edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
11. Provincial Growth Fund—Regional Air ConnectivityMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentProvincial Growth Fund—Regional Air Connectivity11. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What reports has he seen about regional connectivity?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): I've sighted and received a report from the New Zealand Airports Association. It details the importance of air links for healthcare education and commercial purposes. They have signalled an expression of interest towards the provincial growth fund. They have noted that connectivity and connections as a consequence of changes in regularity via Air New Zealand are actually diminishing not strengthening.Mark Patterson: Why is ensuring regional air connectivity important for New Zealand's provinces?Hon SHANE JONES: Today—just to demonstrate how important it might be to certain politicians—Kāpiti loses its connectivity. Unlike other occasions I have to acknowledge a fulsome press statement put out by Nathan Guy but 12 months too late—12 months too late. It is very interesting that Air New Zealand in its annual review is trumpeting new direct routes to Houston Latin America Beijing—SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Mark Patterson: What feedback has he received on the need to maintain regional air links?Hon SHANE JONES: Tremendous feedback from certain National Party backbenchers—threats to nominate me for the honours list. The momentum and traction built up throughout provincial New Zealand—at long last they've found a man and a party to champion them—is overwhelming.
8. Fisheries—CRA 2 Catch ReductionANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of FisheriesFisheries—CRA 2 Catch Reduction8. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Fisheries: What recent decisions has he made in relation to the CRA 2 fisheries management area?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): The CRA 2 rock lobster fishery extends from Te Ārai point north of Auckland to East Cape Lighthouse. CRA 2 is currently experiencing very low levels of abundance—that's fishery-speak for there aren't many there"—and action is needed to rebuild it to sustainable levels. Given my obligations under the Fisheries Act I have decided to reduce the total allowable commercial catch from 200 tonnes per year to 80 tonnes and the recreational allowance from 140 tonnes to 34 tonnes and the total allowable catch is now reduced by almost 60 percent from 416.5 tonnes to 173 tonnes.Angie Warren-Clark: Was complete closure of CRA 2 one of the options he considered?Hon STUART NASH: The possibility of complete closure was a measure suggested by some submitters. Closure of the fisheries would have been a very significant step and there is no doubt that crayfish stock are well below the desired level in the CRA 2 area. However after careful thought and consideration of the best available scientific information I did not see grounds for closing the CRA 2 fishery to all sectors at this time. I will however continue to monitor this fishery closely and if the number of crayfish does not improve significantly I may have to consider further measures at the next review.Angie Warren-Clark: What responses has the Minister seen in relation to his decision?Hon STUART NASH: The responses have generally been supportive of the reduction. Groups such as the Environmental Defence Society and Legacy as well as recreational divers such as those belonging to the Mount Maunganui Underwater Club have all welcomed the move. I was also pleased that the Rock Lobster Industry Council is committed to helping the Ministry for Primary Industries and the fisheries compliance officers stamp out the illegal and black market trade in crayfish.Ian McKelvie: Thank you Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe the measures introduced in CRA 2 will be necessary in other regional areas of the fishery?Hon STUART NASH: Thank you very much for that question. We reviewed three other fisheries and we increased the total allowable catch in two of them and reduced it in one of them."
7. Partnership Schools—Te Whare Wānanga o MUMAHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of EducationPartnership Schools—Te Whare Wānanga o MUMA7. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his Government's policy and decisions made regarding partnership schools?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes particularly given the circumstances we inherited.Hon Nikki Kaye: Did he or anyone from his office have any conversations or communications with Willie Jackson or Te Whare Wānanga o MUMA trust prior to agreeing that their contract for Waatea High would go unconditional?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I certainly didn't. I can't be absolutely certain but I'm pretty certain that no one from my office would have had such a conversation.Hon Nikki Kaye: Can he confirm that he was satisfied that Te Whare Wānanga o MUMA had met the conditions for him to give final approval to this partnership school and when did he give final approval for it?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. I gave the approval when they met the conditions as I was required to do by the contract signed by that former Minister.Hon Nikki Kaye: When he said on 3 November that he could say with confidence that the 2019 partnership schools would not go ahead why did he not tell the public that the school his Cabinet colleague was involved in had been given final approval just days before?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because it wasn't relevant. The issue is that the Government has made a decision not to continue with the charter schools policy.Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his decision to approve the school that Willie Jackson is involved in which enabled multiple conditions to be met and which also saw a $600000 payment on the eve of Christmas plus potential compensation after he confirmed partnership schools would be scrapped?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do stand by the decision that I made to honour the contract signed by the former Minister. The contract was due to be signed in October. For some reason the former Minister decided to bring the signing of that contract forward and signed it just weeks before the general election.Hon Nikki Kaye: That is not correct. You signed it off.SPEAKER: Order! I assure Nikki Kaye that I didn't and I think it would be a good idea if people didn't interject across the Chamber like that.
