edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
9. Health Services—National Health Targets and Christchurch Health ServicesJOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—National Health Targets and Christchurch Health Services9. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made towards achieving the Government's national health targets?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Today the Ministry of Health published the health targets for April to June 2016. They show great progress overall with the improved access to elective surgery target again being achieved. In fact it has been surpassed by 8 percent but of course there is always more to do. This is the final time that the more heart and diabetes checks target will be reported and it has exceeded the target with 91 percent of the eligible population having had a cardiovascular check in the last 5 years. The health targets are important as they drive performance across the health system ensuring that New Zealanders get better access to key health services.Joanne Hayes: What steps has the Government taken to improve access to health services in Christchurch?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: On Friday the Prime Minister opened the new $215 million Burwood Hospital in Christchurch. With 230 new beds and being 32000 square metres in size Burwood Hospital is the largest rebuild project in Christchurch East and a great addition to the Canterbury health system. Key features include more beds for older persons mental health stroke and more brain rehabilitation. Each floor boasts shared allied health spaces such as gyms to support the patient rehabilitation process. Burwood Hospital is the first cab off the rank in the close to $1 million of hospital redevelopments under way in Christchurch. Our focus will now be on delivering the new $72 million outpatients facility and the $445 million acute services building on the Christchurch Hospital campus in 2018.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an article from the New Zealand Medical Journal which is not readily available dated 19 August 2016—Hon Gerry Brownlee: It's in the library.Hon Annette King: —no it is not—stating—[Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Hon Annette King: Can I start again Mr Speaker?Mr SPEAKER: Yes the member can start again and I do not want any interruptions from my right.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an article from the New Zealand Medical Journal dated 19 August 2016 stating that the childhood obesity plan is unlikely to solve New Zealand's obesity crisis; it is based on a dated paradigm.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there—[Interruption] Order! I am putting the leave. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
7. Teachers—Supply and QualityDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of EducationTeachers—Supply and Quality7. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding teacher supply?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Late last week I announced several initiatives to boost the number of teachers in high-demand subjects and locations. We currently have enough overall numbers of teachers but not necessarily in the areas or subjects that we need them in. The Government will offer an extra 100 TeachNZ scholarships for science technology and maths subjects to lift the number of graduates in these areas. Additionally to support our recruitment of science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) teachers we will for the first time invest in promoting teaching as a career to tertiary STEM students. We will also invest nearly $1 million in an Auckland programme to employ 40 new teachers through to full registration. Additionally we have been working with secondary principal groups to identify solutions to secondary teacher supply. This announcement is a great example of how constructive work in the sector—namely with the Auckland Primary Principals' Association—leads to solutions that will benefit the young people in our education sector.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How do these initiatives fit into the overall strategy to increase the quality of teaching and leadership in our schools?Hon HEKIA PARATA: There is an ongoing work programme that is aimed at building a workforce that meets the future needs of students and schools such as lifting the quality of initial teacher education establishing the Education Council and forming communities of learning. Additionally we are already supporting schools so that it is easier for them to recruit overseas teachers when a New Zealand candidate cannot be found. We will now expand our investment in this initiative and have launched a new recruitment campaign focused on bringing Kiwi teachers back home. The communities of learning have the potential for schools to work together on recruiting and sharing teacher expertise.Hon Members: Oh come on!Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am glad the House is so interested in raising supply. Thank you.
