edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
5. Housing—Behaviour of State Housing Tenants and Housing SupplySIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentHousing—Behaviour of State Housing Tenants and Housing Supply5. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he have confidence in Housing New Zealand's tenancy management and the way it manages the State housing stock?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes.Simon O'Connor: Is it acceptable to him that State housing tenants are currently renting out their State houses on Airbnb?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I'm not aware that they are and if the member has information about that I would be happy to look into it.Simon O'Connor: How can he not be aware if his officials advised the Social Services Committee yesterday that this is definitively the case?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I was aware that the Ministry of Social Development officials at select committee talked about the effect of Airbnb in regional housing markets and the effect it's having on housing demand. But I have to say I wasn't aware that there was any suggestion that Housing New Zealand tenants were leasing out their properties on Airbnb.Simon O'Connor: Will he be taking any steps to stop this happening and if so how?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I will certainly look into it.Jo Luxton: What progress has Housing New Zealand made in increasing the State housing stock?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We are making very good progress building more public housing. Housing New Zealand built 598 new properties in the June quarter and there are 1643 new Housing New Zealand properties currently under construction. This Government is committed to rebuilding State housing in New Zealand after nine years of neglect and selling off of State housing.Simon O'Connor: How can it be that a State house tenant can rent out their surplus rooms on Airbnb and yet his tenancy managers cannot find rooms for the people who need them?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well if State house tenants are leasing out their homes on Airbnb then I'll be looking into that.Simon O'Connor: Is it acceptable Minister for existing State house tenants to rent out houses and homes when we have the largest waiting list in history under this Government.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well we have the largest waiting list in history because the former Government allowed the housing crisis to spin out of control. We have seen the worst homelessness in living memory for the last three winters and that Government sold off State housing for nine years reducing the total stock of public housing by 1500 in the middle of a housing crisis.
3. Infrastructure—Actions and ReportsDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of FinanceInfrastructure—Actions and Reports3. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on how infrastructure will improve productivity and living standards in New Zealand?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): A report this week by Chapman Tripp outlined how the infrastructure deficit that has built up in New Zealand in recent years is significant and that it will be difficult to unwind. The infrastructure deficit has contributed to housing becoming less affordable has held back our ability to become a more productive economy and it has had an impact on Kiwis' standards of living. The report says there is now increased demand on all forms of infrastructure from electricity to water and social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals and says that the search for solutions to New Zealand's infrastructure problems is now urgent. Movement on this will help improve productivity and New Zealanders' living standards.Dr Deborah Russell: What does the report say about the action required to close the infrastructure deficit?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The report makes a number of suggestions to address New Zealand's infrastructure deficit. These include a new look at how infrastructure is funded including the use of private sector financing to break the funding deadlock and the use of new financing tools. The recommendations include the creation of a national urban development authority and better coordination of the infrastructure pipeline to provide long-term support for the construction sector. Dr Deborah Russell: What actions is the Government taking to close the infrastructure deficit?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Very similar to what's been recommended. Our plan is looking at how infrastructure is funded including the use of private sector financing to break the funding deadlock and the use of new financing tools. We are creating a national urban development authority and we will soon be announcing how we will better coordinate the infrastructure pipeline to provide long-term support for the construction sector. [Interruption] It's pleasing to see how popular this is with the Opposition and that it aligns with the infrastructure sector. I and other Ministers look forward—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member—I think we've had enough.
