edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
5. Emergency Housing—Motel Purchases and State Housing SalesCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Associate Minister for Social HousingEmergency Housing—Motel Purchases and State Housing Sales5. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Associate Minister for Social Housing: What motels has the Government purchased in response to the increased emergency housing demand and how much has this cost?Hon ALFRED NGARO (Associate Minister for Social Housing): I would like to thank the member for the opportunity to speak about this innovative new transitional housing approach which is making a real difference to the lives of New Zealanders. The Government has purchased two motels and in the next few days will settle the purchase of a further two motels. These motels will provide warm dry and safe transitional housing for those in need. That is helping 220 families. The total cost of those two settled purchases is $4.8 million.Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary question. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If we had less response coming from my right then I could assist.Carmel Sepuloni: How does he reconcile the purchase of a motel in Gisborne that provides 19 emergency housing spaces with a loss of 62 State houses in the area and would it not make more sense to provide long-term State housing than short-term emergency motel accommodation?Hon ALFRED NGARO: What would make sense is providing accommodation for the needs of those—even in that area. Motels accommodate large numbers of people in multiple units located centrally and are often close to other services that are provided.Carmel Sepuloni: How does he reconcile the purchase of a motel in Blenheim that provides 17 emergency housing spaces with the loss of 29 State houses in the area and would it not make more sense to provide long-term State housing rather than short-term emergency motel accommodation?Hon ALFRED NGARO: I do not know all the details of that motel but what I can say about that motel—it is still in the early stages. The negotiations are still in place.Carmel Sepuloni: How does he reconcile the recent purchase of one emergency housing space in the Hawke's Bay with the loss of 137 State houses in Napier alone and is he looking into the purchase of two more motels for emergency accommodation use to make up for the shortfall?Hon ALFRED NGARO: I can confirm for the member as was in a press release last week that there are two purchases. These are still to be settled in the Bay of Plenty area. Those will be purchased very soon and those settlements should be made in the next few days.Carmel Sepuloni: Will he admit that if his Government had not reduced the number of State houses by 2500 then his Government would not need to spend $100000 a day putting homeless New Zealanders up in motels?Hon ALFRED NGARO: What I would admit to is that this is the first Government in the 2016 Budget that has committed $354 million to emergency housing—the first Government that has made a commitment around housing in the Housing First initiative which I know the member actually supports.
Nash Stuart; Tisch LindsayENHANCING IDENTITY VERIFICATION AND BORDER PROCESSES LEGISLATION BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 22 June.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I wonder whether I am going to have time to draw breath. What I will say is that we are supporting the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. This has arisen when that despicable character Phillip John Smith absconded from the country. We have got to remember that this is a guy who was convicted of paedophilia and then murdered someone. Luckily—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Faafoi Kris; Tisch Lindsay; Robertson Grant; Ross Jami-LeeKRIS FAAFOI (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just clarify with you Mr Assistant Speaker—I understand it is the right of the Māori Party not to vote—how that non-vote will be recorded?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well it is not recorded. We are recording only those votes that are cast by the various parties. A party does not have to exercise its right to vote and some abstain. Some parties may not wish to vote. So in this case the whip for the Government who holds the proxies for various parties has not exercised the right for the Māori Party and that is quite proper.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is just a minor point. I just want to check with you. It is normal practice when not all votes are cast for the Clerk to ask whether there are any other votes. Does that not apply when a party does not do that?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Clerk asked for the Māori Party vote. The Māori Party did not exercise its right. The whip who usually holds the proxy vote for the Māori Party did not exercise that right. So that point is covered.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): Firstly Mr Assistant Speaker I must apologise. I came in part-way through which is why I am breathing heavily from running. The situation was that the holder of the proxy vote—me—was asked not to exercise proxies from a certain time. We have since been advised that the Māori Party is able to exercise proxies so I seek leave to cast two votes in favour of the bill that has just been passed and to have the vote amended.