edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking to the first reading of the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. I have got to say that I think I have to defend the Minister's integrity and honour from the previous speaker who so slanderously talked about his hair. I just want to put it on record from this position: there is no Brylcreem. I have got to admit that the hair looks beautiful and well-coiffured but I am putting it on the record that there are no further additives. But I do take this moment just to say that this bill comes from a very hard-working Minister who is doing a lot for transport particularly in my electorate in Hunua where we are doing a lot of good roading projects and rail projects.I think it is very timely given the circumstances that Kaikōura and the people of the northern part of the South Island are facing today just to acknowledge all the wonderful work that the various coastal shipping companies and navies are doing including our own in terms of helping the people down there through the earthquakes that have occurred and unfortunately seem to be occurring as we talk.Just turning to this bill there are four really good parts to this bill which I think are vitally important. I think there has been a lot about the oil spill capacity in terms of accessing a much higher pool of money raising it basically from $388 million to $1.4 billion which we do need to have in the event of a catastrophic failure of an oil tanker. This is prudent planning. But the one part that I find particularly interesting is the change that we are putting in place as a party to the protocol in 1996 to amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. Of course this is all covered under section 86 in clause 8.Basically what it means is that in respect of both ships or cargo where a ship has sunk or cargo has sunk or been wrecked stranded or abandoned there is in place some compensation which means that we can actually increase the amount of compensation we can get from those vessel owners. The Rena event was a very strong example of where we had trouble as a Government trying to get proper recompense for what was going on. So Mr Deputy Speaker I am really looking forward to discussing that element in particular but I thank you very much for the opportunity to talk tonight.
Ross Jami-Lee; Tisch LindsaySITTINGS OF THE HOUSEJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to suspend slightly early for the dinner break.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Tolley AnneHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I want to make a couple of comments. There have been some impassioned speeches in the Committee on this issue and I understand the concerns. But I just want to remind members of the Committee that actually it is the court that has the power to decide when a child is removed. It is the court that makes that decision; it is not the State. The State makes representations on behalf of that child in order to keep them safe but the essential part of the safety net if you like is that the court considers all the evidence and makes the final decision. That I think is the best protection that we can give the system.The second thing is that the comment has been made that these powers could be delegated to anyone. Well that is not true. Read the bill—read the bill. The bill says quite clearly that the person has to be appropriately qualified to perform the function or exercise the power taking into account the person's training experience and interpersonal skills. So it is not just going to go to any Tom Dick or Harry. That power goes to someone who has the experience who has the skills and who has the interpersonal skills that are necessary. We are not talking about just one small part. Right through the current Act it is only a constable or a social worker who can do a large range of jobs and that is not acceptable today. The evidence is clear that we need more than social workers and that is what this bill intends to put in place.So yes I understand that there are some reservations about this and I am sad that the previous speaker Ruth Dyson is going to be sad but we have thought very long and carefully about this. I come back to the fact I gave at the start. The court which is completely independent from Parliament has the power to make those decisions about whether to uplift a child from their family. The ultimate decision in a child's life is made by a completely independent power which is our court.
Macindoe Tim; Tisch LindsayCHILDREN YOUNG PERSONS AND THEIR FAMILIES (ADVOCACY WORKFORCE AND AGE SETTINGS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeTIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): With the agreement of the whips across the Committee I seek leave for the Committee to consider all the clauses of the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Advocacy Workforce and Age Settings) Amendment Bill as one debate with the voting on the clauses to be taken separately.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Visitors — Pacific Parliaments—Delegates
Carter DavidWEDNESDAY 16 NOVEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSPacific Parliamentary Forum—DelegatesMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome delegates from the parliaments of the Pacific region attending the Pacific Parliamentary Forum who are present in the gallery.
Thursday 3 November 2016 - Volume 718
Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 104New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 107 Noes 12.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Question agreed to.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that the amendment to the motion in the name of Barry Coates be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be amended by replacing now" with "this day 3 months".Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 60New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a second time."