Wednesday 15 August 2018 (continued on Thursday 16 August 2018) - Volume 732
National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Part 1 be agreed to:after clause 8 insert:8AReview(1)The Minister must 12 months after the commencement of this Act initiate a review of the amendments set out in section 8.(2)The Minister must present a report on the review to the House of Representatives within 3 months of the initiation of the review under subsection (1).Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 1 be agreed to: after clause 8(4) insert:(5)Notwithstanding anything else contained in this clause a NAIT officer conducting a search under clause 49 of Schedule 2 shall not have the power to seize any property.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to Part 1 be agreed to:after clause 8(4) insert:(5)In Schedule 2 after clause 49 insert:49AReasonable cause requiredNotwithstanding anything else contained in this schedule a NAIT officer conducting a search under clause 49 shall not have the ability to utilise the powers contained in clause 40 unless the NAIT officer has reasonable cause to suspect non-compliance with this Act.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Bennett to clause 8 be agreed to: In clause 8 after subclause (2) insert:(2A)In Schedule 2 after clause 49 insert:49ASearch powers only available in response to biosecurity incursion or natural disaster(1)A NAIT officer conducting an inspection without warrant under clause 49 does not have the ability to exercise the search powers set out in clause 40 unless the Minister has declared that the search powers are required in response to a biosecurity incursion or natural disaster as set out in subclause (2).(2)In making a declaration that the search powers are required in response to a biosecurity incursion or natural disaster the Minister must—(a)make a statement to the House of Representatives to this effect; and(b)present a written notice to the House of Representatives outlining—(i)the specific nature of the biosecurity incursion or natural disaster; and (ii)the period for which the declaration is in effect.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Rt Hon David Carter to Part 1 be agreed to:After clause 8 insert:8AExpiryThe amendments contained in section 8 of this Act amending Schedule 2 of the principal Act expire on 15 August 2019 and shall be of no further effect from that date.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 75 in the name of the Hon David Parker to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 52 in his name be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Amendment to the amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 52 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to clause 2 be agreed to: replace this clause with the following new clause:2CommencementThis Act comes into effect on the date that is 12 months after the date on which it receives Royal assent.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Overseas Investment Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.Schedule 4The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 52 in the name of the Hon David Parker to schedule 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.Schedule 5The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 52 in the name of the Hon David Parker to schedule 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 5 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2018/9) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2018/19) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2018/19 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2018/19) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Appropriation (2018/19 Estimates) Bill read a third time.Imprest Supply (Second for 2018/19) Bill read a second time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2018/19) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.
Imprest Supply (Second for 2018/19) Bill — First Reading
12. Health Services—Mental Health and Intellectual Disability Services FundingANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Mental Health and Intellectual Disability Services Funding12. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has he made regarding care and support for New Zealand's most high-needs intellectual disability and mental health patients?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): On Thursday I accompanied the Prime Minister to the Rātonga-Rua-O-Porirua Mental Health Campus to announce $8.4 million funding. The funding is for a new six-unit secure facility that will provide quality individualised care for some of our most vulnerable citizens. These individuals and the staff that care for them deserve fit-for-purpose facilities. The needs of these individuals were not being met in the way that we intend to meet them into the future. This announcement puts right a situation that should have been put right previously.Angie Warren-Clark: How will the new facilities help improve care and treatment for those high-needs individuals?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Currently there are no specialised accommodation facilities for these individuals who have previously been kept in in-patient services for significant periods of time. These new individualised service units will provide greater quality of life and will allow more opportunity for rehabilitative gains and potential for reintegration in some cases into the community. This is great news for the small group of high-needs New Zealanders and their families.Angie Warren-Clark: How does this announcement complement other Government initiatives in mental health?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This announcement targets the needs of some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. At the same time the Government is extending school-based health services to an extra 24000 students in decile 4 schools. We are putting dedicated mental health support in primary and intermediate schools in Kaikōura and Canterbury through the Mana Ake programme. We're supporting young people with mild to moderate mental health needs by launching the integrated therapies pilot for 18- to 25-year-olds and we've funded new drug and detox facilities at Auckland City Mission. And of course at the end of October the inquiry into mental health and addictions will report back to me in just a few short months what I expect will be robust and far-reaching recommendations.
