edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Salesa JennyJENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for this brief call on the Buildings (Pools) Amendment Bill. Clause 4 of this bill adds a specific responsibility for residential pool safety to the Act which is great. Clause 5 adds definitions to the Act and this clause has been heavily amended by the Local Government and Environment Committee. For instance the select committee recommended replacing the definitions of spa pool" and "hot tub" in clause 5 with a definition of "small heated pool". This definition will capture both of those terms "spa pool" and "hot tub". Consequently the committee recommended that all references to "spa pool" and "hot tub" throughout the bill be replaced with "small heated pool".Labour's support for this bill is contingent only on Jacinda Ardern's Supplementary Order Paper 208 being included in this bill. It is vital that New Zealand does everything that it can to protect our children from hazards such as drowning. We owe it to our kids—the future of our country. We must also observe our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to take the appropriate measures to diminish child and infant mortality.The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act of 1987 was designed to increase the safety of young children by requiring pool owners to fence certain swimming pools. Having proper fencing—which my colleague Jacinda Ardern spoke of earlier on—and ensuring that there is a fence between kids and pools actually stops drowning. Since that Act came into force about 30 or so years ago the number of young kids drowning has really decreased and in the last 20 or so years 56 young children have drowned outside their homes in New Zealand and two-thirds of these drownings have been in swimming pools.The current bill is said to possibly save up to 10 kids for every 6 years and because the kinds of pools that we are talking about are by their very nature temporary—some of these pools are just wading pools that are moved around by families—we have too many kids toddlers who drown at home. We should ensure that these kids are indeed as safe as possible. It is one of our responsibilities as members of this House.One of the biggest changes that have been made to this bill coming back from the select committee has been to increase the pool inspection cycle to require councils to inspect pools on a 3-yearly basis instead of every 5 years. Labour pushed very hard for this change and it is very pleased that the select committee supported it. Thank you so much."
Carter DavidVALEDICTORY STATEMENTSMr SPEAKER: In accordance with Standing Order 360(3) I call on the Hon Phil Goff to make his valedictory statement. I understand it is the wish of the House that should we adjourn earlier than 6 o'clock or slightly later than 6 o'clock we will then at that stage rise for the dinner break.
Rurawhe Adrian; Mallard TrevorADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te W'are nei. I would like to begin by suggesting some titles for this bill and my titles are derived from a quote that I read in the other parts of the Committee stage. It is from the New Zealand Principals' Federation and taking from what it said this bill could easily be called the Altering the Shape of Our Education System Bill". It could also be the "Changing Our Education System Without an Openly Expressed Rationale Bill".I refer to comments that I made in the first reading. I believe that this bill is really about preparing our education system for privatisation. That is what underpins this particular bill. The Education Legislation Bill makes several changes that do not really make any sense except if you were preparing the education system for a different pathway. I suggest to the Committee that the comments in the submission from the New Zealand Principals' Federation—namely that "On the surface they might be described as a collection of ill-conceived baseless changes which lack any intelligent rationale."—are pretty strong words and they are strong words that I think that this Committee should take note of. An organisation like the New Zealand Principals' Federation is a very important part of the New Zealand education system and that is why I stand here and say that those changes to charter schools—which we will never agree with on this side of the House—and the changes to how schools are managed are making a more corporate model for self-governing schools. If we go back to 1989 the whole notion of self-managed schools was in the legislation that was put up in 1989 and we need to examine this new legislation very closely for what it really does. I say to the Committee today that I do not agree with this particular piece of legislation. I believe that the title ought to be something quite different—more descriptive about what it actually does. So my contribution on this day albeit a very exciting day may be that I think in all seriousness that those particular clauses that make significant changes all add up to exactly what I said—preparing the education system for privatisation. In terms of the other part Part 2 of the bill I thought several of those issues within Part 2 ought to have been in a separate bill altogether. For example the changes that are made to the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Maori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund I think are parts of the bill that I do actually support. But Part 1 I think ought to be renamed the "Altering the Shape of Our Education System Without Any Expressed Rationale Bill" and the expressed rationale that ought to be in there is "privatising our education system". Thank you very much.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): In accordance with the Speaker's decision I will now report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Education Legislation Bill no progress on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill.Report adopted."
