking the call on behalf of James Shaw? I call Gareth Hughes.
Seymour David: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7924. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I start by commending the member Carmel Sepuloni who is passionate about the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill and its objectives for bringing a substantive member’s bill to the House. I was lucky to have a discussion with her about the objectives of the bill and about how it might work and I am afraid I cannot say I can support it. Very briefly I think the reason for that is that we all agree we would like to give more money to the poorest people in New Zealand yet the question is—Iain Lees-Galloway: No we want them to be able to earn more money David—earn more money.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well the member is right actually. They are not mutually exclusive you see. Thank you for that but the fact is that whether or not you have good intentions the real issue is whether this policy is the best use of available resources. All tax and transfer schemes face a trade-off between the amount of income someone receives at zero market income the abatement rate—the reduction in how much they receive as their market income increases—and the level of market income where they no longer receive the tax or transfer.This bill essentially just shifts part of that line and shifts the effective marginal tax rates at their highest further up the market income scale. It is not obvious why that is better than what we have now. Unfortunately the member has not demonstrated why this particular area of expenditure is better than any other possible options. So for that reason I cannot support it and as a final indication of why this bill may be misguided the best person the member’s party could come up with to speak second was a King’s College old boy who probably thinks poverty is having the old shape of Beemer. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Carmel Sepuloni—5 minutes in reply.