6. Health Services—Middlemore Hospital BuildingsANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Middlemore Hospital Buildings6. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What risks if any are there to staff and patients in light of recent reports about the condition of the facilities at Middlemore Hospital?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): When people turn up at our hospitals and health services they have every right to expect that the buildings are well maintained and fit for purpose. Unfortunately it's clear there is a large backlog of building problems at Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB) including rot mould and sewerage issues. These issues did not develop overnight and will take some time to address. It's important to note however that the DHB has assured me there is no immediate risk to patient or staff safety.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What does he say to patients and staff at Middlemore that are concerned about the state of their facilities?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: When you are sick you should not have to worry about the health of the buildings you are treated in. I can't put it better than Middlemore intensive care specialist Dr David Galler who wrote that when he found out about the issues at Middlemore I was overcome with embarrassment and a sense of outrage for this systematic betrayal of the very people we are here to serve and of the staff that work so hard to help them to promote good health and keep people well." This Government will not sit by pretending everything is fine while we have hospitals literally rotting away so I say to the patients and staff of Middlemore: you deserve better.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What priority will he place on resolving the issues at Middlemore Hospital?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Last week I called the acting chair of the DHB to Wellington to discuss the DHB's plan to manage and resolve these issues. I made it clear that I expect the DHB to have a comprehensive plan that would identify and plan for these sorts of issues before they emerge. The Government is committed to a well-funded public health service one where routine building maintenance is not deferred to make the books look better. We will prioritise our public health service over tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy unlike the previous Government."
3. Budget 2018—Vote HealthTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of FinanceBudget 2018—Vote Health3. TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What priorities does he have for Budget 2018?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As outlined in the Budget Policy Statement this Government has clear priorities for Budget 2018 to address immediate and long-term challenges to ensure the well-being of all New Zealanders. There will be a clear focus on sustainable economic development supporting regional economies increasing exports lifting wages and reducing inequality. Budget 2018 will also confirm our commitment to delivering strong public services across health education housing and police.Tamati Coffey: What priority will Vote Health have in Budget 2018?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member understands I cannot go into details until 17 May but it will come as no surprise that Vote Health will be a major focus area. The operating and capital allowances outlined in the Budget Policy Statement are both significantly higher than the previous Government had budgeted for. A significant amount of this will go towards Vote Health to help bring services back up to a standard that New Zealanders expect and deserve in the context of what has independently been said to be a $2.4 billion underfunding of health in the last nine years.Tamati Coffey: What pressures in Vote Health is the Minister aware of in making decisions for Budget 2018?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In addition to the operating shortfall I just mentioned I have been advised of significant capital spending pressures among district health boards (DHBs) which have signalled a required capital spend of $14 billion over the next 10 years requiring about $10 billion of additional Crown funding. This signal investment requirement is higher than at any time since DHBs were established and is evident in recent media reports about the condition of Middlemore Hospital. This Government has different priorities from our predecessor. We're going to make sure that New Zealanders and the health professionals who work in the health system know that it will be the best it can be: safe affordable and secure.