11. Family/Whānau Violence—Safety of ChildrenHon ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for ChildrenFamily/Whānau Violence—Safety of Children11. Hon ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements including her statement that children need to be safe loved healthy and educated if they are going to live well"?Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Yes in the context in which they were given and I particularly stand by the statement that absolutely children need to be safe loved healthy and educated to live well.Hon Alfred Ngaro: How then does the Minister reconcile that statement—"feel safe and loved"—with the teenage boy who was kicked in his head by his father when his lawyer Chris Nicholls told media last week that he hadn't heard back from Oranga Tamariki since making a complaint in February of this year?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I would ask the member to send that back directly to my offices so that I can follow up in much more detail.Hon Alfred Ngaro: How do pre-schoolers feel safe and loved in a case of suspected family violence where they have had to wait at least six months for a family group conference?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Again these are very operational questions about—with 6250 children in care with 89000 calls of concern in New Zealand to Oranga Tamariki. I would ask the member if he has concerns to please contact my office directly so that we can take immediate action.Hon Alfred Ngaro: So how does the Minister reconcile those comments with that of the Wellington regional manager for Oranga Tamariki Grant Bennett who said "all cases of abuse were considered immediately"?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: If that is what Mr Bennett has said then Mr Bennett needs to stand by his words. If the member has serious concerns in this way please I encourage him to contact my office directly the moment he hears of them not to wait to bring it to this House."
9. Police—Deputy Commissioner of Police Inquiry into the Appointment ProcessCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Internal AffairsPolice—Deputy Commissioner of Police Inquiry into the Appointment Process9. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions in relation to the Government inquiry into the appointment process for a Deputy Police Commissioner?Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes in the context they were given except for one of my supplementary question answers from 8 August which I subsequently corrected later that day.Chris Bishop: Is she concerned about the integrity of the inquiry in light of allegations revealed this morning that Mr Haumaha contacted a witness to his alleged bullying—contact which is now being investigated by the police in a bid to shore up support after the New Zealand Herald started making inquiries about the alleged bullying incident?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: No because the inquiry I have been tasked by Cabinet to set up is into the processes of the State Services Commission and the information that was provided to the Minister and Cabinet in the original appointment.Chris Bishop: Will the inquiry now led by Mary Scholtens QC allow members of the police force to give evidence to the inquiry anonymously with their identities and jobs kept confidential?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: My understanding is that that will be a decision for the chair of the inquiry. There are terms of reference and what she needs and who she needs to speak to inside those terms of reference are fully at her discretion.Chris Bishop: Would she be concerned if senior members of the police force felt afraid of giving evidence to the inquiry for fear of their names and jobs being revealed and any possible consequences after the inquiry reports back; if so what will she do about those concerns?Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I'm not sure I have any ministerial responsibility around that. My responsibility is to provide the administration for the chair of the inquiry and inside the terms of reference which are reasonably broad then the chair can actually speak to whomever she wishes. She could make that anonymous if she wishes. I don't have any control over that.
8. Parliament—Support for Reduction in Number of SeatsDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime MinisterParliament—Support for Reduction in Number of Seats8. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Is she aware of any Ministers in her Cabinet that support reducing the number of members of Parliament and removing the Māori seats; if so who are those Ministers?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Not in their capacity as Minister.David Seymour: Is she concerned that New Zealand First might vote for my smaller Government bill given that they have supported the same concept in the past?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.David Seymour: Is that because Winston Peters is a lion on the hustings and a lamb in Cabinet?SPEAKER: Order! It's getting very close to being ruled out but we'll just leave it now. [Interruption] No I'm saying to the Prime Minister: it is an inappropriate question and I've ruled it out.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It's worse than that sir. It's worse than that. He's called into question my undoubted courage and I do not need a member of the Oblivion Party" to be doing that.SPEAKER: Well I think that that gets to about sort of one inappropriate comment each and frankly I will just say to the Deputy Prime Minister he's been 1-all I think on three occasions today which might indicate that he needs to take a bit of care."