1. Freshwater Management—Drinking-water SuppliesMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSFreshwater Management—Drinking-water Supplies1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o tana kōrero you turn on the tap you expect water to flow and for it to be potable that you can drink it"?[Does he stand by his statement that "you turn on the tap you expect water to flow and for it to be potable that you can drink it"?]Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree with Dr Russell Death professor of freshwater ecology at Massey University that even if we chlorinate all our water supplies people are still going to get sick from water-borne pathogens associated with the intensified dairy sector and that another outbreak as we have seen in Havelock North is inevitable?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister accept that the cleaner the water is before treatment the cleaner the water is at the tap?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not a technical expert but it sounds logical. Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister arrange for the review of the wadeable standard and the national policy standard for fresh water management given his agreement that the cleaner the water before treatment the cleaner it is at the tap?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. Metiria Turei: How many people does the Prime Minister expect to have to get sick from the water that is coming out of their own taps before the Government will take urgent action to clean up the pollution of our fresh water?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One thing we can be sure of is that this Government has done more than any Government in the history of New Zealand to clean up waterways including setting national standards pouring money into ensuring that our lakes and rivers are improved and ensuring that New Zealanders can expect a high standard for water. Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister understand that New Zealand has the highest level of water-borne diseases in the OECD?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no basis to either confirm or deny that statement. Metiria Turei: Why is land use not specified in the terms of reference for the Havelock North inquiry when it is well known that intensive agriculture is linked to declining water quality and therefore could be a factor in this outbreak?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The terms of reference are very broad and I do not think—as much as it suits the member's own political agenda and her followers'—that she should jump to conclusions about what the cause of the water concerns is."
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Parts 1AA 1 and 2 schedule and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Corrections (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill the Parole (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing (Electronic Monitoring of Offenders) Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 189.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) formerly the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill and the Evidence Amendment Bill with amendment and the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill without amendment and that the Committee had divided it into three bills.Report adopted.
Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill — In Committee
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): I move That the question be now put.
Bindra MaheshMAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): I take this call on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill. We think that this bill could have been named differently and we have some more appropriate names for this bill. One of them is the Attempt at Keeping Prisoner Numbers Down Bill" and there is the "Cost-cutting on Crime Prevention Bill" the "Letting Dangerous Criminals Out in the Communities Bill" and the "Saying One Thing and Doing Exactly the Opposite Bill". These are the reasons that this electronic monitoring system has failed and failed miserably in the last 5-odd hours or last 5-odd years—or it could be hours. This electronic monitoring system has failed 15500 times and this bill has failed to keep our communities safe. The Minister claims that this is going to keep our communities safe; it is not. The other reason to disapprove of this is that communications between the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and the Commissioner of Police have not been made mandatory in this bill. The Government should have made it mandatory. At the moment one hand does not know what the other hand is doing and that was the reason that dangerous criminals like Phillip John Smith escaped the country and that is the reason that somebody on an electronic monitoring system—as Mr Goff just mentioned—breached his electronic monitoring system and raped and killed Blessie Gotingco. So this electronic monitoring system has failed to keep the Blessie Gotingcos of this country safe. The electronic monitoring system has had thousands and thousands of dollars spent on it and the Labour Party member Phil Goff just spoke about the electronic bracelet being cut by an ordinary pair of scissors. Mr Barclay you have not seen prisoners. They are not average human beings all right? They can cut it as easily as Billy Weepu could cut it so you need to look at the offenders whom we are dealing with in our prisons. It is not very hard for them to cut it. It is as easy as it was for Billy Weepu. So it would be wrong to think that just by buying a new type of bracelet that has been touted as next to impossible to cut it is going to keep our communities safe. It is not. We have serious issues with the entire intent of the bill. The intent is to keep the prison costs down and to keep our prison beds on low numbers. So we do have issues with the entire bill. The only thing we do agree with is that when the prisoners go on temporary removal and the electronic monitoring system is used as an additional safeguard then it is OK. But it is not OK for the system to put those criminals out in the communities depending on only the electronic monitoring device. Thank you."
