edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
11. Question No. 11—Māori DevelopmentWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Māori DevelopmentQuestion No. 11—Māori Development11. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: How does Matatini reflect the coalition Government's priorities for Māori and the cultural identity of Aotearoa?Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development) on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: Te Matatini is the biggest showcase of Te Ao Māori to the world: approximately 1840 performers and 46 groups who represent the very best of kapa haka from across Australasia. It is the premier cultural event in Aotearoa with an estimated audience over the four days of 60000. Our coalition Government is committed to the well-being of Māori and the revitalisation of Te Reo Māori. What better event to give expression to the value and importance of Te Reo Māori and to Aotearoa's identity. I encourage all members of the House to attend. This is a true celebration of our identity.Willow-Jean Prime: How can the Government support the growth of Matatini?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The Government is already a significant funder of Te Matatini and the event has grown from strength to strength over the years. The Government is committed to Matatini not just at the biannual event but also with the many regional competitions that happen across the motu every year. Te Matatini Kapa Haka Festival reflects many of the Government's priorities for Māori and New Zealand. It's a platform for the revitalisation of Te Reo Māori and a path to improve well-being reconnect with hapū and iwi and create space for young Māori to express and show their pride for our culture.Willow-Jean Prime: What role does Te Matatini play in the Government's goals for Te Reo Māori revitalisation?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Te Matatini is such an important vehicle for Māori aspirations that we will make an announcement on the Maihi Karauna policy there tomorrow. We'll be talking about how we can ensure how a million Kiwis can speak basic Te Reo Māori by the year 2040. Te Matatini is a key part of that as a vehicle for Te Reo use and cultural expression.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister enlighten the House with a very brief but scintillating history of Matatini and its formation?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think it's probably appropriate to say that it's well-known in the House that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is a great supporter of Māori issues and Māori kaupapa. New Zealand First back I think in 1997—it was reported on Radio Waatea today—were the first supporters and public funders of Te Matatini.
8. Question No. 8—EducationJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 8—EducationJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. To the Minister of Education: does the coalition Government intend to ensure better and more consistent quality in home-based early childhood education?Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: No we'll have the end of the question as well.8. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does the coalition Government intend to ensure better and more consistent quality in home-based early childhood education; if so how?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes. This morning I announced that Government-subsidised home-based early childhood education will move to become a fully qualified workforce. Currently home-based educators are not required to hold a relevant qualification. In fact the proportion of services with qualified educators has actually been declining over the last decade. The Government has decided to move towards a level 4 early childhood education certificate as the minimum qualification for home-based educators and we'll be working with those in the sector to determine an appropriate time for this qualification requirement to become mandatory. It does represent a substantial shift and we do want to minimise the disruption for parents for whānau and particularly for children. In the meantime changes to the funding rates and the criteria will increasingly encourage home-based services to use a qualified workforce.Jo Luxton: Why is it important for home-based early childhood education to move to become a fully qualified workforce?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We have consulted widely and we've heard from educators and parents about the unique place that home-based learning holds—and in particular the family feel that it provides—with small groups in close relationships particularly between the child and the educator. But we did also hear about concerns around inconsistent quality across the sector due in part to inadequate Government oversight. Evidence suggests very clearly that an early childhood education qualification supports educators to provide children with stimulating warm and supportive early learning experiences.Jo Luxton: What other changes to home-based early childhood education are being announced today?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The move to a fully qualified workforce is one of several decisions we have made as a result of the review of home-based early childhood education that I initiated last year. Three other significant decisions are: strengthening the role of the visiting teacher giving the Education Review Office more power to monitor the quality of home-based early childhood education and introducing more explicit requirements on service providers to provide health and safety training and professional development for the educators looking after children.