Tinetti Jan; Rurawhe AdrianJAN TINETTI (Labour): It is a—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member—this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Well this is just another example of the Government fluffing around in the housing sector and trying to manipulate what is already an existing business model when what they should be doing is focusing on their own 10-year 100000 houses—or 27 houses a day as it was when they made that announcement. It is now up to nearly 29 houses a day because they haven't even driven in a stick. They've not driven in a nail. There is no start on the 100000 houses. How about starting with house number one? But instead of building houses they have been distracted by messing with an established business model and they are planning to ban letting fees by agents. The largest proportion of New Zealand rental properties is actually owned by mum and dad investors. Mum and dad investors do not want to be dealing with the advertising. They don't want to be dealing with the legal documents of setting up tenancy agreements. They don't want to be doing the open homes. They want an agent to act on their behalf and that's what the letting fee covers. So the relationship that the letting agent and the property owner have is a symbiotic relationship. It works well in this market and it means that the property investor—the mum and dad investor in this country—has the security of having a professional manage it on their behalf. A New Zealand First speaker earlier tonight used Scotland as his example to support this bill but actually he failed to mention that the rest of the United Kingdom did not follow suit. In fact the New Zealand Property Investors Federation has suggested that an alternative to follow most of the UK was actually to require that the fees be displayed and be as this Government would always proclaim to be open and transparent. So there is no need to mess with the market. This side of the House does not support this bill.
Penk Chris; Rurawhe AdrianCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill.In the explanatory note on the bill it is stated and I quote By paying a letting fee tenants are bearing the costs associated with letting a rental property where the benefit ultimately rests with the landlord." I think it's worth pointing out that of course the benefit of the arrangement that is a tenancy should rest with both parties if indeed the contract has been freely entered into. So I think it's perhaps somewhat limited in scope if we're talking only about the benefit being to one side or the other in relation to the letting fee.It's my belief that this Parliament should not lightly interfere with principles such as freedom of contract and sanctity of contract such that two parties that are equal are able to enter into arrangements freely. Now this principle is not absolute because it is possible of course for one-sided arrangements to be entered into so we must be on the guard for such situations as that. But it's worth noting I think that situation of residential tenancies in accordance with the Act as it already exists is not equal in any case.By way of example in terms of giving notice a tenant is required only to give in the case of a periodic tenancy 21 days' notice and the landlord except in very particular circumstances specified in the Act 90 days'. And of course the difference between 90 days and 21 days is considerably more than the equivalent period that would be charged by way of letting fee. So it seems to me that in discussing particular mechanisms that might be said to benefit one side or the other that in fact if we're to do so in a full holistic and intellectually honest fashion then we do need to acknowledge that the Residential Tenancies Act in its current form prior to such amendment as this bill would have us make is inherently unequal at least in some parts in any case.It seems to me there's some confusion around the difference between making law and enforcing law. Some of the examples that have been given from the other side of the House have spoken to examples which if true would be distressing. But that is not to say that they are necessarily examples of a shortfall in existing legislation so much as perhaps oppressive practices by those who are not following the current law. So to me that would be an argument for enforcement of current rights as the preferable and certainly prior solution as distinct from making further laws that will then not be enforced. So families moving five or six times a year as has been mentioned—well if there are fixed-term tenancies of 12 months as the initial period that wouldn't be the case or a notice of 90 days not being given and so forth.That's probably enough from me in an initial contribution to the bill. We look forward to watching the passage of the legislation at least as far as it will go.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes. I call Greg O'Connor."