edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Turei Metiria: Points of Order — Members—Declaration of Financial InterestsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Points of Order — Members—Declaration of Financial Interests[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14549. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification on just a few short matters concerning correspondence between our offices on the application of Standing Orders 161 and 162 to the vote on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I have three questions of clarification which I hope will not take long. The first is: is it the case that Standing Orders 161 and 162 require MPs to make an explicit and separate declaration of any financial interests that they might hold in Skycity given that the bill is a matter of business before the House held by the MPs or family members?Mr SPEAKER: Will the member bring her point to a close very quickly. I do not want to labour this—METIRIA TUREI: No absolutely. That was the first question. The second question is: is it the case that if an MP does not declare a financial interest that they or their family or trust or companies in which they have an interest own shares in Skycity they are at risk of being in contempt of the rules of the House and therefore subject to a privileges complaint? Third will you require MPs to declare under Standing Orders 161 and 162 whether their family members or trusts or companies in which they have an interest own shares in Skycity before the third reading vote on the bill is held?
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Sri Lanka—AttendanceText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Sri Lanka—Attendance[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14548. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Jan Logie seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the decision to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka this week following mounting international pressure. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be a new situation of sufficient importance to warrant a debate being held. Although the Prime Minister has this weekconfirmed his plans to travel to Sri Lanka I am not convinced that the decision in itself justifies setting aside the business of the House today. The Prime Minister’s attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting has been known for some time. The Sri Lankan human rights record is an existing situation. There is no new development for which there is ministerial responsibility of significant importance that would warrant a debate being held. The application is therefore declined.
Mitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14548. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to theMinister of Commerce: What progress has the Government made on the introduction of new KiwiSaver periodic disclosure rules?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): New disclosure rules that give New Zealanders better information to compare KiwiSaver funds came into force on 1 July this year and the first statements under the new rules were recently published online by KiwiSaver providers. These changes allow KiwiSaver members to directly and easily compare funds and make more informed investment decisions. The new rules are part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda to promote the confidence of investors and businesses in the regulatory settings that support New Zealand’s capital markets.Mark Mitchell: How will this information help mum and dad investors?Hon CRAIG FOSS: Mum and dad investors will enjoy the new reporting requirements that give New Zealanders more information to make informed decisions about the appropriate KiwiSaver fund for themselves. The providers must publish quarterly and annual disclosure statements online. Other organisations will also be able to compile the information now being made available. For example the Commission for Financial Literacy and Retirement Income will shortly release a new online tool that enables members to compare KiwiSaver funds’ fees and returns to get their retirement circumstances sorted.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14544. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to theAssociate Minister of Health: What actions has the Government taken to ensure compliance with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013?Hon TODD McCLAY (Associate Minister of Health): I recently announced that the 0800 Psychoactive Substances Hotline has gone live. The number is 0800 789 652. The hotline provides a direct avenue for concerned communities families and parents to report any activities by users or retailers that they believe to be illegal so that our enforcement agencies can take immediate action. The Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority has already withdrawn a number of licences following reports from the public. I do expect the hotline will further strengthen the public’s ability to take action when they see activity that is inconsistent with the Act.Dr Paul Hutchison: What feedback has the Minister received on the effectiveness of the Psychoactive Substances Act?Hon TODD McCLAY: The feedback is positive. The Psychoactive Substances Act has already had a significant impact by reducing the availability and access of these products. The number of shops previously selling psychoactive substances was estimated to be 3000 or 4000 and as of today it sits at 130 retailers with interim licences. Indeed the products were estimated to be in the number of 200 to 300 available before the Act came into force and that number was growing. Today there are just 46 with temporary licences. These products continue to be monitored closely. Ihave noted previously that district health boards have reported a reduction in the number and severity of reports of adverse reactions from individuals using these products and the National Poisons Centre has also reported a reduction in the number of calls of concern to them.
