edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
McKelvie Ian: Food Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcKelvie Ian: Food Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17761. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It is very good to see a fellow food producer and hunter-gatherer in the Chair today Mr Deputy Speaker. The Food Bill was introduced to the House in 2010 by the Hon Kate Wilkinson. It has gone through two different select committee processes two Ministers have put a huge effort into this in the interim and 4 years later we are back in the House for the second reading of a very large and complex piece of legislation. When this bill was first promoted by this House I was in fact involved in local government. I know that local government was absolutely terrified of the potential ramifications of this bill and spent a lot of resources time and energy—and frittered a lot of it away as it turned out—in raising objection to it.None the less it got to a very satisfactory spot in the world and it has come back into the House from the Primary Production Committee in very good form. I think as almost all the other speakers have agreed really that it is a piece of legislation that is essential for New Zealand. Firstly it protects the safety of our own people and secondly it protects our reputation in the market place and goes a long way to ensuring that continues. The select committee deliberations were a fascinating process. We heard submissions from many of the bigger operators in the country and some of the very smallest. I heard the submissions and took the opportunity to traverse the ranges into the Wairarapa and visit Biddy Fraser-Davis and her four cows. Interestingly they were called Dizzy Holly Patsy and Isobel. She made cheese from each of them on a daily basis by hand—Shane Ardern: Did they vote Green?IAN McKELVIE: I think they voted Green as the chairman of the Primary Production Committee says. But that is a fascinating thing to do. When you think about our opportunities for tourism that we have in this country and the new opportunities that we have got through cycle trails and walking trails this kind of small cottage industry is going to be a very important part of our future tourism thing. This bill has enabled this to take place with a lot less cost involved than what was envisaged when the legislation was first promoted to the House.We did consider a lot of issues in the course of this and the select committee process was a fascinating one I thought. Also I think we have a pretty good select committee in the primary production sector led by our dairy-farming colleague from the King Country—I was going to say Taranaki but I had better say the King Country—Shane Ardern. Of course we get on pretty well as a select committee and I think we came to some pretty good conclusions. So despite some interesting discussion the committee—under Shane Ardern’s expert leadership and with some very good input from all of its members—came to a conclusion that I have got much pleasure in supporting as the bill traverses its way through this House. Thank you.
King Colin: Food Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Colin: Food Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17758. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to take a call during the second reading of the Food Bill. In doing so it brings to mind one of Churchill’s great statements where he said: “Never … was so much owed by so many to so few.” Of course he was referring to the Battle of Britain. I use that comment with regard to the Food Bill because every man woman and child in New Zealand now living and in future generations will rely on the protection that that bill gives this country.The previous speakers have certainly drilled down into the character and nature of the bill. The members of the Primary Production Committee are certainly confident that we applied ourselves as a select committee in the very best capacity possible. I want to pay particular respect to my Green colleague Steffan Browning. He certainly took up the cudgels for the small operator and he asked questions. Many of those questions did have very sensible arguments and reasons why but I would like it put on record that he did contribute to the finality and the accuracy of this particular bill. I also want to pay respects to all the other members: Ian McKelvie the chair as well as Shane ArdernDamien O’Connor over on the other side of the House there and also the member from the New Zealand First Party.It was a great effort but again I just want to leave the House during the second reading with the very structured comment that this is incredibly complex. You are dealing with the massive organisations that produce food—immense in New Zealand—but you are also dealing with the farmers markets and the small trading activities. There is also the requirement to have similar processes within the animal products bill as well as the Food Bill. I am delighted to see the bill at this stage and I share too the feeling of the House the Parliament here that we can progress this matter through to conclusion for the benefit of all New Zealand. Thank you.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Flooding Christchurch—Government ResponseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Flooding Christchurch—Government Response[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17749. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s response to the flooding situation in Christchurch. For there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence that involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government and requires the urgent attention of the House. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government to account for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct ministerial responsibility for the particular case that it has sought to debate.There is no ministerial responsibility for a report released by the Christchurch City Council Mayoral Flood Taskforce in Christchurch. TheMayoral Flood Taskforce Temporary Flood Defence Measures: Technical Report undoubtedly addresses issues of importance but the urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred for which Ministers are responsible. It is not a means for debating matters where the Government may or may not respond in the future. The application is therefore declined.
