edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAppropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9381. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) BillFirst ReadingHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time.A party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a first time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 57.
Business StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBusiness Statement[Sitting date: 03 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9367. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 3 March 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Much as there may have been some excitement in the Opposition ranks about there being no House business there is. When the House resumes on Tuesday 8 March the Government will look to make progress on the Employment Standards Legislation Bill the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill and the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill.
Vote: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10450. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the New Zealand Business Number Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a third time.
Vote: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10414. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.Part 3 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10404. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10404. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10452. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.
Foster-Bell Paul: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10449. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua tēnā koe tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare.[Acknowledgments to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to all you members of the House.]In speaking in this third reading debate on the New Zealand Business Number Bill I want to say that it is a very fine bill—contrary to what the member who has just resumed his seat Kris Faafoi has said. The New Zealand Business Number Bill will save New Zealand businesses—small medium and large enterprises—up to $60 million. That is a significant saving to those businesses and one that only a National-led Government could deliver as we know from the turpitudes they suffered at the hands of the Labour regime in years gone by.A significant part of this bill is giving interoperability with our trans-Tasman trading partners so a New Zealand business number will be able to operate in Australia and an Australian business number will be recognised here. There will be mutual recognition. This is very important in the modern economy where we have disruptive technology and small start-ups taking advantage of the ability to operate across borders particularly in the electronic commerce space.It is a fine bill. It has been well considered by the Committee of the whole House as well as the Commerce Committee. I want to commend the members of the select committee; the chair Melissa Lee; the deputy chairman Brett Hudson—the very fine member from Ōhāriu—and also the Minister for Economic Development the Hon Steven Joyce who introduced the bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBakshi Kanwaljit Singh: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10447. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I stand in support of the New Zealand Business Number Bill in its third reading. The previous speaker Stuart Nash was just mentioning that this Government is out of touch. I can assure you that this Government is working at ground level and we are listening to businesses and that is why we brought this legislation in. I think that member for whom I have got a bit of respect should go out and talk to the people. That party has been totally out of touch for a long time and I do not see any light—where the Labour Party will be in power—for a long time. And looking at the recent polls I think you are dreaming.Darroch Ball: Arrogance—arrogance!KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes I am coming to that side. It is not arrogance New Zealand First. Your leader is better than their leader so you can have some credit for it I think. This bill—Carmel Sepuloni: We thought you were better than that Bakshi.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Sorry? [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon Members: Nasty. Nasty member.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Who is a nasty—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I want to hear what the member is saying. There is too much barracking across the benches.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. As has been mentioned earlier this bill will help businesses to cut red-tapeism. They have to give their details once and then if they have to change it is only once that they have to do it. But all other agencies can access those details for the business. With these words I support this bill.
O'Connor Simon: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10444. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am actually very pleased to take a call on the New Zealand Business Number Bill. I want to stress that because actually the speech we have just heard was all about a failed amendment that did not come to pass which has nothing to do of course with the third reading. I also take a little bit of umbrage at the member who has just been speaking Ria Bond in saying that the National Party has been taking rather short calls that are not very good at all. That is quite ironic seeing that I am not reading from prepared speech notes but am actually just prepared to speak on the bill; nor am I launching into major ad hominem attacks on the Government.This is actually a remarkably simple bill which is why from this side we are not taking an egregious amount of time to discuss it. Ultimately it is about making business interaction with Government easier. We have heard a lot of talk about Government agencies trying to deal with Government agencies. This is fundamentally one of the points of the Business Growth Agenda which the Government has clearly outlined and is now clearly delivering and that will make it easier for businesses to—Todd Barclay: Fundamental.SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes fundamental actually as one of my colleagues—in fact the fine member for Clutha-Southland Todd Barclay—is saying. It is actually fundamental to good business—that is easy engagement through the New Zealand Business Number particularly with Government agencies but of course business to business. As we have heard from some people it is also for New Zealand businesses to link in with Australian businesses.It is a simple bill. It has been very well accorded and very well looked after in the Commerce Committee under the leadership of Melissa Lee. I was going to say that I was pleased it had the support of the whole House—we even had the Greens on board and actually I do thank James Shaw for his contribution; I thought that was worthwhile. I am disappointed but not surprised in New Zealand First. But good things take time—they will come on board.Again it is a simple bill. I commend it to the House but also importantly I commend it to New Zealand businesses to sign up. Thank you very much.