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): That member that's just resumed his seat is normally better than that. [Interruption] He's normally better than that. My colleagues are saying they're not sure but I actually have over the last couple of years come to know that Minister Ron Mark reasonably well and I usually rate his contributions. That was not one of his good contributions. It was Winston Churchill who said that Socialism is the philosophy of failure the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." "[Its] inherent virtue … is the equal sharing of miser[y]" and actually that sums up what we are really debating here tonight in this bill. It's the gospel of envy it's the virtue signalling of the sharing of misery and even though Winston Churchill when he made that quote couldn't possibly have contemplated that in the New Zealand Parliament we'd be discussing a Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill it could be a no more apt quote for representing this piece of legislation. This is a very interesting place this Parliament. It seems always to me that we do the very best of things and the very worst of things in a Parliament like this. Only a few minutes ago we as a Parliament were doing something quite historic. We were united unanimous in putting right a longstanding and historic wrong and now just a few minutes later we are embarking upon a piece of legislative fiction—a piece of fiction that actually bears no reality to anything that happens in the real world—because the costs of this piece of legislation the banning of letting fees will of course be just absorbed and passed on. As my colleague from Tāmaki Simon O'Connor spoke just a few minutes ago the Government just can't magic this stuff away. The fee will still be paid the fee will still be incorporated the fee will still be included the payment will still be made and Barfoot and Thompson will still get paid. So no wonder they support it.This is a Government that so early in its administration—we're only a few months into it for goodness' sake—has stamped its mark so very clearly on this Parliament as a command-and-control Government. They want to command and control every aspect of New Zealanders' lives and this piece of legislation represents that. It has no connection with reality and what happens in the real world. This is a Labour Government supported by its coalition and support parties who have actually just five policy positions on everything. The first one is to ban it and that's what they're trying to do tonight; the second one is to make it compulsory and they do that in pretty much every piece of legislation; the third policy position they have is to tax it; the fourth policy position they have is to regulate it; and then the fifth policy position they have is to tax it again. This is a very bad piece of legislation and National doesn't support it."
Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill — Third Reading
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It is my pleasure to be talking on the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill in the third reading. Tonight is one of those rare opportunities where we in Parliament come together to right a wrong. It is actually rather nice to be sitting and just listening to the thoughtful careful and at times moving speeches from many members of the House in dealing with this issue and discussing it in full. I wasn't a member of the Justice Committee that heard all the different submissions but I do know that it was a particularly hard-working committee. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams for introducing this bill to the House and the Hon Andrew Little for pursuing it and seeing it through to fruition.This bill is about the expungement of criminal offences. What the word expungement" means is that the conviction will no longer appear on any criminal history check and people will be entitled to declare that they have no such conviction. Now expungement goes beyond the rights that go with concealing a conviction under the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004. Under the clean slate legislation a concealed conviction may still be disclosed in certain circumstances. But what this bill does do is it places rules on agencies in particular about holding personal information and making sure that such convictions are no longer available to be disclosed—in fact no such information can be held.I want to congratulate all those who started out on this journey. We've heard about some of them tonight: Fran Wilde—and I acknowledge Georgina Beyer sitting here in the Chamber tonight to my right. But it's also a journey that many people have been involved in. I'm also hoping that my good friends from my electorate Mr Geoff Smith and his partner John Fleet are watching as this bill comes to fruition tonight. I think it's a wonderful opportunity to be part of this to be able to see this bill through to its fruition and to see it passed unanimously which I hope will happen very shortly. Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker."
Hayes JoJO HAYES (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. As I've been listening on the television and to the contributions in the House tonight I feel privileged to be able to speak on this third reading. I want to thank the Hon Amy Adams for taking the time to listen to the petitioner back in the day and to bring forward this bill and I also want to thank the Government for picking this bill up and taking it through to fruition.Too many lives have been affected by this by the wrong convictions and too many skilled people have lost out on really good opportunities in employment and other areas because of their homosexual criminal conviction. So I think tonight it is a momentous time for this House to come together as one to finalise the reading and to ensure that this bill does reach its Royal assent. It is with heartfelt—heartfelt—I'm trying not to say pleasure but it's with my heartfelt convictions that I want to stand here and support this third reading and commit it to the House. I want to thank everybody that was involved in getting it to this stage. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I commend the bill.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand this is a split call.DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a split call. I'll give you a bell at one minute.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you. I'd like to really start this by saying that one of my mentors in politics was Tim Barnett a gay man who was the MP for Christchurch Central for many years. I must acknowledge the leadership that he and many like him have really had in politics. As he showed me the ropes and I worked within his electorate whilst he was clearly and openly gay and accepted that as part of his identity it never became a defining point about how we worked together and it was simply part of the natural landscape. And I think that that's perhaps the difference that we see today from many years ago when something like that would have been a huge issue a fact which would mar everything. But here today what we are saying as we pass the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill is that those things are rapidly receding in the past. I know that this is yet another step along that road and as Jan Logie stated I don't think we've finished that road yet. There's still work to be done. I know that even in my own electorate there are a number of trans people who are talking to me about aspects of the law that they see as needing attention and I tend to agree that there's work to be done there.I commend Amy Adams for listening even though there were significant technical hurdles for introducing this bill into the House; Andrew Little for picking it up; and the Justice Committee for doing such a good job with the work that they had ahead of them. It must be said that for a lawyer the concept of expungement is important. It's not simply a pardon. It is not saying that although you have a conviction by some kind of prerogative of mercy we are reversing that. It's saying that this should never have happened that this was a wrong. And I think it's good to see politics moving into an age where we can apologise where we can look back and say We were wrong. The Government of the day took a wrong approach and we are sorry." As Andrew Little stated compensation may well be too hard but I'm not sure that compensation actually meets the need of saying "This should never have happened and your record is expunged. It is wiped clean. That conviction never occurred. You never committed a crime."Whilst that can be righted by law the record can be wiped clean there are of course the other aspects the much more personal aspects—the stigma and the effects of a conviction—which I think we need to accept can never be put right. We cannot turn the clock back but it is pleasing that the House has taken unanimously this step in saying these offences are expunged. They cannot be referred to. They cannot be asked about. If you travel overseas they never existed. So whilst the impact of these convictions will no doubt last for the entire lives of the men convicted of them in terms of at least the eyes of the law they are gone forever and for that reason I commend this bill to the House."
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): It's a real pleasure to take this call on this third reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. I've got to acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams for her work and also I've got to acknowledge this coalition Government for taking it on and seeing it through to the end. I'd also like to acknowledge Georgina Beyer who is in the House today.Now this bill seeks to reduce the prejudice stigma and negative lifelong effects of a conviction for historical homosexual offences so it's about being fair—it's about putting things right. It enables them to apply to have their conviction for indecency between males sodomy keeping a place of resort or attempts to do the same expunged.Prior to the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 sexual activity between males over 16 was a criminal offence and that fact astounds me. When I think back to 1986—what was I doing in 1986? Well I was a school-leaver and to think that when I was at school it was an offence—I struggle to believe that. But then what also surprises me is that Andrew Falloon and Chris Bishop were only two or three at the time—I thought they were a lot older than that so I feel positively old.So between 1965 and 1986 over 1000 men were convicted of indecency between males. My grandfather was a policeman during this time—he was a policeman for 30 years. Knowing him as I do I can't imagine him ever arresting someone for this sort of offence. However he's not alive today so I can't ask him. But I would love to ask him and if he did I'd want to understand his thinking. Thankfully we live in modern times now and we're putting this to bed so that's great.I was a member of the Justice Committee and I heard some harrowing and emotive submissions from some of these people. The select committee process is really important so that these people can be heard. Attitudes have changed and I welcome that change. The world is a better place for it. I'd like to acknowledge the bravery of Wiremu Demchick and over 2000 petitioners.It's pointless having offences such as these removed from the statute book without having the expungement legislation to accompany it. It's well overdue and I'm proud to be part of a Parliament that enacts this. Accordingly we support this bill and we commend it to the House. Thank you.
Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a privilege to be taking another brief speech on the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill this evening. Grant Robertson early in the debate spoke about the number of challenges that are ahead of us and I think laid down a challenge to us as parliamentarians to continue the fight that many parliamentarians have fought over many generations and decades. I was born in 1983. Nearly all of my life homosexual acts between consenting adults have been legal. I look around the House and I see the Chlöe Swarbricks I see the Kiri Allans and I see the Chris Bishops and I like to think the future is in pretty good hands.During the second reading I spoke about the profound impact that convictions have had on the men that have carried them unjustly for many years. After that speech I was contacted by a man in my electorate who had a different story but one that I think is important none the less. He told me about growing up in New Zealand in the 1960s and 1970s as a young gay man and the impact that the law had on him. He was never arrested never charged and never convicted but it did affect him. It affected him because he said that the law said to him that what he was was wrong what he was was immoral and what he was was illegal.When he eventually came out to his parents to his family they shunned him. That might have happened regardless of the legality but to have the Government essentially back that position is what hurt him and continues to hurt him the most. He's only just reconciled with his sister and mother after many years of being apart. I accept that the legislation that we're passing tonight won't do anything for him. It won't do anything to say that what he went through was wrong but he asked if I would tell his story.I said during an earlier speech that every member of this Parliament should be proud to see this law pass—we should. But I'm pleased that speakers tonight have also acknowledged the wrong that the law placed on the men that it affected. This is the right thing to do. It goes as far as we can to remove the black stain that this country has on its history and I commend it to the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the committee report progress.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I didn't wish to be rude and interrupt the member Kelvin Davis during his speech but in an annual review debate isn't he supposed to address the annual review? CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Technically the person that is supposed to stay specifically on the review is the chair of the select committee. Other than that it is broadly within the theme of the annual review specifically around education and I would have to say that if the member had an issue with that particular speech you would have to call a point of order with many other members' contributions throughout this debate.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions
Tolley AnneANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members I do have to begin this debate a rather long explanation to read before we start. The House in committee on the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is a debate on the annual reviews of departments Offices of Parliament Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported on by select committees. The time allocated for this debate is 10 hours. In accordance with Standing Order 349 the debate is divided into 10 separate debates covering the sectors set out in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2016-17. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of a select committee reporting on the sector in order to set out the major findings of that committee. Other speeches are allocated to parties on a proportional basis. The parties therefore have the following number of calls to use as they choose across the 10 sector debates: National 52; Labour 42; New Zealand First eight; Greens seven; and ACT one.At the end of each debate the question will be put that the committee reports relevant to the sector be noted. The time taken on each question is in the hands of members depending on the parties' use of their allocated calls. However the debate expires after 10 hours. I understand the annual review debate will be held across several days. A motion to report progress on a bill must be moved on a call not a point of order—Speaker's ruling 77/5. Because the annual review debate will run for a fixed period of time and the calls have been allocated proportionally it would harm the proportionality of the debate to treat a motion to report progress as a member's entire call. Therefore when a member moves to report progress in this annual review debate the presiding officer will call on that member first when the debate resumes. This is a similar process to that followed in other debates when they are adjourned. At the conclusion of the debate a single question is put on the provisions of the Appropriation (2016/17 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. There is no amendment or debate on this question.We come to the first sector and the question is that the reports of committees relevant to the Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector be noted. I just say for the committee's information that those speeches by the select committee chair should not be partisan or political. They are simply reporting on the select committee's activities and the presiding officer will be quite strict on that.Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector
Sage EugenieTUESDAY 3 APRIL 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 7 to Minister 22 MarchQuestion No. 11 to Minister 27 MarchHon EUGENIE SAGE (Associate Minister for the Environment): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct answers to two oral questions. In answers to—SPEAKER: Order! The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The Minister may continue.Hon EUGENIE SAGE: In answers to two questions in the House on 22 and 27 March I said I advised the Environmental Protection Authority's (EPA's) chief executive at a regular status meeting that my office had received correspondence about media comments by its then chief scientist Dr Jacqueline Rowarth. The EPA's chief executive was not at the meeting on 29 November. The meeting was a briefing from the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) about the EPA and I advised MFE's chief executive that my office had received correspondence.
