edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bindra MaheshMAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): It is a privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. There is a lot of work that has gone on in the Law and Order Committee with regard to the tidying up of the processes in this bill. Particularly with the queries that we had we are quite satisfied that those queries have been answered. We had a query about privacy and the period of time that the information is held by various law enforcement agencies. This is actually a knee-jerk reaction to a knee-jerk reaction. However we have decided to still support this bill because it will go a long way in removing those anomalies and fixing those communication gaps.After this bill is passed the victims will stand to be safer and that is because—we all remember the embarrassing incident where Phillip John Smith escaped all the way to Brazil. What was more embarrassing was that the law enforcement agencies did not know for the next 48 hours. Corrections came to know only 24 hours after he had escaped that he had actually failed to return to prison. It took them a further 24 hours to inform the police and then the police acted. The police were not able to inform the victims of Phillip John Smith's crimes about his escape. That is one situation that will probably be prevented in the future if we actually implement this bill effectively.There were also concerns about the period of time that biometric information and other information about offenders is held by the law enforcement agencies. I know for a fact that Corrections stores or keeps the biometric information of an offender when the offender comes into its custody and then with this bill Corrections will be able to share that information with the other border agencies such as Customs Immigration the New Zealand Police and to a certain extent intelligence agencies.So that being the case our hope is that future communication issues could be prevented. The offenders for whom there is an alert on the system for a ban on foreign travel will be stopped at the border because Customs and Immigration will have information on their system if an offender has been put on that list.So these are the reasons why we have supported this bill in the past and these are the reasons why we will continue to support this bill.
Speaker's Statements — Valedictory Statement—Dr Kennedy Graham
Motions — India and Pakistan—Independence Anniversaries
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): I stand in support of this bill today the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill. We have heard today that this bill is in the name of the Hon Amy Adams and is a result of the Government inquiry into the matters that relate to the escape of Phillip John Smith/Traynor who did manage to acquire a passport and leave New Zealand and end up in Brazil while he was on temporary release from prison. The inquiry found that it was through inadequate sharing of information between some agencies that this was actually possible. So this bill sets out to close those loopholes that found Mr Smith or Traynor able to abscond from New Zealand.Part 1 of this bill is the part that amends the Privacy Act which is the principal part of this bill. It relates to identity information and the accessing of that information. Attached to the bill is new schedule 4A inserted by clause 8. Schedule 4A sets out the list of agencies that are able to access information. They include the Department of Corrections the Department of Internal Affairs the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment Immigration New Zealand the Ministry of Health and district health boards the New Zealand Customs Service and the New Zealand Police. The holder agencies of that information includes those agencies I have just listed and also includes the New Zealand Transport Agency.Included in the information that is able to be accessed is the information that is known as biographical details and they include the name the address the date of birth and the gender of the person. The biometric information includes things like a photograph or facial recognition or iris photography. The details that are expected to be accessed would include things like the person's travel documents their certificates of identity and distinguishing physical features such as amputations tattoos or birthmarks.The reporting of this information that is being shared as part of the accountability to this bill requires that the chief executives of the holder agencies must also report in every annual report on the details of the operation of this part of the bill and also in terms of new schedule 4A.There was a great deal of consideration given to the Privacy Commissioner's response and in relation to the Orders in Council the Minister in making any adjustment to the schedule must be satisfied that this relates to the specific function of the legislation's accessing agency and the identity information must actually be reasonable to the purpose for which it is being sought. That is my contribution today and I thank you.
Doocey Matt; Tisch LindsayENHANCING IDENTITY VERIFICATION AND BORDER PROCESSES LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeMATT DOOCEY (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for all parts the schedules and the clauses to be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Bridges Simon; Carter DavidSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): I seek the leave of the House to suspend for the dinner break at the conclusion of the valedictory statement tomorrow.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.
Carter DavidSPEAKER'S STATEMENTSValedictory Statement—Dr Kennedy GrahamMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have determined under Standing Order 360(3) that Dr Kennedy Graham will make a valedictory statement at 5.40 tomorrow afternoon.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghTUESDAY 15 AUGUST 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MOTIONSIndia and Pakistan—Independence AnniversariesKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate acknowledging the 70th anniversary of independence of the Republic of India and acknowledging the Independence Day of Pakistan.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I move That this House congratulate the Republic of India on the occasion of its 70th anniversary of independence marking the day on which the United Kingdom's Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act 1947 and that the House also acknowledge Pakistan's Independence Day which was yesterday 14 August.Motion agreed to.