6. Mana in Mahi - Strength in Work—Programme LaunchPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentMana in Mahi - Strength in Work—Programme Launch6. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What response to recent employment-related announcements has the Ministry of Social Development received from businesses and industry?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Last week the Prime Minister Minister Jackson and I launched the Mana in Mahi - Strength in Work programme. Mana in Mahi will give thousands of young people the opportunity to learn and gain qualifications while in meaningful employment. Since the announcement we have had considerable positive feedback. Ten new businesses have registered their interest with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) from a variety of industries and MSD is engaged in a programme of work to further grow and develop industry partnerships in order to provide an array of apprenticeship opportunities for our young people.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is the Mana in Mahi programme important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mana in Mahi will support the participation of and improve the employment outcomes for all young people including Māori Pacific and disabled young people. MSD has already had interest from young people via their dedicated MSD industry partnerships in-box and received calls and emails from work brokers saying they have clients interested in the initiative. Mana in Mahi will also help address skills shortages in sectors that provide sustainable employment opportunities. Already businesses from sectors with skills shortages such as building and construction tourism hospitality and agriculture have contacted MSD to see how they can be involved.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What types of apprenticeships under Mana in Mahi will be available in the construction industry?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This Government is committed to increasing our construction workforce. That's why I'm pleased that the Downer Group and their subcontractors have already committed to participating in this programme. Downer have already achieved great results in their work with MSD with over 1000 MSD clients being placed with Downer and 70 to 75 percent of clients still in employment after 12 months. In the Mana in Mahi programme Downer will coordinate and run training courses for their subcontractors not only providing innovative opportunities for the apprentices involved but also providing excellent support for smaller businesses.SPEAKER: I must say that was a very long answer and I'm not sure that it answered the question but anyway.
3. Economy—ReportsWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceEconomy—Reports3. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Thursday the Reserve Bank released its May Monetary Policy Statement which did show a downward trend in growth rates which began at the beginning of 2017 and looks to have bottomed out in the March and June quarters of this year. The Reserve Bank indicated that the combination of the coalition Government's stimulatory policies and a rise in net exports are expected to contribute to growth picking up again to above trend in 2019. And it forecasts growth on average of about 3 percent over the next three years.Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen on how these drivers of growth are different to previous periods?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On Sunday the Reserve Bank Governor noted how the drivers of growth over the next three years will be different to the past five years. He said … when you look at what are the drivers of economic activity now and towards the next two to three years they are very different to the drivers of the last three to five years. The drivers were … recovery from the GFC recovery from the Christchurch earthquake very large population growth and asset prices rising … Looking forward it's about driving growth. It's about earning; it's about the export-earning structures the lower exchange rate the … world growth; [and] good terms of trade. That's about earning producing product and it's about government investing and private sector investing." It is exactly that transition to sustainable growth that this Government is focused on.Willow-Jean Prime: What recent reports has he seen on economic activity?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Many and in light of previous admonishments I will give just one a report on the comments of Mainfreight managing director Don Braid who told the New Zealand Herald that "I think the business environment is good right now." He went on to say "At least with the change of Government there's a different attitude to getting on and doing things and we'd encourage the Government in … the initiatives they're talking about—at least we're not living in a question mark.""
Education Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker I believe in this bill with every fibre of my being. I'm proud of it and I commend this bill to the House.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): I just want to stand here and say that I am really pleased to see national standards removed from legislation. Our young children's self-esteem will no longer be stomped into the ground because they will no longer be told they aren't good enough because they are below national standards. I commend this bill to the House.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Mangai. Tēna koutou e Te Whare. I'd like to rise to tautoko the final point of Denise Lee and to affirm that the Government will indeed be doing the right thing. So I rise to do the right thing in support of this legislation.As has been well canvassed by my colleagues in Government this legislation does a number of things—not the least removing charter schools and national standards. But the point that I want to raise tonight in this short call is that whilst the Greens are in support of these changes as presented quite fulsomely in the select committee report back—and it's not worth reiterating those points—what I want to touch on is the issue of tertiary council representation as was brought into this debate by one Simeon Brown. He actually did so in a very disparaging manner speaking to the involvement of staff and students around the decision-making table disparaging their skills and expertise as though their lived experience and perspective were not important around that decision-making table. Mr Simeon Brown if that is the elitist attitude that you have towards democracy if it is good enough for us why is it not good enough for the governance of tertiary institutions?So on that point the Supplementary Order Paper in my name which I'll flesh out more broadly in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill reflects the submissions—the 481 submissions—on the issues of staff and student representation around those tertiary institution councils. Four hundred and fifty-one of those submissions supported guaranteed places for elected staff and students but 421 of them—that is 87.5 percent—commented that tertiary education institutions should have more than one staff or student rep and that is exactly what the Greens are standing for tonight as well as being in support of this bill and we commend this bill to the House.