Carter David: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Use of Social Media in ChamberText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Use of Social Media in Chamber[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: The Minister raises a very interesting challenge I think for this Parliament. This would not be the first time that I have seen a Twitter comment expressing some unhappiness with decisions that I have made. My job is to attempt to maintain the dignity of the House and I assure all members that I do this to the best of my ability in a completely unbiased fashion. I think the member’s suggestion that it is a discussion worthy of the Business Committee is one we should follow through with. It is probably something further that the Standing Orders Committee could also look at before its review is finalised. There is a difficulty there in interpretation of the current Standing Orders and the ability of members here to use relatively modern technology throughout question time. I will give it further consideration.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Use of Social Media in ChamberText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Use of Social Media in Chamber[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking you this question more for you to reflect on than to give an immediate answer. I have become aware that during the course of the afternoon there has been a disreputable reference made to you via Twitter. That tweet had to have been circulated by the person who owns the account whilst seated here in the House. Clearly if someone stood up and made such a reference then the whole House would have quite a condemning approach to that being done. The question becomes one of how you deal with people making disreputable comments by way of Twitter. Should we in fact pursue it with the Privileges Committee so that we can get a ruling on this at some point or could we perhaps discuss it later this afternoon in the Business Committee? I think it would be a very unfortunate trend if members thought they could sit in this House and commentate on proceedings in a way that was derogatory to the Chair.
Ross Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17747. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to theMinister of Revenue: What recent announcements has he made regarding this Government’s ongoing tax compliance work?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): Yesterday the Government announced an extra $132 million for the Inland Revenue Department to bolster its tax compliance activities and for chasing up unfiled returns. This is on top of the nearly $200 million investment already allocated through Budget 2010 and Budget 2012 for tax compliance and debt collection work. It is conservatively estimated that the new funding will generate a gross increase in Crown revenue of around $300 million over the next 5 years which builds upon the extra $106 million already generated through the focus on unfiled returns since July 2012.Jami-Lee Ross: What have been some of the results of the Government’s investment in tax compliance to date?Hon TODD McCLAY: It is important to note that the vast majority of New Zealanders voluntarily and responsibly pay their fair share of tax. However the Government is determined to catch up with those who do not by going after debt outstanding returns hidden economy activities aggressive tax planning fraud and property compliance. The results of this work have been nothing but spectacular. In 2013 $45 million of additional revenue has been collected through hidden economy tax-avoidance initiatives a return of $5.60 for every $1 invested. In the area of non-compliance through property speculation the taxing of capital gains identified $53.8 million—that is $8.42 for every $1 invested. In going after aggressive tax planning—for instance the use of dodgy leadership trusts—we identified $206 million in discrepancies a return of $42.90 for every dollar spent.Jami-Lee Ross: What other reports has he seen regarding this Government’s focus on people paying their fair share of tax?Hon TODD McCLAY: I have seen reports in the media from the Opposition that claim the Government has been going easy on tax dodgers—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are now straying into an area where that is a media report. It is not official. There is no ministerial responsibility.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17746. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now wasting the time of this House. [Interruption] Order! If the member wants to stay for the balance of question time he had better start behaving himself. The Speakers’ rulings in this regard are quite clear. The Government can put the question to whom it thinks is the most appropriate Minister and that has been done on this occasion. Question No. 11—Darien Fenton. [Interruption] Order! Both sides of the House need to settle down. [Interruption] Order! And that includes the Hon Annette King for the second time today. Would the member stop barracking across the Chamber.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17746. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): This question No. 11 was originally set down for the Minister of Tourism and we would regard this as a question that he should be answering so I seek leave of this House for this question to be transferred back to the Minister of Tourism rather than—
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17743. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to theMinister of Health: What recent announcement has the Government made about the redevelopment of Grey Base Hospital?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Last week the Government announced that the business case for the new $67 million 60-bed hospital facility on the West Coast has been signed off and the project is now moving to the final design phase.Virtually the whole hospital will be new. Grey Base Hospital will be the biggest hospital investment per head of population in the country’s history and the Government is committed to futureproofing health services on the West Coast.Chris Auchinvole: What facilities will be provided at the new hospital?Hon TONY RYALL: The redeveloped hospital facility will have a bigger maternity unit a new emergency department an intensive-care unit and three state-of-the-art operating theatres. There will also be an integrated family health centre on the Grey Base Hospital site. This modern facility is great news for the people of the West Coast and I would like to acknowledge the member for his support and encouragement throughout the process.
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCalder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17742. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.Dr CAM CALDER (National) to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What progress has the Government made in lifting employment in the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): Very good progress. The household labour force survey that came out last week showed that 84000 more New Zealanders are in work compared with 1 year ago. This represents a 3.7 percent increase in employment in the last year which is the largest annual increase since December 2004. The labour force participation rate is now up to 69.3 percent which is the highest participation rate in the New Zealand labour market since records began. Wages are also rising significantly faster than inflation. Over the past year average ordinary weekly earnings rose by 3.2 percent as compared with CPI inflation of 1.5 percent.Andrew Little: No you’ve got that wrong.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: And the member opposite hates that but it is true—a 3.2 percent increase in ordinary-time weekly earnings compared with CPI inflation of 1.5 percent. Average hourly earnings rose by 2.5 percent.Dr Cam Calder: How are the job projections made before the 2011 election tracking?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Very well. Budget 2011 projected job growth of 171000 people over the 4 years from 2012 through to 2015. I am pleased to report to the House that we are currently running almost exactly on track to achieve that target with employment growth of 131000 jobs to date since then. The Government’s comprehensive Business Growth Agenda to encourage investment in the New Zealand economy is working. Growth is increasing jobs are being created wages are rising and business and consumer confidence is at record levels. People are moving to New Zealand and far fewer people are leaving.Dr Cam Calder: What reports has he seen about risks to further job creation in the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen a variety of reports on policies that could be proposed that would cost New Zealanders jobs because they would discourage investment. Such policies could perhaps oppose international investment free trade the dairy industry oil and gas exploration expanding aquaculture expanding irrigation or faster resource management decisions. I have seen policies that would force up wages artificially and cost tens of thousands of jobs. I have seen policies that would introduce big new taxes on a productive industry which provides jobs and wages for Kiwis to subsidise unprofitable companies. All of these approaches would cost massive numbers of jobs and reduce investment and they completely contrast with a wish to grow the number of jobs and sustainably reduce employment which is completely impossible if the policy ideas move in the wrong direction. Of course one person did know that: Shane Jones and that is why he has left.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17739. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. What we are now seeing from both members is the use of the point of order system to seek leave to table a document as a means of continuing a political debate.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17739. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This sort of thing is going to go on and on so I would suggest that those who are interested in this story take a look at page 12 of the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specific Interests of Members of Parliament clause 8(1)(a) and then the notes under (i) through to (iv) which makes it very clear that “You do not need to include overseas travel … if the costs were incurred by yourself a close family member the Crown or by a government a parliament or any international parliamentary organisation as part of an official parliamentary visit overseas.” Mr Speaker—
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17739. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of that document?Hon Trevor Mallard: It is the Registrar of Pecuniary—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That information is freely available to members.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: This is a point of order. Order! [Interruption] Order! This is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17739. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I seek leave to table a document that defines an official parliamentary visit as meaning one that is part of the approved official travel programme administered by the Office of the Clerk.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17738. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Points of order should not be used for that. That is very much a debating point.
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17738. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague David Parker. I just want to make a point of order in reference to the Prime Minister’s point of order referring to what does not need to be disclosed under Appendix B clause 8(2)(e) of the Standing Orders. It says “any government parliament or international parliamentary organisation if the primary purpose of the travel was in connection with an official parliamentary visit.” Ms Collins was on a ministerial visit of course so she should have declared it.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Judicial Proceedings—Sub Judice Rule and Notification of Speaker Questions for Oral Answer—Imputations of CorruptionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Judicial Proceedings—Sub Judice Rule and Notification of Speaker Questions for Oral Answer—Imputations of Corruption[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17729. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Issues of ministerial responsibility and the inclusion of statements in questions arose in relation to questions Nos 4 and 12 on 8 May. The lodgment of both questions was the subject of considerable debate and their subsequent acceptance involved some give and take. Question 12 addressed a meeting the Minister of Immigration had held and contained a statement about a donation to a political party. The question as reconsidered was accepted. The statement was authenticated and given that there is nothing improper in making donations to political parties the question was allowed.However I accept that some may have seen an imputation in the question as a whole. I have reflected on this. What is not in order is to impute that members or Ministers have been offered received or solicited inducements. Supplementary questions to both question 4 and question 12 strayed into this territory. Members must not make veiled suggestions of corruption or impropriety across the floor of the House such as cash for access - type allegations. Where they do so they will be asked to withdraw because such suggestions are offensive to the House as a whole.This House takes corruption very seriously. It is well established that any such allegation must be raised as a matter of privilege by writing to the Speaker. That is the proper way for such matters to be raised. They must not be raised on the floor of the House by way of interjection or in questions or debate.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Judicial Proceedings—Sub Judice Rule and Notification of Speaker Questions for Oral Answer—Imputations of CorruptionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Judicial Proceedings—Sub Judice Rule and Notification of Speaker Questions for Oral Answer—Imputations of Corruption[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17729. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Last Thursday a member asked that I reflect on a ruling I gave concerning the sub judice rule when ruling a supplementary question to question No. 9 out of order. I have done so and looked more widely at events that led to more general disorder during that question time. The purpose of the sub judice rule is to safeguard the interests of justice. What is before the courts ought not to be discussed in the House from the time a charge is made until the verdict and the sentence is announced. The fact that someone may have pleaded guilty does not alter this. The House is not in the same position as the media. The House has set itself a higher standard having regard to the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the courts. Furthermore Standing Order 112(2) now requires a member who intends to refer to a matter before the courts to give written notice to the Speaker in order that the Speaker may consider whether to exercise discretion on these matters. That certainly did not happen last Thursday.