Thursday 29 March 2018 - Volume 728
11. Minimum Wage—IncreaseMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and SafetyMinimum Wage—Increase11. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What announcements has he made about the minimum wage?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): This Easter the adult minimum wage will increase by 75c an hour to $16.50. This reflects the Government's commitment to ensuring all New Zealanders get a fair share of this country's prosperity.Marja Lubeck: How much extra money will end up in the pockets of working New Zealanders?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The increase will put $129 million into the pockets of working people which will circulate back into the economy. People on lower incomes are more likely to spend their wages on essential items like doctors visits keeping on top of the bills and buying more healthy food—things that too many Kiwis struggle to afford.Marja Lubeck: Why is the Government doing this now?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well the best time to raise the minimum wage is while the labour market is strong and tightening. Now is that time. The Government forecasts unemployment will keep falling towards 4 percent over the next three years while average wages will rise by about 3 percent a year over that time due to a tight labour market.Hon Willie Jackson: What will the impact of the minimum wage increase be on Māori workers?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: A very very good question. Twenty-eight thousand Māori workers and their whānau will benefit from the increase on 1 April. More than half of those getting an increase will be rangatahi with 15500 Māori aged 16 to 24 set to be better off.David Seymour: Why has the Government ignored official advice from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that 3000 jobs would be lost as a result of this increase?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: If the member spent a little bit less time dancing and more time actually reading the documents—SPEAKER: Order!Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —he would know that that's not what MBIE advised at all. In fact what they advised is there is a potential but contested loss in job growth. That means that instead of 57000 new jobs in the next financial year there might be 54000 new jobs—all jobs that those young people will be able to take up.SPEAKER: I'm reflecting on the way that the member started his answer and if Mr Seymour would like another supplementary question he can have one.David Seymour: So will the Minister continue to seek advice from MBIE given that in this case he's just ignored it?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Absolutely I'll continue to seek advice just as the Hon Michael Woodhouse sought advice when he was the Minister and increased the minimum wage. He was told that it would cost 2500 jobs and despite being told that he increased the minimum wage and—what do you know—GDP kept growing and jobs kept growing too.
10. Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media Minister—Contact with Radio New ZealandMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital MediaBroadcasting Communications and Digital Media Minister—Contact with Radio New Zealand10. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media: Who from her office contacted Radio New Zealand on two occasions to raise the issue of the inconsistencies in Carol Hirschfeld's account of the circumstances of their meeting?Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media): Immediately following the Radio New Zealand (RNZ) annual review in select committee on 1 March a member of my staff alerted RNZ to inconsistencies. That was further reinforced with RNZ last week. It is not my practice to name individual staff members. I take full responsibility for my staff acting on my behalf.Melissa Lee: Who at Radio New Zealand did her office contact on those two occasions?Hon CLARE CURRAN: My understanding was it was the communications manager at RNZ.Melissa Lee: How did the member of her office contact Radio New Zealand on those two occasions? Hon CLARE CURRAN: By telephone.Melissa Lee: Did she or anyone from her office contact Carol Hirschfeld to inform her that the circumstances of their breakfast meeting had been misinterpreted to the select committee?Hon CLARE CURRAN: No.Melissa Lee: When she found out on 1 March that the circumstances of their meeting had been misrepresented to the select committee why didn't she bring that to the attention of the select committee?Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just would like to receive some reassurance. There is a very clear Speaker's ruling that if a matter is the subject of a breach of privilege complaint it cannot be raised in the House. If a breach of privilege complaint has been raised about this then it cannot be the subject of questions.SPEAKER: I can deal with that without referring to whether one has been or not. One can't refer to a breach of privilege complaint but the matters which might be contained in the complaint can still be the subject of questioning. Ask the question again please.Melissa Lee: When she found out on 1 March that the circumstances of their meeting had been misrepresented to the select committee why didn't she bring that to the attention of the select committee?Hon CLARE CURRAN: I think it was appropriate for my staff to inform RNZ of an accurate account of events.Melissa Lee: How many text messages has she exchanged with Carol Hirschfeld since the Astoria meeting?SPEAKER: Order! I just want to ask the member to have a—oh no I'll let the member answer because I was probably slack earlier in letting her ask about Carol Hirschfeld when she wasn't the subject of the question. Could you repeat the question? Thank you.Melissa Lee: How many text messages has she exchanged with Carol Hirschfeld since the Astoria meeting?Hon CLARE CURRAN: None.