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Education): Kia ora i Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Kia kaha Te Reo Māori.[Greetings in Māori Language Week. Make the language strong.]I rise in strong support of the Education Amendment Bill. This is a bill that we're bringing into Government and it is a policy that we have for many years been very very clear about. We came in saying that we will get rid of partnership schools and charter schools and that is one of the things that this legislation will do. I'd like to thank the chair and the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for the work that they've done. I'd also like to thank all of our parents our teachers our educators and our organisations that came to present and to tell us their views.In addressing the Hon Nikki Kaye when she said Why are we doing this?" we're listening to our teachers we're listening to our educators. So many of the teachers I talked to in South Auckland have told us they would like to get rid of partnership schools. I come from an electorate that has and that serves a lot of Pacific and Māori students students the partnership school model is supposedly addressing. But can I refer to the submissions that were made; these are in the words of those submitters. They said they are supporting the removal of partnership schools because partnership schools failed to bring about significant improvement to academic performance. They're supporting it because students with learning support needs and disabilities are not well served by this model. They said they're supporting it because the model was not well designed and it was having a negative effect on the State system.I strongly support this bill and I'm very happy that we're bringing the Education Amendment Bill forward. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to take a really—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Madam Assistant Speaker.JO LUXTON: —quick call—Madam Assistant Speaker sorry—on this piece of legislation on the part that I think really aligns really well with what this Government stands for which is the people—the people. What this legislation is going to do is ensure that mum and dad consumers are going to get really good clear sound quality financial advice. We know that that's really important because often this is around things where people are looking to purchase a home start a business or to what to do for retirement and I think it's really really important that good quality sound advice is given to people when making those decisions.I also really like the fact that the legislation is going to allow people to have robo-advice rather than having advice from a natural person. I think that's going to make things more easily accessible as far as financial aspects go because it will ensure that people that wouldn't ordinarily get financial advice are going to get it through robo-advice and it will be a cheaper option for businesses also. I really commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. I really just want to talk about one thing tonight and that's what I think is probably the most important part of this bill and that is new section 431J inserted by clause 27 which really talks about conflicts of interest. Whilst sometimes the wrongs that are wrought upon investors are easy to see when something fails because they have been poorly represented conflicts of interest can be somewhat more insidious. Many times an investor won't know that the advice that they're receiving is being influenced by other things whether it be by the soft commissions of a trip to Sydney or Fiji or whether it be by more concrete measures—the 5 percent they get for churning investments from one provider to another. So can I commend the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee on the fine work it's done in strengthening in that provision not only the conflict of interest rules themselves but the identification of associated persons.Really all I want to say is I hope that as this comes to find its way through to codes of conduct and so on and possibly through the courts this is recognised as a key provision one which should be expansively interpreted for the protection of investors. For that reason I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. It does give me great pleasure to rise on this bill and the consensus that I'm seeing and feeling about the need to protect vulnerable New Zealanders—I think the words are mum and dad investors". Mum and dad New Zealanders are to be protected. I'm just looking for that consensus continuing when we talk about housing over the next few days and weeks because we are all agreed that there are many people in this world who do need the protection of the State.We're in the financial system—I mean we go back to the State and internationally we've always tried to protect people. We can go back to the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 which was a way to protect the world economies countries by imposing the gold standard until of course Mr Siegmund Warburg sort of ruined that. We have the wild west of the financial world which we see now and other speakers have spoken about the global financial crisis (GFC). Well the GFC there was nothing really—that's not what we're protecting against. I mean don't forget that in the GFC the products that dragged us all down had triple A ratings from international credit agencies.No the people need protection from the everyday advice. It's not really even protection from the troughs and it's not even from the highs and lows; it's from the everyday advice. I know from personal experience of people who got advice from the family lawyer or the family accountant. They were well-meaning. They weren't crooks. They just didn't really know what they were talking about and sent people off into investments and it was those investments that cost families their money as much as it was the big highs and lows of our GFCs.So it's a very short call. At the risk of incurring the ire or the wrath of my whip—I've incurred the ire this week of several members of my party so at this stage I will just say that this is a very good piece of legislation and I look forward to this consensus continuing."