Barclay ToddTODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to be able to speak in support of the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill. We have already heard this evening about which categories of people this bill is being extended to cater for. I just want to pick up on a couple of points that two previous members have mentioned—first that at any one time around 47 people who are out on electronic monitoring are able to cut off their bracelet. That is in the context of 4000 people at any one time wearing one of these monitored pieces of equipment. And actually it is also in the context that we have had this piece of legislation which Mr Goff introduced since 2012 monitoring some of our most dangerous criminals who are out in the public. But before then there were literally thousands of people who were out in the community and should have been monitored but were not monitored because the technology simply was not there. Now what we are doing is extending that category down to lower-level offenders. I think a perfect case in point which was experienced last week through the media was in Hutt South. It was about a sexual predator who is under electronic monitoring in the Hutt and who is potentially a risk to his community. That was part of a wider package of safety reforms that were in place to protect the community from that person. Electronic monitoring was in place for him but there were also two other corrections officers who were monitoring his appearance 24/7 throughout the day. I think that the thing that this piece of legislation does is it extends to a wider category of people who are out in the community—people who are not going to live in prison for their entire lives and are serving sentences of 2 years or less. They are simply not going to be in prison for the rest of their lives. They are going to be in a community they are going to be somebody's neighbour and they are going to be near areas where they could be a risk to the public. Electronic monitoring in this sense extends public safety and it keeps pace with the technology as it is developed. When the Department of Corrections first implemented it in 2012 it was because the technology had developed to the point where it could reasonably implement it to the public and have a level of safety ensuring that there were safeguards in place there. This is a good piece of legislation. In the context of what Labour is trying to spin tonight around having people out there who can cut off their bracelets—well yes that is probably right. Unless they are going to be made out of titanium you are probably going to be able to cut them off. But you know as well as I do Mr Goff from watching the news that the human being who chopped off that electronic bracelet was no average-sized human being. He was a very big strong person who would obviously reasonably be able to cut the bracelet off. The fact is that it is 1 percent of people. This is a good piece of legislation and that is why we are supporting it.
Bennett Paula; Borrows ChesterELECTRONIC MONITORING OF OFFENDERS LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeHon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): We have heard from a number of speakers about how long this piece of legislation has taken to come before the Committee the importance of it and that hopefully what it will do is encourage victims of sexual violence—and we are predominantly talking about women here—to come forward. I wonder why it is not coming to force until 1 July 2017. Initially the commencement was stock standard with most pieces of legislation that pass through the House which is that they come into force on the 28th day after the date on which they receive the Royal assent. For some reason it has actually been pushed out to July 2017. I am making an assumption here of course. The assumption is that the third reading of this bill will be before 1 June 2017 because if it was not then there would be no point in changing it. But for some reason it has been pushed out and I would suggest by at least 8 or 9 months. I am expecting that the third reading of this bill will come before the House in the next month or two. If it is such an important bill if we recognise its importance if we understand that this is actually going to provide a mechanism for those who have been victims of sexual abuse to actually have permission sought to have evidence heard about their sexual history—all these things that we have wanted all of these things that Jan Logie has spoken very passionately about and in fact a number of members have spoken very passionately about—why are we delaying it another 6 to 8 months? Is it because perhaps the judiciary needs time to get its head around it? Or is it in fact that the legal fraternity may need a series of briefings before the legislation is enacted? I am not too sure—because it has been around the traps for a long time it has been debated and commented on by the Law Commission and the New Zealand Law Society and a number of eminent bodies that actually submitted on this.Hon David Parker: The Minister might know.STUART NASH: The Minister might know. But it is not as if this piece of legislation is a surprise to the legal fraternity in any way shape or form. In fact I would argue that it is quite the opposite. I would argue that they have had—[Interruption] There comes the answer now. I would argue that perhaps this has been around long enough for the legal fraternity to actually have a very good handle on it at this point in time. But for some reason—and I am not saying there is not a very good reason; there may well be an excellent reason—it has been deferred by around about 6 to 8 months. But I think that the Minister perhaps does know so on behalf of those who are looking for an early enactment date the Minister may be able to enlighten us as to why it is July 2017 and not perhaps 1 November 2016. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Parker DavidClauses 1 and 2Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I do not think these clauses are particularly contentious either. As has been well traversed the Evidence Amendment Bill 2006 is supported. There are some criticisms that have been made by Opposition parties that some of the changes that could have been made to the way in which complainants who are not children could give evidence in criminal cases relating to family violence or sexual cases—those amendments that were proposed by Jan Logie have been defeated by the Government. The rest of the bill has the support of Opposition parties. I do not think there is really any need for me to relitigate that. The Labour Party will be supporting these clauses.