5. Question No. 5—FinanceDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 5—Finance5. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Why did the Government establish the Tax Working Group?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The coalition Government established the independent Tax Working Group to consider the structure fairness and balance of the tax system. Taxes should be fair simple and collected. While the New Zealand tax system has for the most part met these criteria it's important for New Zealanders to have confidence in the tax system and that we regularly review and assess it to ensure that everybody is paying their fair share. The expert advisory group has worked for many months and has received over 6700 public submissions. I want to thank them for their work and tomorrow they will release their final report and recommendations to the Government.Dr Deborah Russell: How much change is likely to be made to the tax system?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government will now work through the report and its recommendations. No decisions have been made on them. I'd like to reiterate that the Government has always been clear that no changes will be implemented in this term and that there are key bottom lines—in particular that the family home is off limits increases to income tax and GST are off limits and inheritance tax is off limits. Nothing is predetermined and we are not expecting to make wholesale changes to the New Zealand system but it is important that we make sure New Zealanders pay their fair share and the Government has already taken steps towards that with its announcement earlier this week around multinationals—something the Opposition don't appear to care about.Dr Deborah Russell: What is the process and time frame from here?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we have said we will now take time to discuss the Tax Working Group's recommendations with our coalition and confidence and supply partners. Together we will seek to address any gaps that the group may have found that undermine the fairness and balance of the system. In April we will announce our decisions on any appropriate changes and introduce legislation as appropriate from there with the aim of passing that next year with any decisions not taking effect until 1 April 2021.
2. Question No. 2—Prime MinisterHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 2—Prime Minister2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government's statements policies and actions?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I do.Hon Paula Bennett: By what date can the public expect to know the question they are voting on to legalise recreational marijuana?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again as I have said to the member many times the information that we've put out thus far is the decision to have a referendum at the 2020 general election. We are currently working through the detail of the nature of the question. There will be plenty of time given how far we are away from a general election for the public to know the question and engage in the debate around it. Given the member's interest in the area I would extend the invitation that has being extended many times by the member Chlöe Swarbrick for the member to join the cross-party group.Hon Simon Bridges: That's not the Government.Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: And in response to the question that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be asking on your behalf again this is not a Government question; it is a referendum and any question that is asked is not a question supported by any member of the Government specifically. It's a referendum.Hon Paula Bennett: So when the Prime Minister makes statements that We are working through the detail and the dates and things that people might know." who are "we" and which Minister will be responsible for taking a paper to Cabinet on the legalisation of recreational marijuana?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will already know the answer to that question. The Minister of Justice Andrew Little is the one facilitating the work on the question that will be asked in the same way that there would've been a Minister responsible for the flag referendum who may have chosen a different flag option than for instance the likes of John Key.Hon Paula Bennett: Is the Government planning on establishing a citizens' jury or working group to decide the referendum question to legalise recreational marijuana?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When those decisions have been made they will be made available to this House and the public.Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Government be drafting legislation that the public can see before deciding their vote in the referendum to legalise recreational marijuana?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again the process and the question will be released in good time well before the 2020 election. Again this is the drafting of a referendum question an opportunity for the public to engage. This is not about any one single position of a Government. I'm sure members on that side of the House are seasoned enough to understand the difference between a referendum and Government policy.Hon Paula Bennett: Will the Government have drafted any legislation that the public can see before deciding their vote at the referendum?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I answered that in the last question. All details around the referendum will be released in due course."
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Scott Alastair; Williams PotoALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Lenses Madam Chair—lenses I know.Kieran McAnulty: They don't know him in the Wairarapa either!ALASTAIR SCOTT: I have the same problem Madam Chair.He can't help himself. He can't help himself. But nevertheless he knows he's lost twice and he's going to lose again.If I could start off by suggesting that this bill was a missed opportunity and I'm going to cover off a couple of points where the opportunity was lost. My first point relates to the KiwiSaver enhancements. Now there are some good points introduced by way of the bill. The semantics is there. They've decided to call contribution holidays" a "savings suspension". We support that. The five years' break is reduced to one. That's also good. And there are options for contributing greater amounts: a 6 percent and 10 percent band is being allowed for. But I think the opportunity here that's been lost is that KiwiSaver is a good concept in my view. But the opportunity here was for the Government to encourage and enable more people to participate in the KiwiSaver scheme. There could have been greater incentive for those who are not in the KiwiSaver scheme to be part of the KiwiSaver scheme. The Government talks about homeownership as being an issue—the number of homeowners is declining and so on and so forth—and KiwiSaver as we know is a fantastic mechanism to enable first-home buyers to get into their first house. That's great. There are also incentives currently: $10000 a person or more if they're a couple and if they've been in KiwiSaver for five years. So it's a great mechanism in more ways than one—not just for saving for retirement. But my point here is that the opportunity was there for the Government to encourage more people to participate because we know that those who are not in KiwiSaver could be and should be.So I am asking the Minister in the chair Megan Woods to tell me and the committee why was there not more work done—given the nine years in Opposition they had to think about their policies and so forth—to encourage people into this scheme? Because those who can't afford to be in the scheme are not in. Those who are least well off the poorest of us are not in KiwiSaver and that is a lost opportunity. The second—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. The time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Crimes Amendment Bill with amendment progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill and no progress on the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m."