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I will ask the senior whip then—the vote. I will ask the Clerk to ask for the vote for the Māori Party and I will ask the senior whip to exercise that right.Members the vote on the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee is that the Ayes are 60 and the Noes are 58 so the amendments are agreed to. The vote on the second reading is that the Ayes are 60 and the Noes are 58 and the motion on the second reading is agreed to.KRIS FAAFOI (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My understanding is that we have already voted and that the House can only correct a vote not take the vote again which I understand just happened.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No the senior whip sought leave and there was no objection to the leave and that is why I asked the Clerk to ask what the Māori Party's vote was. We have had that and I have now recorded what that vote was. There was leave sought. You could have objected to that if you wished but the senior whip did seek leave. So that is the end of the matter.KRIS FAAFOI (Senior Whip—Labour): Sorry but that was not my point. My point was that we had already progressed past the point where the bill had been read so the vote could only be corrected not taken again.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well no by leave—I will just have to seek clarification. By leave—and I am correct in what I have done.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill. I think it is a fantastic step forward and it really comes out of the expert panel's report on modernising Child Youth and Family which was released in April of last year. Some very strong words came from the previous speaker Louisa Wall and I admire her passion. I do not agree but I admire her passion.That report found quite clearly that the child was not at the centre of the legislation and that was a major part of the discussion. I was not involved with this bill all the way through but I did sit on the Social Services Committee for a good part of its consideration and there was a lot of passionate discussion. I would like to take an opportunity to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata who on that committee made an invaluable contribution around definitions and so on and the language. It really highlighted to me what a terrific loss what a tremendous loss we are going to have in this Parliament when she leaves after the election. I pay tribute to her because she has been a fantastic Minister of Education as everyone knows—probably one of the best ever. But to see her contribution in other areas—my admiration has grown significantly since sitting on that committee with her.One of the earlier speakers said it takes a village to raise a child and I totally agree with that but we must do that in a way that will ensure that when that child comes under State purview they are in a safe and loving home and environment. To not do that is really to abdicate the role of the State to give that child a chance at a happy childhood and to grow up through that. They are not going to be torn away from their cultural identity. In fact we spent hours on that very point to ensure that it was covered in the legislation and around the words. It seems legal definitions are things that people can get quite het up about but the language has to be clear and in my belief it is clear in this bill. This is about keeping children at the centre of this legislation and ensuring that they have a fair crack at life and can maintain their cultural identity and roots. It is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2). It must be time for the retiring members of the Local Government and Environment Committee to round off the debate following Mr Parker. I too was on the committee. While I was on the committee Mr Parker did often speak a lot of sense however in regard to that contribution I must absolutely disagree.This bill is about creating a framework to be improved to create flexibility and to allow councils to think laterally about how best to manage their infrastructure and services and how best to manage complex issues moving forward. We can see that the issues facing especially the regions are quite diverse now as we face issues such as depopulation and obviously providing essential services without the rating base. So councils do have to think laterally about how to solve those problems and to think about driving regional development forward with of course the support of the Government.This bill allows that. It is a no obligation" way forward to look at the benefits of council-controlled organisations (CCOs). What this bill allows is for several councils in a region to come together and pool their resources to effectively manage infrastructure or services moving forward. This is the case in Southland. The members opposite have ranted and raved about the disadvantages of amalgamation and that debate too is going on in Southland. There are very much people who do not want to see our four councils amalgamated and there is the opposing view of people who want to see those four councils brought together as one.However what those councils have done is that—in the past they have always worked together but as we have continued to develop our regional strategy they are looking to formalise that relationship as to how to drive the goals of the action plan forward. A CCO is mentioned. Why is a CCO mentioned? It is because these governance arrangements allow the right people to be put in the right job to deliver results and often elected officials do not necessarily have the appropriate skills to do that. So this is about allowing a flexible framework and one that improves the framework to deliver the best results. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House."
Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Ā mauri ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Can I just start off by first saying that this particular bill has been supported by Local Government New Zealand and also by the Society of Local Government Managers. Let us just be very clear just to start this off.One of the things about this bill is that one of the Government's key priorities is improving public services that are available in New Zealand. We know that a lot of our front-line public services are actually provided by local authorities be they city district or regional councils. This bill empowers local authorities to provide better core services for their constituents—for their constituents. That is what the National-led Government's better local services reforms—this is what they are all about. All of that is about advancing this particular bill.One of the major provisions of the bill allows councils to take advantage of opportunities to operate in a more efficient way and to make better use—better use—of ratepayers' money. This could be through joint ownership of council-controlled organisations (CCOs) where these CCOs can control infrastructure that benefits more than one council.There is also for the first time the opportunity for councils to lead reorganisations rather than any sort of reorganisation being initiated from the Local Government Commission. That is a very very important part of this bill. This will be particularly relevant in areas where there is no desire for large-scale amalgamation but a smaller reorganisation would be in the interests of both areas.The important thing throughout this bill is that it provides for changes in council structure to be locally led. There are also many other benefits for local councils found in the bill. It allows for greater use of council-controlled organisations. It makes the Local Government Commission more transparent and that is the reason why Local Government New Zealand and also the Society of Local Government Managers actually backed this bill in the end—they backed this bill.The National-led Government has led a huge improvement in the level of public services and this is just another small part of the programme that we have embarked on to bring better public services to New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) in its second reading. Since we are talking about local government I just want to start by acknowledging the Waimakariri District Council; the leadership of its mayor David Ayers; the CEO Jim Palmer; and the whole of the council for their leadership post-earthquake. It is fair to say that due to the capability the strength and the resilience of the council it has shown clear leadership and that is why the Waimakariri has bounced back strongly since the earthquakes.It is worth noting though that Kaiapoi was one of the most hard-hit towns. Kaiapoi used to have a council of its own before the towns of Waimakariri came together under one council. And you would say that post that devastating earthquake in 2010 the Kaiapoi council would not have had the scale and capability to respond to the sheer devastation of that first earthquake in 2010. So I suppose the point of that example is to clearly show that economies of scale are something that we should be looking at. And I think when you look at the underpinning of this bill it is about economies of scale and how councils can come together in the form of council-controlled organisations (CCOs) to improve service delivery improve infrastructure and drive down costs. There would not be one electorate MP or list MP in this Chamber today who has not had a multiple of constituent appointments about their council and how they get better value for their rates. And I think this is exactly what this bill is about.It also shows very clearly around the legislative process—we had the first bill which was introduced in the version around CCOs and the councils. In that first draft it was not necessary that all councils agreed to the CCOs. We heard submissions. As people round the House have said there were 188 submissions—75 from local authorities and CCOs 59 from individual submitters and 13 from community organisations. From that this bill has changed somewhat and it comes back in the form it is in now in its second reading.What that leaves open now is council needing to agree to the formulation of a CCO. What it basically means is that councils need to be open to the Government's arrangements to drive up that service improvement and infrastructure. When we look at one example of a CCO—transport has been highlighted specifically in Canterbury. Post-earthquakes we have had a lot of trouble around transport and transport solutions. We have had multiple councils involved. Getting them together under a CCO will provide that clear vision where they can come up with an integrated transport package—unlike I suppose what the Labour Party has thrown at transport recently in Christchurch with its $100 million rail announcement that clearly only targets west Christchurch and not all those commuters in north Christchurch. So what we are looking at is a bill that will ultimately drive further service improvement it will drive down costs but also it will give many constituents of ours the feeling they are getting better value for money with their rates. Thank you.
Bridges SimonTHURSDAY 29 JUNE 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 4 July the Government will look to complete the Land Transfer Bill and the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill and to progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper. On Thursday morning the House will sit under extended hours for the second readings of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill and the first reading of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill.
Wednesday 28 June 2017 - Volume 723
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Electoral (Equitable Process for Establishing Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 71New Zealand National 58; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion not agreed to.
Local Electoral (Equitable Process for Establishing Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 107New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a second time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 107 Noes 19.Name changed to Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill.