8. Justice System—Iwi Community PanelsVIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of PoliceJustice System—Iwi Community Panels8. VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has he made about community iwi panels?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you Mr Speaker. Earlier this week I was given the honour of announcing the collective name gifted to our Government for iwi community panels Te Pae Oranga. I also confirmed the extension of this initiative to Gisborne Hutt Valley Manukau Hamilton Rotorua Auckland City and Invercargill and look forward to this initiative being rolled out to five more districts in the next few months. This new name also symbolises the permanence for this justice initiative.Virginia Andersen: How do iwi panels hold offenders to account?Hon STUART NASH: In order to appear before a panel the offender has to plead guilty. The panel has a summary of the facts and the offender is asked to explain why they offended. The offender has to take part in the plan of action drawn up by the panel. And this is the main point: the offender has to take accountability and responsibility and set out a plan of action around how they will change.Virginia Andersen: What feedback has the Minister received from Māori leaders about the extension of iwi panels?Hon STUART NASH: The response and feedback from Māori leaders has been overwhelmingly positive. The presence of Kīngi Tuheitia and a number of Māori leaders at the formal ceremony here in Parliament on Tuesday was recognition of the importance and high-level commitment to making this initiative work. I've also seen another report from an iwi health provider who has said the system has to change and I quote We can't keep putting them in jail and throwing away the key. It is not working.""
2. Economy—Investment Statement 2018 Condition of Health InfrastructureDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceEconomy—Investment Statement 2018 Condition of Health Infrastructure2. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What does Treasury's 2018 Investment Statement say about the condition of the public health estate?SPEAKER: Just before the question is answered I am going to add two extra questions to the National Party as a result of two members of the Labour Party interjecting during that question.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The 2018 Investment Statement shows that district health boards (DHBs) are reporting that around 19 percent of assets are in poor or very poor condition. Further Treasury said that there is a risk of an emerging health infrastructure deficit because of a need to rebuild a large number of hospitals build major new hospitals and repair existing infrastructure. Treasury also noted that depreciation reserves will not be sufficient to cover these investments requiring additional funding from Government.Dr Liz Craig: Did the Investment Statement say how the health estate had fallen into such a state of disrepair?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well according to the Investment Statement Treasury found that a number of DHBs who were reporting underspends in maintenance also had net deficits suggesting that some DHBs may be deferring repairs in maintenance to redirect expenditure into other operational areas. It is not good enough that public hospitals have had to delay vital maintenance just to pay their staff and keep the lights on. This reflects the consistent year-on-year underfunding of the health system which based on work by independent economic agency Infometrics is estimated to have been $2.4 billion over the last nine years.Dr Liz Craig: So what will the Government do to address this?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well Budget 2018 will reflect the different priorities of this Government focusing on getting the basics right such as in health and education. Our priorities are to make investments we need to bring our public services back up to the standard that New Zealanders expect and deserve. This will be a large and important job and it will take more than one Budget to make up for nine years of neglect.
Salesa Jenny; Rurawhe AdrianHon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister for Housing and Urban Development): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for this opportunity to take a call on the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill. I would like to wish everyone a happy and blessed Easter—especially my colleague the Hon Judith Collins. I hope she has a good break in the next few days.Hon Judith Collins: And you too.Hon JENNY SALESA: Thank you the Hon Collins. This is not just a well-meaning well-intentioned bill; we are addressing housing with this legislation. We've been experiencing a housing crisis for a number of years and we are No. 1 in the OECD right now for homelessness—for the rate of homelessness. So this bill is one of many that the new Government has brought in to address this issue. I wanted just to remind the prior Government that we are introducing legislation including this one because we are where we're at in terms of housing. The housing crisis is something we have inherited over the last nine years.But can I say as the MP for Manukau East and South Auckland I see this in my office sometimes on a weekly basis sometimes on a daily basis. I see families that come asking for help because they don't actually have a roof over their heads. They live in cars and they bring their families they bring their children with them or they live in a garage or they live in a working shed. This is one of the reasons why we're introducing this bill. We know that in the part of South Auckland that I live in there are so many families that move and move and move. They're not the average that I heard the prior speaker the Hon Judith Collins talk of—that apparently it's two years for these families to live in a place—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Corrections Amendment Bill — First Reading