Williams PotoTAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2018-19 MODERNISING TAX ADMINISTRATION AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Annual rates of income taxCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members we now come to the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill. The question is That Part 1 stand part. I call Stuart Smith. No sorry—Alastair Scott. I apologise. It's been a long night Mr Scott. I apologise. And it's probably the first time I've called you this evening too isn't it. I apologise.
Crimes Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
Mitchell ClaytonCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Just briefly on the title it had been in my mind to do something along the lines of the Hon David Bennett's suggestion and perhaps name it something along the lines of Crimes (Rustle Stock) Amendment Bill" but it occurred to me that that could be the name of an actual person or worse still a farmer. I know that it's outside the rules of this House to have a person's name other than in presumably a private bill and so I'll abandon that effort. Just on the commencement date however if I may I think that it is appropriate to have the Act coming into force on the day after the day on which it receives the Royal assent. While often I think it's helpful to have some sort of lead time after a bill becomes law so that people can understand its effect and make arrangements to comply in this case I'm satisfied that that's not necessary. I don't think that anyone would need to amend their behaviour so that they would be acting in reliance in a different manner. So for example to remove the spousal immunity so that a spouse or a civil union partner isn't immune from being an accessory after a criminal act—it goes to the point we were discussing before and I won't intend to relitigate it. But in the manner of retrospectivity or in this case time enough for a person to amend their behaviour to be in line with the criminal law a person's behaviour shouldn't be such that they would be doing what would be an illegal act in any case. So I think in fact it is probably appropriate to have the commencement date. I'd obviously happily be prepared to be convinced otherwise but for now for the reasons I've said I don't propose any amendment along those lines or indeed to the name having tried and failed to come up with something appropriate in that regard."
McAnulty Kieran; Williams PotoKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Let's take another one or two.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Chair. I—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Dr Smith I've asked you to leave the Chamber. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair that is outrageous and I ask you to reflect on what occurred when you were in—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No. Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. Hon DAVID BENNETT: I don't intend to take the whole five minutes but I would like to just probably look at one proposed change to the name that I think might be something that could be of interest to reflect really what the bill is about and that is to reflect Ian McKelvie's great amendment which actually is the substance of something that was going to be a member's bill and never got to that process because an arrangement was worked out between the parties. I would like to just again thank Minister Andrew Little who did actually work well with my good colleague to make that a reality and probably in a quicker way than a member's bill would have done it. So if anything the name of this bill should actually reflect the unity between parties in this House to actually reflect the substance and strength of that bill. It was the cattle rustling bill or whatever you want to call it—Matt Doocey: The McKelvo Rustling Bill"! Hon DAVID BENNETT: —the "Ian McKelvie Cattle Rustling Bill". That's probably not the best thing for him back in his local electorate but there could be a number of other variations on the Ian McKelvie theme. But if anything that may be an option where we reflect a really substantive part of this bill that there was common ground on and that the parties have worked together on. It is in the best interests of all New Zealanders and especially those in the rural communities so maybe something around that tone could lighten the evening and perhaps lead to a better result in having people understand what that bill is actually delivering. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I appreciate that."
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That the question be now put.