Parker DavidPart 2 Revocation and amendments to other enactmentsHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to take a relatively short call just to explain why the Labour Party is supporting the amendments to Part 2 that were proposed at the Justice and Electoral Committee. They are essentially to move the new reference to the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 from Part 1 of schedule 1 to schedule 2 of the Act making it clear that the list of matters that can be appealed to a higher court if a direction is made at an initial trial includes the making or refusing to make a pre-trial witness anonymity order under section 110 of the Evidence Act 2006:". This adds to the list in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 which in section 217(2) says "The defendant or the prosecutor may with the leave of the first appeal court appeal to that court against a decision that is one of the following:" and then there is a big long list of "making or refusing to make" an order under various sections which creates this ability for either the defendant or the prosecutor with leave of the first appeal court to make a further appeal. Added to that list is this new category which is the "making or refusing to make a pre-trial witness anonymity order under section 110 of the Evidence Act 2006:". At the same time there is also a very minor change. It is the revocation of a statutory regulation the Evidence (Recognition of Overseas Practitioners) Order 2008 which has been revoked by clause 37(3) of this bill. Both of those seem to be appropriate which is why the Labour Party will be supporting this part of the bill.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to."
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): I move That the question be now put.
Curran ClareCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I listened to the Green member Jan Logie speak a few minutes ago about her real concerns about part of the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 188 around changing the review period from 1 year to 2 years which on the face of it does not sound an awful lot longer. Before that I listened to the Minister's comments before the break with regard to Jan Logie's SOPs 194 and 195 and why although she was sympathetic to those SOPs she could not support them. She used phrases such as we need to pass this legislation the sooner the better" and that there is a "bigger" discussion happening around the issues that Jan Logie's SOPs particularly her substantive SOP—195 I think it is—address. She said that she had thought through carefully whether or not to support it.All of those things are reasonable to say but I want to ask the Minister some questions. I accept that the Minister in the chair right now the Hon Paula Bennett is probably not going to be able to answer them. If possible—Hon Member: Have faith in the Minister.CLARE CURRAN: Or she may. If the Minister Amy Adams who has carriage of this bill is able to answer the questions before this debate is up that would be useful I think for the Committee—if not then perhaps in the third reading—to address the issues. They are around the piece of work that she referred to that is being undertaken to address the issues partly and no doubt more raised by Jan Logie in her SOP 195 with regard to the giving of evidence by complainants in criminal proceedings for people who are over 18 and alternative ways of giving evidence by complainants in criminal proceedings.I know Jan Logie referred to them as minor amendments but they do seem quite significant to me. I did not sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee but I did speak in the second reading of this bill and I have considered the issues that lie behind it quite carefully. It does seem to me that in the select committee process there clearly was quite a discussion about the recommendations put before the select committee around dealing with evidence given by women who were over 18 and I wonder why that could not have been dealt with at the time because it does seem that those issues were pretty important.I am going to just refer to the advice that was reported from the select committee by the Associate Professor of Law from Victoria University Elisabeth McDonald who along with Yvette Tinsley being New Zealand experts advised on making those changes that Jan Logie refers to which would benefit the victims of sexual violence. This was around alternative means of giving evidence—not having to give evidence face to face and that this should be extended to just beyond the age limitation of 18 to all victims of family and sexual violence. I would like to know what the rationale is for holding back on this what the piece of work is that is being addressed by the Minister what the time line is for that piece of work and whether that is going to appear as another amendment to the Evidence Act 2006 and when that might occur. We know that the statistics are frightening—"