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill — Second Reading
2. Resource Legislation Amendment Bill—Select Committee Meeting Agenda for 3 November 2016Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) on behalf of to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment CommitteeResource Legislation Amendment Bill—Select Committee Meeting Agenda for 3 November 20162. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) on behalf of Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: Has he as Chair put on the agenda the giving of complete drafting instructions to the Parliamentary Counsel Office on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill; if not why not?SCOTT SIMPSON (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): No I have not put it on the agenda. Instructions to Parliamentary Counsel Office are not generally included in the committee's agenda.Dr Megan Woods: Did today's agenda include a motion from David Parker for the select committee to report back to the House including a minority report explaining the appalling delays—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to just ask the member to think carefully about the question. I am not ruling it out of order. I am going to ask for it to be heard again but before the member does so I want her to take the opportunity to read Standing Order 239 regarding the confidentiality of proceedings in a select committee. So I want the member to understand the severity of that. I will listen to the question. I will either decide that it is in order or rule it out. If I decide that it is a reasonable question then it will be for the chairman to answer.Dr Megan Woods: Did today's agenda include a motion from David Parker for the select committee to report back to the House including a minority report explaining the delays to date?Mr SPEAKER: Scott Simpson can answer the question.SCOTT SIMPSON: The select committee continues its work on the bill and has yet to complete that work. I am not at liberty under the Standing Orders to delve into the detail of our work before it reports back to the House.
Oral Questions—Questions to Members
1. Resource Legislation Amendment Bill—Submissions and Report Back DateDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) on behalf of to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment CommitteeQUESTIONS TO MEMBERSResource Legislation Amendment Bill—Submissions and Report Back Date1. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) on behalf of Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: How many submitters were heard on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 3 December 2015 and when were those submissions heard?SCOTT SIMPSON (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): The committee has heard from 160 submitters on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill and they were heard in the course of 11 meetings of the committee held during April May and June of this year.Dr Megan Woods: Is the bill due back in the House on Monday 7 November 2016?SCOTT SIMPSON: Yes.
12. Accident Compensation Corporation—Standard of Care from ProvidersBARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister for ACCAccident Compensation Corporation—Standard of Care from Providers12. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister for ACC: Is he satisfied that clients are receiving a good standard of care from ACC providers?Hon NATHAN GUY (Acting Minister for ACC): Yes.Barbara Stewart: Is it acceptable for ACC to force clients to receive a poor standard of care from the New Zealand Artificial Limb Service his agency's preferred supplier?Hon NATHAN GUY: The New Zealand Artificial Limb Service is a key supplier to ACC—it is indeed the sole provider. Clients can request to use other providers on a case-by-case basis.Barbara Stewart: Is it acceptable that after 208 visits one amputee did not receive a leg that she could walk on and subsequently suffered a permanent injury from the limbs provided by the New Zealand Artificial Limb Service?Hon NATHAN GUY: Unfortunately I cannot substantiate the claims that the member is making on behalf of the individual concerned. What I can say is that ACC meets with key suppliers on a monthly basis to discuss areas such as their performance their service delivery and their contract management. When a complaint is received about a provider's performance ACC engages with the identified provider to investigate the complaint and the cause and how it can be resolved.Barbara Stewart: If clients are entitled to a second opinion from an independent appropriately qualified Prosthetist." as stated on ACC's website why are requests for second opinions being refused?Hon NATHAN GUY: I would have to go away and get some advice on that because I cannot substantiate the claims that the member is making in the House.Barbara Stewart: Has ACC issued a directive to case managers to not fund visits to Orthopro; and if so why is ACC still backing a provider that has been found to have defrauded it of at least $47000?Hon NATHAN GUY: Well I would need to have those claims substantiated. I am unaware of them. I will be taking the member at her word and in good faith. I am very happy to have the conversation with the member. I would appreciate her giving me the information so I can follow it up."
11. Financial Markets Authority and Companies Office—FundingALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsFinancial Markets Authority and Companies Office—Funding11. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What announcements has he made to support the ongoing regulation of the business environment in New Zealand?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Today I announced a funding increase of $9.8 million per year for the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and $5.3 million per year for the Companies Office. The increased funding will help these organisations maintain a well-regulated business environment for New Zealand. The FMA's primary objective is to increase New Zealand's confidence in the conduct of financial markets. The Companies Office ensures that appropriate governance standards are upheld. Both organisations play an important role in fostering confidence and growing the economy.Alfred Ngaro: What does this funding mean in the context of New Zealand's strong economic growth?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We are now one of a very small group of countries that has the governance books in surplus and a growing economy. We want to build on that success and well-functioning financial markets that deepen the pool of capital available to New Zealand businesses are an important platform for future growth. Since 2011 the FMA has been developing its core activities alongside the expansion of regulatory responsibilities mostly due to the recent overhaul of New Zealand securities law. Continued expansion in the capital markets growing KiwiSaver balances and strong growth of New Zealand's GDP have seen the market environment in which the FMA operates change considerably since its establishment. This funding increase will help support the Government's long-term economic plan and responsible financial management.Alfred Ngaro: How are the extra resources being funded?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The extra resources given to the Companies Office for enforcement will be funded from existing revenue and come in the context of a reduction of overall fees. The extra resources for the FMA will come from an increase in the existing FMA levy on financial service providers. The increase in funding is needed to allow the FMA to be a proactive regulator of New Zealand's financial markets and to fully deliver on its revised mandate under the Financial Markets Conduct Act. A well-regulated environment where the laws are properly enforced by a capable and effective regulator generates benefits for all financial market participants including financial service providers investors and most importantly of all consumers.
9. Primary Sector Development—Government Initiatives Targeting Young PeopleBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesPrimary Sector Development—Government Initiatives Targeting Young People9. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on Government initiatives to help attract more young people into careers in the primary industries?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): At this year's Mystery Creek Fieldays the Government launched Growing our future which is a programme that celebrates and promotes the broad range of careers in the primary sector. We have developed a series of videos with well-known and everyday New Zealanders working in the primary sector including Richie McCaw and Sir David Fagan. These videos have already been viewed over 27000 times online. We have also engaged 135 primary industry ambassadors with more being trained as we speak. These ambassadors go into classrooms up and down the country to raise awareness of the huge range of existing career paths within the primary sector and they have already made over 500 visits to over 150 schools. It is very good news. Barbara Kuriger: Why is this initiative so important to the future of the primary sector?Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. In 2014 the Ministry for Primary Industries released a report that highlighted that the primary sector will need to attract around 50000 more people into employment by 2025 if we are to meet our export double-the-value growth target. Over half of these workers will require a tertiary or level 4 qualification. There is good capacity in our education system to meet this need and over the last three Budgets the Government has increased tuition subsidies for tertiary agriculture qualifications by around 50 percent. There is a challenge for all of us to inspire more young men and women to obtain good qualifications and become the next robotic engineer food safety scientist or indeed environmental planner to work in the engine room of the primary sector. Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order under Standing Order 386 Content of Replies"—386(2): "The reply to any question must be concise …" That was not and has not been. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—Hon Annette King: Oh this will be long. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well I can make it longer if you need that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I will just hear the point of order. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Thank you very much Mr Speaker. It is somewhat of a contradiction given the pleading that was put in front of you by Mr Robertson earlier—Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the point of order. Hon Gerry Brownlee: —that he now insists that answers are concise. Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Robertson I ruled actually on this matter yesterday. Questions should be concise answers should be concise and that was certainly getting to the stage where I was about to rise to my feet to curtail it but—[Interruption] Order! But at the end of the day the Speaker is the sole judge as to the length of the answer."
7. Trans-Pacific Partnership—Ratification and SupportBARRY COATES (Green) to the Minister of TradeTrans-Pacific Partnership—Ratification and Support7. BARRY COATES (Green) to the Minister of Trade: Why is he advancing the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement when it is widely reported that the agreement will not get through the US Congress this year and countries like Canada Australia and Vietnam have delayed their ratification processes?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Trade): Because ratification is actually in New Zealand's best interests. I note the question talked about things being widely reported". It is not the case that other countries are not committed to ratifying the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Most countries have the process of ratifying the TPP under way. Barry Coates: Does the Minister agree with Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics Sciences winner Joseph Stiglitz who called the TPP agreement (TPPA) the "worst trade deal ever"; the founder of Research in Motion Jim Balsillie who said it will inhibit innovation; and Professor Dani Rodrik from Harvard who says the TPPA risks a protectionist backlash?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No. I much prefer the sentiments expressed by people like Gordon Coates who said New Zealand never got rich by trading with itself.Barry Coates: Given that most New Zealanders oppose the TPPA will the Government now change direction and develop a 21st century trade agreement that supports market access and trade for New Zealand businesses without restricting our right to regulate in the public interest and without opening us up to be sued by foreign corporations?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It will come as no surprise to the honourable member that I dispute the phrase that began with "given that New Zealanders oppose the agreement …". He is simply wrong.Barry Coates: Given that most New Zealanders also opposed the way his Government negotiated the TPPA in secret will he follow the leader of the European Union and release New Zealand's proposals to the controversial Trade in Services Agreement currently being negotiated today; if not why not?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I dispute the underlying supposition of that question.Dr David Clark: Did his Government seek a ban on non-resident foreign homebuyers during the TPP negotiations; and if not is it aware of advice from accounting firm EY that says any tax imposed on the purchase of homes by non-resident foreign speculators will breach New Zealand's existing double tax agreements with most TPP partners unless the tax is also imposed on New Zealand citizens?Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there. The Minister can address either. Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I will respond to the second one and say no I have not read that report. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! That interjection will not help the order of the House."
4. Broadband Rural—New Technologies and Mobile Black Spot CoverageBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for CommunicationsBroadband Rural—New Technologies and Mobile Black Spot Coverage4. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made regarding improving rural broadband and mobile black spot coverage?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications): Last week the Government announced a request for proposals for the $150 million Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) extension and Mobile Black Spot Fund. Under the RBI extension improved broadband will be delivered to communities unable to access broadband speeds of at least 20 megabits per second. The Mobile Black Spot Fund will improve the availability of mobile services to areas that do not have coverage from any mobile operator. A long list of State highway and tourism locations has been identified that the Government is interested in seeking proposals for and other sites may be added by bidders. This is a unique opportunity for national and regional providers to partner with the Government to deliver increased connectivity and improved services to rural communities.Brett Hudson: What kinds of technologies will be used to deliver the rural broadband extension?Hon AMY ADAMS: We have intentionally not specified a technology but instead have set out a list of user outcomes that need to be provided by the service—for example being able to stream high-definition video without significant rebuffering; carrying out general web browsing including accessing online banking cloud-based applications and education services; and being able to maintain voice and video calls without interruption including during peak usage times. This technology-neutral approach gives the chance for both large and small telecommunications providers to show what sort of innovative solutions they may be able to offer to deliver enhanced connectivity in rural areas.
Lees-Galloway Iain; Mallard TrevorSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): We have made good progress today and I seek leave for the House to rise at this point.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? [Interruption] I cannot quite tell whether the member is saying no objection or whether she wants to be here for the next 5 minutes and is very upset. There appears to be no objection.The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Lees-Galloway Iain; Mallard TrevorIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I seek leave to correct our vote on that previous vote. The correct vote should have been 28 votes not 31.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. It will be so corrected. I will re-declare that. Therefore the vote result is Ayes 104 Noes 12.