Business Statement — Correction
Wednesday 10 May 2017 - Volume 722
Equal Pay Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question that the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a first time.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): While the Clerk is doing some adding I want to both remind my colleagues on my left not to interject while votes are being taken and also ask my old classmate to refrain even from supportive interjections during those periods.A party vote was called for on the question That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 59New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 60New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 62.
Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued 2)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Youth Employment Training and Education Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 45New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 74New Zealand National 58; Green Party 14; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 45 Noes 75.
Youth Employment Training and Education Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Arbitration Amendment Bill be now read a first 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 first time.Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
12. Small Businesses—Digital TechnologyMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Small BusinessSmall Businesses—Digital Technology12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Small Business: What updates can she provide on how the Government is supporting small businesses' uptake of digital technology?Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister for Small Business): As part of Techweek 2017 Digital Journey and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) have launched a Digital Journey assessment tool to support small businesses in the uptake of digital technology. This support includes a personalised action plan to help small-business owners save time and effort and open up new opportunities to grow their business. Digital Journey is also an important part of our small-business roadshows making sure that digital technology uptake is an important component of the success of our small businesses.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is New Zealand Sign Language Week and sign language is an official language. I would like the Minister of Health to interpret his sign language that he was just giving to the House Mr Speaker which you did not see and which he was repeatedly directing at my colleague. It was essentially very rude. I think he should be asked in New Zealand Sign Language Week to explain what his sign meant.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order but if there was a gesture across the House that I learn about by subsequently watching TV I will certainly be taking further action on it.Melissa Lee: What else is the Government doing to support small business uptake of digital technology?Hon JACQUI DEAN: Through Government programmes such as the ultra-fast broadband roll-out we are ensuring that New Zealand businesses can access faster internet to allow greater use of digital technologies. MBIE is progressing the business uptake of ICT as outlined in the Building a Digital Nation report which is part of our Business Growth Agenda. We are also ensuring that businesses can better connect with the Government using digital technologies. These include activities such as the Inland Revenue Department transformation project ACC and Business.govt.nz.Melissa Lee: What is the benefit of increased use of digital technologies for small businesses?Hon JACQUI DEAN: Digital technologies can improve market access better target consumers reduce time interacting with the Government and with compliance and reduce time on day-to-day operations such as inventory staffing transport and invoicing. Research by Sapere Research Group in 2014 suggests that if firms currently making low use of internet services became more like high-using firms it could be worth an additional $34 billion in productivity impact to the New Zealand economy. The National Party believes this is important to New Zealand's economy.
10. State and Social Housing—Relocation from Auckland Assistance SchemeJOANNE HAYES (National) to the Associate Minister for Social HousingState and Social Housing—Relocation from Auckland Assistance Scheme10. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Associate Minister for Social Housing: What announcements has he made about the results of the Relocation from Auckland Assistance scheme?Hon ALFRED NGARO (Associate Minister for Social Housing): Yesterday I was pleased to announce a number of successful results from the Relocation from Auckland Assistance scheme. Since June of last year 313 families have with assistance from the Government taken the opportunity to relocate from Auckland. The scheme has allowed these often struggling Kiwi families to find better and cheaper accommodation options and the potential to become increasingly independent. In fact almost half of the families who received the relocation assistance have moved from Auckland social housing into private housing. The Government is well on track to meet its target of successfully relocating 400 families by the end of June 2017.Joanne Hayes: What do these results mean for the taxpayer?Hon ALFRED NGARO: For most these results mean that the families who are struggling have the opportunity to succeed in communities that are able to provide better housing and employment outcomes for them. But the benefits are wider than that. On average the Government saves the taxpayer $170 per week in subsidised housing costs for every family who moves out of Auckland under the scheme. In just 3 years' time the Government will have saved well over $6 million in taxpayers' money simply by offering these families a fresh start. This is a true example of a win-win policy.