Dean JacquiJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to go over one of the main provisions in this bill and return to new section 44A inserted by clause 16 to address some of the comments that a member across the Chamber made. I do disagree with the member. I acknowledge his heartfelt intervention in this debate on behalf of his friend who clearly went through an incredibly distressing time that continued through the court process. I do want to acknowledge that but I do wish to take a different view of the impact of new section 44A. The member ascertained that the effect of new section 44A in the bill was an opportunity to delve deeper into a complainant's previous sexual history and I will take a different view to that. Also I will take a different view to the evidence that the member gave when he referred to new section 44A subsection 6(c) around the interests of natural justice. It is not a judge's role to attack I think the word was a witness or a person in the stand. It is not the judge's role to do that. The member did say that so I just wanted to mention that. Returning to the notice requirements for evidence of previous sexual history what the bill does do is it adds a requirement that the defence give notice before the start of the trial if they intend to use evidence about a victim's sexual history with someone other than the defendant. Now that is different. This was in fact a change that was recommended by the Law Commission and has been picked up in this bill. The notice requirement will allow the admissibility of the evidence to be determined pre-trial so it is not in any case an opportunity to delve deeper but it is an opportunity for the admissibility of the evidence to be determined before the trial starts. At the moment permission to introduce this evidence can actually be sought from the judge at any time during the trial. So it is my view and it is the view of the Justice and Electoral Committee which voted in favour of the part of the bill in this clause that new section 44A around notice of application to offer evidence or ask questions about sexual experience is an improvement on current practice.Stuart Nash: That was my argument.JACQUI DEAN: The member is saying across the Chamber That isn't my argument." but it was certainly the argument that I heard and it was at variance with the intent of the bill."
Bennett PaulaHon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): In reply to the member Stuart Nash: I am not the expert on this bill—it is not my bill—however I have been given information and I would like to pass that on to the Committee in response. So the interests of justice" test is a standard legal test that judges are used to applying. It encompasses a range of factors and will be fact-specific and determined on a case-by-case basis. The provision in question—new section 44A(6)(c) inserted by clause 16—is only about the procedural requirements of filing an application; it will not have a bearing on the test for admissibility of the evidence. The bill does not alter that test; it just requires the application to be made before the trial."
Tolley AnneHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I just want to respond to the question from the member Carmel Sepuloni. I actually thought that she was on the Social Services Committee but however. I draw her attention to Supplementary Order Paper 183 which I have tabled. The select committee actually added both the Department of Internal Affairs and the New Zealand Customs Service into the list of agencies because it added in qualifying offences under the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act so it made sense then to put the New Zealand Customs Service in and of course—[Interruption] The select committee made that decision. For the very reasons that the member was talking about around the name it added in the Department of Internal Affairs. The member needs to do her homework.
Sepuloni CarmelCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I just want to refer to something that my colleague Kris Faafoi was talking about earlier and that was in relation to clause 48B: Application for change of name by registrable offender". In clause 48B(1) it states that the offender "must not apply to the Registrar-General to register a change of his or her name under the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995 without first having obtained the written approval of the Commissioner." Clause 48B(2) then goes on to say: "An offender who without reasonable excuse contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine …". What I want to check with the Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley is why the Department of Internal Affairs—I am particularly looking here at Births Deaths and Marriages—has not been included as one of the Government agencies that information would be shared with. I am just thinking that if the offender does attempt to register a name change actually there are no checks and balances in place. There is nothing there that will actually capture the fact that this is a convicted child sex offender and so therefore they could successfully change their name. I want to know from the Minister whether or not she would look at extending the sharing of data amongst agencies because if we look at page 2 where the commentary is it states really clearly that the specified agencies at this stage are just the New Zealand Police the Department of Corrections the Ministry of Social Development and Housing New Zealand. So I want to ask the Minister whether or not there would be any consideration for including the Department of Internal Affairs to avoid the possibility of a registered child sex offender being able to change their name. I would like to hear from the Minister if that is possible."