12. Foreign Affairs Minister—Nuclear Weapons ConventionDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Foreign AffairsForeign Affairs Minister—Nuclear Weapons Convention12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he support the negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention currently under way in New York which would result in States' parties agreeing to prohibit the manufacture possession and use of nuclear weapons; if not why not?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Yes.Dr Kennedy Graham: Will the Minister encourage his counterparts in all the nuclear weapons States to participate in the negotiations?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes. We think it is a good idea to take part in negotiations for this convention. Of course it is at a very early stage. It is really in draft treaty phase and is still subject to I think quite a long period of negotiations.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that in fact the negotiations are not that far away from completion and that a text could be open for signature possibly by July 7 does the Minister share the pride felt by New Zealand citizens that our disarmament ambassador is one of the vice-chairs of the negotiations?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We share the pride.Dr Kennedy Graham: In the fullness of sharing the pride why did the Minister oppose the Green Party's amendment to the notice of motion of 8 June calling upon all States to support the ongoing negotiations for the convention in which New Zealand is actively engaged?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Because the motion was to mark 30 years of our nuclear-free legislation which has become a defining aspect of this country's international reputation in which we can all share the pride not to discuss ongoing United Nations negotiations. New Zealand continues to work strongly for a nuclear weapon - free world.
11. Disability Issues Minister—Marrakesh TreatySIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for Disability IssuesDisability Issues Minister—Marrakesh Treaty11. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What announcements has she made regarding improved access to written materials for blind visually impaired and otherwise print-disabled New Zealanders?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): The Government has announced that it will join the Marrakesh treaty. That is an international framework that will enable the reproduction of books and other literary works in accessible formats. Simon O'Connor: How will the Marrakesh treaty benefit disabled New Zealanders? Hon NICKY WAGNER: An estimated 90 percent of all written materials worldwide are not published in accessible formats such as Braille audio or large print. For about 168000 New Zealanders with a print disability this is a barrier to participation in public life and restricts employment education and recreation. This treaty will make a meaningful change to the lives of thousands of New Zealanders by ensuring that they have access to a greater variety of books and other publications in accessible formats. It also supports the Government's vision for creating a non-disabling society as outlined in the New Zealand Disability Strategy. I wish to thank my colleagues the Hon Paul Goldsmith and the Hon Jacqui Dean as well as the Blind Foundation the Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand and other advocates for their hard work in making this happen.
8. Primary Sector—Growth and Government Support for Environmental ChallengesBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki—King Country) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesPrimary Sector—Growth and Government Support for Environmental ChallengesBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki—King Country): My question is to the Minister for Primary Industries—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear with the level of interjection. I am going to have to give a couple of final warnings and one is going to be to Grant Robertson to just cut down.Grant Robertson: It wasn't me.Mr SPEAKER: Well I did not hear where it came from that time but members—Kris Faafoi: It was me.Mr SPEAKER: Oh Kris Faafoi has owned up so let us make it quite clear to Kris Faafoi that if he interjects again through question time I will ask him to leave.Kris Faafoi: Thank you.Mr SPEAKER: My pleasure.8. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki—King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: How is the Government supporting the primary sector to grow sustainably through science?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Minister Paul Goldsmith and I recently launched the Primary Sector Science Roadmap. Science will be a key driver in doubling the value of our overall primary sector exports by 2025. This roadmap will inform research conducted by New Zealand science and technology teams and organisations along with their international partners. It provides a shared view across the primary sector on the science and technology needs for the sector and where investment needs to be focused.Barbara Kuriger: How is the Government partnering with farmers and growers at a grassroots level to adapt to environmental challenges?Hon NATHAN GUY: That is a very good question. The Sustainable Farming Fund supports the primary sector's own forward thinking and its Kiwi ingenuity which in turn helps keep New Zealand ahead of the game. One thousand projects have now been funded since the fund was initiated in 2000. This represents around $150 million in Government funding alongside a significant overall level of local support. Each project brings together farmers growers and foresters to work alongside scientists and researchers to solve a problem and overall seize opportunities.
