edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
8. Education National Standards—Removal and Replacement SystemHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of EducationEducation National Standards—Removal and Replacement System8. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the Treasury statement that the removal of National Standards should be delayed until the new assessment framework is ready for implementation. This is to prevent a gap in systems-level information on the overall performance of primary schools and the foundational skills of reading writing and maths which are critical to later success in education and training"; if not why not?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): No because if the member reads just a little bit further through the Cabinet paper she will see that I am not at all convinced national standards provide that system-level information in a way that is robust and reliable.Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he immediately release the new national administration guideline so that parents can see exactly what schools are required to report under the law; if not why not?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The new NAGS or national administration guidelines were signed by me on 12 December 2017 and will be in the next Gazette.Hon Nikki Kaye: Is he confirming that he has already passed into law the national administration guidelines without consulting with parents and without considering adequately Treasury's concerns and when will he actually listen to the parents of New Zealand?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We did listen to the parents of New Zealand. It was called a general election campaign.Jamie Strange: Does the Minister see it as a good or bad thing that Government officials will no longer have access to national standards to guide policy advice and allocation decisions?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Let me be very clear: I think that that is a good thing because national standards provided bogus data. It was problematic and the officials should not have been making decisions about how to allocate resources based on bogus data because for one thing it showed that students in Wellington should get more money than students in Auckland because the criteria being applied were different in those two cities. The data was not a reliable basis on which to be making decisions.Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he think it's listening to the parents of New Zealand when a Stuff poll shows more than 50000 people have voted and 87 percent of them are against the Government scrapping national standards and when will he actually listen to the parents of New Zealand?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If that member is relying on Stuff polls it may explain why she's sitting on that side of the House and not this side of the House. We have listened to the parents of New Zealand. They have told us that they want better information on their child's progress at school—that they agree that national standards were fundamentally flawed and provided bogus information."
4. Schools—Immediate Teacher Supply Package and Teacher SupplyJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationSchools—Immediate Teacher Supply Package and Teacher Supply4. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does he accept that there is a major shortage of teachers going into the 2018 school year; if so what will he do to address it?Hon Chris Hipkins: Sadly yes—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Chris Hipkins.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Sadly yes and it is particularly acute in some parts of the country particularly around Auckland. Today I've announced an immediate teacher supply package of $9.5 million to help get teachers into classrooms or back into classrooms for the beginning of the next school year. The funding which has been approved by Cabinet and budgeted for will support more graduates into permanent teaching positions support experienced teachers back into the profession and recruit more graduates into teaching.Jan Tinetti: What initiatives are contained within this teacher supply package?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are many elements to the package and they all interconnect but three key ones are expanding the Voluntary Bonding Scheme to decile 2 and 3 schools in Auckland and into areas of subject shortage covering the cost of teacher education refresher courses for those teachers who are fully trained but do not currently hold practising certificates and providing financial support to recruit and retain teachers with a limited authority to teach into positions where schools have been unable to recruit fully qualified teachers.Jan Tinetti: Why is this package being put together now for 2018?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The problems in this area have been growing for some time. We do need to take a longer-term view but I have been convinced by the information that I have received from schools particularly in Auckland that urgent action is required to ensure that they have enough teachers in their classrooms for the beginning of the next school year. There are three things that are converging that make this particularly challenging: there is a growing population there are increasing numbers of teachers over the age of 60 and nearing retirement age and there has been a steady decline in recent years in the number of teacher graduates completing their training. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that was going to come to a crunch point at some stage and it has.Hon Nikki Kaye: Why has he prioritised $2.8 billion in education expenditure on students rather than dealing properly with teacher shortages by extending voluntary bonding in more Auckland schools and other hard-to-staff geographical areas specifically in New Zealand?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are several points the first of which is that teacher graduates are students as well and future teacher graduates will benefit from the Government's commitment to a first year of free post-school education and training. As for the previous Government's commitments around the Voluntary Bonding Scheme it would have been a nice idea if they'd actually appropriated some funding to pay for it.