8. Technology Sector—Research and Development Funding and Skills BaseBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Science and InnovationTechnology Sector—Research and Development Funding and Skills Base8. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What announcements has he made to support New Zealand businesses invest in research and development?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Science and Innovation): I was very pleased to announce an additional $74.6 million in funding for R & D growth grants through Budget 2017 to meet the growing demand for high-value innovative Kiwi companies. Encouraging business R & D helps high-tech innovative new Kiwi companies bring products and ideas to market sooner which has significant benefit for export revenues. Worldwide R & D is recognised as a key factor that underpins a businesses' ability to innovate and keep up with the technological change by creating and using new knowledge. R & D growth grants is an on-demand non-discretionary scheme that enables qualifying companies to claim back 20 percent of their eligible R & D expenditure. Growth grant funding is now at $140 million and is set to increase to $172 million by 2021.Brett Hudson: What is the current state of New Zealand's technology and innovative sectors?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The tech sector is New Zealand's third-largest exporting sector contributing $16 billion to GDP and it is growing fast. It presents multiple opportunities for New Zealand and international investors. R & D has driven much of that growth. We have seen a significant increase in the amount that Kiwi companies are spending on R & D. A survey earlier this year showed that business R & D expenditure has increased 29 percent from 2014 to $1.6 billion in 2016. The Technology Investment Network The Investors' Guide to the New Zealand Technology Sector which I launched yesterday with my colleague Simon Bridges showcases the breadth and variety of technological companies in New Zealand. Our economy is strong and diverse. And the strengthening tech sector is an important part of that diversity.Brett Hudson: What is the Government doing to meet the skill demands of this sector?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Government is focused on ensuring that our education system is providing a generation of entrepreneurs and skilled workers who are able to adapt and meet the demands of innovative growth in a rapidly changing world. We have developed pathways for young New Zealanders to enter the tech sector such as the Futureintech initiative. Yesterday I visited Lab in a Box outside Te Papa. This is a project funded through the A Nation of Curious Minds: He Whenua Hihiri i te Mahara initiative which this year funded 41 projects to inspire the next generation of scientists. Alongside this the Digital Skills Forum brings together industry associations with Government agencies to identify opportunities to develop skills that the sector will need in order to continue its rapid growth. This is the sign of a sector that is in good health and is planning to meet its future demands.
5. Housing Māori—Marae and Māori Housing Network FundingMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Māori DevelopmentHousing Māori—Marae and Māori Housing Network Funding5. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Māori Development: He aha ngā karere o nā noa nei kua puta mai e pā ana ki te pūtea whakapauhia ki runga marae ki runga whare?[What recent announcements has he made about funding for marae and housing?]Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Ā tēnā koe i tērā pātai ka mihi ki a koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare.[Thank you in regard to that question and so salutations to you Mr Speaker.]I was pleased to announce recently new funding of $27 million that will support marae and help more whānau live in safe secure and healthy homes. The $27 million package is made up of three parts: $10 million that will support Marae Ora the restoration of whare repair facilities insulate wharenui and provide for Reo and tikanga wānanga; an extra $8 million will be allocated to Kāinga Ora the Māori Housing Network; and a further $9 million will support Te Ara Mauwhare or the Pathways to Home-Ownership initiative which will trial innovative new approaches to helping whānau achieve housing independence.Marama Fox: What differences in the lives of whānau will this funding make?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: It is a very fine question. Since it was launched in October 2015 the Māori Housing Network has supported hundreds of whānau throughout the country to live in safer drier warmer healthier homes. There has been $36 million invested in more than 140 projects around the motu which is just one part of the Government's Māori strategy He Whare Āhuru He Ōranga Tāngata. This new funding means that from 1 July we will have more than $25 million per year to support more whānau to access safe and quality housing more marae to be warm safe and secure and to be able to carry out the tikanga of their cultural and community roles and trial innovative ways to help whānau into homeownership. We want to see more Māori secure in their own homes and this new funding we are hoping will help them down that path.Marama Fox: How has Kāinga Ora and the Māori Housing Network supported whānau?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Kāinga Ora has supported and continues to support whānau housing aspirations. There have been 140 housing projects support for 380 high-needs whānau so that they can live in those safe warm and dry homes. There is support for housing infrastructure for 176 new homes for whānau and support for the building of 63 new affordable homes 36 papakāinga feasibility projects and 60-plus workshops to help whānau achieve their housing aspirations. I recently announced a new papakāinga development at Wairarapa for example which includes a rebuild of their marae and six new homes. This development will allow whānau to live on their whenua tuku iho in affordable and healthy homes and support their marae. Finally in March this year five homes were opened in Waimārama in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti as part of the first stage of papakāinga development. Three-bedroom affordable rental homes and two homes for ownership is a pretty good outcome.