Williams PotoCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The question is that Part 2 as amended stand part.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Assistant Chair. The amendments include the SOP in my name.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That's correct. If the member would resume his seat we will get to those provisions. Thank you.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Mitchell ClaytonCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I move That the question be now put.
McAnulty Kieran; Williams PotoKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): One more.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I don't want to take a very long call. I just want to make a call to remind people that we are coming up to the eighth anniversary of the first quakes in Christchurch. This is a particularly hard time for many of the families associated with the CTV. It is a hard time indeed for many of the people in Canterbury where we reflect on events that took place where there was loss of life in Canterbury.I'm disturbed by some of the comments that we're hearing in this committee tonight. I can sometimes reflect on when this committee can rise above that and this committee can work in a way that is constructive. I reflect on the work that went through with the earthquake-prone buildings where we could actually decide that there were some changes that needed to be made for the protection of all New Zealanders. This committee can rise above that. I remind members of the Opposition that that is the kind of thing that we should be doing here.I'd like to congratulate the Minister of Justice. I have been at meetings with the CTV families with both the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister where they have fronted up to some incredibly upset family members who lost members in a tragedy and had a very frank and raw discussion about what happened and what needed to be fixed. I congratulate the Minister of Justice. We have been in Government for 16 months. This has been an identified problem since the CTV Building for eight or nine years now. The Minister of Justice has worked to fix this.I'd remind members opposite that actually the date of the Royal assent would be a different matter if this law had been passed earlier. We wouldn't be having this debate in this way. This is not new information; it is something that has been talked about for some time. The court case that came to a conclusion in late 2017 around the application of the year and a day rule was not a revelation; it was an issue that has been identified for a number of years in Canterbury. I just implore members of this committee as we approach this special and hard day in Canterbury not to politicise what is a tragedy and what many families suffered from. Thank you Madam Chair.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well thank you Madam Chair but I want to just finish on this particular point because I have a different angle on it. We are all very sorry for what happened in Christchurch with the CTV Building but none of us here are attempting to go back and re-prosecute that particular issue. However I think the point has been made about the buildings that have been built since and the buildings that were built before that in other parts of this country.I met with the group who have written a report on the Hikurangi subduction zone. I've had quite a bit to do with the project Alpine Fault Magnitude 8 group. We have two very clear and present dangers in New Zealand: not climate change; it is the Hikurangi subduction zone and the Alpine Fault. Both of those will go probably in the lifetime of everyone in this room and the buildings across New Zealand that could have been built 100 years ago could have been built 10 years ago or could have been built two years ago will likely collapse—some of them at least—in either or both of those events. When that happens if the building has been built correctly then it's an act of God. If there has been negligence or omission in the construction of those buildings then we will end up with people just like the CTV victims' families who will be sitting there saying Just because it occurred a year and one day after that building was constructed then the negligent person gets away with it."The offence occurred the day the construction was completed and that time limit of one year and one day is a nonsense. Now I accept the Minister Andrew Little's view and I also accept my colleague Chris Penk's view who has a different view on the legal niceties of it or intricacies of it. However I will say this to the Minister: with the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill the officials on the legal niceties and that did a 180 on their legal view as the hearings progressed. Officials have their own Sir Humphrey moments and they do need to be challenged.Now I am not sure which way that would end but if let's say for example the Minister is correct and Supplementary Order Paper 192 in the way it is won't work—let's make it right now. We are going to end up at some point in the future where none of us will take any pleasure in saying we warned you. All of us are responsible in this committee debating this piece of legislation which has a significant potential impact on everyone's lives in New Zealand and I urge you to rethink. That's all I have to say on this matter."