Mallard TrevorEDUCATION LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 14 September.Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): When we were last considering this bill we were debating clauses 1 and 2. Chris Hipkins had the call and if he wishes he has 15 seconds.
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take the last call on the Senior Courts Bill—which arises from the Judicature Modernisation Bill—in the third reading. I must say I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee in the 50th Parliament when I first came here and the Judicature Modernisation Bill was the very first bill that they put in front of me as we started going through it. I am pleased that I get to actually have a little bit of a say in a speech on the legislation just before it receives the Royal assent. Essentially this legislation—as everybody has said—is modernising how our courts are administered. It is modernising how our services are delivered to the public and the expectations of the public as to what they expect from the court system and it is taking the focus off the papers and the building and putting the focus back on to victims and the customers who use the court system. The select committee has done a wonderful job. The Minister of Justice Amy Adams has carried this legislation right through to its fruition and she too has done an excellent job on the legislation. It only leaves me to commend the legislation to the House. Thank you very much.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Senior Courts Bill which was previously the Judicature Modernisation Bill in support of this piece of legislation that looks to improve the flexibility responsiveness and transparency of New Zealand's court system. This is going to be a very brief call. We have already heard members opposite and members from this side of the House traversing the different intricacies of this legislation but the one thing that I think I will touch on is the clarification around the use of audiovisual links with regard to sentencing. Last week during the adjournment I was honoured to go and visit staff at Invercargill Prison. It was an exceptional visit and they were quite passionate about the use of audiovisual links with regard to sentencing. Not only is it beneficial to offenders—they do not obviously have to be physically moved to court. They were showing me the facilities that they have to facilitate the audiovisual link with the judge for sentencing. Notwithstanding the safety plans and safety procedures that the staff has for transporting offenders to court it obviously means that staff resourcing is lessened when we do use audiovisual links. That remains at the discretion of the judiciary and I think that it is a good thing that this legislation seeks to enable the justice system to be more easily accessed along with technology advances. This evolution should be celebrated. It fits in nicely with this Government's reform of Better Public Services and it means that justice is delivered more effectively. With that I commend this legislation to the House.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Senior Courts Bill which was formerly part of the Judicature Modernisation Bill and we are here today to hear it in its third reading. As we have heard in today's debate this legislation has been quite some time in getting to this final stage of the process. However like a great Wangapeka cheese good things take time. This Government is committed to improving public services and this legislation in the name of the Hon Amy Adams is yet another example of delivering on our priorities.The Law Commission reviewed the Judicature Act 1908 and this legislation is largely in response to that review. It includes a huge amount of input from officials and it also has nine recommendations that came out of the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee. The end result is legislation that improves the flexibility the responsiveness and the transparency of New Zealand's court system and brings it into alignment with a 21st century system. I was surprised to learn that our court system is one of the last areas of the public sector that still operates a paper-based model. So the time is right to modernise it and therefore I commend this legislation to the House.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): As tempting as it is to rattle through the names of the statutes that are going to be repealed the new Acts that are going to come into place the 17 that are going to be amended in this legislation and then to go into all of the details that are contained within the 1200 pages of the Judicature Modernisation Bill I want to limit my contribution to I guess what that as-seen-on-TV famous lawyer Dennis Denuto would refer to as the vibe".This piece of legislation is I guess really one that has been well overdue. Obviously the big Act that is being repealed is the Judicature Act 1908. It has been in place for a considerable length of time and it is obviously very much time for us to overhaul it and to look at the way that the judiciary is conducted within New Zealand.I want to just acknowledge and thank the former Justice and Electoral Committee for the work that was done in the 50th Parliament. When I arrived here we were up to the second reading stage and I know it has been a really long and involved process getting to this point. I believe that what is most important with legislation like this is that we do in fact get it right. You do not want to have to keep reviewing large tracts of legislation like this too often so I think it has been good that an appropriate length of time has been taken and that a lot of thought has gone into it. As has been referred to late changes have even been made during the Committee stage of this bill.I think we have landed it in the right place. It is ensuring that we will have a better judicial system in New Zealand when this process is running smoothly—one that is fairer and one that is in line with many of the other changes that we have been bringing in over the last number of years to make the judicial system better for victims and better for everybody else. I commend this bill to the House."