Robertson GrantFINANCIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: I move That the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.The bill reforms the regulation of financial advice in New Zealand. Its overall objective is to promote the confident and informed participation of investors and consumers in financial markets. The bill also makes changes to reduce the misuse of the Financial Service Providers Register. The bill has been reported back by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee with a unanimous recommendation that it be passed with amendments.I would like to thank the members of the committee for their careful consideration of this complex bill. The committee considered more than 70 submissions covering a range of matters. Most of those submissions supported the policy intent of the bill but the committee has recommended some important changes ensuring that the bill achieves its policy intent. These changes will be covered in later speeches by members of the Government. I kindly and fully recommend this bill to the House.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Chair. Following on from my colleague Nicky Wagner's intervention around the inquiries there are some pretty beefy powers contained in this piece of legislation and one of those powers that did concern the Governance and Administration Committee—and to which we have a proposed amendment—is in section 10 of the State Sector Act which provides for access which provides for the provision of documents and a requirement for employees to answer questions.If you think about that provision it is pretty wide-ranging. It must be incredibly intimidating for those who are caught up in the subject of an inquiry. I'm very mindful of what Ian McKelvie said previously which is that we're not just talking about hypotheticals here. We are talking about real incidences where there has been an inquiry triggered a certificate has been issued and that process which has just been well canvassed by the Hon Nicky Wagner is in train. Now here the rubber hits the road where under section 10 of this power there is an absolute requirement for access to an office access to a building within certain conditions of course. There needs to be a period of notice and there needs to be consideration around that time where that office say for the purposes of this argument is there.But in the bill as drafted the State Services Commissioner's powers of entry at least to a broader range of inquiries would have started with a wider range of triggers. I think it's also really important to note that powers of entry are not used often—in fact very rarely used—but they also provide a very important component in the undertaking of an inquiry. The committee having considered section 10 of the principal Act has proposed an amendment in new clause 8A that entry should be made only if the commissioner has first obtained the agreement of the Minister of State Services. That is a fettering or limiting of the power of the bill as it was introduced because when the bill was introduced the commissioner would have had quite a wide power to enter the premises of a State services entity where an inquiry is launched and where an inquiry is launched into a matter of integrity. So clause 8A constrains this power. Clause 8A would require the commissioner to obtain the consent of the Minister of State Services before exercising that power to enter the premises. I would imagine that would provide cold comfort to those who are on the receiving end of an inquiry such as this and who work in an office or an environment which is subject to an inquiry but they should take some comfort that this recommendation in clause 8A which amends section 10 limits the power and constrains the power of the commissioner to enter premises.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm very happy to respond briefly to a couple of issues raised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I understand—I briefly had to duck out to attend to a call of nature but I understand that he was raising issues around—Hon Member: Too much information.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —it's too much information yes; I apologise—whether entities other than State agencies should be exempted from the Privacy Act considerations as State agencies will now be as part of this bill. I actually think there is some validity to the argument that Dr Smith might have been making but it would fall outside of the remit of this bill. But I think that it is something that the House may wish to consider and that there'll probably be opportunities to consider as we look for example at the rewrite of the Privacy Act and also work around the Protected Disclosures Act for example as to how we could deal with those issues.With regard to the issues around codes of conduct just to reiterate the points that I made earlier I'll perhaps refer people to the departmental report that was provided to the Governance and Administration Committee paragraph 33: A code of conduct issued by the Commissioner cannot override undercut or otherwise interfere with Board members' statutory duties or any statutorily independent functions as the statute will prevail." This bill has been amended to absolutely crystallise and guarantee that but the report does go on to specify that there might be variations in the code of conduct and specify the reasons why that might be. The report notes that the "operational context of an agency or of particular persons or groups of persons." might be different and the commissioner therefore has "discretion to issue modified codes to different types of entities or different persons or groups of persons."The example that it cites is actually an example from the core Public Service where the Public Service code of conduct has been modified in the case of political advisers or ministerial advisers in Ministers' offices because they cannot do their jobs if they operate in a completely politically neutral and independent manner. There are parts of the Public Service code of conduct that quite rightly should apply to them but there are parts that if applied to them would stop them from doing their jobs and so the State Services Commissioner in recognising that has issued a modified version of the code for them. What the provisions in the bill allow is for the commissioner to issue a code of conduct and then if necessary issue modified codes of conduct depending on the particular statutory functions of an entity concerned or the people within that."