Voting — Correction—Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform BillText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVoting — Correction—Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17806. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]VotingCorrection—Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform BillThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members during the last debate on the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill the votes on the closure motion to clause 1 should read 78 in favour and 41 opposed. The original figures I gave were 68 and 41; they should be 78 in favour and 41 opposed. The record will be amended accordingly.
Urgent Debates Declined — Flooding Christchurch—Government ResponseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — Flooding Christchurch—Government Response[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17749. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedFlooding Christchurch—Government ResponseMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Ruth Dyson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s response to the flooding situation in Christchurch. For there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence that involves the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government and requires the urgent attention of the House. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government to account for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct ministerial responsibility for the particular case that it has sought to debate.There is no ministerial responsibility for a report released by the Christchurch City Council Mayoral Flood Taskforce in Christchurch. TheMayoral Flood Taskforce Temporary Flood Defence Measures: Technical Report undoubtedly addresses issues of importance but the urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred for which Ministers are responsible. It is not a means for debating matters where the Government may or may not respond in the future. The application is therefore declined.
Points of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Use of Social Media in ChamberText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Use of Social Media in Chamber[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderChamber Lobbies and Galleries—Use of Social Media in ChamberHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking you this question more for you to reflect on than to give an immediate answer. I have become aware that during the course of the afternoon there has been a disreputable reference made to you via Twitter. That tweet had to have been circulated by the person who owns the account whilst seated here in the House. Clearly if someone stood up and made such a reference then the whole House would have quite a condemning approach to that being done. The question becomes one of how you deal with people making disreputable comments by way of Twitter. Should we in fact pursue it with the Privileges Committee so that we can get a ruling on this at some point or could we perhaps discuss it later this afternoon in the Business Committee? I think it would be a very unfortunate trend if members thought they could sit in this House and commentate on proceedings in a way that was derogatory to the Chair.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister raises a very interesting challenge I think for this Parliament. This would not be the first time that I have seen a Twitter comment expressing some unhappiness with decisions that I have made. My job is to attempt to maintain the dignity of the House and I assure all members that I do this to the best of my ability in a completely unbiased fashion. I think the member’s suggestion that it is a discussion worthy of the Business Committee is one we should follow through with. It is probably something further that the Standing Orders Committee could also look at before its review is finalised. There is a difficulty there in interpretation of the current Standing Orders and the ability of members here to use relatively modern technology throughout question time. I will give it further consideration.