Dean JacquiJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am very pleased to speak for the final time on the Senior Courts Bill which was formerly part of the Judicature Modernisation Bill in its third reading and I am very pleased that I do not have to go through the 17 existing statutes that are going to be amended by this bill.What this bill does is it encapsulates this Government's approach to justice and criminal matters which understands and responds to the need to update modernise make more accessible more reliable less costly and more victim friendly—all of those court processes. Was it only 2 weeks ago that we were standing in this House debating another excellent bill that puts victims at the very centre of the court process in terms of young and vulnerable witnesses giving evidence: the Evidence Amendment Bill?This is a weighty piece of legislation that came through the Justice and Electoral Committee before I was involved. I have had the opportunity to have a look at what is now the bill—I had the bill with me but I do not any more—since it has been worked on by parliamentarians across the House. This bill does change the legislation governing how New Zealand's courts are arranged and how they operate and that can only be a good thing in my view.If I go back to my electorate as I am often fond of doing in this House when I am making a speech the Ōāmaru courthouse—as with a number of other courthouses—is undergoing substantial change. We almost lost the Ōāmaru courthouse and I am grateful to the current Minister of Justice and the previous Minister for Courts who in their advocacy for the people of North Otago understood and accepted that access to justice is in fact very important to all of us New Zealanders.It is interesting that New Zealand is experiencing the lowest crime rate in over 33 years. So now arguably not only is the time to focus more on the underlying causes of crime and crime prevention but also it is timely indeed to modernise and improve our operating model for justice and to work towards a more customer-focused model a victim-focused model that is at lower cost efficiency in the Public Service and indeed a more accessible justice system. A number of speeches have already canvassed the provisions in this bill and I now commend it to the House.
Simpson Scott; Adams AmySCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As the final speaker in this first reading debate I just really want to round out what I think has been a good introductory debate from across the House and to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for the very good work that it has done under the capable chairmanship of my colleague Jacqui Dean on its inquiry into the 2014 general election and the recommendations that it has made. I think the committee has done a very good job. It is clear to me that the Minister has picked up on pretty much all of the recommendations. There seems to be broad consensus across the House for this bill and I am looking forward to watching it progress through the House. I commend the bill to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move That the Electoral Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 February 2017.Motion agreed to.
Electoral Amendment Bill — First Reading
Pugh Maureen; Mallard TrevorMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is a pleasure to stand in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill in its first reading today. Following the general election a review was undertaken of our electoral laws. This amendment bill is a result of the review that occurred after the 2014 general election.In New Zealand we have an electoral system with a high level of integrity. Foremost in our considerations is protecting that integrity. There are 14 changes proposed in this amendment bill that will improve services not only to the voters but to the candidates and the parties and they include changes that just help to bring the voting system in line with the 21st century and with the shifts in technology and voter behaviour. One example of this is the change to the Electoral Commission being able to use technology to communicate and provide information to electors. Another proposed change extends an exemption to the signage rules around fixed parliamentary signage on electorate offices.The complete suite of changes proposed in this bill provides improvements to our electoral system. They are very simple and mostly technical in nature and I have pleasure in commending this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry I was just going to say to members that I know there were two or three members looking at the clocks somewhat anxiously. I just want to tell members that the clocks were accidentally set for a 5-minute period not for 10 minutes. I call Maureen Pugh. [Interruption] Oh she had actually finished. Sorry.
Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Just to reiterate what Metiria Turei said the Green Party will be supporting this bill to the select committee. The bill follows as we have heard the 2014 inquiry by the Justice and Electoral Committee. It makes a number of small changes to the Electoral Act in line with recommendations by the committee. It allows the Electoral Commission to start counting advance votes earlier on election day. It allows the Electoral Commission to make certain forms more user-friendly. It prohibits electioneering inside and within 10 metres of advance voting places. We have just heard from Chris Bishop of the practical implications of that that will need to be explored; we take that on board. It removes references in the Act to the former Electoral Commission and other offices. It makes a change which was not recommended by the committee to clarify the prohibition on making false statements to influence voters on election day or the 2 days prior so that this offence relates only to the actions taken in that period. These in our view are all meritorious. The proposed changes appear to us to be reasonable. We endorse the points made by our colleague the Hon David Parker about the critical importance as he put it—it is easy to regard this as just a purely technical issue but it strikes at the absolute heart of liberal democracy—of an honest accurate and transparent electoral system the problems that can arise when you do not have that elsewhere and the interesting suggestion that we should use the Inland Revenue Department system for our registration broadly in the way that the Nordic countries do. So there is a lot to be explored in the committee as the bill becomes subject to scrutiny. I recall Jacinda Ardern's comments lamenting the fact that 27000 votes were rendered invalid at the last election. That is not something that we should see as acceptable. A number of people expressed regret at the way the legislation has turned now with the former member Paul Quinn's member's bill which removes the right for prisoners to vote. We agree that that is unsatisfactory and needs to be rectified and possibly could be examined in this committee. There is a lot to be looked at. I have not been involved in this committee but I am following it very sympathetically and there is a need to look at a lot of issues in the general recognition that we will be supporting this bill.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): It is great to see when you have done an inquiry in a select committee it start to come through with recommendations that are a part of legislation. I agree with the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee Jacqui Dean who spoke earlier that it was I think a very constructive time that we had together as a committee working through the various submissions. We got submitters from all sorts of areas—obviously various political parties and different private citizens who had different views about improvements that could be made to the electoral process in New Zealand. I found it personally a really interesting experience to hear the pros and cons. Often you look at things at face value and say Well that looks like a very good idea." and then you start to think about some of the ramifications of those ideas and think through the possible adverse consequences of those decisions. I think it has been great to tease those out through this process. I look forward to teasing those things out further when this returns to the committee as part of this Electoral Amendment Bill.I think that what has happened in this current iteration or review of the Electoral Act—and of course this will happen after every election—is that in particular it has been beholden on us this time around to make sure that we maintain the integrity of the voting system within our country and I believe that we have done that; but also to explore some of the changing environments some of the changing behaviour that has occurred around early voting and also to acknowledge and reflect on some of the changing technological aspects of our society. I just want to draw the House's attention to a couple of those things at this particular stage of the legislation—for example allowing electoral officials to be able to use an online enrolment-checking function of voting papers which enables real-time checking of voters' enrolment status. I think that is a great outcome. That just makes common sense when you think about it—that actually we have not got people having the ability perhaps to go around different polling booths to try to cast a vote and then to catch them out later on and have to go through a whole process. Being able to do it online and in real time is clearly a very good step and I think there are a number of other technological aspects to this bill in terms of acknowledging the advanced technology that are good as well.In particular finally I just want to touch on a particular aspect that came up which was that party secretaries will have to be reappointed almost immediately if they leave during the election period. I think that is critical given that party secretaries are in effect the only ones who when there is a breach of some kind can legally be held accountable. So I look forward to this bill returning to the Justice and Electoral Committee and to the further debate that we will have on this going forward."