Tolley AnneHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes I am happy to answer that. I am sorry—I meant to do that before. Clause 43 provides that the Commissioner of Police may disclose or authorise a particular agency to disclose personal information on the register to an affected person. So the classic example of that is where they know that this person is high risk and that person then moves in with a new partner who has children. When you look at the definition of an affected person it is a parent or guardian of the child or regular caregiver. So the commissioner would then decide that there is an element of risk to the children living in that home now with that new offender living amongst them and he or she—one day we might have a woman Commissioner of Police—would decide that it could be disclosed to that new partner that her children might be at risk. That is the classic example of when that clause would be used. The important thing is that it is the commissioner who makes that decision and disclosure has to be to an affected person.
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) — First Reading
Motions — 2016 Olympic Games—Success of New Zealand Team
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Darroch Ball I am going to remind members—and I am just feeling a wee bit conflicted now because of stated interests in this area—that they should be debating this bill. It is not a second reading - type debate on the causes or the general statistics. It is not a discussion about where people should be living. Actually this bill has been accepted by the House at its second reading and all we are talking about is whether the details in this bill now fulfil the wishes of the House as expressed at the second reading.
Macindoe Tim; Tisch LindsayCHILD PROTECTION (CHILD SEX OFFENDER REGISTER) BILLIn CommitteeTIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): With the agreement of the other parties I seek leave for the Committee to consider the separate parts and debatable questions of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register) Bill in one debate with voting on the questions to be taken separately at the end of the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Brownlee GerrySUBORDINATE LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL (NO 2)First ReadingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.
Brownlee GerrySITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House on Tuesday 23 August 2016 be extended from 9 a.m. on Wednesday 24 August 2016 for consideration of the Committee stage of the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill consideration of the Committee stage of the Judicature Modernisation Bill and the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill and that the House adjourn at 11.30 a.m. for a State luncheon. The State luncheon is to recognise the service of the Rt Hon Sir Jerry Mateparae as Governor-General.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 44New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party I would like to join with other leaders in support of the Prime Minister's statement. It is difficult to overstate how well our tiny country won so big and we should all be proud of the many fine attributes of New Zealand that were embodied in those achievements. In honour of those great Olympians those who competed and especially those who won medals I am going to keep my speech hopefully shorter and faster than Lisa Carrington paddling 200 metres. Congratulations to our Olympians. Thank you.Motion agreed to.
Hague KevinKEVIN HAGUE (Green): The Green Party wants to join other parties in expressing our admiration and our thanks to Rob Waddell and the fantastic Kiwi Olympic team—especially of course to the medal winners. Indeed we want to express our admiration for and our saluting of everyone from that team. We know that sporting performances like those that we have seen near the limits of what the human body is capable of do not just happen; they are the result of many mornings in the dark and the cold and the wet—the loneliness of training. They are the result of self-sacrifice determination and hard work. We want to salute all of those members of the team for that. We in the Green Party could not help but notice that most of our medal winners were women and we hope that this will be the prompt for properly funding women's sport. High Performance Sport set a target of 14 medals for Rio so our record haul of 18 medals clearly surpasses that. That is a fantastic achievement. But for us the real measure of the success of our Olympic performance will be whether as a country we have the wit and the wherewithal to ensure that those performances inspire more people to become more physically active more often. It is hard to pick a favourite performance and of course invidious to try but I guess for me my favourite sporting performance of the games was Eliza McCartney. Who could deny that fantastic grin sharing her excitement and her pleasure with the entire nation? But just as the Prime Minister and Andrew Little have mentioned I guess my favourite moment of the entire games was the incident involving Nikki Hamblin and Abbey D'Agostino from the United States in the 5000 metres event because what those two women did was show us some values. They showed us that solidarity was more important than competition even in the most competitive environment and that most Kiwi of values: that when someone is in need it is our nature to reach out a helping hand. Let that be a lesson to us in this House.