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The member who's just resumed his seat Brett Hudson raised a lengthy and interesting issue which I'm sure the Attorney-General at some point would be more than happy to comment on in great detail and that was around the issues of cross-references in legislation. I can say that in the almost decade that I have been in the House this is something that has frustrated I think many a lawmaker and many a law interpreter. I'm sure at some point as we tidy up our statute book in New Zealand it's something that we'll get better at. I think that the statute book that we have in New Zealand could do with a significant amount of housekeeping and I know that successive Attorneys-General including the current one are working on that very process.The more substantive issue was around: would there be one code of conduct or many codes of conduct? I think that's a really important issue to raise and I'd simply draw at this point the member's attention to an amendment made during the select committee process which made it very clear that any specific provision does not limit or affect any other provision in the Act in terms of the conduct of a member. Their statutory requirements if they have statutorily defined requirements would not be affected by a code of conduct.But there's another related issue which I think cuts to the heart of the concern the member was raising which is around where people are subject to more than one code. The code of conduct that applies to the Crown entity board might not be the only code that they have to comply with because the Crown entity itself may be regulating for example a profession where there's another code that's in existence. For example the Code of Conduct for Directors of Victorian Public Entities in Australia states explicitly that it should be read in conjunction with any professional code" that establishes "specific behaviours relevant to that profession." If I go the UK Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies it applies in addition to any duties of directors under company law or duties of trustees under charities law.I think what the drafting of this is getting to is that—you know I can't envisage that the commissioner would be issuing willy-nilly lots of codes of conduct but I think what they do need to have the ability to do is take into account other codes of conduct that those same people might be subject to."
Tolley AnnePart 2 Amendments to State Sector Act 1988CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This brings us to Part 2 the debate on clauses 6 to 17 and schedules 2 and 3 relating to the amendments to the State Sector Act 1988.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I think the Hon David Carter raised a very legitimate point which is around preserving the political neutrality of New Zealand's public services. I think that's something that we should all jealously guard in this House. It's something that New Zealand is internationally recognised for. It's something that we should be incredibly proud of.With regard to Crown entities I'd point out that actually Crown entities are probably one of the most political parts of the Public Service because the boards of those are political appointees. The boards of all of the Crown entities are appointed by Ministers through a Cabinet process through a collective process obviously but it's a political one—unlike say a chief executive of a public sector agency where that is appointed by the State Services Commissioner independent of Ministers. So actually there are more safeguards within the core Public Service for that political neutrality than there is within the Crown entities sector.Ministers send letters of expectation for example to the boards of Crown entities setting out what their expectations are—and this is not something that this Government's introduced; it's something that has existed for a very long time—for how that board will operate. So it seems to me: why would a Government be sending a letter of expectations to a board around these matters and then the commissioner potentially could be recommending something that was completely contrary to the expectations that the Government have sent to the board. I think that would set them up for—if the board has to consider Government expectations then the commissioner should also have to consider Government expectations.I do think that the Hon David Carter has raised a legitimate point around preserving that political neutrality though and I was concerned in the contribution of the Hon Dr Nick Smith where he talked about the desire of the previous Government in making an appointment to the chief executive job role for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment that they specified that they wanted someone from the private sector. In fact that would be contrary to the State Sector Act. The commissioner makes the appointments for a Public Service chief executive. The idea that the Ministers in the Government were directing the commissioner as to who it should appoint would seriously undermine the political neutrality of the Public Service.So I think thus far in this debate the only evidential basis we've seen for any undermining of that political neutrality is actually from the illustration that Dr Smith raised with regard to the previous Government.