Borrows Chester: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10431. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye—[Interruption] I am sorry. I have put the question. [Interruption] I am sorry I have put the question.Bill read a second time.
Hudson Brett: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHudson Brett: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10427. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRETT HUDSON (National): For the edification of the member Mr Nash who has just resumed his seat I might get on to a bit of the English language and some comprehension which might help him. But before I do that I would just like to note that that member levied a pretty serious accusation against some foreign companies. I believe he used the term “tax evasion”. I would encourage him to leave this House—Stuart Nash: I said “avoidance”.BRETT HUDSON: He said “evasion”. Check the Hansard. The member said “evasion”. I would encourage him to leave this House and to levy that accusation out in public. He might just find that his personal tax structure gets put to the use that he actually claimed in the media he set it up for. It is a very very dangerous statement to make and one that should be made only with some real evidence.We will move instead on to one of the hardest tasks that you could possibly have with Opposition members in this Parliament which is helping them to understand English. The bill is called the Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill. When you have a title that says “First Phase” it would automatically suggest that there are further phases to come. Therefore you probably would not read the bill and say: “This is the entirety of the inland revenue transformation programme.” In fact the natural response would be that this is not the entirety of the inland revenue and tax transformation programme.The title also says “Simplification”. Therefore looking at the measures of the bill one would expect one of many phases or one of several phases to be about simplification which in itself is a positive thing but not necessarily wholly transformative. That is precisely what the bill is seeking to do such as helping people to get their tax refunds a little sooner and adjusting thresholds so that things can happen automatically and it will help to reduce time and costs for both small businesses and salary and wage earners.This bill is a step—a step on the transformation journey. We know as the Inland Revenue Department has told us and as the Minister has told us that the transformation project with the department is a business-driven tax transformation. It will take some years and some effort. I look forward to this bill passing through the House and I look forward to the subsequent phases of the taxation transformation. Thank you.
Scott Alastair: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10425. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Mr Deputy Speaker I was hoping you would give Mr Robertson a little extra time because I was just waiting for him to explain his proposed transformative policy—Grant Robertson: Oh!ALASTAIR SCOTT: With what? Well with this $11000 that we are giving every person over the age of 18—how he was going to fund the $11000 that apparently everyone is going to receive. Because—Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s nonsense.ALASTAIR SCOTT: It is not nonsense; it is absolutely a brain explosion from the Labour Party leader that would be transformative. It would totally be transformative because it would have to be funded in some way. I understand that the proposed method of funding the transformative idea is just to wipe out benefits—wipe out benefits.The universal benefit that has been proposed would be very transformative but I would also like to hear from the Labour Opposition how on earth that would be funded—this transformative idea from the Labour Party. How would that $11000 handout—which is all it is—be funded? You talk about a simplification and that brings into the discussion the other word “simplification”. If it is so simple then let us hear where tax rates and GST rates would be if everyone was given a handout of $11000 per annum.Mr Robertson also commented on creating and legislating fair honest—making sure people pay their fair share of tax. That is exactly what we discussed in the last bill just a few minutes ago where the Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill was discussed in Committee. That is exactly what we are passing in this House: taxation legislation that is fair and ensures that people pay their fair share.Mr Robertson I would invite you to take a call and explain how the transformative idea of the Labour Party which is to give out $11000 which will solve everyone’s problems somehow—forgetting the people who are most in need. It comes back again to the tax system that we have which supports those who are most in need; not just giving them all the same. You do not give an 18-year-old single male the same benefit as a single mum with four kids. That is just an absurd idea and one that should be totally discounted by the sensible people who are in the Labour Party when they hear such a ridiculous suggestion from their leader. I suggest that those members continue to talk about simplification and transformation. I look forward to hearing more from the Opposition.
Borrows Chester: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10425. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member but his time expired some time ago.
Borrows Chester: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10420. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We come now to clauses 1 and 2.Hon Ruth Dyson: Go on let him take a call.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Oh Grant Robertson.
Kuriger Barbara: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKuriger Barbara: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10413. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I move That the question be now put.
Hayes Joanne: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes Joanne: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10412. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Bennett David: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10404. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I move That the question be now put.
Scott Alastair: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10401. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I move That the question be now put.
Mallard Trevor: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10400. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member has had four calls. He does not get any more.
Kuriger Barbara: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKuriger Barbara: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10399. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I move That the question be now put.
Macindoe Tim: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10388. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Trusts Review—Appointment of John ShewanText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Trusts Review—Appointment of John Shewan[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10375. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government’s decision to appoint John Shewan to investigate the revelations from the Panama Papers. The Government’s appointment of a person to conduct some inquiry is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. Not every ministerial announcement of an appointment will give sufficient grounds for an urgent debate to be held. There must be an element of urgency or substantive policy change for the matter to take precedence over other business. I am not convinced that the appointment of a person to conduct an inquiry warrants an urgent debate. The application is therefore declined.
Nash Stuart: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10374. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: What does she believe are the main contributors to the increase in the number of burglaries and the drop in resolution rates over the past 12 months?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): In my opinion the main contributors to the burglary rates are criminals their dishonesty and a lack of deterrents. There is also the added fact that one-third of burglars are aged 16 and under and 65 percent are aged 24 years and under. There is an element of opportunism as well and I am advised that in some areas the increase has been seen in the burglary of residential construction sites. As to the second part of the question the reason I am advised for the drop of resolution rates is dependent on factors unique to each district such as drugs gangs youth offenders and construction.Stuart Nash: If she thinks it is criminals does she agree with Counties Manukau crime prevention manager Dave Glossop when he blamed the media for the increase in burglaries when he said: “The media around burglaries has been one of the contributing factors to the increase of burglaries because people think it’s a crime they can get away with.”?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have learnt that it is never wise to blame the media even if one’s views are honestly held.Stuart Nash: Does she think the actual reason that criminals think burglary is a crime they can get away with is that 90 percent of burglaries now go unsolved by police due to under-resourcing; if not why not?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That member will be thrilled to know that after only 2 weeks of Operation Resolve following my firm discussion with the commissioner 17 arrests have been made in just 2 weeks.Stuart Nash: Supplementary. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Stuart Nash: Supplementary. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting until I get some silence from your colleagues.Stuart Nash: Why has she dismissed the findings of the recent Police Association survey that found 86 percent of police think the front line is under-resourced by saying “they didn’t actually mean under-resourced” and does she not think that is a little condescending?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh I could not possibly compete with the Labour Party for being condescending.
Pugh Maureen: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePugh Maureen: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10373. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent reports has he seen estimating the fall in the number of overstayers in New Zealand?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I have received the latest report from Immigration New Zealand which shows the number of overstayers is now at the lowest level it has been this century.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There are now 10848 overstayers. That is 1300 fewer than the previous estimate from October 2014. The most remarkable thing about the number of overstayers is it is almost half what it was in 2005 when there were an estimated 20000 overstayers.Maureen Pugh: How much extra has it cost to achieve this reduction in overstayer numbers?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Zero. In fact the Government is achieving significant savings with a halving of removal and deportation costs from $3 million 10 years ago to $1.3 million now. This Government’s smarter focus on encouraging overstayers to settle their affairs pay their own costs for departure and leave New Zealand voluntarily has contributed to this large decrease. Our policy gives them the opportunity to reset the clock and apply to enter New Zealand legally. Better visa application processes reduce the likelihood of visitors becoming unlawful further reducing the numbers and costs of overstayers.
Parmar Parmjeet: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParmar Parmjeet: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10372. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What feedback has she received regarding the overhaul of Child Youth and Family?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I have received overwhelmingly positive feedback on my announcement that Child Youth and Family will be transformed to be truly child-centred. Such feedback is heartening as we will need the continued support of a wide range of organisations while we continue this important work. Unicef has stated that the overhaul is “the most comprehensive example of Government actively seeking to hear diverse voices including those of children”. The Children’s Commissioner has said that the overhaul “is visionary and has potential to change the lives of many vulnerable children.” Barnados has said that it agrees “wholeheartedly … that all of us as New Zealanders must step forward and claim our vulnerable children as our own.” This is a fantastic opportunity to deliver lasting change for our vulnerable children and it is only the beginning.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will she ensure that the voice of the child is heard in the overhaul of Child Youth and Family?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: To create a truly child-centred system this transformation requires the voice of the child to be heard throughout which is why I am establishing New Zealand’s first ever independent advocacy service for children and young people in care. The advocacy service will involve children and young people in the decision-making process throughout the overhaul and will ensure that their expectations are met by the system. I am also delighted that my Youth Advisory Panel will be re-established to provide advice and feedback to me as the work continues over the next year on transforming the system. Our vulnerable young people deserve to have a voice in their care and we want to ensure that their voices are heard.Jacinda Ardern: Will she rule out the use of private entities like Serco for the provision of directly purchased services as she has set out in her reform?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have been very clear the proposals for the new operating system will be contracting out services on a direct purchase basis in order to provide for children’s needs as they need them. But as I have also been very clear these are about individual children and therefore the services would be based on that individual need. It is the intention that they be local and that they be immediate and that would discount any major large private enterprises.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10369. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sorry order! There is quite a lot of interjection occurring. I am going to invite the member to start his question again.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10369. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): This question is to the Prime Minister—[Interruption]
Smith Stuart: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Stuart: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10368. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Economic Development: What reports has he received about diversification of the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I have seen a number of recent reports that demonstrate that diversification. Despite the downturn in the dairy industry last year our exports in the calendar year were up $1.9 billion to $69.3 billion. So even with the decline in dairy exports of $3 billion the rest of the export economy grew by $4.9 billion. Tourism is up; in the primary industries meat exports were worth $6.8 billion in 2015 up 15 percent in 1 year; wool exports were up 8.2 percent; fruit up 30.6 percent; and wine exports were up 13.6 percent with further growth likely. I am advised that just in the member’s area of Marlborough there were 2000 hectares of new plantings last spring with another 2000 hectares in the next year. High-tech manufacturing continues to grow. What was once a $100 million industry has grown to nearly $1.5 billion in exports.Stuart Smith: How is the Government encouraging continued diversification of the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Encouraging businesses to innovate and create new products and services is a crucial part of diversifying our economy. That is why we have set up Callaghan Innovation our new high-tech innovation hub. We have established primary growth partnerships to extract more value from the primary sector and we have brought in a new research and development grants programme to replace the failed tax credit scheme. Our focus on encouraging research and development is bearing fruit. Last year business spending on research and development grew by more than 15 percent according to Statistics New Zealand. Through New Zealand Trade and Enterprise we are working with businesses in cities and regions to make the most of exports. We have established ICT grad schools to put more money into science technology engineering and mathematics education and we are signing free-trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Korean free-trade agreement to give our businesses market access.Stuart Smith: How has this diversification provided more opportunities for New Zealanders?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In a number of ways. New Zealand over the last 6 years has had the seventh-highest rate of economic growth across the OECD. Despite doom and gloom from some quarters New Zealand now has the third-highest rate of employment in the OECD. We have had employment growth of 10 percent over the last 6 years and also 10 percent growth in total hours worked. This is having a positive effect on wages. From 2003 to 2008 prior to the global financial crisis real wage growth over that period was just 5 percent. In the last 6 years real wage growth has been 8.7 percent.Ron Mark: Clearly out of touch.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes it has.
Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Trusts Review—Appointment of John ShewanText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgent Debates Declined — Overseas Trusts Review—Appointment of John Shewan[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10375. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Urgent Debates DeclinedOverseas Trusts Review—Appointment of John ShewanMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Government’s decision to appoint John Shewan to investigate the revelations from the Panama Papers. The Government’s appointment of a person to conduct some inquiry is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. Not every ministerial announcement of an appointment will give sufficient grounds for an urgent debate to be held. There must be an element of urgency or substantive policy change for the matter to take precedence over other business. I am not convinced that the appointment of a person to conduct an inquiry warrants an urgent debate. The application is therefore declined.
Mallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10538. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret interrupting the member. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress reported.Report adopted.
Borrows Chester: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10509. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Given the speech that has just been delivered I was happy with that and of course I am the judge of that. Thank you very much for pointing that out. I will feel free to jump in any time if that is OK.
Sepuloni Carmel: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10509. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chair. I have just noticed that for a couple of speeches tonight—and I just want clarification from you—people have been reading their speeches during these stages. So I am just checking whether or not that is within the rules of what we are supposed to be doing during this debate.
Tisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just before I give the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs a call I ask members to focus on the sectors. Although the member Brett Hudson was referring to free-trade agreements there is actually a separate debate on foreign affairs defence and trade matters. Although one could argue that trade and enterprise was actually in this sector one must tie it back. But of course talking about free-trade agreements is not part of this one. Sector debate—[Interruption] No no. I let you continue but just be mindful that this is a sector debate and there are opportunities to have your say on all of them.
Tisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10494. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we now turn to the second part of the debate. This is the debate on the annual reviews of departments Offices of Parliament Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported on by select committees. The time allocated by the Business Committee for this debate is 8 hours. However the debate on the annual financial statements of the Government ended early and the remainder of the time is available for debate. I remind members that this debate now includes the reviews and performance of Crown entities as well as departments.The Business Committee has determined that this part of the debate will follow the structure established by the 2014-15 estimates of appropriations. The annual reviews are grouped into 10 sectors. A list of the entities covered by each sector is available at the Table. Each debate will be led by a call by the chairperson of the select committee nominated by the Government as the major committee reporting on the sector. Parties have the following calls allocated for each sector: Labour Party two calls; Green Party one call; New Zealand First one call; and the Minister in the chair three calls. All calls are 5 minutes in length.In addition there is the remainder of the 40-minute supplementary calls not used in the debate on financial statements of the Government which may be taken by all parties as they see fit. The time taken on each question is in the hands of members depending on parties’ use of their allocation of supplementary calls. At the end of each sector debate the question will be put that the Committee reports relevant to the sector be noted.At the conclusion of the debate a single question is put on the provisions of the bill. There is no amendment or debate on the question. When the chairperson reports the bill to the House it is set down for third reading forthwith. There is no debate on the third reading. I remind members that this is a debate not like the previous one that we have just concluded in that we are specifically dealing with the reports of the committees that are relevant.
Mallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10486. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to call the honourable Minister but I just want to warn Mr Bennett that if he is going to continuously interject at least do it in the proper form and do not involve me.
Mallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10481. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am now going to interrupt David Bennett and indicate to him and other members who are following that this is a very broad debate. The member probably tested the margins of it but my ruling is that I am not going to rule him out of order because the first 2 hours can be very broad and after that it will tighten up on particular entities. But I must say at least referring to the reviews a bit would be vaguely helpful.
Mallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10480. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): This debate comprises the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. The time allocated for this debate is 10 hours and it comprises two distinct elements in accordance with determinations of the Business Committee. The first is the debate on the annual financial statements of the Government as reported by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The second is the debate on the annual reviews of departments Offices of Parliament Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises as reported on by select committees. The second debate is structured around those 10 sectors established by the 2014 estimates of appropriations.As with last year there will be a mixture of allocated and supplementary calls. However this year the debate on the annual financial statements of the Government will draw from only the 45-minute supplementary calls. The annual financial statements of the Government debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and this debate will expire after 2 hours or earlier if no member seeks the call.
Naylor Jono: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10466. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Health: What steps is the Government taking to improve the oral health of New Zealanders?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yesterday the Hon Peter Dunne and I announced a proposal to move decision making on water-supply fluoridation from local government to district health boards. I would just like to acknowledge Mr Dunne’s contribution to this important policy work. Fluoridation will potentially reduce tooth decay by 40 percent in children and 30 percent in adults. That is really important given that 35000 children under the age of 5 had a rotten tooth extracted last year.Jono Naylor: Why is this decision making on fluoridation being moved away from local government?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It makes sense to move the decision-making process from local government to district health boards as district health boards not only have the relevant clinical expertise but also can align decision making with local health priorities. The move has been welcomed by Local Government New Zealand and a range of respected health bodies. This is a significant step forward for public health in New Zealand.
Delahunty Catherine: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDelahunty Catherine: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10465. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Will Crown Irrigation Investments Limited continue to invest in the Ruataniwha Dam Project in light of information released this morning that the total cost of the project is nearing $1 billion?Hon JO GOODHEW (Acting Minister for Primary Industries): As Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd has not yet made a decision to invest in the Ruataniwha Dam project I reject the premise of the member’s question.Catherine Delahunty: Will the Irrigation Acceleration Fund continue to invest in the Ruataniwha Dam project given the cost blowout?Hon JO GOODHEW: My understanding is that the Irrigation Acceleration Fund has given a grant of $575000 to this particular project. It is a grant as opposed to an investment which makes it a different type of framework to Crown Irrigation Investments.Catherine Delahunty: Why is the Government funding or giving grants to a scheme that is undersubscribed by farmers and is having at least its fifth final deadline for farmer sign-up this month?Hon JO GOODHEW: I think the member is jumping the gun a little. There will indeed be calls for further investment from farmers and from others who would be interested in investing in this. In fact Crown Irrigation Investments has not made any decisions yet but as in the past the Irrigation Acceleration Fund will make grants to assist schemes to be developed as a business case in order for the technical aspects of the scheme to be determined so that the possible investors can then make wise decisions.Catherine Delahunty: If local farmers are unable to fund the $565 million that they are expected to pay will the Government make up the shortfall and by how much?Hon JO GOODHEW: I believe that the member is asking me to speculate and that is not something I am prepared to do on behalf of the Minister.
Robertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10464. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context in which they were made.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he stand by the statements made to a meeting of Federated Farmers that there is “a cohort of Kiwis who now can’t get a licence because they can’t read and write properly and don’t look to be employable—you know basically young males” and that a lot of Kiwis available for work are in his words “pretty damned hopeless”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes and I welcomed the presence of the member who strode to the front of the Federated Farmers meeting and sat there showing complete attention to everything I said for about 20 minutes.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he stand by his statement that one of the reasons why immigration is “a bit more permissive” is that in his words Kiwis are “pretty damned hopeless”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is mixing a couple of different statementsthere. I referred to the common—[Interruption] Well the Government is at the sharp edge of this every day and I referred to the common response from New Zealand employers that many of the people on our Ministry of Social Development list will not show up to the jobs they are offered and will not stay in the jobs that they are offered. If the member has not heard that from dozens of New Zealand employers he is out of touch.Iain Lees-Galloway: Why after 8 years of the National Government has he written off a whole cohort of young men as unemployable because they cannot read or write properly and what message does it send young New Zealand men that they need to be replaced by migrant workers because in his words they are “pretty damned hopeless”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has certainly not written anybody off. In fact we have poured hundreds of millions into raising the level of educational achievement job training for young New Zealanders and individual supervision for every sole parent under the age of 20. Labour left young New Zealanders in such bad shape that even with that investment we still have so much more to do. And if the member cannot handle a realistic description of the problems we are dealing with then he is out of touch.
Hayes Joanne: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes Joanne: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10464. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made as part of the Ministerial Work Programme on family violence?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Today with my colleagues Anne Tolley and Judith Collins the Government has announced a new integrated safety response pilot for family violence. The new pilot will initially be based in Christchurch and will bring together a number of Government and non-Government agencies including agencies looking at wider issues such as health and housing and including Whānau Ora navigators. It will provide 7-day-a-week triage and risk assessment and will develop and oversee tailored responses for victims perpetrators and their families. The pilot includes independent victim specialists to work with high-risk victims and it is planned to commence from 1 July.Joanne Hayes: How does the integrated safety response fit into the wider ministerial group work on family violence?Hon AMY ADAMS: Today’s announcement is just one part of our wider ministerial work programme under which Ministers representing 16 portfolios are actively reviewing and improving all aspects of the Government’s involvement in reducing family and sexual violence. From primary prevention to risk assessment workforce development incident response legislative reviews and more this work programme and today’s announcement reflect the priority that this Government places on reducing New Zealand’s appalling rates of family and sexual violence.