3. Care and Support Workers—Pay Equity SettlementSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of HealthCare and Support Workers—Pay Equity SettlementSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): My question is to—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I gave warnings earlier. Chris Hipkins has not managed to hear it so I now direct it to him specifically. If he continues to interrupt at that sort of level then I will be asking him to leave early.3. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Health: What work is being undertaken to ensure that from 1 July 2017 55000 care and support workers will begin to be paid their share of the $2 billion pay equity settlement announced earlier this year?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Since the settlement was announced in April I have been receiving regular updates on the implementation. I am assured by the officials that that implementation is on track. I have been advised that all providers have indicated that they are ready to pay eligible employees the increased hourly wages from 1 July. Funds will be transferred to 653 providers by the end of this week. That will enable providers to have funds in their accounts to pay the 55000 workers from next week. This is part of this year's $880 million increase in Vote Health the largest increase in 11 years.Sarah Dowie: Can the Minister confirm how much extra employees will receive from the settlement?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This dedicated and predominantly female workforce who are mostly on or around the minimum wage will receive a pay rise of between around 15 percent and 50 percent depending on their experience and/or their qualifications. For the 20000 workers currently on the minimum wage it means they will move to at least $19 per hour a 21 percent pay rise. For a full-time worker this means they will be taking home around an extra $100 a week which is over $5000 per year in the hand. This will make a massive difference to some of the hardest-working most deserving but lowest-paid people in this country and their families.
Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill — First Reading
Genter Julie AnneJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Kia ora. The Green Party congratulates the member on having her bill drawn. We support the bill as it will hopefully improve immunisation rates.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tuatahi māku e mihi atu ana au ki a koe e te tuahine Marama Davidson kua kapohia nei tō pire mai i te pōtae hei kaupapa totohe mā tātau hei kai mā tātou i tēnei ahi pō e mihi atu ana au ki a koe me te tū ki te tautoko i tō pire.[Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. The first thing for me is to congratulate you sister colleague Marama Davidson now that your bill has been drawn from the hat as a proposal for us to debate and to chew over this evening I acknowledge you and rise to support your bill.] I stand in support of this bill. I want to just address some of the comments that have been made surprisingly from that side of the House and also from this side of the House. I want to start with Mr Ron Mark's contribution on this particular bill and his pulling on the uniform and everyone is equal. I say to that member was Mr Haane Mānahi equal when he was denied the Victoria Cross? Were so many other soldiers of the 28th Māori Battalion equal when they were denied honours in their brave service for this country? I was offended by those comments from that member. I hope that sometime soon he and I will get to sit down and I will give him a bit of 28th Māori Battalion history.To the laughing members on that side of the House if they want to hear public voices on this matter let it go to the select committee. Be brave and let it go to the select committee where experts where the voting public and where the general public will be allowed to make submissions on this matter. I am pretty sure I am confident that the public will have something to say as Joanne Hayes has mentioned. Well let us give them that opportunity. Let us allow them the opportunity to front up to a select committee and make a submission on this particular bill.I also want to make comment about the moaning from that side of the House about the cost of a referendum. I think that is a little bit rich coming from that side of the House after a failed attempt by that Government to change the flag. While I agree I wanted to hear what the country had to say that was a lot of money that could have been used for so many other things—so many other things. So I think it rather rich for that side of the House to moan about the cost of such an exercise.I will not take up too much more time of the House but I do want to say to my tuahine Marama Davidson congratulations. I think what you are doing is noble. I think that the country should be allowed to have its say on this particular matter. I also hope that it continues to spark a debate amongst all of our people across this country about Māori voter turnout. That is a real issue. That is a real issue in both central government elections and local body elections. We know that local body elections in particular have a very very low turnout of Māori voters. Perhaps that might have something to do with the lack of Māori faces on the ballot paper—I am not too sure. Maybe this bill will address that. But sadly from that side of the House we are not hearing the support for this particular bill. But I stand in support of it. Kia ora Mr Speaker.