Little AndrewANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I rise to support the Prime Minister's motion and to extend our congratulations to our Olympic team who have done a superb job. They have done us very proud—18 medals: four gold nine silver and five bronze. That is the fourth-highest number of medals per capita and as the Prime Minister has just said it is a demonstration that even in a small country like ours with hard work grit and determination anything is possible. It was very heart-warming to see Nikki Hamblin in the 5000 metre women's race being awarded the International Fair Play Committee award because in the middle of her race she stopped to help another injured athlete. She completed that race last but in fact she also won: she won the hearts of millions around the world for her generous spirit. She said that she was proud to prove that you can be a competitor but you can be kind and responsive at the same time. We are a country that prides itself on fair play and Nikki in the true Olympic spirit has done us very proud. We saw the old hands the experienced hands: Val Adams Mahe Drysdale Lisa Carrington Blair Tuke and Peter Burling. They excelled in their chosen fields. Nick Willis of course came through on the bronze and took a month off social media—how envious we all are of him for doing that—so that he could focus on his success. But one of the most encouraging things about these Olympics has been the number of new young New Zealanders who performed and who are now becoming household names: Jacko Gill Tom Walsh and of course the amazing Eliza McCartney. The success of these young Kiwis is a great sign of things to come and we should be very hopeful for future Olympics. I want to also acknowledge the work of Rob Waddell not only in managing the team we had and the success that we achieved but—I was so impressed that on his arrival after sorting out the issues that he had to with the team he also took members of our Olympic team to the favelas in Rio de Janeiro. He showed that outreach to those who are less fortunate which again is in the true Kiwi spirit. On behalf of the Opposition and the Labour Party I want to congratulate our Olympic team on their successes and the many successes still to come.
Thursday 8 September 2016 - Volume 716
Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Smoke-free Environments (Tobacco Standardised Packaging) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 108New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 13New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.
Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14Green Party 14.Bill read a third time.
11. Building Financial Capability—Money WeekPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsBuilding Financial Capability—Money Week11. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What initiatives is the Government involved in that support the Government statement on building financial capability in New Zealand?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This week is Money Week and so the theme of Money Week is Show me the money" with the aim of focusing New Zealanders on planning for their futures and achieving their financial goals. Research released today by the Commission for Financial Capability found 86 percent of New Zealanders are apprehensive about their financial security when they reach 65. This research highlights the importance of planning to ensure you have enough money set aside to lead the lifestyle you want in retirement. Money Week is a great opportunity for New Zealanders to take stock of their current situation and put plans in place today that will benefit them in the future.Paul Foster-Bell: What can New Zealanders do to get involved in Money Week?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Money Week website moneyweek.org.nz has a wide variety of resources available that are free to download including information on events that are being held around the country. There are about 73 public events and 571 private events that have been organised. For example the Raglan Budget Service has held daily workshops this week and there are plenty of opportunities for everyone to get involved in Money Week this year. I would encourage Kiwis to find out what events are on in their neighbourhood.Paul Foster-Bell: What else is the Government doing to help the residents of Wellington Central and indeed all New Zealanders to get ahead financially?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government continues to invest in ways to improve the money skills of Kiwis. Since the Government's statement on building the financial capability in New Zealand was launched last year there has been a considerable increase in collaboration between Government agencies the private sector and the community groups. It has seen the delivery of key projects such as financial capability programmes tailored to Māori and Pacific people some of which have been scaled up to reach more people in 2017.Marama Fox: Can the Minister explain how he intends to assist the hundreds of thousands of children and their families currently living in poverty when they cry "Show me the money."?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think the best thing that the Government can do is to generate a productive and competitive economy that creates good incomes and jobs for all New Zealanders and that is what this Government is doing every day."
6. Growing Up in New Zealand Study—Contract NegotiationsJACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Social DevelopmentGrowing Up in New Zealand Study—Contract Negotiations6. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: Can she confirm that the contract with the Growing Up in New Zealand study the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal study undertaken in New Zealand is currently being renegotiated and will she guarantee that this process will not lead to their contract being cut?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Social Development): I can confirm that the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) is currently in contract renegotiations with the University of Auckland to ensure maximum value from the Crown's investment in the Growing Up in New Zealand study. As these renegotiations have not yet been concluded and the details of the contract negotiations are commercially sensitive I am unable to provide any further details.Jacinda Ardern: Can she guarantee that the Growing Up in New Zealand study will receive the $15 million that was already allocated to it—Hon Steven Joyce: That's what the negotiation said.Jacinda Ardern: —and was included in a contract Mr Joyce that was signed in February which was allocated to it in Budget 2016? [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need the interjection coming from my right-hand side.Hon JO GOODHEW: As I have already said to the member and she has acknowledged in her primary question there is currently a renegotiation.Jacinda Ardern: When was she advised by SuPERU that it wanted to cut the funding and contract for the Growing Up in New Zealand study meaning it will now end in 2018 when the children it is tracking will be just 8 years old; and what was her response?Hon JO GOODHEW: The nature of the question is related to the renegotiation and I refuse to speculate on the outcome.Jacinda Ardern: Does she agree with SuPERU's current demands that the Growing Up in New Zealand study must now cut 4500 children from the study meaning it will not be able to reliably evaluate life in New Zealand for Māori and Pasifika children?Hon JO GOODHEW: The message seems not to be getting through. There is a renegotiation under way and I will not speculate on that. That is good negotiation practice—perhaps something that is unfamiliar to the member.Jacinda Ardern: Is it good practice to renegotiate a contract that was signed and agreed in February and to undermine a study that has had millions of dollars of taxpayers' money by cutting a cohort by more than half making it completely unethical and unreliable?Hon JO GOODHEW: Renegotiations to contracts never happen unless both parties come to the table. This debating chamber is not the place to do it. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are now moving to Question No. 7.
4. SuperGold Card—Transport Auckland and FundingDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister for SeniorsSuperGold Card—Transport Auckland and Funding4. DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister for Seniors: Does she stand by her statement we're very in favour of the SuperGold Card and there are absolutely no plans to downgrade it in any way shape or form"?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Seniors): As the Minister for Seniors I am 100 percent behind the SuperGold card as has been my predecessor Jo Goodhew. We believe that seniors who pay taxes all their lives deserve to have discounts and concessions. I absolutely approve of the way in which they get transport entitlements and I think the system is working really well. We have added to it in a meaningful way from extremely humble beginnings in 2007.Denis O'Rourke: As the SuperGold card can no longer be used in Auckland without buying a HOP card is this not downgrading the value and universal aspect of the SuperGold card?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: In a word no. The Auckland Transport HOP card as of 12 August had 97 percent of SuperGold card public transport users signed up. That represents 108303 SuperGold card holders so far.Denis O'Rourke: By capping the funding and by transferring SuperGold card responsibility to regional councils is this not just a way of downgrading the SuperGold card free off-peak transport by stealth?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Indeed it is not. This National Government is absolutely committed to the SuperGold card and to the transport concessions. The changes to the bulk funding are outside my ministerial responsibilities but they did not change in any way the entitlements. Seniors can continue to use their gold cards as they always have. In fact by lifting the moratorium—which was also part of the changes that we brought in—we have enabled a lack of monopoly and there is now the possibility that there are places all around New Zealand that are able to offer the transport concessions that were not able to be offered in the past. So we have improved the access to transport.Denis O'Rourke: By capping SuperGold card funding how does this allow for the increase in the number of senior citizens and therefore their increase in off-peak transport usage without effectively downgrading services?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: We are aware as that member appears to be as well that we are an ageing population. We will continue to fund access to all discounts and all concessions that SuperGold holders—and superannuitants indeed—are absolutely entitled to. This Government is completely committed to helping ensure that New Zealand superannuitants continue to be able to get discounts and to travel and we will continue to ensure that they are well supported because it is a system that we have supported—unlike that party which did very little. From 200 outlets that offered concessions we have put it up to 12000."