Speaker’s Rulings — Judicial Proceedings—Sub Judice Rule and Notification of Speaker Questions for Oral Answer—Imputations of CorruptionText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSpeaker’s Rulings — Judicial Proceedings—Sub Judice Rule and Notification of Speaker Questions for Oral Answer—Imputations of Corruption[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17729. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 13 May 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Speaker’s RulingsJudicial Proceedings—Sub Judice Rule and Notification of SpeakerMr SPEAKER: Last Thursday a member asked that I reflect on a ruling I gave concerning the sub judice rule when ruling a supplementary question to question No. 9 out of order. I have done so and looked more widely at events that led to more general disorder during that question time. The purpose of the sub judice rule is to safeguard the interests of justice. What is before the courts ought not to be discussed in the House from the time a charge is made until the verdict and the sentence is announced. The fact that someone may have pleaded guilty does not alter this. The House is not in the same position as the media. The House has set itself a higher standard having regard to the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the courts. Furthermore Standing Order 112(2) now requires a member who intends to refer to a matter before the courts to give written notice to the Speaker in order that the Speaker may consider whether to exercise discretion on these matters. That certainly did not happen last Thursday.Questions for Oral Answer—Imputations of CorruptionMr SPEAKER: Issues of ministerial responsibility and the inclusion of statements in questions arose in relation to questions Nos 4 and 12 on 8 May. The lodgment of both questions was the subject of considerable debate and their subsequent acceptance involved some give and take. Question 12 addressed a meeting the Minister of Immigration had held and contained a statement about a donation to a political party. The question as reconsidered was accepted. The statement was authenticated and given that there is nothing improper in making donations to political parties the question was allowed.However I accept that some may have seen an imputation in the question as a whole. I have reflected on this. What is not in order is to impute that members or Ministers have been offered received or solicited inducements. Supplementary questions to both question 4 and question 12 strayed into this territory. Members must not make veiled suggestions of corruption or impropriety across the floor of the House such as cash for access - type allegations. Where they do so they will be asked to withdraw because such suggestions are offensive to the House as a whole.This House takes corruption very seriously. It is well established that any such allegation must be raised as a matter of privilege by writing to the Speaker. That is the proper way for such matters to be raised. They must not be raised on the floor of the House by way of interjection or in questions or debate.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17727. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; 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.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17727. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; 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.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 431 in the name of Carol Beaumont to clause 63 be agreed to.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17726. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; 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.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 430 in the name of Carol Beaumont to clause 65 and to insert new clause 22B be agreed to.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17726. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes79New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes40New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 79 Noes 42.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 442 in the name of the Hon Craig Foss to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 445 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new clause 22B be agreed to.
Roy Eric: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17727. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill with amendment progress on the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill and no progress on the Vulnerable Children Bill.Report adopted.
Clark David: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17727. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I stand to take this call to debate the aspects that are in Part 2. The purposes of the Act—
Roy Eric: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17727. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. The record will be amended.
Beaumont Carol: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBeaumont Carol: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17727. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I seek leave to correct our voting record for the closure motion and correct that to 32 votes opposed.
Foster-Bell Paul: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17726. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I moveThat the question be now put.
Tisch Lindsay: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17712. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we now move to consideration of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part. This is debate on clauses 3 to 70 and schedules 1 to 3.
Delahunty Catherine: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDelahunty Catherine: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17711. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I would just like to echo the words of my colleague Grant Robertson in relation to local efforts. I guess living in TaiRāwhiti—theTūranga-nui-a-Kiwa area—we had the first contact site between Captain Cook and the local people there. It was represented by a statue at the port which was eventually surrounded by logs. The local community and the local heritage community did a lot of work to try to persuade the port about this thing called a cone of vision. I ended up as the mediator between the port and the local committee trying to protect this. It was a fascinating experience because this is the place where Captain Cook first met the tangata whenua and the circumstances are historically painful in terms of the death of a number of people fromNgātiOneone but it was important to everybody—tangata whenua the local heritage committee and the museum—that it was not just a statue surrounded by logs with no sight of the sea. So we went though a negotiation process on that and it made me aware of the work that local committees have put in.I think we need to modernise and I appreciate that we need to recognise that particularly because some of the committees around the country have done tremendous work but are very much siloed away. They have beenPākehā committees that have been siloed away fromhapū. But I think that has changed and what is more I think this bill will help to effect more change because it does so strongly acknowledge the importance of that relationship under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.So I just want to acknowledge all the work of those people in the past in terms of the cone of vision. We all need a broad vision in order to protect our sites starting from where we first met which is why I wanted to stand up and acknowledge the work done inTūranga-nui-a-Kiwa on that issue and to acknowledge the importance of both that contribution and also a true Treaty-based relationship for the future management of our heritage. Kia ora tatou.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 5 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 5 as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the schedule be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule as amended agreed to.
Finlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17709. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): There are two parts to Part 5. It would be important for landowners and others to have a good look at Subpart 2 because it sets out the offences and the fines for example for modifying or destroying property. What we have tried to do in this part is align the provisions here with the provisions under the Resource Management Act. For example under Supplementary Order Paper 444 clause 89A clarifies that a director or a person who manages a defendant may be guilty of the same offence as the defendant. The penalties are actually quite stiff.Subpart 2 contains what could be called in some respects the sad part of it because the branch committees are dissolved on the commencement of the Act. There was a lot of debate about it as members have said in relation to other parts recognising that there has been a debate but the whole idea about this is that as this is so demonstrably a Crown entity now the branches that were so important when the trust was established so many years ago in many respects are let free so that they can concentrate on advocacy and the demonstrably regulatory side of things is dealt with by Heritage New Zealand. Yes it is an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of branch committees over a very significant period of time and to say that it is not the end of the branch committees but an opportunity for them reformed out in the community to do that very important work of advocacy and really work with Heritage New Zealand. So the relationship will change but I actually think it is going to be very positive indeed.
Finlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17708. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): There are just a couple of points. I very quickly want to say to Mr Robertson that clause 75 has gone.Grant Robertson: My apologies.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I accept your apology and indeed I formally record that he apologised. Can I also say that I thought MrTwyford’s contribution was excellent. In fact I do not think there was one site that he mentioned that I took issue with and I imagine all of those are going to be on the historic landmarks list. I will say in relation to the volcanic cones in Auckland that as part of theTāmaki Collective settlement they were handed over to the local iwi to be administered jointly with the Auckland Council. The proposal is also—and I have talked toUnesco about it and there is a process under way; MrMajurey for the collective has been working on it—that hopefully they will getUnesco historic status as well.The other point that was made and is a very important one—both the member fromMāngere and Mr Robertson raised it—was about how local authorities have all these burdens put on them and to ask what the Government is doing to help. In actual fact there is quite considerable central government assistance at the present time with the regional museums and art galleries fund. The Lotteries Commission provides the Lottery Significant Projects Fund. I would have thought that if a building for example was put on this list then that would really be an incentive and if it came to looking for help for earthquake-strengthening and the like that there are funds available that could be utilised.The other point I would make for example in relation to a site likeŌrākau not far from Te Awamutu—I was there a couple of months ago—was that if that site was put on the landmarks list then we could get together with local authorities and with local iwi to see whether there was a way that the site could be recognised more appropriately than it is at the present time. But I am very conscious of local authorities the need to support them and the need for them to be involved in this both in relation to buildings and to sites.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 4 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Finlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17701. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I apologise to Catherine Delahunty for that confusion. We have actually done some good work together and I should have made that clearer earlier. Part 4 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill deals with the recognition of places of historic cultural and ancestral significance. There are a couple of minor changes in Subpart 1. It changes the name of the register to the New Zealand Heritage List/RārangiKōrero. Importantly it introduces the concept ofwāhitūpuna as a new type of entry. What we try to do here is introduce the concept of independent expert assessors to make recommendations both to Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council. It also provides that local authorities must have particular regard—that is the phrase—to Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council’s recommendations on historic areas andwāhi tapu areas.One does not want to be sort of over the top but I suggest that Subpart 2 is actually quite an exciting proposal. What it does is it requires the establishment of a list of national historical landmarks which will be called—surprise surprise—the National Historic Landmarks List. What we want to do there is to promote an appreciation and conservation of the places of greatest heritage value to the people of New Zealand. Initially we thought about having a finite number but what we want to do is work together with local authorities private individuals and central government to draw up a list. Let me give a most recent example from a commemoration I attended a few months ago: the Battle ofŌrākau—there is an example of something that is a very important historic landmark and yet it is a field part of a farm. What we want to do is recognise this history and we can go from there to do something about making sure people know where they are and why they are important. So it is not simply limited to buildings but it can be a place.Supplementary Order Paper 444 sets out various provisions relating to landowners’ interests. For example I refer to clause 75(4). Heritage New Zealand “must recognise the interests of an owner as far as they are known”. There are a couple of other consequential improvements—for example the Supplementary Order Paper broadens the scope to reject an application to review an entry on the landmarks list—and there are a couple of technical changes. So I really think that Subpart 2 will be of tremendous benefit to this country as we get together and through a very careful process establish these landmarks—something like the national historic landmarks in the United States. That will provide a very good foundation for example when we are looking at protecting earthquake-prone buildings or dealing with sites like the site of the Battle ofŌrākau and we will make sure that these places are treasured for the benefit of all New Zealanders.