2. Economy—Performance MeasurementPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of FinanceEconomy—Performance Measurement2. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Finance: Does he support using a wider set of measures of success for the economy; if so why?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes I do. While measures such as GDP are useful indicators of activity in the economy they do not tell us anything about the quality of that activity. That's why this Government has committed itself to measuring our success differently to focus on improving the overall well-being and living standards of New Zealanders.Paul Eagle: What reports has the Minister seen of support for this approach?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Both the OECD and IMF are urging countries to change their mind-set on how they measure success. As the deputy director of research for the OECD said when he was in New Zealand last week it is a dangerous gamble to assume equality will take care of itself. He urged Governments to walk and chew gum at the same time when it comes to fiscal management and equality and this Government is up to that challenge.Paul Eagle: What specific actions is the Government taking to change the measures of success in the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We will be drawing on Treasury's Living Standards Framework and on the OECD and IMF's work to underpin our Budget decisions. We aim to fully incorporate broad measures of well-being into Budget 2019 as a measurement and evaluation tool. In this regard I want to acknowledge the commitment in the confidence and supply agreement with the Green Party to create new sustainable development indicators. This Government will be leading the world in work on making sure that Budgets improve well-being.
Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill — Procedure
Mallard TrevorNEWBORN ENROLMENT WITH GENERAL PRACTICE BILLReferral to Health CommitteeMr SPEAKER: There was a question for the previous bill that it be considered by the Health Committee. With the indulgence of the House I will now put that question.Bill referred to the Health Committee.
O'Connor Simon; Mallard TrevorEND OF LIFE CHOICE BILLProcedureSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I seek leave that all members who wish to debate on this in the House be given the opportunity to do so.Mr SPEAKER: I'll just check—the member sought leave that the first reading of the debate on the End of Life Choice Bill be extended so that each member who wishes to can take a 5-minute call in the debate. Is that what the member said?Simon O'Connor: That is far more articulate. But that is certainly the intention that I'm putting to the House.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. That is not agreed to.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on this Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. This bill was introduced back in 2013 but I am so very very thankful that it did not make it back to this House until we had a Government in place that actually cares about employees' rights so that it can be voted down—and it will be voted down tonight.This is shambolic. At what point is it OK to take away a person's choice because effectively that is what this bill does? You might say that they may or may not contract out but when you need that job you will take that job and there will be an imbalance of power—Marja Lubeck: Takes the choice away.JO LUXTON: Absolutely. Employment contracts are a type of relationship agreement. It's about trust and an employee should be able to trust that their employer will act in good faith and this bill completely takes that away. Why should what you earn dictate the rights that you have in the workplace? This Government believes that access to justice is a fundamental right and a good employer-employee relationship should be about having the ability to negotiate to have discussions like adults and to have the ability to work through issues whether it be through mediation or through a personal grievance process. Surely having the option to listen to each other's point of view is a good thing and could actually work towards solving issues. All employees need to have the ability to take a personal grievance; otherwise we will just see a complete imbalance of power.So what this bill proposes it's ridiculous. Only certain employees would be able to take a personal grievance based on their pay rate and I find that unfathomable. I'm an employer—a living-wage employer at that—and I would never ever agree to having this in any of my contracts for my staff.Marja Lubeck: No you don't—she's a good employer.JO LUXTON: No and why? Because I value my staff I value their contribution to my business and I value their rights as employees. This completely misses the mark when it comes to the higher earners" argument. This is not just affecting middle or senior management. Think about doctors lawyers etc. who should all be able to speak out freely without fear of losing their employment. Also people working in dangerous jobs—long hours; hard unsociable hours at that—they're not necessarily in a better position to negotiate their contracts just because of their earnings.This bill is ridiculous. Ninety-day trials already took away people's rights to take a personal grievance in 2009 and this just extends on that further again. This side of the House will not support this bill."
Mallard TrevorEMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (ALLOWING HIGHER EARNERS TO CONTRACT OUT OF PERSONAL GRIEVANCE PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 29 November.Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Would the member like a call?Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: The member would like a call.Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway.
Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Earlier when the previous Chair was in the seat I asked for the bill to be considered in four parts because there is so much information and material as a result of a mishearing.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So what is the point of order?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: So the point of order is that this is a substantial bill and we would like to continue to debate it.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm sorry but the motion has been put and the Ayes have won. Although the debate for the bill was taken as one we will be voting clause by clause.
Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): The questions that were asked in the last four contributions were incredibly similar to the questions that were asked earlier in the debate but there were one or two that have not been addressed so I'll try to address them.The first thing though is that I just would remind members that what we are talking about now is people who live in retirement villages not people who are in rest homes and that cuts out quite a lot of the debate because this isn't about rest homes. This is about people who buy a villa or an apartment in a retirement village and instead of getting a unit title they have an occupational rights agreement more often known as licence to occupy". That cuts out any of those questions about the rest homes and the contribution that Government makes.We have been over the administrative cost. The unit title reform legislation that the Hon Nikki Kaye raised is not at all related to this. In fact if it was related to this we wouldn't be having the debate because this is about people who do not have a unit title. That's the point of the debate: it's filling the gap.Finally Mr O'Connor raised the question of definition and the answer is no. If somebody moves out of the villa whether it's two days or two years after the start of the rating year they are no longer eligible. You have to be resident in that property in order to be eligible to apply for a rates rebate."
Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to speak on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill. Can I just acknowledge the member in the chair Ruth Dyson for a couple of reasons. Firstly it is an important bill. We know we have an ageing population. As my colleague has already mentioned we're going to go from 700000 to 1.5 million by 2046. So we need to be doing more for the ageing population.The question is: what are those things that will make a difference to people's lives? We haven't previously supported this bill because we've sort of sided with what has been in the report from officials—that there have been real issues with the way that it was drafted. However can I acknowledge though that the member has done some great work in terms of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and we are supportive of those SOPs.I've got three questions that I want to raise and would like specific answers from the member. The first is just sort of a general one in terms of costs. I wasn't on the select committee but I understand that the cost of the rates rebate scheme is about $56 million. This is supposed to account for about 10 percent of that. I'm not clear whether as a result of the SOPs—I don't believe there have been changes but I just want clarity that there's not a change in terms of that overall fiscal cost.The other thing that I want to be clear on—I know previously in other speeches in Hansard colleagues have raised issues around the administrative costs of this bill. I think the SOPs will make it better so my second question is: as a result of the SOPs is this now going to be reduced in terms of costs? Have you got figures on that? I think you've been working with the Department of Internal Affairs. Do we have any greater clarity around that because that is a real issue?But the third issue I want to raise is that I'm really delighted that the Hon Phil Twyford is down in the Chamber because he might be able to shed some light on this as well. I've been very passionate about the need for reform in unit titles legislation. A number of people across New Zealand fought very hard to work with the Government to get a working group up to have proposals of change that I think are relevant for this bill. But we've been unable at the moment to get a clear answer from the Government as to what's happening with those proposals.The reason that it matters is if there is a dispute around a unit title for which there are—as I understand it we've got about 14000 bodies corporate. The number of units is I think on average under 10. But you've got hundreds of thousands of people affected by that unit title reform that needs to happen. The question for me at an administrative level is if there is a dispute around that what does it mean in terms of rates rebates? I don't know: was this considered as part of the official deliberation on the bill? But I would love to get some answers on that and ideally just find out whether the Government has plans to work on the unit titles legislative work with this rates rebate bill. Thank you.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Thank you Madam Chair Williams. It was actually quite an honour and a privilege to hear from Brett Hudson that he would like to see people getting what they are entitled to. I would like it to be noted that in the news over the past few months we did indeed see I believe it was leaked documents from staff at Work and Income who had the directive key performance indicators to kick people off the benefit—i.e. not getting what they are entitled to. So that would very much be a signal in the shift of the culture inside the National Party and we very much welcome it so I'd like to leave that point there.Hon Phil Twyford: Long overdue.