Lees-Galloway Iain; Williams PotoHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would like to invite you to reflect on and possibly provide the committee with a ruling with regard to the way in which the Hon Dr Nick Smith made his last point of order. I raise two issues with it: first the fact that he interrupted the Minister to seek leave to table a document. I believe that is disorderly. It is normal practice of the House to wait until a member has completed their call to seek leave to table a document. But second and what concerned me more was the fact that he used a point of order to make an assertion against the Minister. I don't expect an immediate ruling or opinion but I invite you to consider and potentially make a ruling to the committee.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I thank the member for that. I just want to caution all of the members—you can resume your seat Mr Stuart Smith. I've said this before: this is a very sensitive matter. We don't need to have interjections or points of order taken that potentially score points. This is a very sensitive matter and I ask everyone to take the matter a little more professionally. Thank you Hon Iain Lees-Galloway. I will take that on advisement. I'm not going to make a ruling on that at this point. Before I call Stuart Smith I am going to suggest we start traversing some other areas of Part 2 because we have well and truly completed in my view the discussion on the Supplementary Order Paper in the Hon Dr Nick Smith's name.
SpeechHon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Madam Chair. I refer as I did in my earlier contribution to the critical sentence in that statement which is: We have been badly let down by Justice Minister Andrew Little who committed to repealing this law which acts as a potential barrier to prosecution in a situation like the CTV building collapse." Yet in my conversations with them I have been very clear as indeed the Hon Gerry Brownlee has been that we can repeal the law but it will not change the situation for the CTV families. I think members here and members of the public are entitled to therefore ask why at this late stage Dr Smith has tabled his Supplementary Order Paper—what would he be trying to achieve? Why did he go to the media before I had even taken a call in this debate earlier this afternoon and tell journalists what I had apparently said? And I hadn't said anything. I think members who know the full facts of what has happened in the last few hours are entitled to smell a rat—entitled to smell a rat. I think that however difficult it is to deal when we are repealing this part of the law with the tragedy of what we cannot achieve with it we should do it in honour of those. Those members know—that member yelling out to me from his leather-clad benches knows. For someone who for years has lectured this House on constitutional principle—I spent 20 hours being lectured by him on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill when that was going through—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order!Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The bluff and bluster and carry on—but those principles are important. When it comes to criminal law we do not make somebody a criminal tomorrow who was not a criminal yesterday. That is the principle. Tragic as it is there are people who may have done negligent things in the past which we won't know about till the future and we may not be able to get recourse at least if there is a death. We can still prosecute them for criminal negligence. We can still prosecute them for other things but not if they fall within this in relation to a death. That is what being a responsible MP in this House means."
Williams PotoHon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the committee given that the Minister in the chair has made false statements about the CTV families group to be able to table their statement that makes it absolutely plain that they have no expectation of my Supplementary Order Paper enabling the prosecution of the engineers responsible for the CTV building but that it would make a reassurance that that would not occur. So I seek leave to table the statement that's been made today by the CTV families group dated 20 February 2019.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That can be so tabled. Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you colleagues for wishing me happy birthday on my 19th birthday today—ha ha! Thank you Mr Chair for giving me this opportunity to contribute in this debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill which repeals three provisions. It's great to see that the Minister of Justice himself is in the chair and I would like to make some requests to him at a later stage. I would also like to touch upon Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 185. The bill was originally under the name of Ian McKelvie and the Minister has taken it as part of the Crimes Amendment Bill. I don't have a rural background but I have been to many farms. Recently there was a delegation from India with whom we went to see one of the sheep farms and the visiting delegation was amazed to see that only one person at that farm was able to handle 5000 sheep. But when we were talking to this gentleman he mentioned about stock rustling and how people come and pinch some stock and that was really disappointing because the impression from those people who were from India was that they were really very amazed to see how in the whole systematic way the whole thing is organised so that one person can handle such a big flock of sheep. So that was one issue.Later on we went to see some of the kiwifruit orchards and over there my friend had some beehives and he mentioned that sometimes they are being stolen—once they are up to the limit they get stolen. So those are the things which are happening and our country is based on agriculture and horticulture and it should not be happening. The farmers should have confidence in whatever they are doing and they should be able to maintain it. As the Minister himself mentioned when somebody enters a car yard or a yard and steals something he is punished. Whereas somebody who enters a farm and steals something he doesn't have any consequences. So I think Minister you have taken the right decision by adopting this into the Crimes Act and I hope the people will have a lot of confidence in doing their own business rather than looking after or putting up security measures where they can have some attention.Another issue which is very important is the recent outbreak of M. bovis. If the stock is moved around without consent and the stock is infected that can pass on to other areas and that is another issue which needs to be addressed and I hope this will be addressed to this.While you are in the chair Minister I would like to request of you that I have got a member's bill which is the Kirpan Authorisation Bill. And I hope that in the next amendment to the Crimes Act as we discussed you will insert that into the Crime Amendments Bill and that will be a very good step towards the issue being raised by the Indian community. I hope that that will be part of your next amendment bill. With these words I conclude my speech.