Urgent Debates Declined — Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Organised Prisoner Fights and Contraband Report; and United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child—Fifth Periodic Report Presented by the New Zealand Government
Visitors — Germany—President of Bundestag
Resignations — Kevin Hague—Green Party
Dean JacquiJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The Electoral Amendment Bill first reading—and I want to first acknowledge members of the Justice and Electoral Committee who as usual worked in a constructive collegial and pragmatic way to make a report to the Government and here we are with the Government's response by way of a bill.I think we would all acknowledge that we are incredibly fortunate in New Zealand—some might say lucky but I reckon we are fortunate in New Zealand—in that every permanent resident above the age of 18 is entitled to vote in the general election. We also are fortunate—and there is nothing lucky about this; it has taken many many years of diligent attention to the legislative process to which we add our most recent iteration—to have a good robust process within the electoral system and we do now enjoy a very high level of integrity within that system. The other part of that equation for a good robust electoral system that delivers good results for the country is to have strong engagement by those who are entitled to vote and also those younger folk who are not yet entitled to vote but who should be thinking about their degree of responsibility and in particular civics responsibility.It is my view and I believe the view of a number of members on the Government side and other sides that early engagement in the process is far more beneficial than that very last-minute Oh my goodness! It's the day before the election. I'm not enrolled. I do want to vote. Oh!". If you are not engaged how do you make good choices? If you are not engaged in the electoral process of which we are so proud how can you then be focused on receiving many many many types of information that will come flooding in to you as a citizen through every means possible—and we expand those means even in this bill. If you are not engaged how do you make a good informed decision? That is why my view and the view of many others on the committee and across these benches is that early engagement so that a considered decision can be made has got to be the preferred option for anyone who is engaging in this electoral system.It is also really important that we have regular reviews of our electoral system so that it can be as efficient and as effective as it possibly can be. A lot of the recommendations that are made in this bill reflect that the changing nature of doing business in New Zealand. Therefore for example we are making changes to bring the electoral system in line with shifts in technology and indeed shifts in voter behaviour. We will enable more efficient systems in polling places with things like for example earlier counting of advance voting—just seemingly simple changes that will make our system even more robust. Because we have many opportunities to speak on this bill I would emphasise that early engagement of people in the system has got to bring about better outcomes for us all. Thank you."
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDMt Eden Corrections Facility—Organised Prisoner Fights and Contraband ReportUnited Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child—Fifth Periodic Report Presented by the New Zealand GovernmentMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Metiria Turei seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the report of the Chief Inspector of Corrections on organised prisoner fighting and access to contraband at the Mt Eden Corrections Facility. This is a particular case of recent concurrence involving ministerial responsibility. It is absolutely critical that the public has confidence in our corrections system; for that reason last year I agreed to an urgent debate on the cancelling of Serco's contract to manage Mt Eden. Although the report highlights matters of significance and concern they were largely addressed in the urgent debate at that time. I am not convinced that the latest developments warrant the further setting aside of the House's time; for that reason the application is declined.I have also received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the report of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on the fifth periodic report presented by the New Zealand Government. The report was released on 7 October so it is a particular case of recent occurrence. However there is no administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government for a report of the United Nations committee which is a prerequisite for granting an urgent debate under Standing Order 389(2)(b). The application is therefore declined.
Carter DavidVISITORSGermany—President of BundestagMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that Professor Dr Norbert Lammert President of the German Bundestag is within the precincts of the Chamber accompanied by a parliamentary delegation present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left of the Chair and that the delegation in the Speaker's gallery be welcomed.Professor Dr Norbert Lammert accompanied by the Assistant Speaker Lindsay Tisch entered the Chamber and took a seat to the left of the Chair.
Carter DavidLIST MEMBER VACANCYMr SPEAKER: I have been advised by the Electoral Commissioner that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Robert Barry Hobson Coates has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Kevin Hague. I understand that Barry Coates is present and wishes to make the affirmation.
Carter DavidTUESDAY 11 OCTOBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.RESIGNATIONSKevin Hague Green PartyMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Kevin Hague resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight on 6 October 2016.
Thursday 22 September 2016 - Volume 717
Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 224 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 63 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that Parts 1 to 4 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 to 4 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Parts 1 to 4 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill with amendment and the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill with amendment.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I move That the report be adopted.A party vote was called for on the question That the report be adopted.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Report adopted.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 215 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 53 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 4 schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee
12. Fisheries—Fish Dumping OversightHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesFisheries—Fish Dumping Oversight12. Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries: Yes in the context they were given. In particular the Minister stands by his statement that yesterday's announcement was great news for dairy farmers" with Fonterra raising its forecast payout to well above break even for most farmers. The Minister notes that this statement contrasts with the statements of some members who have previously expressed more dire forecasts for that industry.Hon Damien O'Connor: Does he stand by his statement that the tender process for monitoring commercial fishing was a "very open and transparent process"; if so what is open or transparent about letting the commercial fishing industry which is about to be monitored veto any firm it did not like?Hon JO GOODHEW: The Minister stands by his statement on that issue.Hon Damien O'Connor: Who does the Minister think is more likely to get vetoed by the commercial fishing industry—(a) a company owned by the commercial fishing industry or (b) the firm that discovered systemic fish dumping by commercial fishing companies?Hon JO GOODHEW: If you are asking the Minister to second-guess something the commercial fishing industry would do why does the member not ask them himself?Hon Damien O'Connor: Why did the Minister's officials try to stitch up the tender process so the commercial fishing industry would be monitoring itself?Hon JO GOODHEW: I reject the assertion in the member's question.Hon Damien O'Connor: Does the Minister think New Zealand's international export reputation is at risk when the integrity of the Ministry for Primary Industries and the fishing industry is under question?Hon JO GOODHEW: Quite the contrary. I think what the international industry will see is that we have had an independent inquiry into our fisheries compliance investigations that we have taken on the chin that in the case of one of them it was flawed that we have said we have a total commitment to changing the internal processes that have brought this about and that in fact we are not hiding the fact that there have been mistakes made."
11. Small Businesses—Online Business SurveysDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Small BusinessSmall Businesses—Online Business Surveys11. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Small Business: How will small businesses benefit from this Government's move to reduce the time it takes to complete business surveys?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Under this Government Statistics New Zealand has taken yet another step towards being digital by default and open by default by moving three more business surveys online. Small businesses will now save time by completing four surveys—the Agricultural Production Survey the Economic Survey of Manufacturing the quarterly Wholesale Trade Survey and the Quarterly Business Survey—online. An additional 15 business surveys will be available to be completed online by mid-2017 and our aim is to have all business surveys online in 2018. Small businesses will continue to benefit from the reduced time taken to fill out these surveys while also contributing their data to create more information for more informed markets across New Zealand.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: As well as making it easier to complete business surveys what steps is the Government taking to reduce the number of small businesses that have to complete a business survey?Hon CRAIG FOSS: The number of businesses surveyed over recent years has reduced from 268000 businesses to 72000 businesses. The biggest reductions have been amongst small businesses. This has been made possible as Statistics New Zealand has made better use of administrative data collected by other organisations across Government. I expect Statistics New Zealand to look for further opportunities for further reductions. This is great news for many small business owners across New Zealand and for operators who of course can now spend less time on administration and more time on their business.
10. Taranaki Regional Council—Iwi RepresentationDARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Local GovernmentTaranaki Regional Council—Iwi Representation10. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Local Government): Yes in the context in which they were made.Darroch Ball: Does he stand by his statement to the Local Government Commission in March this year that What you're going to get is models that are appropriate for the individual regions we're not going to impose this from Wellington there's no 'one size fits all' …"?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Yes I do.Darroch Ball: If that is the case will he now amend the Local Government Act 2002 to reflect the race-based appointments incorporated into the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill which will force the Taranaki Regional Council to include six unelected iwi representatives?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I have not made any announcements on that bill nor am I responsible for that bill.Darroch Ball: Would he agree that it is fair and democratic to force a council that was democratically elected to include six members based on race who hold the same status and remuneration and expenses; if so why?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: That is a hypothetical question. That is a hypothetical question; I do not have to answer.Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is hardly—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the point of order.Darroch Ball: This is hardly a hypothetical question. I can ask—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has interpreted it as a hypothetical question. It was a difficult question—[Interruption] The member will resume his seat. It was a difficult question for me to write down because it was a fairly lengthy question but that is the answer the Minister has given and when I consider the generality of the primary question we will move forward.Darroch Ball: Why is the Government ignoring a referendum in the New Plymouth area last May when 83 percent opposed race-based appointments to local government by now ramming six non-elected appointments down Taranakians' throats?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I would note that we are not ignoring that referendum held last year. That is not true.Darroch Ball: You are.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No we are not."
9. Pacific Peoples—Pacific Employment Support Services and Youth OutcomesALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Pacific PeoplesPacific Peoples—Pacific Employment Support Services and Youth Outcomes9. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What recent announcement has he made about supporting young Pacific people into sustainable employment education and training?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Last Friday I relaunched the Pacific Employment Support Services scheme in Manukau. This scheme focuses on getting young Pacific people into employment education and training. I am delighted that a further $4.6 million has been allocated to run the programme for the next 4 years. Four providers will work together across Auckland and Hamilton and the programme expects to provide essential support to get 2000 young Pacific people into work or training over the next 4 years.Alfred Ngaro: What evidence is there that the scheme is truly making a difference?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The evaluation of the pilot programme showed that over 1400 young Pacific people have already benefited from the scheme since it began as a pilot. Of those over 81 percent were placed into work or training schemes. It was clearly evident from speakers last Friday that this programme makes a real difference to these young Pacific people and their families. It does this by motivating matching and training young people to give them the support and the confidence that they need to succeed in the workplace and in their training programmes.Su'a William Sio: Are Pacific parents correct that his Government promised a brighter future but instead what they got was high youth unemployment and that Almost a quarter of Pacific students reported that their parents worry about not having enough food and 36 percent said someone at home sleeps in a room not designated for sleeping (e.g. a garage or living room)" as highlighted in the health and well-being of Pacific youth report released today?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The report by Auckland UniServices showed that Pacific young people are actually making good progress. Recent results show that they have improved family and school relationships significant reductions in substance abuse and improved educational goals."
1. Electricity Industry—Asset Sales OutcomeIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSElectricity Industry—Asset Sales Outcome1. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the performance of mixed-ownership electricity companies since their partial sale?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Treasury advises me that in the 5 years before the Government sold a minority stake in three State-owned electricity companies—Mighty River Power Meridian Energy and Genesis—the combined dividends averaged $365 million a year. In the 3 years since the average is $442 million a year. In other words the Crown has received more in dividends owning 49 percent of the companies than it did when it owned 100 percent of the companies.Ian McKelvie: What other benefits has the partial sale of State-owned electricity companies delivered for New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The part sale raised $4.3 billion. This money has been invested in schools hospitals the Canterbury rebuild delivering better education healthcare and transport infrastructure. Because we have been able to finance those things out of the proceeds of the sale we have been able to reduce New Zealand's indebtedness.Ian McKelvie: Has the part sale of State-owned electricity companies led to an escalation in power prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a very good question. At the time there were assertions that the sale of the companies would drive prices up. In fact since the first company was listed in May 2013 the energy component of electricity prices has increased by less than the rate of inflation—that is the prices increased by 2 percent when inflation was 2.5 percent. In fact in the year to March the average cost of electricity paid by consumers fell for the first time—fell for the first time—in 15 years. That is in sharp contrast to the situation under the previous Government when prices rose around 70 percent.Ian McKelvie: What safeguards are in place to protect the public interest in power companies?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The conditions on which the sale was made were set in order to protect the public interest and they are that the Government maintain a majority shareholding that New Zealand investors would be at the front of the queue for buying shares and that the capital freed up would be used to fund new public assets and enable the Government to build infrastructure without increasing debt. Those conditions have been met.