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Very much long overdue and a point which I am hoping to—and know that this Government will indeed be enacting as a matter of Work and Income culture.So to bring it back to the bill and to move my comments away from the points raised by Brett Hudson I was pondering this bill actually the other day at dinner with my partner's grandmother who lives in a retirement village and asking her for her opinion on it. She lives in Auckland and actually currently gets the rates rebate as provided by Auckland Council. The very purpose of this bill as has been noted by a number of different members is to provide an equity in that rates rebate to fix an anomaly in the law which currently means that those who are living on lower incomes perhaps down the road from those in retirement villages are currently able to get a rebate that those in retirement villages who are on lower incomes are not able to get.But so too currently is there an issue of geographic inequity. As I spoke about in the second reading currently those living in retirement villages in Auckland Kāpiti New Plymouth and Thames-Coromandel are able to receive those rates rebates where those living outside of those cities are not. My question to the Hon Ruth Dyson would be whether there has been much consideration given to the changes that may happen or the processes that are currently undertaken by those different regional authorities and whether there would be much change in those processes given the mechanisms as outlined particularly in those Supplementary Order Papers.I also welcome—and the Green Party welcomes—those Supplementary Order Papers which give a definitive outline of the machinery that would be used in order to provide those rates rebates which hopefully quells the concerns of the National Party as were voiced obviously at the second reading but so too in the majority report of the Local Government and Environment Committee. So we are hoping that this bill obviously passes through the House but I would very much like to hear the Hon Ruth Dyson's opinion on whether she had asked or spoken to those different regional authorities about the impact that this bill would have on them and their current processes.
Urgent Debates Declined — National Standards in Education—Removal
Motions — Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand —50th Anniversary
Points of Order — Order of the House—Level of Noise
Visitors — Pacific Parliaments—Public Accounts Committees
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you very much Madam Chair Williams. I can't add much by way of wisdom around the detail of this piece of legislation that goes beyond that of the member who's put this up Ruth Dyson. I'd just like to acknowledge her vision in bringing this bill into the previous Parliament and seeing obviously the need to change a piece of legislation that has been around since 1973. Much has changed in those following years and I think that Ruth Dyson has done New Zealand proud to bring this legislation before the House and to point out some of the anomalies that run through a lot of payments particularly for elderly people across New Zealand.The advent of this new form of retirement village is one that we need to look at more carefully. There'll be growth in this area. We have to ensure that people moving into these villages have the same fair go and access to support—necessary support I have to say—as everyone else. The reality is that—and it's been pointed out in the recent water report—across the country local government has let its infrastructure run down and pressure will come on ratepayers regardless of who they are into the future. We have retirees in New Zealand who have traditionally had a reasonable income and a reasonable standard of living thanks to a superannuation scheme that has been supported over the years and boosted at times by both Governments I have to say—although safeguarded more by Labour over the years. The fact is that there will be pressure on all ratepayers and if we are to follow through with the rates rebates scheme which this Labour Government is committed to we want to ensure that it goes to everyone fairly.This piece of legislation from the member does allow that to happen. I acknowledge her efforts and applaud her determination to keep this moving. I'm not going to hold up the committee for too much longer other than to say that it's a pleasure to work with someone who came to this House in the same year as I did—1993—and that we still have much to offer Parliament. This piece of legislation will be appreciated by thousands and thousands of people into the future who just want a fair go in their retirement.
Dyson Ruth; Williams Poto; Barry Maggie; Hipkins Chris; Ross Jami-Lee; Seymour DavidRATES REBATE (RETIREMENT VILLAGE RESIDENTS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeHon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the debate on this bill to be taken as one question for the purpose of debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I put the leave to the committee. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part and that the Hon Ruth Dyson's amendments inserting new clauses 5 to 7 as set out—Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We would like to see it debated part by part in four parts.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. That issue was put to the committee and there was no audible objection. If the members objected to that then they needed to say that they objected to that. Now that it has been put and it has been accepted by the Chair it is too late to go backwards.Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sitting immediately behind the Chair and have been asking and perhaps was not audibly heard and for that I apologise. We had certainly intended to speak to it.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I'm going to take some advice.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We are in an unusual situation. Yes a member of our party did object to leave—as whip I did not but a member of our party did. I do believe she was sitting behind you and was not audible. I accept also that you've made the call that you have. Over to you what you wish to do but I do wish to assert the right of the Hon Maggie Barry to insist that she did voice her objection.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And I take all of your interventions on board. I—DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. If I might be able to assist—it's known that I have very young and good ears but during the general debate I was often able to hear the Hon Maggie Barry interjecting from where I am here. So it seems implausible that you were unable to hear her from there.The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I will just take some advice. Members I apologise to the Hon Maggie Barry. I didn't hear you put the objection and I had continued with the question. I will continue. We will read this as one part.
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDEducation National Standards—RemovalMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Nikki Kaye seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government's announcement yesterday that it had stopped national standards in education. The announcement is a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility.The Minister of Education announced the end of national standards at 11.38 a.m. yesterday. An application for an urgent debate does not have to be lodged on the first sitting of the House after the event occurs but not doing so will considerably weaken the case for an urgent debate—Speaker's ruling 195/4. Previous Speakers have ruled that if a member does not raise a matter at the earliest opportunity it may be taken as an indication that the matter is not of sufficient importance to qualify for an urgent debate—Speakers' ruling 195/5.The House has generally required applications for an urgent debate to be lodged as soon as the matter becomes known. Speakers have even accepted applications lodged within an hour of the House sitting where an event has only just become known notwithstanding Standing Order 389(1). In my view there was sufficient time for the member to raise the matter yesterday before 1 p.m. While I do not know when she became aware of it the announcement was made more than two hours before the House sat. This is a factor that I must consider when considering whether the issue is urgent enough to warrant setting aside the business of the House.In weighing the factors I conclude that this matter does not warrant precedence over the other business of the House today. The application is therefore declined. If the matter is one of importance to the member it could be debated during the general debate this afternoon.
Lees-Galloway IainMOTIONSRoyal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand—50th AnniversaryHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate regarding the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I move That this House mark the 50th anniversary of the delivery of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand which laid the foundations for our no-fault accident compensation scheme that transformed our personal injury system and has improved the lives of millions of New Zealanders.Motion agreed to.
Robertson GrantPOINTS OF ORDERChamber. Lobbies and Galleries—Conduct in Chamber Noise and Exiting ChamberHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a point of order about the general order of the House and in particular the question around noise and people exiting the House. I wonder if you could give us some guidance on what the Speakers' rulings in the past have been in this area and in what way you intend to implement them differently.I don't want to relitigate yesterday's incident because I know you wouldn't want me to do that. But I do want to indicate that it has—you've exercised great restraint in terms of the way that the House operates during your time in the Chair but at the end of question time there has been a fairly consistent level of noise that has overwhelmed I think the business of the House. So if you could advise us whether there is any new ruling or any particular ruling there that we should be aware of.Mr SPEAKER: No. I know the member was indulging in some delaying tactics but I will just refer the member to the ruling that I gave yesterday. It still stands. I am going to look to the whips on both sides of the House to exercise a bit more control over their members as they are exiting and in particular that they behave themselves.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 13 DECEMBER 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSCook Islands Tonga Solomon Islands Fiji and Samoa—Public Accounts CommitteesMr SPEAKER: I'm sure members would wish to welcome the members of the Public Accounts Committees from the parliaments of the Cook Islands Tonga Solomon Islands Fiji and Samoa who are present in the gallery.
Tuesday 12 December 2017 - Volume 726
12. Police Resourcing—CostsCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of PolicePolice Resourcing—Costs12. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Which of the following statements by Jacinda Ardern does he agree with … we already budgeted for an extra 1000 police so that is just an additional $40 million required"; or "the additional police that's probably one of the larger figures that's about an extra $80 million in order to fulfil that one"?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I always agree with the Prime Minister because the costs of this policy have yet to be finalised. I particularly point the member to another part of the Prime Minister's 30 October statement: "Now that we're in a position to do so we're going to make sure we use our access to officials to cost [the policies]."Chris Bishop: Will the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update on Thursday contain the cost of the additional 1800 police over the next three years?Hon STUART NASH: No.Mr SPEAKER: Sorry I was too slow to stop the Minister answering the question for which he has no responsibility.Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No you've had your answer so I'm not going to retrospectively rule it out.Chris Bishop: Well it's just important for the future. I mean if the Minister assures—Mr SPEAKER: No sorry. We've had both a ruling and the fact that it's too late. I think it's very important that the announcements to be made in the House by the Minister of Finance can't be hung on a junior Minister beforehand.Chris Bishop: Does he seriously expect—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! That's one fewer supplementary to the National Party.Chris Bishop: Does he seriously expect New Zealanders to believe that the cost of a thousand extra police is just $40 million or $80 million per year when the National-led Government's 880 extra police funded in Budget 2017 cost $503 million over four years?Hon STUART NASH: We are putting 1800 more police into our communities over the next three years. If the member wants to criticise me for that go ahead or if the member actually wants to campaign for less police be my guest.Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that was a fairly fair question. All we just got from the Minister was a political flick in response and I would ask him to address the question.Mr SPEAKER: I think any question that starts "Does the Minister seriously believe" can have quite a wide response to it. If the member wanted a tight response he should have asked a tight question.Chris Bishop: Why will the Minister not just be upfront with the Parliament and the public after 46 days in office and tell us what the cost of this signature part of the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and Labour will cost?Hon STUART NASH: Someone as intelligent as that member will know there is a Budget process to go through and the detail as per usual will be fashioned as part of the Budget cycle."
11. Export Sector—Mānuka HoneyKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of AgricultureExport Sector—Mānuka Honey11. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Agriculture: What is he doing to protect and enhance New Zealand's trade reputation for agricultural exports?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I'm very pleased to announce today that MPI—the Ministry for Primary Industries—has now finalised a scientifically robust definition for mānuka honey so our export markets can be confident the New Zealand mānuka honey they buy is authentic. This is a positive step forward for our industry for our trading partners and for consumers in our export markets.Kiritapu Allan: How long has it taken to produce a robust scientific definition for mānuka honey?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It has taken some time. As far back as 2013 some honey exporters were concerned that cowboys"—to use their own words—were trying to sell phoney mānuka honey. Their quote: "If we don't do something about it our reputation will be damaged." It's taken some time to get to where we are today but I hope that the decision will reassure our trading partners our customers and all those who buy mānuka honey that cowboys will no longer be in the honey business.Hon David Bennett: In today's announcement of the test for multi-floral and mono-floral mānuka honey why hasn't the Minister included a chemical test for leptosperin which a unified honey industry uses for its current tests and strongly advocated for inclusion in the ministry test?Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Some people in the industry put forward leptosperin as being the accurate marker. Unfortunately over time leptosperin is diluted into the honey so honey that can sit on the shelves would no longer be defined as mānuka. So it was not an appropriate marker to give a robust scientific definition to mānuka honey. That's why we use our definition."
9. Prisons—Prison Population and Public-private PartnershipSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of CorrectionsPrisons—Prison Population and Public-private Partnership9. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to prison population growth?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes in the context they were made. In particular I stand by my statements that I would like to work with the member and all parties in a bipartisan way given research says that scaremongering amongst politicians creates fear in the public which in turn drives policy that increases the prison population.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before we go to the supplementary I would like to remind members on my left that they do not draw me into this discussion.Simon O'Connor: Is he ruling out a public-private partnership at Waikeria; and if so has he talked to the Minister of Finance around extra funding to cover increasing costs in population growth within his corrections portfolio?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We are yet to make any final decisions on the rebuild of Waikeria but we don't generally do public-private partnerships.Simon O'Connor: What advice has he received of the impact on prisoner numbers of the 1800 extra police and how is he going to manage this?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Done correctly increased police numbers will actually reduce crime in particular if they have a focus on education.Simon O'Connor: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked what advice he had received. I don't think that was addressed in the question.Mr SPEAKER: Well I think it was. The Minister might not have prefaced it with The advice I have received" but I think he indicated what that advice included.Simon O'Connor: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I able through you to ask for clarification if that is advice or just an opinion?Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to use another supplementary yes.Simon O'Connor: Thank you. Can the Minister advise myself and the House if in the answer to the previous question that was formal advice that he has received and reviewed?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The member is asking whether I've received formal advice. The advice I've seen from research is that if done correctly community policing and education will actually reduce crime and reduce the prison population—that way.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he received any advice that if you get rid of the police force there will then be the case where the prisons will not be required; they'll be emptied out?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No I haven't received that advice."
7. School Buildings—Public-private PartnershipHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of EducationSchool Buildings—Public-private Partnership7. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Will he scrap all public-private partnership arrangements involving school infrastructure; if so what is the potential cost of doing this?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The parties that make up the current Government have all been clear that we don't support public-private partnerships (PPPs) for the provision of basic core public services like schools and hospitals. I am not currently proposing any changes to existing signed PPP contracts in education. Future projects including those the previous Government had signalled would be PPPs but aren't currently subject to signed contracts will be considered as part of the Budget process.Hon Nikki Kaye: Is Whangarei Boys High School proceeding as a PPP and if not will he guarantee that their $50 million redevelopment goes ahead?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That would depend on whether or not they are part of a currently signed PPP. They are not on the list of signed PPPs entered into by the previous Government so that is something that we will be considering. I can give them a reassurance that their building projects will go ahead.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister advise the House as to when this announcement was made at Whangarei Boys High School by the previous administration and what costs they had at that time organised to have planned within the next Budget?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I understand that it is one of the many commitments that the previous Government made during the election campaign that they had not budgeted for.Hon Nikki Kaye: Will the Pukekohe-Belmont school be proceeding as a PPP; if not why not?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If a school redevelopment has been part of a signed PPP deal then it will proceed as planned. If it is not part of a signed PPP deal it will be considered as part of the Government's Budget process. However there was a flurry of announcements under the previous Government for capital works in school buildings that they had not budgeted funding for. That is one of the many challenges this Government faces in filling the hole that Steven Joyce and his colleagues left behind for the incoming Government.Hon Nikki Kaye: How many schools are currently in negotiations for PPPs and how many of them will then proceed?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I understand that none of the schools are negotiating PPPs. That work is done by the Ministry of Education.Hon Nikki Kaye: How many schools have had their PPP arrangements scrapped under his watch?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: None.
5. Education National Standards—RemovalJAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of EducationEducation National Standards—Removal5. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does he consider it acceptable that young New Zealanders' literacy levels have fallen significantly as measured by the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study; if not how does the Government propose to turn this around?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): No I don't. The average reading score for year 5 children in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study or PIRLS as it is more widely known has fallen by eight points between 2010 and 2015 and this is just the latest in a series of disturbing trends in international studies. The Government's agenda will tackle this in a number of ways from reforming initial teacher education and professional development to a fairer funding system and stronger early learning. But today I'm starting by clearing away a failed experiment that has wasted enormous amounts of time and energy and produced misleading results. Today this Government has delivered on its promise and scrapped national standards. Jamie Strange: Have national standards given parents a reliable indication of their child's progress; if not how will he ensure that parents get better information in the future?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. As Auckland University's Dr Kane Meissel has said There is … clear evidence that the 'standard' being applied differs markedly" with Wellington students needing to have much higher results to be considered "at the standard" than those in the Auckland region—which of course is probably true. Parents in 2018 will still receive reports in plain English at least twice a year on maths literacy and across the curriculum areas but I want teachers to be freed up so they can spend more time teaching and less time testing.Jan Tinetti: What evidence has he received that demonstrates that national standards were neither national nor standard?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A report released by the Ministry of Education found that national standards had incorrectly measured the achievements of around four out of every 10 students. The ministry's own analysis of 352 children who were judged to have met the maths standard for their age showed that in fact only 28 percent or less than a third of them had actually met the standard. National standards were neither national nor standard. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order!"
2. Reserve Bank—Appointment of Governor Policy Targets and Legislative ReviewWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceReserve Bank—Appointment of Governor Policy Targets and Legislative Review2. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Reserve Bank?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you Mr Speaker. I was very pleased to announce yesterday that I've appointed Adrian Orr to be the next Reserve Bank Governor. Given his broad range of experience I have no doubt that he will be an excellent Governor. I can't put it better than Sharon Zollner the chief economist at ANZ who yesterday described Mr Orr as A very safe pair of hands. … he's a fantastic communicator and that's obviously a key part of the role … He's extremely well qualified for the role. It's difficult to think of anyone who is more qualified." I would like to put on record my thanks to the outgoing Acting Governor Grant Spencer who has done an excellent job in the interim period.Willow-Jean Prime: How will Mr Orr's appointment affect the policy targets agreement?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is a requirement of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that I negotiate a policy targets agreement with the new Governor before he takes up that role. I will do this on the basis of the work of the first phase of the review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act which is currently under way. This will include broadening the bank's mandate to include maximising employment alongside price stability.Willow-Jean Prime: What progress has been made on the review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that the Minister announced in November?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Phase 1 of the review work is under way with officials looking at the language that can be used to best reflect the Government's goal of maximising employment alongside the price stability mandate. We're also investigating international examples of decision making within reserve banks that include external experts and greater transparency about their decisions as committed to in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act review. I'll also be making announcements of the members of the independent expert advisory panel to support this work very shortly.Hon Steven Joyce: Does he expect as a result of his Reserve Bank changes and other policy changes that the Government will exceed the 245000 jobs created in the last two years in the next two years and would he consider that a reasonable measure of achievement?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are a lot of factors involved in whether or not jobs will be created. We want the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and indeed monetary policy to contribute to that. We will be ambitious for New Zealand unlike the Opposition who seem to have given up on that in terms of employment."
Coffey Tamati; Rurawhe AdrianTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you Mr Chair. It's my pleasure to stand up and join my colleagues in speaking on this particular bill which is a very important bill. As my colleagues have alluded to if we take our reputation internationally as a good sound food producer we actually need to take particular note of this piece of legislation. As my former colleague alluded to it was the botulism false alarm that questioned New Zealand's integrity when it came to having a good reputation of safe and suitable food. I guess because we spend so much money on tourism and putting our exports out there it was a grave concern.As somebody that wasn't actually in Parliament at the time as somebody that just consumed this from the outside as a viewer as an average New Zealander there was a lot of concern around it but thankfully it was found to be a bit of a false alarm. Although as we've discovered the inquiry found that our system was sound and in line with international best practice but it also suggested some improvements as well that could be made and I'm going to drill down into some of those in just a moment. All we need to know is that this bill will strengthen the regulatory framework and signals to our trading partners and to the public that we take these matters very very seriously.So what does it do? Well the proposals are mostly enabling or clarifying provisions to strengthen the food safety system. Some of the proposals will permit regulations to be made that will entail separate consultation and impact assessment but as well as that we'll be implementing the recommendations from the WPC the whey protein concentrate inquiry recommendations and the bill also includes some other minor enhancements and amendments. The bill in particular will amend three main food safety Acts so that's where possible similar provisions apply across the food sectors.Now how controversial is this? Well not very. In fact I'd put it out there that the policy changes are quite straightforward and the consultation process has been very thorough as well. It's a consultation process that's taken place over a long period of time. There's been general support for the bill but the sectors also raised some issues such as compliance cost which have to be factored into the equation here. It's good to note that the changes were made on the recommendation of the select committee and have all been incorporated so it means this is a solid piece of work. It's a solid piece of legislation. The public consultation on the initial proposals was conducted from late March to early May 2015 and as I have said there was good support from the industry for the bill's proposals too.So big question: what are the financial impacts of the bill? Well there are no immediate costs from the bill which you'd be pleased to hear about.The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.
Rurawhe AdrianFOOD SAFETY LAW REFORM BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 6 December.Parts 1 to 4 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Greg O'Connor had the call and he has three minutes and 23 seconds remaining should he wish to avail himself of them.
Electronic Interactions Reform Bill — Third Reading