McAnulty KieranCRIMES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Substantive amendments to principal Act (continued)KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It is marvellous to be able to summarise my contribution to this debate. What I was saying before the dinner break was I was congratulating this committee for its collaboration on this particular Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 185. I was acknowledging Ian McKelvie for bringing this issue to the House and the Minister Andrew Little for taking this on and seeing a way forward on what is a very important issue. What we saw in the select committee process was that it was universal across the agricultural and primary sector across rural New Zealand that livestock rustling is a big issue. What they couldn't understand is why up to this point it had not been recognised as a crime. That's what Ian McKelvie tried to achieve and it's what this Government and its Minister in Andrew Little has delivered.It sends a really good message. After all the hoo-ha and nonsense that people see in this place so often when MPs here want to do so they can get together they can work together and once again we've shown that at times—sadly not often as much as we'd like—we work together for the interests of rural New Zealand. This Government once again is delivering for the places outside our urban centres and I strongly endorse this SOP in the Minister's name.
Maiden Statement — Agnes Loheni
Speaker's Rulings — Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill—Amendment
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We've just had a half-hour debate about a mistake that was made by another member despite undertakings that that was not going to be debated. The Government strongly objects to the course of action you have taken. A mistake was made on the other side of the House. They should wear the consequences of that and you should not be unilaterally amending the Standing Orders. It's not a question of amending a Speaker's ruling; these are the primary Standing Orders that you are seeking to change and the Government does not support that course of action.SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments and I realise that it is a radical Speaker's ruling that I have made because it does stretch by an hour and 55 minutes the technicalities of the Standing Orders. But having said that Speakers' rulings are for me to make and I am making a decision as a result of advice that was incorrect given by an agency which is my responsibility and the Government is no worse off than it would have been if the member had received the proper advice and had lodged it an hour and 55 minutes earlier.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Of course as Speaker you have an ability and an obligation in fact to make Speakers' rulings in accordance and consistently with the Standing Orders. The ruling you have just made is not consistent with the Standing Orders. I accept the Opposition were provided with bad advice. Yesterday the Government was provided with bad advice and we just wore the consequences of that. And I'm afraid where bad advice is provided those providing it need to tighten their act up but simply unilaterally changing the Standing Orders is not the way to fix up the problem.SPEAKER: I accept the member's view that it is undesirable. It is not a good position to be in but one of my responsibilities—a big part of my responsibility in this House—is to make sure that the minority in the House have the ability to have their say. I think it's also fair to say that there are not many matters that are much more important than annual taxation matters. The ability to oppose and propose is something which is inherent in our democracy and our Westminster system and in my view the interpretation of the Standing Orders is something which is for me. While I accept that this is a long stretch and one which I hope will not be repeated and certainly given the fact that I've made this ruling now it will not be a precedent—it cannot be a precedent—I have made a considered decision and I will therefore declare the House in committee for consideration of those bills.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSTaxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill—AmendmentSPEAKER: Before I put the House into committee I need to rule on an amendment to clause 3 of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill in the name of the Hon Amy Adams. The member sought advice from the Office of the Clerk on the time the amendment would need to be lodged to meet the requirements of Standing Order 330. She was advised that the amendment had to be lodged 24 hours before it would be debated. In fact Standing Order 330 requires an amendment that may have an impact on the Government's fiscal aggregates to be lodged at least 24 hours before the House meets on the day the amendment is to be proposed. As a result Ms Adams lodged her amendment at 3.54 p.m. yesterday when the deadline under Standing Order 330 was 2 p.m. While the amendment has been on the Table of the House for more than 24 hours now it is technically out of order.Where a member does not comply with the Standing Order in these circumstances—in these very specific circumstances—I do not think they should be penalised to the extent that would occur in this case. An amendment that is out of order cannot be debated or voted on. I am ruling that Ms Adams' amendment is in order and can be debated and voted on. Of course it is open to the Government to vote against the amendment or to veto it.
Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe AdrianHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In the interchange earlier members indicated that they hadn't seen the letter of apology; therefore I seek leave to table it.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It may be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Mr Chair thank you. There's a statement that's commonly said: A little humility can go a very long way." Really all we're asking for here is that the process where the committee stage had gone through—and the Minister Carmel Sepuloni is right a mistake has been made. All it would have taken was to come into the Chamber to recognise that and everything would be OK. But again what we have is a Minister who's now stood up who has put fault on the Parliamentary Counsel Office attacked the Opposition and gone on to tell us about 16 years. We all talked about 16 years some time ago in the committee stage. Again can I remind the Minister that we are only here where we are now because the mistake had already been made. The extension that was asked for was to give a shorter period of time. We would have been able to have the scopes of practice. It would have all been over—done and dusted. We are only here because of the tardiness of that Minister.As I said when I started this brief speech: a little humility would have gone a long way. I don't propose to talk too much longer but I just want to say we do support the bill and its original intent. We support the scopes of practice. We're just disappointed—like those that are out there who made submissions in regards to this. And I know you want me to look at the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) because that's what this part is all about—SOP 191 which recognises that mistakes have been made because the Minister and her ministry did not take the time to do the appropriate thing which was to allow the Social Services and Community Committee to go through its process. And this is the reason why we're here again back in the Chamber; it's unfortunate. I'll finish off as I started: a little humility goes a long way. Thank you Mr Chair."
Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill — Recommittal
Henare PeeniSOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION LEGISLATION BILLRecommittalHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): I move That the Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill be recommitted to consider amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni forthwith.Motion agreed to.
Motions — India—Attack on Central Reserve Police Force Personnel in Pulwama
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the House to rise or to cease—to stop—for the dinner break this evening at the conclusion of Agnes Loheni's maiden statement.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.
Peters WinstonWEDNESDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MOTIONSIndia—Attack on Central Reserve Police Force Personnel in PulwamaRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate that this House condemn the attack on the Indian Central Reserve Police Force personnel in Pulwama.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I move That this House condemn the 14 February act of terrorism against Indian Central Reserve Police Force personnel in the Pulwama district leading to a very large loss of life; offer its condolences to the people and Government of India; and express its support and solidarity for the Government of India at this difficult time as well as offer our deep sympathy for all those who are grievously affected.Motion agreed to.
Thursday 21 February 2019 - Volume 736
10. Question No. 10—Māori DevelopmentRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori DevelopmentQuestion No. 10—Māori Development10. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: What recent announcements have been made about ensuring Te Reo Māori is a living language in Aotearoa?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Today I announced the launch of the Maihi Karauna at Te Matatini ki te Ao. The Maihi Karauna is the Crown's commitment to Te Reo Māori revitalisation which has been publicly consulted on as we determine our next steps. One of our goals is that by 2040 1 million New Zealanders will be able to confidently speak basic Te Reo Māori. This is ambitious as we take advantage of the momentum we are starting to see across Aotearoa. The Maihi Karauna will form the basis for the Government's strategic focus to protect and promote Te Reo Māori revitalisation across Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori Te Māngai Pāho and the Māori Television service in the first instance and in collaboration and partnership with Te Mātāwhai. Rino Tirikatene: What initiatives will support the implementation of te Maihi Karauna? Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We will be commencing the implementation of this strategy through three initiatives which are focused on rangatahi—young people—and it will support our efforts for the Unesco Year of Indigenous Language 2019: initiatives such as snap Reo which are micro-lessons; a social marketing campaign to promote the value of Te Reo Māori; and hosting rangatahi regional workshops and a national summit. All Government agencies will also begin to develop their own Te Reo Māori plans so that we can increase the Reo capability of our public sector. A comprehensive implementation plan is currently in development. It will set out what actions will be undertaken to achieve our priorities over a five-year period. The plan will be published in September 2019. I just want to congratulate Te Māngai Pāho who are supporting a broader range of digital media content which will extend the reach of Te Reo Māori to a wider audience and to young people in particular. Rino Tirikatene: How will the Government know if the Maihi Karauna is making a difference?Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That's a really good question. Effective measurement and evaluation will be critical to ensuring the success of the strategy and we want to know that we're measuring the right things as we work together in collaboration to achieve this. A monitoring and evaluation framework will be developed to ensure that we're tracking these achievements. But in short I'm encouraged by the leadership of the Māori Language Commission and Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori who are facilitating collaboration with all sorts of partners to get a better track of what's happening. Also in the area of language planning there is the start that has already begun across the public sector to ensure that they can implement the intent of the Maihi Karauna and the Māori Language Strategy.