3. Government Financial Position—Reports and OutlookSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of FinanceGovernment Financial Position—Reports and Outlook3. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government's financial accounts?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The Government accounts for the first 9 months of the current financial year show a surplus of $1.5 billion compared with a forecast surplus of $147 million at the half-year update in December continuing performance ahead of forecast as a result of good fiscal discipline and improved quality of spending. The Budget coming up later this month will provide an update on the fiscal situation and forecasts.Simon O'Connor: What is behind the better than forecast performance of the Government's accounts?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Core Crown tax revenue is $527 million higher than forecast for the 9 months and $3.7 billion or 7.3 percent higher compared with the same period last year. Corporate tax continues to be the largest driver of that with revenue being $673 million ahead of forecast. The result illustrates the underlying strength of the New Zealand economy which grew 3.1 percent last year and added 137000 new jobs in a 12-month period. It shows that if you have a strong economic plan and you stick to that plan you can achieve real progress.Simon O'Connor: How do our financial accounts compare with other countries?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yesterday Australia released its Budget and that had an underlying cash deficit of A$29.4 billion next year with a forecast return to surplus by 2021. As a result Australia's Budget has seen a number of new taxes being added or increased. In New Zealand we have been through a major programme of getting the books in order and that means that as a country we now have positive choices for our future that we would not otherwise have.Simon O'Connor: How likely is New Zealand's strong economic performance to continue over the medium term?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Further economic indicators out today suggest further economic growth over the medium term. ASB's investor confidence has increased to the highest level since late 2014 with a net 25 percent positive rating and ANZ's heavy traffic index is now up 4.6 percent year on year—a very important indicator. In addition the IMF reports released this week forecast that our economy will grow over 3 percent in each of this year and next year. New Zealanders can have confidence in a Government that is united around its policy and is delivering results for Kiwi families.
Crown Minerals (Protection of World Heritage Sites) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
Korako Nuk; Mallard TrevorNUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Tonight there have been impassioned speeches on both sides of the House around this Crown Minerals (Protection of World Heritage Sites) Amendment Bill. If you want to talk about impassioned speeches I had one just a few hours ago with some of the representatives of Te Māhaki ki Makaawhio. One of the things that they were very very disturbed about was actually the lack of consultation which has been highlighted here quite well this evening. One of the things that they were upset about was the fact that they did not know that this particular bill was actually going through the House so that highlights the fact that there was a lack of consultation.When we look at the Te Māhaki ki Makaawhio people they are the real people of the greenstone. They are the ones who actually are the kaitiaki of Te Wāhipounamu. That area is very sacred to them down in the south-western side of Te Wai Pounamu.One thing that they have asked is that when looking at this bill and when you look at Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu claim settlement what they have given there and what they have received—when we took a look at Aoraki mountain that was given back to Aotearoa New Zealand. Then when you look at those sites what they feel around this bill is that it actually extinguishes a lot of their rights particularly to take the very very scarce Aotea pounamu and also another piece of pounamu which is found only down there called snowflake. That pounamu is really what these people are about.They also said tonight that there are protections here under the Conservation Act. There are protections here particularly around mining. The fact is that when they look at the local industries there—I mean if suddenly this bill was to go through you know they own part of those businesses there that actually have no impact whatsoever on the environment or on conservation. They are small businesses of extraction and if this happens then part of their businesses will be wiped out. What they are asking is why we do not have some faith here because there is actually legislation in place that these particular places can be protected. What they are also asking is why we cannot be unique as we are. Why can we not work together to cohabitate down in these areas where there is a local economy that needs to—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Hayes JoJOANNE HAYES (National): What can I say after such an amazing speech? Hopefully Hansard gets that recorded right because I thought that Mr Prosser's speech echoed everything that my colleague Maureen Pugh articulated so passionately in her contribution at the beginning of this debate. I too agree that you can have a balance between the environment and mining and economic development—all balanced in harmony with each other. I agree that what it is about is driving the economy in a harmonised way with the environment. I was quite surprised to learn that nobody had spoken to the West Coast Regional Council that nobody had spoken to Te Rūnanga o Makaawhio  and that nobody had taken the time to go out and have a discussion about putting this bill forward. When we start looking at the prospect of iwi in their various rohe and we look at the opportunities—the economic opportunities—for iwi here we have one hapū Te Rūnanga o Makaawhio on the West Coast that had not even been given an opportunity to have any input any discussion about something that will affect their ability