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14542. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to theMinister of Conservation: What steps is the Government taking to improve the conservation of New Zealand’s 113 species of shark?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The Government at the weekend announced a new plan of action for the conservation of sharks. It includes a ban on shark finning. It is already illegal to fin a shark live and return it to the sea. The change is to prohibit the catching and killing of a shark and the discarding of its remaining carcass except its fins. This change will assist global efforts to conserve sharks of which 30 percent internationally are threatened or near-threatened with extinction. The plan also provides for the total protection of the seven species of shark that are the most threatened.Nicky Wagner: When will the ban take effect and why is it necessary to have a 2-year transition in some fisheries?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is proposed that the ban take effect at the beginning of the next fishing year which is on 1 October 2014 for most fisheries. For others time is needed to develop safe and sustainable fishing practices. Sharks are often caught as bycatch in the longline tuna fishery. The current practice is to kill the shark remove its fins and then dump it at sea because the hull space is needed for the more valuable tuna. We actually need to work with fishers in this fishery on safe methods to unhook the shark and return it live to the sea. That is not without its challenges. The 2-year transition is proposed to develop trial and implement these new shark conservation measures.
Carter David: Responses — PaoraMaxwell—Statements Made by Clare CurranText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Responses — PaoraMaxwell—Statements Made by Clare Curran[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14535. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 156 to 159 on the application of Paora Maxwell relating to reference made by Clare Curran on 4 and 5 September 2013. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Carter David: Visitors — Papua New Guinea—Parliamentary Delegation National ParliamentText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Visitors — Papua New Guinea—Parliamentary Delegation National Parliament[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14535. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea led by the HonMalakaiTabar is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Visitors — Papua New Guinea—Parliamentary Delegation National ParliamentText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVisitors — Papua New Guinea—Parliamentary Delegation National Parliament[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14535. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]VisitorsPapua New Guinea—Parliamentary Delegation National ParliamentMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea led by the HonMalakaiTabar is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Horan Brendan: Motions — Typhoon—PhilippinesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHoran Brendan: Motions — Typhoon—Philippines[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I rise to support the Prime Minister’s motion of support and condolence to the people our dear friends of the Philippines. I also support any assistance that we can give as a country for those in the Philippines who continue to endure the consequences of this tragedy. The forces of nature can be terribly cruel and at times of great human need like this it is important that we demonstratehumanity and compassion and render whatever assistance we can give. To the people of the Philippines kia kaha arohanui.Motion agreed to.
Carter David: Motions — Typhoon—PhilippinesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Motions — Typhoon—Philippines[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I will certainly take a contribution from Mr Horan. There are no rules. A motion without notice is by convention one that is for party leaders to comment on but I am aware of the member’s interest in this issue.
Banks John: Motions — Typhoon—PhilippinesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBanks John: Motions — Typhoon—Philippines[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party and the people of the Epsom electorate I join with the Prime Minister in extending our condolences and heartfelt thoughts to President Aquino and the people of the Philippines at this significant tragedy and great loss. Also in our thoughts and prayers are the hard-working Filipino citizens and residents of New Zealand. They are good people with great values and are much appreciated in this country. Despite the safety of distance many will have lost family and friends. The awesome power of nature is matched only by the magnitude of the numbers: 10000 lives lost and counting 10 million people displaced and homeless tens of billions of dollars in property damage. It is indeed a very cruel twist of fate. Thankfully Typhoon Haiyan has lost most of its force as it makes landfall in Viet Nam. At this time of trial and tribulation it is right that our Prime Minister has extended the hand of friendship to the people of the Philippines. New Zealand as a good global citizen and an Asia-Pacific neighbour should and will do what she can.Brendan Horan: Mr Speaker.
Martin Tracey: Motions — Typhoon—PhilippinesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Motions — Typhoon—Philippines[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14534. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. New Zealand First members wish to extend our deepest sympathy to the people of the Philippines who have been affected by the devastating storm that has struck their country. The scale of their loss is hard to comprehend. The estimated number of people who have died from the super typhoon is staggering. There are reports that around three-quarters of specific provinces have been destroyed. Although the extent of the full devastation may take days to assess we all recognise that the Philippines is now faced with an enormous task of reconstruction and rebuilding.It is right that along with other members of the international community New Zealand should aid the Philippines. Any practical assistance that New Zealand can give should be provided to help the disaster relief effort. New Zealand First supports the decision of the New Zealand Government to give additional support for humanitarian relief efforts in the Philippines and we continue to pray for the people and their families.