9. Question No. 9—Whānau OraJO HAYES (National) to the Minister for Whānau OraQuestion No. 9—Whānau Ora9. JO HAYES (National) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: Does this Government believe in the Whānau Ora model?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Yes. Jo Hayes: How confident is he that all of his ministerial colleagues across Government parties will share his enthusiasm for increasing funding for Whānau Ora in Budget 2019? Hon PEENI HENARE: Very. Jo Hayes: Does he believe all his ministerial colleagues will be open to expanding and growing the model as recommended by the panel? Hon PEENI HENARE: In light of the review I'm confident that this Government will be working hard to make sure that Whānau Ora as a model will continue to empower families right across this country. That member knows and understands the way that the Budget cycle works in this House and I hope that in the coming months she will be alert to the announcements of positivity from this side of the House. Jo Hayes: How long does he expect it to take for Te Puni Kōkiri to report back to him on where Whānau Ora can be implemented in the social sector? Hon PEENI HENARE: Whānau Ora is already active and implemented in the social sector. I am confident in light of the review that this year there will be some significant movement in this space for the prosperity of our people. Jo Hayes: What guarantees can he give to Whānau Ora providers who feel they've been left in limbo about their futures during the period of the review? Hon PEENI HENARE: I give all guarantees to the Whānau Ora providers far and wide in this country. I want to thank them for their good work in the communities and the work that they do with families and can I remind providers the general public and this House that Whānau Ora as a kaupapa is actually bigger than any one individual or any one part. The kind of fundamental shift that we want to achieve for prosperity for our families is far greater than any single one part.
4. Question No. 4—Disability IssuesGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Disability IssuesQuestion No. 4—Disability Issues4. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements has she made to improve employment conditions for disabled people?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): Yesterday Minister Lees-Galloway and I announced a proposed approach to replace the minimum wage exemption to ensure all disabled people in New Zealand are paid at least the minimum wage. The proposal will end the minimum wage exemption scheme which allows certain disabled people to be paid less than the minimum wage. It would be replaced with a wage supplement system which both Government and the disability sector agree is the best option to address the needs of both disabled people and employers. The proposed model will ensure that disabled workers can continue to have job security and be in rewarding work while providing every adult New Zealander with at least the minimum wage.Greg O'Connor: Why is this important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Currently around 900 disabled individuals in New Zealand have a minimum wage exemption permit. Many of these individuals are on extremely low wages; 70 percent of them receive under $5 per hour for their work. The disability sector has argued for some time now for an end to this discrimination against disabled people and the Government agrees. The minimum wage exemption also conflicts with New Zealand's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. By ending the minimum wage exemption scheme we can better support disabled people to live their lives to their fullest potential and foster more inclusive workplaces.Greg O'Connor: What are the next steps to replace the minimum wage exemption?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We've started a two-month targeted consultation programme to gain insight and feedback on the wage supplement approach. The consultation process will explicitly target the views of disabled people their whānau representatives and employers. This consultation reflects our commitment to Nothing about us without us". Our two-month consultation is an important step in ensuring both employers and disabled people support the proposed change and have input into the design of the wage supplement approach."