for economic development on the Coast.As the member Mr Prosser had said the West Coast is the most important economic area for the South Island when it comes to the extractive industry. It is a small area it is a long drawn-out area yet the amount of money that can be generated from that area is humungous. When I sat and I listened to the way he explained how everything in this room is a product of the extractive industry I was absolutely stunned. When we do start to look at this this is the importance of the extractive industry with mining being part and parcel of that industry.I am taken aback by the information and detail around the various mining licences that have come forward which have been revealed through this particular bill whereby we have 19 small beach sand gold operations operating and that when the tide comes in it wipes out all evidence of them being there. That never ever came to discussion. It was through the investigation of everything around this bill that that was brought forward and we start to see that that information which should have been included when the bill was being drafted was basically not there.I want to say that when my colleague Maureen Pugh got up being the ex-Mayor of West Coast Regional Council she knew exactly what she was talking about. She is the one who has the passion; she brings the voice of the Coast. I have been to the West Coast as a guest of Maureen Pugh and I have sat and I have listened to the many people I have met—businesses regional councillors the lot—talk about the admiration they have for Ms Pugh for how she gives voice to the people of the West Coast and she has done it in talking to this bill. Hon Simon Bridges: By George she's done it!JOANNE HAYES: She has done it by talking to this bill. I am very proud of what she has done. I am very proud of the work that she continues to do for the West Coast and to be honest I cannot support a bill that will actually wipe out economic development on the Coast. Thank you.
Voting — Correction—Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill
Mallard TrevorVOTINGCorrection—Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment BillThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Maureen Pugh I am informed that on the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill the declared vote was 58 to 62. Members will work out that there are not that many members here. The vote was actually 57 to 62. The record will be altered.
Crown Minerals (Protection of World Heritage Sites) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Tabuteau FletcherOMBUDSMEN (COST RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I think what the National members opposite need to realise and acknowledge is that this bill put before the House this evening by the Hon Mr Parker is not just a cost recovery exercise. Yes that is in the title but the reality is that this is about disincentives and this is about internalising the cost of non-compliance to Government departments and in particular the Government. They need to feel the pain as it were of not complying not being responsive and not being fully transparent. This I remind the members is a very small step in that direction. This is about non-compliance. It is about making those departments accountable and we need to move on. I just want to ask the members opposite whether they could get with the programme. We need a Government that is accountable.It is best to simply finish on commenting on the current state of the fourth estate and say that it is undermanned under-resourced and it seems at the moment that the Government is—how do I put this politely—playing the situation. We the members opposite and the media are not getting the information that we want in a timely fashion. When we do get it Mr Parker brought up several examples of redacted information well past the time that it was due.I just want to conclude by saying that New Zealand First absolutely supports this bill. We do support it through the first reading. We would like to hear what the public has to say. We would like to hear what the experts have to say on the issue and I would suggest to the members opposite that this would be a good conversation to have in a select committee. Thank you.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister
Wagner NickyAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 7 to MinisterHon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister of Conservation): I seek leave to correct a statement I made earlier in the House today.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon NICKY WAGNER: In answer to question No. 7 today I said that access applications for coalmines go to the Environment Court. Although that is true in many cases in the first instance decision-making power resides with Ministers.
Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to I do not know argue the point with people on the other side of the House who cannot be bothered making cogent arguments. They seem to imply Mr Muller and Mr Doocey et al. that more spending on this implies greater transparency compliance and accountability. That is the premise of their entire argument and I do not know whether they have noticed but for us on this side of the House and for the media it is getting harder and harder to get timely and meaningful information out of Government departments—more and more every day. I have to commend Mr Foster-Bell before we go to the dinner break for a beautifully irrelevant contribution.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Debate interrupted.
Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Voting — Correction—Youth Employment Training and Education Bill
Tisch LindsayVOTINGCorrection—Youth Employment Training and Education BillThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Before I call the next member there is a correction to the vote on the Youth Employment Training and Education Bill. The correct vote should be those in favour 45 opposed 74. The record will be amended accordingly.
Mallard TrevorThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Iain Lees-Galloway I am going to invite him to do what really the last three speakers have not done and that is to address the bill. I call Iain Lees-Galloway.
Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. I rise to speak about this bill and commend Darroch Ball for introducing it. This is an absolutely important aim as other speakers have said. The number of young people not in education employment or training totals around 90000; 21 percent of those kids in that cohort are Māori 17 percent Pasifika compared with a total of 11.5 percent for the overall population. We note that the number of people who are not in education or training has increased dramatically under this Government. So we commend this bill in terms of coming up with a solution to the problems of unemployment unrest crime violence and above all the waste of the potential talent and the lives of young people. It certainly makes it worthwhile for this House to be considering new initiatives.The Green Party supports programmes that engage young people: work readiness in order to build skills and confidence the expansion of apprenticeships and vocational training providing vocational advice and career guidance and programmes for participation in work in the community. These are the kinds of programmes that we think are part of the mix that can start to address these problems.I am also very aware that the concept of boot camps and military training has a long history in New Zealand. We recognise that boot camps were introduced in 1971 but then abandoned in 1981. And the Government's programme for boot camps in 2009 had a fairly mixed record shall we say with a cohort of 40 youth. It was found in the evaluation that half of those youth have subsequently reoffended and that in the 6 months following their leaving the service 10 youth had committed 126 offences—within 6 months.By contrast there have been some positive results from the Limited Service Volunteer programme which this programme is largely based on. That programme being run by Defence and the Ministry of Social Development has had a number of successes in terms of getting young people into employment. However there have also been some poor evaluations of it. In particular in 2003 it was found that teens had been assaulted abused and mocked according to a military police investigation. That gives rise to considerable concern when we are talking about 15- to 17-year-olds because as we know the Limited Service Volunteer programme is for youth of 18 and above.So we are concerned about introducing 15- or 16-year-olds into the military system and for that reason and for some of the concerns that come from overseas experience with similar training institutes in the defence forces we have reservations. We do not think this is necessarily the best option to pursue going forward although we commend the initiative in addressing this problem. Unfortunately we are unable to support this bill. Thank you.
Mallard TrevorYOUTH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND EDUCATION BILLFirst ReadingDarroch Ball: Mr Assistant Speaker I move that—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No no. You say Mr Assistant Speaker"; I say "Darroch Ball".Darroch Ball: Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Your turn now."
Foster-Bell PaulARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 12 April.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Actually it is a pleasure to follow on from the speaker who has just resumed her seat Louisa Wall because this takes us back to when we left off I think on the last members' day when she had just made a very constructive contribution on this bill my Arbitration Amendment Bill and I was responding to some of the very useful and constructive points that she had made including that the arbitration system in New Zealand is generally set up very well.We are one of the least corrupt places in the world. In fact we have been rated by Transparency International as the least corrupt country in terms of public sector perceptions of corruption; that includes our judicial systems our courts our police and all of those very fine people who keep this a good and safe country to live in. Also the member had pointed out that we base our arbitration framework on the model law adopted in 2006 created by the United Nations to provide a model for best practice and that we ratified the 1958 New York Convention on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. So we are generally a good system when it comes to arbitration.But there are a couple of small issues that do need to be resolved. It really did surprise me that the New Zealand First spokesperson did not agree with the submission of the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute of New Zealand—a very very fine institution—on some key issues. For instance the presumption of confidentiality—and this would be a rebuttable presumption—is something that is required. I will give a couple of examples that it cited in a memorandum that was circulated to all members of this House and to all parties and I would be surprised if the New Zealand First spokesperson who is usually very assiduous had not actually read it.There would be a number of cases that we could refer to that have seen family trusts go into the courts and actually cause great public hurt pain and further suffering for families who are already grieving. The three recent disputes that it cites are the estates of Michael Erceg; the very fine judge the late Sir Robert Chambers who contributed so much to this country in his judicial capacity; and Hugh Green. These were bereaved families who did have a dispute over the settlement of the trust and the estates of those people.It is far better that these sorts of matters are dealt with in a respectful and a private way. It is frankly nobody else's business and to have these matters dragged through the courts because a rebuttable presumption of confidentiality does not exist in my view is actually cruel and it is something that we should change. This is in line with the global trend towards the arbitration ability of trust disputes and this is evidenced by the International Chamber of Commerce laying this out in its standard clauses which it publishes and also by a recent decision in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. So I think this is a good bill and I commend it to the House.