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak to this bill. The underlying theme of this bill is to increase Māori representation in local government consistent with issues of partnership and Te Tiriti and the fact that maybe 3.6 percent of council seats across the country are held by Māori against a population proportion of maybe 15 percent. The current mechanisms as they stand the status quo for establishing or maintaining general wards is consideration by councils every 6 years. The status quo to establish Māori wards is 5 percent of the electors requesting a poll and that poll will be binding for at least two elections. Polling comes at a cost. We know that from the Waikato Regional Council who reported the cost of a poll for them at about $73000. So certainly the second action does come at a cost.This bill seeks to have the same criteria for establishing and maintaining Māori wards as it does for general wards. If we look at the history of Māori wards legislation we have the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001. Then in 2004 we have the three Māori seats created by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council three of them in a 13-member council. So there was a 2001 Act and in 2004 it enabled and brought some of the first Māori seats through—three of them in a council of 13. Between these dates national legislation was passed—the Local Electoral Act 2001. Partly because it was so cumbersome to do the Bay of Plenty Regional Council legislation and so acrimonious it was decided as a Parliament that we should do this under national legislation. And so the Local Electoral Act 2001 was enabled allowing Māori wards to be established. Contemporaneously in recent years the Waikato Regional Council has established two Māori wards—the first Ngā Hau e Whā led by Tipa Māhuta and the second Ngā Tai ki Uta led by Kataraina Hodge.The question has to be: what is the public appetite for this? Not that we should always be led by that but we should certainly be informed by it. Well we get some sense of what it is right now from the recent New Plymouth poll where 83 percent voted against it. As my colleague has said the Electoral Act 2001 already provides mechanisms for the establishment of Māori wards but they have not been taken up. This is my main point—the mechanism is already in place. It is a little cumbersome and it comes at a cost—I accept that—but it is in place and not taken up. The goal of increasing Māori representation is valiant and I support this but by the same mechanisms that are slowly giving us more Māori doctors more Māori nurses—3481 nurses in 2011 and another 500 by 2017; an increase of 14 percent—and more Māori MPs. I stand here today as one of three MPs in Te Tai Tokerau who for the first time ever are all Māori MPs.Let us do this on merit. Let us educate and train in governance. Let us continue the momentum that Māori so clearly have and increase Māori representation on merit because we are here doing it and I believe it can be done. Thank you.
Davis KelvinKELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): The member who just resumed his seat Nuk Korako asked why you would go against the will of the public when it comes to improving the process for Māori wards to be formed. I have got a couple of words in answer to that: Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is the reason—that is the reason why that Government over there should be at least considering this bill. He stands there proud to be a Māori and yet he forgets about our founding document Te Tiriti o Waitangi.The explanatory note of the bill says that the law currently says: if a territorial authority or regional council resolves to establish a Māori ward or constituency a poll on the issue must be held if 5 percent of the electors of the city district or region request it. The result of such a poll is binding on the authority or the council for at least two elections." Here is the crunch: "There is no equivalent requirement applicable to the establishment of general wards or constituencies." This is about evening up that process. It is about Te Tiriti o Waitangi—making sure that Māori interests are not lost because of the interests of the electorate that Nuk Korako talks about.This goes to the heart of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It goes to the heart of the Waitangi Tribunal's decision. In stage one of Te Paparahi o Te Raki Tribunal report it says that Ngāpuhi did not cede sovereignty. For all intents and purposes sovereignty has disappeared from Ngāpuhi even if in our hearts we believe that we still have a measure of sovereignty. But this one bill could go some way to addressing the imbalance by allowing the process by which Māori wards are established to be equal to that of the process to establish non-Māori wards. That is just a little way that in 21st century New Zealand we could try to live that decree of the Waitangi Tribunal about Ngāpuhi not ceding sovereignty. It is just one small measure. It is one way in 21st century New Zealand that we could have a decent conversation around what it means if Māori did not cede sovereignty.It is so disappointing to hear a Māori MP stand up say he is happy to be a Māori standing for Parliament and that he hopes to win a seat down in the South Island yet he is forgetting the very founding document that was signed between our ancestors in 1840. It is so disappointing but not surprising. The members of that party over there—of course they are not going to support this. They have put it in their policy that they are going to abolish the Māori seats. The member just spoke about how he has got so much respect for his Māori colleagues and six of the seven Māori seats are over here yet he is part of a party that is going to abolish the Māori seats. That to me is unacceptable. Kia ora."
Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill — Second Reading (continued)
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am going to be very brief. I am a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. We are as a Labour Party supporting this piece of legislation. So I do want to congratulate Sarah Dowie in whose name this Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill has been submitted—well who now has responsibility for it; it was initially submitted under the name of the Hon David Bennett.I just wanted to note that when I spoke at the first reading I purported that there would possibly be hundreds of submissions and in fact we had two. But in saying that I do have to commend the quality of those submitters. They were the New Zealand Law Society and also Professor Campbell McLachlan QC Jack Wass and Dr Maria Hook from Victoria University. Almost all of their recommendations have been accepted by the select committee.I want to highlight as they did in their submissions that the bill largely adopts the scheme and language of Part III of the UK Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1995. The only thing really to add is that the Law Society in particular highlighted that that law given it has been operating since 1995 will be helpful in providing recourse to a body of case law to assist with the interpretation and application of legislation in New Zealand.There is not really much I can add in terms of the commentary that we have heard tonight. I think we are going to have an interesting Committee stage debate and I think I will leave my definitions and further contributions to this bill until that stage. Thank you.
O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I too am going to take only a very short call on this particular bill important though it may be in its own right. I really have only three comments to make. The first is that I do want to commend my colleagues on the Justice and Electoral Committee for the attention they paid to this bill and in preparing it for the second reading. I think it is a job well done on their part.Secondly I want to make it perfectly clear that New Zealand First has no issue with the content of this bill itself. It is quite clear that the codification and clarification of the law in the way this bill does is well worthwhile and is something that has been needed for some time. As David Clendon said it will mean that New Zealand will catch up with similar jurisdictions. So I do not have any particular issues to raise with regard to the technicality of the bill.Nevertheless I do want to explain thirdly why New Zealand First will still be voting against it. The reason is simply this: we do not want to reward the Government for not making this a Government bill. That is what it should have been: a Government bill and not a member's bill. Those opposite may think this is not an important point but we do think it is an important point and it is important because the spaces available for genuine members' bills should not be taken up in the way that has been done with this bill. This bill is quite clearly by its highly technical nature a bill that should have been brought forward by the Government itself as a stand-alone bill with the full force of the advice available from Government departments to assist the select committee and the Parliament in assessing and dealing with a matter of this complexity. It is just not a suitable subject for a member's bill.When it comes from a Government member they ought to know that a bill of this kind should be brought forward as a Government bill and not as a member's bill. For that reason only New Zealand First will not reward the Government by giving our votes in favour of this bill even though we have no issue with the content of the bill itself. We shall be voting against it for that reason and that reason only.
Clendon DavidDAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take what will be quite a short moment to speak to this bill to express firstly that the Greens will be supporting this bill in its passing through. I have to say this to me is a bill that only a lawyer could love. We have heard words like fascinating" and "electrifying". Sadly I do not quite share the passion for bills like the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill. Nevertheless that is not to say it is not a worthy bill; we know it is a necessary piece of legislation. We know this because the two submitters told us so at some length.The Law Society and the three learned academics who did submit to the bill were not modest in their contribution but I am sure it was very helpful to those with a much better grip of these matters than I enjoy. I was interested to hear that even the Hon David Parker learnt something in the process of this bill. I also learnt a few things watching this bill go through the select committee but my starting point was somewhat closer to Mr Naylor's: being unsure exactly what a tort was. Had I seen the word in a trivia quiz I might have thought that perhaps it was something you would see in the window of a German bakery or some such but it proved not to be the case. I now know better than that. I did have the advantage—not unlike Mr Naylor—of having a senior executive assistant with a law degree and he was able to enlighten me about the basics of this matter at least.I thank Mr Foster-Bell for telling us that Chris Auchinvole first introduced this bill. With all due regard to Mr David Bennett I was struggling to associate a fairly dry technical legal bill with our learned friend Mr Bennett. It just did not seem to be his territory. Associated with our former colleague Chris Auchinvole it does seem to make a great deal more sense.It has been a learning opportunity. I can now speak with a level of confidence about double actionability and other exciting matters. It has been an interesting process. I think in all seriousness any piece of legislation that seeks to clarify and simplify law to remove ambiguity has got to be a good thing. Particularly the Law Society and the academics who contributed were quite keen on the fact that we are aligning our legislation with similar jurisdictions—the UK in particular. So on their good advice as I say the Greens are happy to support this legislation."
Voting — Correction—Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill
Borrows ChesterVOTINGCorrection—Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment BillMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I take the honourable member's call—members I need to indicate that during the second reading of the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill the vote was recorded as Ayes 107 Noes 19. The vote should have been Ayes 107 Noes 12. The record will be amended accordingly.
Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill — Second Reading
Carter David; Hipkins Chris; Bridges SimonSpeaker's Statement—Interjections Speaker's Role in JudgingMr SPEAKER: Just before I call question No. 2 there were quite a few emails through yesterday complaining about the level of interjection that I was allowing suggesting I was being a bit soft on some members. I may have to address that relatively quickly in this session unless—Kris Faafoi: They came from over there.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No they came from all sides of the House including from the member who just interjected. So I require more cooperation.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We too have had further correspondence as a result of question time yesterday and one of the points that I would ask you to consider is that you have taken a relatively strict approach to the questions that can be asked in relation to this matter and I also ask that in doing so you take a strict approach to the answers that can be given and where they deviate significantly from the questions that you are quick to shut those down as well.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again this is a point of order. It will be heard in silence unless members are quite keen to go back to their offices instead of having to enjoy—endure—question time.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think in fact reflecting on yesterday whilst your ruling at the start was I think very helpful what was in fact happening was that the questions were ultimately asking about something that there was not prime ministerial responsibility for. Nevertheless the Prime Minister was giving answers because the question was there. I think that in itself was part of the issue. So I do not think unlike Mr Hipkins over on the other side that it actually was necessarily a question of a strict interpretation of the questions at all; it was the fact that they were let through and that led to or was part of I think the situation we had. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need any assistance unless it is another point of order. On this matter I will adjudge the quality of the answers on each occasion. If I feel the answer is deviating significantly from addressing the question then I will certainly cease the answers and I will also if the question is relatively political give some latitude to the Minister or Prime Minister who is answering it.
1. Primary Sector—Reports Exports Commodity Prices and ProspectsIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of FinanceWEDNESDAY 28 JUNE 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSPrimary Sector—Reports Exports Commodity Prices and Prospects1. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the state of the rural economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Rabobank's latest rural confidence survey shows rural sector confidence rose to 54 percent in the June quarter double that of the previous quarter on the back of rising commodity prices. The survey shows that farmers are now more upbeat about their economic prospects than at any point since 2003 when the survey began. Of course rural sector confidence is important for the confidence of New Zealand's regions and the Westpac McDermott Miller Regional Economic Confidence Survey was released this morning and shows regional economic confidence continues to rise with the non-dairy areas of Nelson Marlborough and the West Coast leading the charge. Ian McKelvie: How have New Zealand's agricultural exports fared recently?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: According to the latest data from Statistics New Zealand strong demand for New Zealand produce saw merchandise exports in May rise to their highest monthly level in more than 3 years up 8.7 percent to just under $5 billion compared with the same month last year. That was on the back of strong demand for dairy particularly out of China with export values increasing by $342 million across the month. Other agricultural export categories such as beef and lamb forestry fruit and wine also saw increased demand in May. Ian McKelvie: How well placed is New Zealand to cope with commodity price swings?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Over the past 8 years the Government has worked to diversify the economy so that a sudden price change in one commodity does not adversely affect the rest of the economy and that has indeed happened as we have seen exports hold up while the dairy sector struggled. Diversification has occurred in the agricultural sector as dairy is now complemented by other fast-growing sectors such as horticulture and viticulture which are also helping us climb up the export value chain. The Government's economic plan is working as we saw recently when the overall economy continued to grow despite the dairy industry struggling.Ian McKelvie: What are the long-term prospects for the agricultural sector?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The long-term prospects are very good. New Zealand is well positioned near high-growth markets in South-east Asia where rising incomes are driving demand for the premium agricultural products this country produces including meat milk and fruit. We have of course an approach of adding value to volume. In 2016 primary products generated $37 billion in export revenues and that is forecast to grow to $45 billion by 2021 when it is expected to be equivalent to 14 percent of our economy. The Government continues to encourage primary sector growth through Trade Agenda 2030 ensuring greater market access for our farmers and export business.
Thursday 22 June 2017 - Volume 723
Outer Space and High-altitudes Activities Bill — In Committee