Cunliffe David: Motions — Typhoon—PhilippinesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Motions — Typhoon—Philippines[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14532. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): In this awful time our hearts go out to the people of the Philippines and to their families here and overseas. We stand with the Government on this matter. We are horrified by the scale and devastation of Typhoon Haiyan and by the knowledge of the tragic and immense task ahead. We know from media reports that there are dire shortages of water food and medical supplies. We have heard about the cries of the injured with some having to undergo surgery without anaesthetic; about women having to give birth without proper care; and about the dead awaiting burial days after the event. We have seen the vacant shock on the faces of those who still cannot possibly take in all that they have lost.We commend the Government for committing $2 million in aid in addition to the $150000 initially committed to the Red Cross. Having just been out collecting for the Red Cross with my colleagues I am personally heartened to see the great generosity and care once again shown by the people of New Zealand. There will be a need to do more in the time ahead and we offer our support to the Government in any way that we can. We encourage any New Zealand - Filipino families some of whom I have met today to contact their loved ones through our Foreign Service where appropriate. Once again we offer our deepest condolences. This is a difficult time for them to be so far from home and their families but please know that you have the aroha of all members of Parliament and all of our nation.
Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSocial Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14612. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) BillIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to principal Act with effect from day after Royal assentPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I would like to make an opening comment in the Committee stage of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. I want to begin by making some comments about the provisions in Part 1 of the bill and refer those listening tonight to new section 57AA inserted by clause 12.The bill as those members who have looked at it will know is divided into two parts. The first part contains a number of provisions that will come into force I think on the day after the Royal assent. The other provisions in Part 2 are designed to kick into life at a later point. I want to comment particularly about the issue of reviewable tenancies which is probably the major sticking point for Labour in this bill. It is the main reason that we are voting against this bill. We believe that the extension of reviewable tenancies to all Housing New Zealand tenants is a retrograde step. I want to comment on new section 57AA in clause 12 of Part 1 which gives Housing New Zealand the power immediately upon the Royal assent to impose these reviewable tenancies on all Housing New Zealand tenants.Back in mid-2011 when the Hon Phil Heatley was the Minister of Housing in the bad old days the Government changed the policy and extended to all new Housing New Zealand tenants the possibility that they would have their tenancies reviewed.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill with amendment the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into three bills no progress on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill and no progress on the Insolvency Practitioners Bill.Report adopted.
Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill — ProcedureText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill — Procedure[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14568. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) BillProcedureHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) on behalf ofMike Sabin (National—Northland): Following discussions in the Business Committee I seek leave for the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill to be set down for second reading as private and local order of the day No. 1 on Wednesday 13 November 2013.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there anyone opposed? There is not. Leave is granted.
Points of Order — Members—Declaration of Financial InterestsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Members—Declaration of Financial Interests[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14549. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderMembers—Declaration of Financial InterestsMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification on just a few short matters concerning correspondence between our offices on the application of Standing Orders 161 and 162 to the vote on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I have three questions of clarification which I hope will not take long. The first is: is it the case that Standing Orders 161 and 162 require MPs to make an explicit and separate declaration of any financial interests that they might hold in Skycity given that the bill is a matter of business before the House held by the MPs or family members?Mr SPEAKER: Will the member bring her point to a close very quickly. I do not want to labour this—METIRIA TUREI: No absolutely. That was the first question. The second question is: is it the case that if an MP does not declare a financial interest that they or their family or trust or companies in which they have an interest own shares in Skycity they are at risk of being in contempt of the rules of the House and therefore subject to a privileges complaint? Third will you require MPs to declare under Standing Orders 161 and 162 whether their family members or trusts or companies in which they have an interest own shares in Skycity before the third reading vote on the bill is held?Mr SPEAKER: I thank for the member for the points she is raising. The member may not be aware but following receipt of her letter dated yesterday I have written a substantial reply to the member. I can summarise that very quickly. All members are aware of potential conflicts of interest. It is for members to monitor that not for the Speaker. That applies to any particular debate that may be about to take place in this House.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry I have one more.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that this is a fresh point—METIRIA TUREI: Not to do with that conflict—absolutely.Mr SPEAKER: All right we will hear it.METIRIA TUREI: On Friday I sent a letter to your office seeking your view on a privileges complaint that John Banks holds a conflict of interest—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Those matters are under consideration. They are not matters that should then be raised in this House or for that matter in the media.
Urgent Debates Declined — Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Sri Lanka—AttendanceText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Sri Lanka—Attendance[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14548. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedCommonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Sri Lanka—AttendanceMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Jan Logie seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the decision to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka this week following mounting international pressure. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be a new situation of sufficient importance to warrant a debate being held. Although the Prime Minister has this weekconfirmed his plans to travel to Sri Lanka I am not convinced that the decision in itself justifies setting aside the business of the House today. The Prime Minister’s attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting has been known for some time. The Sri Lankan human rights record is an existing situation. There is no new development for which there is ministerial responsibility of significant importance that would warrant a debate being held. The application is therefore declined.