Speaker's Observations — Retirement—Kevin Hague
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S OBSERVATIONSKevin Hague—ResignationThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Thank you. Before I adjourn the House pursuant to the leave that was taken previously I do just want to acknowledge that this will be the last time that Kevin Hague is with us. I want to acknowledge him and thank him for making this Parliament a better place. [Applause]The House adjourned at 5.32 p.m.
Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading
Hayes Joanne; Mallard TrevorJOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I seek the leave of the House that once the speeches are completed for the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill and the waiata is sung we adjourn the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that at the completion of the voting on this bill and the associated waiata the House rises. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): If that is the case Minister Finlayson the position of New Zealand First is that we will need to oppose that Supplementary Order Paper 224.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have not come to the votes yet.PITA PARAONE: No.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): All right. We are coming to the vote now so we have the Minister's—[Interruption] Order! We are going to have a vote.
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Out of my respect and affection for the honourable member I will respond. I do say this with the greatest of respect and affection but what he said is wrong in relation to the definition of the iwi of Taranaki. I refer him to clause 97 of the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill and I also refer him to clause 75 of the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill—they look pretty much the same to me.Then I refer the honourable member to Iwi representation on the committee" as provided by clause 77 of the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill. The iwi of Taranaki may nominate three people each for these positions. The council must appoint the members nominated to the appropriate committee. Then one goes across to clause 99 in the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill which is exactly the same. If he goes to the Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill it is exactly the same.I am not going to belabour the point because we have had a good old stoush about this in the course of the second reading speeches. I certainly do not blame the member because he is an honourable member and a very hard-working member of the Committee. I value his advice on a number of matters particularly on that iwi to the North so I am not going to say what I would otherwise say were another person in the Chamber."
Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): I realise that I was a bit slow in standing to take the opportunity of talking in the Committee stage of the last bill but I will certainly take the opportunity of making reference to the issue of representation.I know that there is already some discussion as to why we have not opposed all the other Taranaki bills and I just wanted to explain to the Committee that the clauses in the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill that refer to the membership of the council are very specific. They articulate the names of the various tribes; they are to be referred to as Taranaki iwi. That is No. 1.No. 2—in opposing that part and supporting that reference here in the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill we were led to believe that it was a duplication of the Local Government Act. Then on discovery we found that in the Local Government Act reference is made to the word may" whereas in the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill—and again I am connecting that bill to this bill—the word that is used is "must". So there is in our mind a big difference.Marama Fox: You got it wrong. It's wrong.PITA PARAONE: I just want to make that point irrespective of the view that some voice on the other side might have. Thank you."
Finlayson ChristopherParts 1 to 4 schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): The Māori Affairs Committee has recommended that the Te Atiawa Claims Settlement Bill be passed with a couple of technical amendments. I have proposed a technical Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) SOP 224. This is going to make two technical amendments to clause 63 to ensure that certain properties to be exchanged as part of the vesting of the Taumata property which is a cultural redress property are able to be vested as intended by the deed of settlement. The changes ensure that the land exchanged for the Taumata property will in specific circumstances be treated as cultural redress property. That means for example that certain provisions of the Reserves Act will not apply when the reservation as a historic reserve is revoked and requirements under the Resource Management Act in relation to the subdivision will not be required.I commend the bill to the House with the minor technical amendments proposed by SOP 224 and again invite honourable members to read Part 2 Subpart 6 dealing with Taranaki Regional Council representation. If it is not word-for-word exactly the same as in the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill it is quite frankly pretty close.
Tisch LindsayTE ATIAWA CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILLIn CommitteeThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave has been granted for this bill to be taken as one question.