Goodhew JoHon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: I move That the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill be reported to the House on or before 4 March 2017.Motion agreed to.
Williams PotoPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I think the contents of the bill have been well canvassed but I just want to ask the select committee that is going to review this bill a couple of questions for clarification. The first question that I have is with regard to the amendments that will be made to the Broadcasting Act 1989—particularly Part 6 around election programmes as it relates to the candidate election programming as opposed to the party electorate programme. The question I want to ask is in determining what actually will happen with regard to the fees versus any additional costs or the costs that might be charged to that candidate—because from the Bills Digest it was not clear from my reading of it how that would be structured and how that might be structured. So I would be asking the select committee to spend some time to perhaps look at that particular issue and make some determinations about defining how costs versus fees might be allocated. The other thing that I would like the select committee to perhaps spend some time on and I hope it is within the scope that the committee will look at—and I could not find a summary of changes that the Justice and Electoral Committee review produced in the Electoral Amendment Bill—is around what will happen with social media and online content with regard to advertising. I just would like the select committee to look at advertising look at timing and look at all of those issues that we struggle with at the time of elections given that there are some anomalies with how we use social media with regard to the election period. On that note I will commend the bill to the House.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): I just want to stand and refute those last comments that were made by the member from New Zealand First Denis O'Rourke. This bill as it came through the Justice and Electoral Committee—in terms of the review of the last general election it was absolutely all of us looking around and taking a cold hard look at the technology that is available today and looking at the fact that these opening broadcasts were outdated and outmoded.TVNZ records that it had a 25 percent drop in its average audience numbers during the 2014 opening addresses. We have all tried to say that that is because of the changing nature of people watching television but it may have something to do with our own content—but none of us would want to admit that. I know that my colleague Chris Bishop was an avid watcher so he clearly was not in that 25 percent.If we are going to remain relevant to our voting public if we are going to ensure that—if we are actually spending taxpayers' money on political party broadcasts at all then we might as well be spending it in the most effective way. If money is going to be spent on a television programme that nobody is watching we might as well do away with it altogether.This bill is about us trying to keep up with the trends of modern society. It is about wanting to ensure that we have people engaging with the democratic process. There is no agenda here from anyone trying to get any kind of unfair advantage. It is merely that we will do a better job for the people of New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.
Turei MetiriaMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party supports this legislation. It has been a long time coming that the time be essentially cashed up and made available to political parties to spend more wisely especially in the new digital age. This legislation seems to be just a natural kind of progression and change in the law to meet the new challenges and the new opportunities of the 21st century.I will not go on too long but I would just say in response to some of the comments made about TVNZ and its submission that TVNZ has been wanting for a long time to get rid of the broadcasts of opening and closing addresses. It has been arguing for some elections now that it should not have to provide this service as part of its civic responsibility. I disagree. I think that the arguments have always been poor and that in fact as a public broadcaster it does have a responsibility to assist with this right of citizens to access good quality information free from interference about the electoral system and the system of governance that they have. TVNZ might prefer to reduce access to that information. There is a part of me actually that is reluctant about this bill because I want to force it to have to engage with its civic responsibility as a public broadcaster. I do not really want to let it off the hook.Chris Bishop: It's not a public broadcaster.METIRIA TUREI: It is TVNZ. It is publicly funded. It has a responsibility and I think—Chris Bishop: It's not a public broadcaster.METIRIA TUREI: Look you can have your opinion and your say in time sir.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I might I remind the member.METIRIA TUREI: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. There is a part of me that is a little reluctant to let TVNZ off the hook but none the less it may well be hoisted by its own petard given that the whole point of this shift is to allow parties to move away from TV to some of the more accessible and modern digital communication channels that we have available to us.I do note and am pleased about the increase in funding. There is no doubt that the bulk of it will go to Labour and National because of the way the rules allocate that funding. We have long argued that the allocation system is unfair because of that and there are ongoing issues with it that will have to be addressed at some point. It will not be addressed through this legislation but there is an unfair allocation process.We also accept that in making this change those of us who are in medium-sized parties and smaller parties certainly will not get the bulk of the benefit of this change. But none the less it is necessary and needs to happen and so we support the legislation. Thank you.
Dean JacquiJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): There is a general agreement across the House I believe that the current regime for allocating time for opening and closing election broadcasts for registered political parties is out of date antiquated not necessarily riveting TV—depending on who you are supporting—and certainly in need of reform. What this Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill intends to do—and I do note the comments of Jacinda Ardern the previous speaker who has just resumed her seat. Yes we will test that the effect of this bill is to merely remove the requirement under Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act for opening and closing addresses of parties during the election period and does only that with no other unintended consequences or provisions—we certainly will do that in the select committee—and also the requirement for Television New Zealand willingly or not and Radio New Zealand to provide time for them.So instead of that regime the provisions of this bill provide that the allocation of time is monetised with a corresponding increase in the appropriation of funds to be allocated to political parties for advertising. What this gives effect to is it allows political parties more flexibility and the ability to spend their allocations on advertisements that are of value to them in reaching out to the general public. Across the House and the wider community there is concern with declining voter participation so it is therefore important that resources and funding and the legislation allow for effective and efficient and more timely communication with voters. Thank you.
Prosser RichardQuestion No. 8 to MinisterRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to the discussion earlier and the point raised by the Hon Peter Dunne looking at the two Speakers' rulings from Speaker Arthur and Speaker Kidd in 1984 and 1999—Mr SPEAKER: Can I just have the reference please?RICHARD PROSSER: 190/1 and 190/2. Certainly in the time that I have been in this House Mr Speaker many questions are prefaced with both those words given" or "in the light". I wonder perhaps whether you might give some consideration in order to assist the order of the House to making a further statement clarifying where and when that may be used. Obviously if a member begins a supplementary with a statement that introduces new information that is one situation but if the Minister has answered the question and a member is then changing tack perhaps with a line—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the point to a conclusion.RICHARD PROSSER: —of supplementary questions it may be relevant to that.Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly have a look at that but my inclination at the moment is that the Standing Orders Committee has been called together to review Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings and that is the opportune time to have a look at it. But certainly over time the content and the concept of a supplementary question—over the time that I have been here which is a little longer than the member's—has tended to broaden. I do not think that is a bad thing. I think it is more colloquial if you like. It gives the Opposition I think more opportunity. But I will raise the matter through the Standing Orders Committee—that is the appropriate time to do it."
Brownlee Gerry; Robertson GrantTHURSDAY 3 NOVEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 8 November the Government will look to complete the first reading of the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill the third reading of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday will be a members' day.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I thank the Leader of the House for that. In light of the House's decision earlier today to adopt the excellent Supplementary Order Paper 191 by my colleague Mr Faafoi and Supplementary Order Paper 207 by Mr Seymour can he confirm that the members' bills in the name of Mr Korako and Mr Doocey will now be withdrawn?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think given the good sense shown by those two members in expediting this most important legislation it is most likely that the course of action suggested by the Labour Party will be followed which means that they have had a hat trick—which is more than they have had for many many years.
Wednesday 12 October 2016 - Volume 717
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Steffan Browning be agreed to:after clause 4 insert:4AASection 20 amended (Evaluation of risks and benefits)Replace section 20(c) with:(c)any submissions received under section 17; and(d)all applications for new or altered compounds be assessed in full formulation as intended to be used;(e)consult with a consumer and environmental reference group as nominated by the Minister consisting of 3 consumer representatives and 3 environmental organisation representatives.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The Labour Party's vote was corrected after originally being cast as 32.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.Ayes 104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 16Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.The Labour Party's vote was corrected after originally being cast as 32.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Māori Purposes Bill and reported the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill without amendment.Report adopted.
Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill — In Committee
12. Primary Sector—Mystery Creek National FieldaysBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesPrimary Sector—Mystery Creek National Fieldays12. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on the economic impact of the Mystery Creek National Fieldays?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: The Minister is this afternoon heading to Mystery Creek where a report will be released tonight that shows that this year's national Fieldays generated $430 million in sales revenue for New Zealand firms. This included $125 million in revenue for the local Waikato economy. Gate entries were the second-highest ever at 130684 up 3.7 percent on last year. Each one of these entries generated $3300 in sales revenue on average. The event also attracted 500 international guests from 42 different countries many interested in the showcase of our $1.2 billion in agritechnology exports.Barbara Kuriger: What did the event highlight in regard to confidence in the primary sector?Hon JO GOODHEW: The event demonstrated that although dairy prices have been low the overall primary sector is very diverse and in good heart. A wide range of Ministers and MPs attended the Fieldays including the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. Over the course of the Fieldays the Government launched the primary industry champions initiative to encourage young people into the primary sector the Fieldays Careers and Education Hub and also an extra $600000 of funding to help strengthen local mental health networks for farmers in rural communities across New Zealand. The team at Mystery Creek includes 240 volunteers without whom the event could not be such a raging success.
9. Accident Compensation Corporation—Noah Wakelam CaseRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for ACCAccident Compensation Corporation—Noah Wakelam Case9. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for ACC: Is he confident that ACC is making decisions in accordance with the purpose principles and intention of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and in the best interest of claimants?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for ACC: Yes.Ron Mark: Why did ACC ignore treatment recommendations for Northlander Noah Wakelam despite (1) sending him to multiple specialists; (2) ignoring the advice of six doctors who favoured Mr Wakelam's case; and (3) declining his claim because one specialist provided a report that suited ACC's interest?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer those questions.Ron Mark: Does he think it is acceptable for ACC to take over 9 months to make a decision on Mr Noah Wakelam's claim and then deny him access to the public health system while his symptoms continued to worsen?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The person concerned may be dealing with distress related to health issues but the entitlements are determined by the legislation or by subsequent review. If the person concerned feels he is not getting his entitlement then he is able to review.Ron Mark: Does he think it acceptable for ACC to pressure claimants such as Mr Noah Wakelam to return to work after 3 months when he (1) had not recovered; (2) had medical specialists saying he had not recovered; and (3) needed a transition period that should have included intensive rehabilitation and a staged transition back into work?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I hope that the person he is referring to gets the best treatment and gets a path back to work. That is one of the purposes of ACC. But I cannot comment on the individual case.
8. Child Health Services—Free GP Visits and PrescriptionsDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of HealthChild Health Services—Free GP Visits and Prescriptions8. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that there have been 190807 more children's visits to the GP an increase of 16.6 percent in the last 12 months since the Government introduced free GP visits for under-13s?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. Back in Budget 2014 we committed $90 million over 3 years to extend free GP visits and prescriptions to children aged under 13. As a result we now have more than 780000 children under 13 benefiting from those free GP visits during business hours and also from free prescriptions with over 99 percent of general practices signing up to the scheme. Importantly this data shows that there has been a 17.1 percent increase in visits for Māori children and a 13.5 percent increase in visits for Pasifika children.Dr Shane Reti: What positive effects have the introduction of free doctors visits and prescriptions had?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As a result of the under-13s visits we have seen an encouraging decrease of 1600 presentations to hospital emergency departments. That is a drop of 4.7 percent. We have also seen an increase in access to medicines with the number of prescriptions dispensed increasing by 23.9 percent showing that the removal of costs has improved access to medicines. It is clear that the free-under-13s policy is supporting the Government's strategy in health which aims to have interventions delivered much earlier in a community setting which means that children are prevented from getting sicker and that is going to be a good thing.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When will his Government acknowledge that this visionary far-sighted inspirational policy came from New Zealand First and was delayed to 12-year-olds only by an obstructive jealous recalcitrant National Government?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Probably never.
6. Immigration Policy—Parent Category VisasRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of ImmigrationImmigration Policy—Parent Category Visas6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements; if so how?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Yes; and in the usual manner.Rt Hon Winston Peters: That'll be true enough.Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will just have the supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If parents from China still overwhelmingly dominate the parent category what happened to his 2014 promise of a much fairer system to spread the origin of parents over more countries"?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is a question that is open to speculation but I would certainly be prepared to speculate that the policy that was in place under the previous Government—which was a home alone policy giving favour to Chinese parents because of China's one-child policy and which this Government dispensed with some years ago—is likely to still have a resonating effect on the number of applications coming from that country.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has he allowed tens of thousands of migrants into this country without any real skills or a backlog of well over 2000 parent category applications of which 70 percent are from China against the statement he made in 2014?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The Residence Programme covers three main categories. They are "humanitarian" including our refugee commitments and our Pacific Island commitments; they are "partnership" including the children and spouses of people returning home; and they are "skills". So the broader programme includes a number of things skills notwithstanding.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has he allowed and facilitated the parent category to be so grossly abused when in countless cases the New Zealand taxpayer has been "ripped off"—his words—because parent category promises made at the time of application were simply not kept or monitored by him or his department?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I reject the prefacing statement about that category being grossly abused but there will be a review of the parent category visa because of some concerns about higher costs and I look forward to the outcome of that review. [Interruption]Rt Hon Winston Peters: What did you say midget? What sort of system is he running when first of all 31 percent of migrants using the parent category have abandoned this country and dumped their parents on the New Zealand taxpayer and not looked after the commitments they gave in the first place?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: A system that has increasingly high levels of confidence on the timeliness and quality of decision making at Immigration New Zealand and certainly a lot better than under the previous regime."
5. New Zealand Residence Programme—ChangesJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of ImmigrationNew Zealand Residence Programme—Changes5. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made regarding the New Zealand Residence Programme?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Yesterday I announced a number of changes to the New Zealand Residence Programme. The Residence Programme is reviewed every 2 years to ensure we have the right number and mix of people gaining residency. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked; I want to hear the answer. I want less interjection from one member in particular. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The changes to the programme include lowering the maximum range for residency approvals for the next 2 years from 100000 to 95000 raising the number of points required for residency under the skilled migrant category from 140 to 160 points and reducing the number of places for the family categories to 2000 per year. Migrants make a valuable contribution to New Zealand both culturally and economically. The Government periodically reviews all its immigration settings to make sure they are working as intended. Jonathan Young: What effects will these changes have on the New Zealand Residence Programme?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Demand for residency is currently high. Increasing the points required to gain residence from 140 to 160 will maintain the long-run average of residents visas granted. It will also prioritise visas for higher-skilled migrants to ensure we get the right balance between attracting skilled workers who allow companies to grow and managing demand in periods of high growth. The changes to the Residence Programme demonstrate that this Government is taking a responsible and pragmatic approach to managing immigration. Iain Lees-Galloway: Can the Minister confirm that reducing the target band from 100000 to 95000 could mean that just 68 fewer permanent residency approvals are made in each of the next 2 years given that over the last 2 years there were 95137?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No I cannot confirm that—and quite the opposite because if the member breaks down those numbers across the previous 2 years 2014-15 was 43085 and 2015-16 was 52052. And the projections are for that number to continue to grow were it not for the changes we are announcing. Iain Lees-Galloway: What changes to the system for temporary work visas is he considering; will any of them include Labour's proposals which he described as thinly-veiled xenophobic rhetoric"?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In answer to the first question the member will just have to wait and see; in answer to the second question I can tell the member that it certainly will not have any reference to people with Chinese-sounding surnames."