Responses — PaoraMaxwell—Statements Made by Clare CurranText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeResponses — PaoraMaxwell—Statements Made by Clare Curran[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14535. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ResponsesPaora Maxwell—Statements Made by Clare CurranMr SPEAKER: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 156 to 159 on the application of Paora Maxwell relating to reference made by Clare Curran on 4 and 5 September 2013. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Sittings of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Sittings of the House[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14699. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well the House is a master of its own destiny. The member has sought leave for the House to adjourn for the evening given the nature of the next piece of legislation. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Peters Winston: Sittings of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Sittings of the House[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14699. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): As you know the House is the master of its own destiny. The next piece of legislation is rather seriously important. I think most members think that. I think it should commence at a time of the day when the public of this country can hear it rather than having some important issues—and these issues tonight have been important—being discussed almost in the dead of night. So I seek leave for the House to rise and consider the bill the next time we have such a sitting day.
Vote: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes60New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Motion not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 60 Noes 61.
Logie Jan: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14697. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): The Green Party is proud to once again stand alongside workers seeking decent pay and conditions. We know that the most significant improvements in these conditions have happened through strong collective action. Therefore we will with pride be opposing this Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill.
Groser Tim: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGroser Tim: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14696. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): I simply suggested to my honourable colleague Chris Auchinvole that I might split the call with him just to give a very simple reply to the Rt Hon Winston Peters on his very important and legitimate question which was—if I may paraphrase it without doing any violence to the reality of what the right honourable member said—why if this is such a good bill is the NationalGovernment not putting it forward in its own name instead of allowing it to become a member’s bill? Well I think the answer to the member’s question is very obvious—Chris Auchinvole: The right honourable.Hon TIM GROSER: And the right honourable member knows this better than any other member in this House given his experience which is that we operate by a ballot. We are so sick of listening to halfwitted ill-considered members’ bills that we thought it was better to put forward a very sensible proposition to lower the probability of having to put down yet another idiotic proposition from the Opposition. Thank you.Chris Auchinvole: Keep going—keep going.Hon TIM GROSER: Well if we are talking about unions perhaps I could reflect given the discussion this afternoon on my one experience as a trade unionist.Chris Auchinvole: When was this?Hon TIM GROSER: This was when I was a member of Actors Equity. I was a member of Actors Equity for a number of years as a professional actor and I had the great misfortune I have to say to attend a meeting in the Auckland Art Gallery not so many years ago in which New Zealand Actors Equity a union to which not only I had belonged but also my father and my mother had belonged and listen to the takeover of New Zealand Actors Equity by Actors Equity Australia. Having strongly supported New Zealand professional actors in having a reasonable workplace knowing the sheer naivety of the New Zealand union in allowing itself to be taken over by an anti-employer - oriented workforce that was trying to price New Zealand professional actors out of the market—I could not believe the naivety of the people at that conference. So those are the sorts of considerations that have led me to want to take the floor for a brief minute to express my viewpoint on this excellent bill the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill which I commend to the House.
Auchinvole Chris: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14696. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): Thank you. Section 97 of the Employment Relations Act created an imbalance for workers in an industrial dispute and took away the freedom of workers to choose and that is in fact what we are talking about. I guess the noise from the other side of the House especially in the initial speeches is something we should get used to over the next year as the union influence in running the Labour Party political wing bites in cuts deep and demands paybacks. I was shocked to hear this bill the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill being described as a scab bill. Is the level of industrial relationship still at that level? And yet what for goodness’ sake has this come to?Andrew Little speaks of workers being locked out and starved to death. I was stunned to hear Andrew Little give such a diatribe of basic resentment dislike and prejudice. I concur with my friend David Bennett chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that Andrew Little is a man who is educated eloquent and cultured. He is a very pleasant man to work with at the select committee. So to whom was he speaking this evening? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. I think we know that he was speaking to his union audience and this is as I said earlier more of what we have to get used to.So where is the freedom of choice in anything he said? Where is the recognition of the very good level of industrial relationships over the last decade or so in New Zealand which the workers and employers have been justifiably proud of? I speak as someone who used to export pretty much right through the 1970s 1980s and 1990s and I can remember when industrial relationships really did present problems. The only good thing was that Australia was slightly worse off than we were. I waited with bated breath for Darien Fenton to give her speech and I think Darien gave an appropriately mild and short speech falling short of actually supporting the bill—I will admit that—but she did not have much to say that was critical about it. I commend this bill to the House.
Robertson H V Ross: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14696. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to put his call for 2½ minutes each if he wants to.Chris Auchinvole: Thank you.Hon Tim Groser: This will be a split call.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a split call yes.Chris Auchinvole: Thank you. I will invite—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will receive the bell with half a minute to go.Chris Auchinvole: Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Sorry I took it that this member was going to speak first.Chris Auchinvole: Well I will speak first if you wish.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Because you are already on your feet—so I have called you. The member will commence.
Auchinvole Chris: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14696. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to inquire as to whether I may seek to divide my 5 minutes with the Minister of Trade the purpose being that we have been called upon to answer a question from New Zealand First.
Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBeaumont Carol: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14695. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): This bill the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill from Jami-Lee Ross is an ugly bill. It is about the ugly National Party which hates workers which hates unions which brought in the Employment Contracts Act and which has a long history prior to that. But more than that it is an unnecessary bill. There is no need for it. We have low levels of strikes. Actually probably nobody wants it except possibly one company. Even the Employers and Manufacturers Association does not want it. This is a bill that is driven by a hatred of unions and will be added to the stable of attacks by this Government on workers’ rights driving down wages and conditions. I am sickened in this House by hearing the constant attacks on unions by that side of the House. The anti-union rhetoric really just gets up my nose. This is a low-road bill. It is a race to the bottom. It has nothing about driving successful collaborative workplaces.What does it do? It just basically makes it impossible for workers to use strike action if they need to to get a collective agreement settled—a very rare event nowadays. Why? Well Jami-Lee Ross seems to think it has got something to do with the Ports of Auckland. That company seems to be part of the reason for this bill. I will not go into the details of his long opinion piece on the matter. Suffice it to say this is another bit of legislation driven by the desires and needs of a particular company.The context is a whole raft of other anti-worker legislation including the current Employment Relations Act amendments that we are dealing with. This is a Government that does not focus on jobs. This is a Government that is focused on driving down wages. I look forward to voting against this bill.
Roche Denise: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14692. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. We will be opposing this Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill. It is draconian basically. It plays into the Government’s hysterical anti-worker and anti-union agenda. We saw an example of that this afternoon with Minister Finlayson referring to Actors Equity representatives as union thugs. He referred to Jennifer Ward-Lealand and Robyn Malcolm as union thugs. That is the type of attitude that is purveyed by this type of bill.This bill breaks international treaties and it is part of the ongoing attacks on workers that this Government is perpetrating. It is designed to overturn the Employment Court’s ruling during the Ports of Auckland dispute where the union won in court when the Ports of Auckland management basically tried to contract out the Maritime Union workers’ jobs while they were locked out during an industrial dispute. It is another go attrying to change the law once a law case has been won. This Government is incorrigible in the way it is treating workers.This bill sets us back to Dickensian times where workers are supposed to be grateful for a job for anything they can get and to be kept in heel at all times. It sets up an environment that actively encourages employers to be hostile and negative towards their employees. This bill is unnecessary. There have been very few industrial disputes over the last couple of years so this bill wants to crack a nut with a sledgehammer. It is ridiculous. We will be opposing it.
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFenton Darien: Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14692. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am going to take a brief call on this Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill because it is a bill that no one wants. It is not needed. It is not justified. Even that icon of left-wing business management the Employers and Manufacturers Association of Auckland what did it say? It said that it is a bridge too far. This bill could be divisive. Simon Bridges the Minister of Labour was very dodgy about it. When he was asked about it he did not want to say that he supported it and nor did John Key actually. In the end John Key was kind of embarrassed into saying “Oh well maybe we will support it to select committee.”Everybody knows that this bill is not needed or justified. The rate of strikes in New Zealand is the lowest it has ever been. This Government is already attacking workers’ rights to strike. That Minister of Labour’s Employment Relations Amendment Bill has a whole lot of attacks on strikes which is going to make it so much harder for workers. This is a stupid and silly bill. It is a waste of time. I am disappointed that the young member for Botany could not come up with something a little bit more worthwhile and productive in his first member’s bill. Thank you.
Vote: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14687. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.Ayes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Robertson H V Ross: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14687. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am on my feet. Can I just remind members that when votes are being taken they are supposed to be taken in silence because any comment can be taken as intimidation and it can actually lead to a breach of privilege if someone should wish to lodge one. Thank you.
Robertson H V Ross: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson H V Ross: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14685. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No no—now the member is trifling with the Chair. [Interruption] Order! We are going to move on.David Bennett: Oh Mr Assistant Speaker! I have got 1 minute left.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No the member has already had his call and he has resumed his seat. His time has run out anyway.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well Mr Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member has not called yet.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters in reply.
Huo Raymond: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHuo Raymond: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14683. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I rise to take a short call to support this bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2).Rt Hon Winston Peters: Take a long one.RAYMOND HUO: Indeed Mr Peters—certainly. Coincidentally theNew Zealand Heraldis today celebrating its 150-year anniversary. As its Asian affairs reporter in the early 1990s the celebration in itself has certainly brought a sense of reminiscence to me to some extent. The then editor Mr Gavin Ellis was my very first employer in New Zealand and theNew Zealand Heraldwas owned by the Wilson and Horton families—proud Kiwi families. How time flies and times have changed. This is very relevant to this current bill because times have changed. It was 1989 when the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was enacted and the global financial crisis has changed the rules of the game. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act will have to be updated for the 21st century. I commend this bill to the House.
Goff Phil: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14680. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour Party will be supporting the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2). In fact it is a policy that Labour announced 4 years ago. I want to quote Winston Peters. I heard him say earlier this week that imitation is the highest form of flattery so I thank New Zealand First for that flattery—and the man has just come in.I am one of the few members who were in this House in 1984 when we inherited an economy left by 9 years of a National Government. It was the Muldoon economy. The problem with Sir Robert Muldoon was that he applied ideas that he gained in the 1940s to the 1980s when they were no longer applicable. Although the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act which Labour passed in 1989 was a splendid piece of legislation for its time—it did succeed in bringing 8 or 9 years of double-digit inflation back to low inflation—the ideas of the 1980s are no longer applicable in the 21st century and in2013. We know that inflation is now not the problem that it was. We have got very low inflation; it is at the lower end of the Reserve Bank target.What we do have are other severe problems. We have got the problem of unemployment which has persisted above 6 percent when John Key said 5 years ago that it was on its way down rapidly. It was not; it has persisted at a high level. We have got a current account deficit that the International Monetary Fund says is the highest in the developed world—the highest. It says that our dollar is overvalued by 15 percent. We see the price of that. We see the price of our manufacturing industry in decline. We see the price of our film industry suffering the biggest downturn in two decades. We see international education a $2.6 billion industry actually in decline. We see declines in our tourist industry which is also an important source of employment. These things are aggravated by applying the wrong economic mechanisms to the problems of the 21st century.We cannot go on spending more money as we have for four decades than we earn from our exports. But the high dollar at 15 percent over what it should be is killing our exports. We are borrowing to pay the difference and we are selling off our country because we owe that debt to the people we are borrowing from overseas. That is a serious problem. It will not be resolved by applying the solutions of the 1980s. It will be resolved by adopting the policy that is standard across the developed world of ensuring that our exchange rate does not kill our productive industries. That is why Labour is supporting the bill and I commend it to the House.
Genter Julie Anne: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14680. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I rise to speak on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2). The Green Party does think that this bill is a worthwhile bill and we welcome its introduction into the House and its first reading because the reality is that despite what the previous speaker Maggie Barry was saying New Zealand is a in a pretty delicate situation. Our current account deficit is the worst in the developed world. Our current Minister of Finance Bill English used to talk about rebalancing the economy. In 2010 he said that one of the factors that was the biggest threat to the New Zealand economy in the medium and long term was our external imbalances. We no longer hear National talk about the external imbalances; it has completely given up on that. Our current account deficit is forecast to increase to 6.5 percent over the next few years which is going to leave us extremely vulnerable.It is a problem that has persisted in New Zealand because we are a small country but it is one that ultimately is leading to a hollowing out of our economy. We get into a downward spiral where our exchange rate is overvalued which leads to it being more difficult for our exporters to compete. We have heard from manufacturers and exporters that the currency is hurting them. At the same time we are importing more because our currency is too high and what ends up happening is that we actually become more and more indebted to the rest of the world. That is the situation that we are in even though the National Party would like to pretend that it is not. It is actually leading us down an unsustainable track so the Green Party does support this bill.
Roy Eric: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14677. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We move to 5-minute calls.
Vote: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Vote: Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14669. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes8New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Bill read a second time.