Mallard TrevorHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I seek leave under Standing Order 358 to make a personal explanation in relation to matters raised by the previous speaker in relation to me.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection for that personal explanation? There is not.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Chris Bishop when he was speaking indicated that Andrew Little had given me a specific undertaking with regard to a list position; that is not true.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member.
Points of Order — Leave Seeking—Being Debated in the House
Kaye NikkiGENERAL DEBATEHon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I am proud to be the Minister of Education in a positive pragmatic future-focused National Government led by a fantastic Prime Minister in Bill English. This Government is delivering results for young New Zealanders. We are ensuring that every young person in New Zealand can read write do maths and be digitally fluent and is healthy and able to compete in a modern world. We are united and positive compared with the Opposition which is in a shambles.You cannot understand what its education policy is. Take partnership schools: it is very difficult to understand what it actually believes. If we listen to Chris Hipkins he says: Partnership schools are gone. The legislation will be repealed." Willie Jackson says: "I truly believe in the partnership schools model." The Opposition's stance on partnership schools will not get a pass mark from me. Peeni Henare says: "The bottom line is why would you stop something that is working?". The reality is that for some of our most disadvantaged students—Māori and Pacific young people who are getting a chance in life—we do not know what the policy is under that Labour Opposition. It is more likely they will not get this chance in the future. These young people deserve better.Take communities of online learning—again a positive pragmatic Government focusing on ensuring that young people get opportunities that they have never had before. What is the Labour Party's position? It opposes it on purely ideological grounds. In fact what is the reason that the Labour Party opposes a lot of this education policy? It is because it is led by Andrew Little who has a union background. That is the reality.The reality is that National has a positive plan for education. We are investing more in ensuring that young people are in early childhood education. We are ensuring that Māori and Pasifika achievement is raised—in some cases in New Zealand by more than 20 percent. We had a fantastic previous Minister of Education. Can I acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata for all of the amazing work that she has done.We are amending the Education Act. We are delivering communities of online learning where there are achievement challenges that we have never had before. We are investing in behavioural services to help those young people who are more disruptive in the classroom. We are investing in oral language development. We are helping more young people than ever before. We are positive pragmatic and united against the backdrop of a Labour Party that cannot even agree on one single policy. I am proud to be the Minister of Education under this Government."
Seymour DavidWEDNESDAY 10 MAY 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.POINTS OF ORDERSeeking of Leave—Matter for DebateDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on a point on which the Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings appear silent in respect of yesterday. I sought leave to introduce a bill to the House and there were two points of order raised that effectively led to the House debating the merit or otherwise of putting the leave. I seek your guidance as to whether or not that is something that should be allowed to happen and if so whether the member who originally put the leave should be offered a right of reply.Mr SPEAKER: I will give further consideration to the matter that is raised but when leave is sought on occasion I will take points of order from people who wish to clarify what the leave is being sought for or whether they need further information as to whether they will then object to the leave being put. Once the leave is sought—by in this case Mr Seymour—my duty as Speaker is to put the leave if it is in order. It is for the House to decide whether the matter proceeds further.
Tuesday 14 March 2017 - Volume 720
Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 56New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 1 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 31; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Adrian Rurawhe to clause 3 be agreed to:in subclause (d) replace safety" with safety; and"; andinsert the following new paragraph:(e)to establish an independent complaints authority.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Adrian Rurawhe to clause 6 be agreed to:replace the name and definition of "Fire and Emergency New Zealand" with "Fire and Emergency Services New Zealand or FESNZ means Fire and Emergency Services New Zealand continued under section 8"A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Adrian Rurawhe's consequential amendments to Part 1 inserting "Services" and changing the name of FENZ to FESNZ—is it how do you pronounce it; what is the terminology?Hon Ruth Dyson: Fire and Emergency Service New Zealand.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes I know what it stands for but how do you pronounce it? Anyway it is out of order as contingent on the amendment already negatived.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Part 1 as amended agreed to."
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2016-17 Closely Held Companies and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee
VoteClause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 261 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 13Green Party 13.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Ron Mark's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 260 is out of order as being contingent on an amendment already negatived.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 56New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 261 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 13Green Party 13.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 260 in the name of Ron Mark to insert new clause 37B be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12.Noes 76New Zealand National 59; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Question agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Bill read a second time.
Resource Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading