edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bennett DavidDAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is bizarre that the New Zealand First Party is voting against this bill because we know that the true New Zealand First Party stands up for accountability and that is something that it has prided itself on over many years. We have always heard that from its leader. Every time the leader of the New Zealand First Party comes into this Parliament every little detail is so important. Yet tonight New Zealand First members can throw a bill away. They can say no to accountability on the basis that details do not matter.What has happened to the real New Zealand First Party? What happened to that party of principle that was supposed to be there—that came out of the National Party that was born out of principle? What happened to that New Zealand First Party that was supposed to be in this House to keep us honest? To keep us honest was its role. I believe I know the reason why New Zealand First members are voting against it. It is because they know that Ron Mark will be an under-secretary—ha ha! What will Ron Mark be the under-secretary of? That is the question.Brett Hudson: Maybe Statistics.DAVID BENNETT: Yes yes. And then there is Fletcher Tabuteau and we know he is going to be an under-secretary as well. That is right—that is going to be right. He is going to be an under-secretary. Who else? There is nobody else who can be an under-secretary in that party. Well maybe the Rt Hon Winston Peters might be an under-secretary but New Zealand First will be an under-secretary to the Labour Party which will ditch the Green Party at the first opportunity. Watch and learn Green Party. This is the first step of the Labour Party ditching you at their first opportunity and putting under-secretaries in from the New Zealand First Party. That is what this bill is about. Thank you.
Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I first of all acknowledge Sue Moroney who led the paid parental leave bill and say that it is really disappointing that as we celebrate what looks like unanimous support for this bill we are not doing the same with her bill.When my colleague Adrian Rurawhe—not Rua-why" or whatever Mr Mitchell called him; certainly the wrong surname—stood to take the first call in this debate one of the National front-benchers interjected: "And now on to a substantial topic." Actually it is important this topic but I have to say that despite accountability and transparency being important they are not as important as the opportunity to give families of newborn babies or adopted babies extra financial support in the first few weeks of their life. That would have been a great bill to pass and I am outraged that for the first time ever in New Zealand we had the financial veto exercised. But with this bill it sounds like we are going to get support.David Seymour: The member had a couple of wines at dinner and came back and talked about the wrong bill!Hon RUTH DYSON: The member who is chirping obviously had a nice break earlier this evening. He has come back to the House well rested and full of energy. When he saw this bill he said it was a silly bill. He said "What a silly bill."—he was not going to support it. Then his mates in National said: "Well we are." and he said: "Oops I can't be the only one in the whole of Parliament voting to protect my own ability to keep stuff secret." That would not have been a good look. Even for that member it would not have been a good look. So he is now supporting what he described as a silly bill. I think my colleague is correct—it makes him look a lot sillier than any legislation that has come in.I think Mr Mitchell made a valid point—that not one single member of the then National Opposition through the entire 9 years of a Labour-led Government had the common sense to put up a bill like this. It was a lazy Opposition just like it is lazy in Government now. It should have spotted the opportunity and put forward a member's bill itself but it did not. So it was up to a Labour member in Opposition to do that and I am delighted that we are doing it now.We did not get many submissions on this bill but I think the quality of the submissions from the Law Society and the Law Commission particularly was extremely high. It was very helpful to us. The three parties represented on the Government Administration Committee had good cross-party discussion and debate about the bill and I think we have returned it in a better state. I think the Committee of the whole House stage was a valuable contribution to democracy. This bill will make our Parliament more accountable and more transparent and that is something that the whole of our Parliament should pursue. Thank you."
Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I want to acknowledge my colleague on the Government Administration Committee Adrian Rurawhe and congratulate him on getting his bill through the House. I just want to make an observation: the Labour Party for the 9 years it was in Government had two parliamentary under-secretaries. I think those parliamentary under-secretaries probably did a very good job. We went through those 9 years then we came into two terms of Government with National—that is 15 years. Fifteen years went past and they were very lucky that Mr Rurawhe came in and saw that when Mr Seymour became a parliamentary under-secretary they had to do something about this. He reacted quickly and he made sure that he got a bill into the House. It is funny that after 9 years of actually having their own parliamentary under-secretaries Labour members never saw any need to make any changes around the Official Information Act. I just wonder whether there was something going on in those 9 years that they realised: Oh we have to make some changes."Iain Lees-Galloway: What did the National Opposition do about it? Nothing.MARK MITCHELL: I said in one of my speeches—maybe I am being a bit cynical about this Mr Lees-Galloway but it seems very strange that Mr Seymour comes in as a parliamentary under-secretary with a policy that is not popular with the Labour Party and all of a sudden we have got this bill in the House. On saying that it was obvious through the select committee process that people want more transparency—and I remember Mr Seymour bringing in a whole lot of folders showing that he is already operating like that—but we are very happy to be able to support this bill. Thank you."
Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months' Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): It is my pleasure to take the final call on this bill. Before I do carry on I just want to correct the speaker before me Jacinda Ardern. The Minister for Social Development recently announced that $7.3 million a year will be reallocated from low-intensity home visitation programmes and Parents as First Teachers or PAFT to support more vulnerable children and their families through the more intensive home-visiting programme of Family Start. I just wanted to correct that and make sure that that message got through.I want to thank all the speakers tonight for their contributions on this bill. I want to thank you very much.
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): The National Government's position is that it is affordable to increase paid parental leave but in a measured fashion and it has done that by increasing paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. The National Government also took the view that it is important to balance the way in which it puts money towards families. Although it has not increased paid parental leave to the extent that Sue Moroney wants it has been able to deliver a package of measures that has led to 200000 children getting targeted support through the benefit system.I just want to say that we reject the argument that this is undemocratic. Sure a majority of the House wants an increase in paid parental leave but a majority of the House also supports the Budget that the Government has put forward. The Government has the confidence and supply of the House and that includes the budgetary measures we put before the Parliament—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
O'Connor Simon; Tisch LindsaySIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Myself and I think actually a good number of my constituents in Tāmaki oppose this bill. One of the reasons I would put forward—actually if you were listening to the last contribution particularly at the end it was all about money and so forth. I said in my maiden speech that love is not an economic commodity and it is fascinating that listening to most of these speeches paying money in this area or extending it is somehow going to solve all the problems. There is a great naivety there. I think actually there is a great lack of rigour as well particularly when we start hearing talks about democracy and so forth. It is funny—the Opposition believes in democracy only when it suits its end which is a contradiction to the very nature of what democracy is. The other side is that—you often hear it from me when I talk here about context and consistency—actually this Government has extended paid parental leave prudently up to 18 weeks.We do manage the books carefully. We also understand that money does not grow on trees to be paid out on every next project and to be spent two three four five six seven eight times over as the Opposition is wont to do. We are the party that has increased benefit rates. We are the party that has introduced free health care for under-13-year-olds. We are the party that introduced free pharmaceuticals—again for young people. We are the ones who have the green card—again in health spaces. There is an enormous amount of good work that is going on and so I am happy that we are not supporting this bill. I will certainly be reporting that back strongly to my electorate when I return in a few days.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call—Jan Logie 5 minutes.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Although I rise in opposition to this bill I think it is no secret given my contributions in the first and second readings of this bill that I am definitely in support of the concept of paid parental leave as is this Government. We are the Government that has already extended paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. We have extended the eligibility of those receiving paid parental leave and extended the entitlements of those people who have pre-term babies which of course is a very good help to those families. Where we sit as a Government is we remain prudent managers of the economy.We maintain that paid parental leave has its benefits and I have spoken about those at length with regard to bonding with baby and encouraging breastfeeding but also for those women who cannot breastfeed—the bonding in respect of bottle-feeding should not be underestimated; that time with baby should not be underestimated—and also overcoming the isolation of new parents in a new community or an existing community to bond with other families who have babies and to share in those milestones.Although we support paid parental leave on this side of the House it is about providing a suite of measures for the best start for baby in life the best start for families and supporting our families in life to achieve their hopes and dreams. I am very proud of this Government's record. To name a few things there are free doctors visits and prescriptions for under-13-year-olds; a doubling investment in early childhood education with almost 98 percent engagement rates; and of course our HomeStart packages to get more people into their own home. So we have a suite of measures that are helping families and the extension of paid parental leave is one of those. I am very proud of this Government's record but in this instance because of our prudent management of the economy we cannot support this bill.
Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will appreciate that we are in somewhat uncharted territory this evening because the Government has issued its veto certificate for the first time for an entire bill. I wanted to seek your guidance on whether or not under Standing Order 327(1) the issuer of the veto has any role or responsibility in coming to the House to speak to that veto and make clear the reasons why the Government does not concur with the bill as outlined under Standing Order 327(1)—the signator of that veto being Bill English. I just wondered whether there is any guidance you could give us on whether or not the person responsible for a veto has to speak.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No there is no requirement on the person issuing the veto. I have a copy here. It spells out the requirements under Standing Order 327. It has been tabled. It is on the Table for any member to look at and that is the requirement. There is nothing specific that requires the Minister to come into the House and speak to it.The next speaker—[Interruption] Order! I am calling Denise Roche.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in opposition to this bill. This Government's position on this bill has always been that the effects of it will have more than a small impact on the country's finances. Some members opposite appear to take their facts from listening to the radio during the morning but a select committee instead seeks advice from those who have the means to gather the facts. Ms Moroney sat on the select committee for this piece of business—the Government Administration Committee which I sit on as a permanent member—and the advice we got from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment was very clear that when fully implemented the Moroney bill would add an additional $120 million a year on top of what the Government has already done. Hon Member: Get your figures right.BRETT HUDSON: That is the information from the advisers. It is tabled. I would love to table that information in this House for the benefit of members but I cannot because it is publicly available. I would encourage them and New Zealanders to go to the Parliament website and read the advice that the committee members received from the ministry because this has a significant impact on Government finances and the Government has said that in that case it would exercise a financial veto and here it is doing it. Mr Lees-Galloway and Ms Moroney have tried to say that exercising a financial veto was somehow undermining democracy. Ms Moroney said this Parliament has never done it before. Well for their edification if it is undermining democracy their last Government with Michael Cullen did it 15 times—15 times it exercised the veto over parts of a bill. So it is clearly another case—Hon Members: Lies. They're lying again.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We will not use those phrases in this debate. There are other words to express your concerns. We will not use those words lying" or "a liar".BRETT HUDSON: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Yet another—Hon Members: Tell the truth.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! "Tell the truth." is another phrase that is unparliamentary. We will not have it.BRETT HUDSON: Yet another case from that side of the House of "Do as we say not as we do". This bill is unaffordable. The Government has already taken measures to extend support for families. I oppose it. I call on the House for everyone to oppose it."
Curran ClareCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I just want to make a few comments about this bill before the House this evening the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. It is a relatively simple bill and it is a cleaning up the statute book" kind of bill and we support it. But I just want to make a couple of wider comments around the context for vision-impaired people in New Zealand and I will draw on some of the comments made by my colleague Poto Williams particularly around audio-captioning and participation—the ability to participate.This bill is basically just cleaning up a change that has already occurred. It ensures that legislation that is no longer relevant does not remain on our statute book and that is good and sensible. But if we come to the 2016 context for the 70000 vision-impaired people in New Zealand there are pressing issues around participation—their ability to fully participate in society—and in particular one of those ways is audio-captioning of television. There is a lack of audio-captioning. I note that New Zealand On Air provides funding through Able for TV ONE TV2 Prime TV3 and Channel 4 for some audio-captioning for the hearing-impaired and some audio description on selected programming on TV ONE and TV2.There is no doubt though that the small nature of that captioning has an impact in terms of how people with vision impairment and hearing impairment as well obviously have the ability—or the lack of ability—to properly participate. The point I am making is that perhaps this bill could have gone a little bit further as to spelling out the wider context for people with vision impairment in New Zealand. Seventy-thousand is a significant number of people who have difficulty participating in New Zealand society and receiving information and the same sorts of entertainment and news that able-bodied people do.So I just want to put on the record tonight that a bill that tidies up the statute book removes confusion that suggests that the foundation is still a statutory body when it is not and repeals an Act that emphasises the foundation's status as completely independent from Parliament has some value. But there are some significant other measures that Parliament and individual members who want to put bills forward could be doing—things that have inordinate value for people with vision impairment. Thanks.Bill read a second time."
Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading
Simpson ScottSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure as a member of the Health Committee to take a call on this private bill which is in the name of my friend and colleague the Hon Nicky Wagner. I was really impressed with the submission made by the foundation at the select committee. It is an organisation that as New Zealanders we have all grown up knowing about—what its purpose and what its history has been. Most of us however who are not involved with the blind community probably do not really fully understand the nitty-gritty of the good work that it does; we understand the guide dogs and we understand the support that it gives to blind and vision-impaired people but we do not really understand the nitty-gritty of all the good work that it has done over so many years.What most New Zealanders probably also do not understand is that the foundation has been bound—for what were initially really good reasons—by parliamentary statute. This bill seeks to remove those binds. It enables the foundation to take full incorporated society status under that piece of legislation. It will give the foundation the freedom and the governance structures that are needed to ensure that its good work is continued for many many years to come. I think that this little piece of legislation—and as the chairman of the Health Committee made clear in his presentation it is a very small relatively simple bill—is endorsed and supported across the House. I am very pleased to add my support to the bill and I commend it to the House.
Sepuloni CarmelCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): It is great when we have members' bills in particular from different sides of the House that we can support. I just want to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner for this private bill the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. I just want to say as has been said earlier that Labour does support this bill. There is not much really to say except in general just to talk a little bit I guess about the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind.The foundation was originally constituted under the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind Act 1963 under the name Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind. In 2002 the foundation wished to change its name to the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind—so of the Blind" rather than "for the Blind"—to clarify its status as a body controlled primarily by and for the benefit of people who are blind and vision impaired. The foundation also wished to modernise its structure giving it the characteristics of an incorporated society and to provide for the possible future registration of the foundation as a society incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. To that end the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002 was enacted. The Act was structured in such a way as to become spent if the foundation chose to exercise the option to register as an incorporated society. The foundation registered as an incorporated society on 10 January 2012. Accordingly the Act is now spent. The foundation considers it desirable that the Act be repealed for two reasons: (1) keeping the Act on the statute book causes confusion as it suggests that the foundation is still a statutory body when it is not; and (2) the repeal of the Act will emphasise the foundation's status as completely independent from Parliament. The foundation's members and associated parties regard—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member. She cannot just read out the front page of the bill. It is not debating.CARMEL SEPULONI: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. So it is good to be in the House today supporting this bill supporting the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind and supporting our blind community. I will again just acknowledge the Minister for bringing this private bill to the House. It is good to be able to positively acknowledge a National Minister sometimes—it happens on the very rare occasion. I am pretty sure it will not happen again for a very very long time after this. Thank you very much."
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I also rise in support of this bill. If you look at the history of the Blind Foundation—125 years of history—you can see that the foundation continues to adapt and evolve over time. Currently it is in a situation where there is no need for it to be governed by an Act. In fact an incorporated society is the most appropriate means to govern the foundation. It gives the foundation a greater ownership and more flexibility. In the changing times that we are in that flexibility is absolutely required—whether it is through technology changes or ways to raise funds—to satisfy the needs of the 11500-odd people whom the foundation serves. The repealing of the Act which this bill does is an excellent progression. I support this bill.
Dean JacquiJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It was with great pleasure that we had representatives of the Blind Foundation give evidence to our committee during the consideration of this bill. It was very interesting to me to hear of their activities around the country and the services that they provide for the vision-impaired folk by looking after their well-being and providing a range of services that have been over time adapted to the modern world. It really highlighted for me first of all the reach that they have into our communities and into our towns but also the fact that the delivery of the Blind Foundation has evolved and changed over the years to reflect the needs of the people at the time.This bill does exactly that. As other members have said it is a simple bill. We returned the bill without amendment. Really the foundation sought the repeal bill because keeping the Act as a statute on the statute book was contrary to what it was about and caused confusion. The suggestion really in that case is that the Blind Foundation is a statutory body. It is not and so the repeal of this Act will emphasise the foundation's status as being completely independent from Parliament and serving the people who seek it out for its services. It is a good bill. I commend it to the House.
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): That was rather quick far more quick than I expected—ha ha! Moving along I guess that is not too surprising considering the rather straightforward nature of this legislation but I would like to add a voice from the Green Party and put our support on record again at this stage. This is a bill that has been brought to the House by the Hon Nicky Wagner as a private bill in support of the Blind Foundation. This is as has already been stated the final step in the evolution of the independence of the foundation. The foundation has existed for 126 years and was made a statutory body by legislation in 1963. As we have seen over time our attitudes are changing towards our understanding of people who are in our community who have disabilities. Rather than them being seen as people whom we need to take care of they are seen as people for whom we need to remove the barriers that are getting in the way of their full participation. We have moved from a charity model to an empowerment model and so it is completely right that the next step should be the full independence of the foundation as the representative body of people who are blind or have low vision. This is the last step in that process.In the 2002 legislation there was the change in the name of the foundation from the Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind—those taking care of those people who are blind—to the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind which is an organisation made up of people working in solidarity to ensure people's participation. It was also shifted to a model that looked a lot like an incorporated society so it was not so Government-associated; it was actually membership-driven.In that 2002 legislation there was the provision for the foundation to go to that next step to formally become an incorporated society and that is what it has done. Within the legislation at that stage there was an acknowledgment that there would be the need to repeal the legislation—that 2002 Act. This is what this bill does. The foundation has said that that is important because it removes the confusion that people may have that perhaps it is still a statutory body. When there is an Act about it on the books you can understand any potential confusion around that. So this removes that confusion and it asserts again the foundation's independence.These are two very simple and important things to do and the Green Party is happy to support this legislation.
O'Connor Simon; Mallard TrevorSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take a call on this Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act Repeal Bill. I want to start by acknowledging the Minister in two capacities—obviously as a person who takes great interest in this area but also for personally taking charge of this bill. So thanks to Nicky Wagner for that. Importantly this is a private bill. Often we talk in this House about private members' bills; in fact there is no such thing. There are members' bills and there are private bills and this is one of the latter. The bill itself is incredibly simple. It is ultimately taking the Blind Foundation out from the governance of statute and allowing it to basically be what it is and wants to be today which is an incorporated society. I want to commend the foundation for that. As I say it was relatively simple. The bill came to the Health Committee and we appreciated the opportunity to go through it and to return that report to the House a few weeks back. As I like to do as chair I want to thank the various members of the select committee across all parties for their cooperation. I suppose a bill of this nature being relatively if not completely uncontroversial makes that quite easy. But importantly it provided us with a welcome opportunity to hear people from the foundation talk us through the services they are providing and the vision they have for the future so I would like to thank all of those who came in.It did not take us very long as a select committee to hear effectively the endorsement for the bill. There is no surprise in that—the foundation put it forward—but as I say it became a welcome opportunity to hear a little bit more about what the Blind Foundation has in mind for New Zealanders; what it sees as its current opportunities but also its challenges. So again my thanks to the team that came down and on behalf of the committee I thank them for that opportunity. I personally am looking forward to engaging with the foundation next week. I believe I am visiting its facilities in Auckland to have a little bit of a chat around the work of the select committee and engaging as a constituent MP. I see that as continuing the conversation if you will that this bill has delivered.At this point I am looking forward to it progressing to the Committee stage. I do not expect that to be overly controversial—again partly because it is a pretty simple bill and also because the select committee was very happy to report it back with no amendments. I commend this bill at its second reading to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is—I call Jan Logie.
Points of Order — Question No. 11 to Minister—Disestablishment of Portfolio
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand and rise and follow Noddy" and his diatribe. Amidst the growing economic global uncertainty around the world this is a fantastic time to be a Kiwi. While most of our friends in the UK and in Europe face uncertain times we here can take comfort in the fact that the innovation passion and creativity of Kiwis is driving the economic prosperity of this country. One of the key focuses of this National Government is to grow the economy and we do this well because we have the stewardship of the world's best Minister of Finance Bill English. Managing the finances of the country is not unlike managing the budget in your own household: the more income you earn the more things that you can spend it on. And so it is with Government. The more avenues that we open up to increase our income the more that the Government can invest in our country our communities individuals businesses and the environment but without an ever-increasing income stream this is simply not possible. Our ongoing success can be confidently attributed to the free-trade agreements that we have negotiated with our trading partners and of course the best of those is yet to come with the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA).I am from a region with a vast and very diverse range of industries: horticulture dairying mining tourism and forestry. All of these industries stand to benefit from the TPPA. As to the value to New Zealand of these export markets one for example is fruit and vegetables and this is worth $1.2 billion to New Zealand. Kiwifruit alone is worth $18.4 million and dairy exports to our Trans-Pacific Partnership partners are worth a massive $4.3 billion—and not forgetting wine of course which is worth $839 million. All of these stand to benefit from massive tariff reductions. Our goal in the National Party and in this Government is to reduce debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020.Compared with other countries New Zealand is doing extremely well under this Government reining in its costs while maintaining spending on new assets and investing very heavily in our future. To bring you some comparisons with net debt in other countries at the end of 2015 the USA had 104 percent debt to GDP Australia had 34 percent Japan had 229 percent and the UK had 89 percent. New Zealand is doing extremely well under this National Government.This ongoing economic success has meant that we can invest in regions like mine. Grey Base Hospital received $97 million to replace an aged and outdated facility. Recently we announced with the Hon Nikki Kaye an investment of $1 million into Motueka High School to cater to its growing population. This Government has formed a partnership between the Buller District and the Ministry of Social Development to help workers to hold those positions in that district while they develop opportunities and a new bridge is planned over the Taramakau River so that cars and trucks do not have to share with trains. Despite scaremongering by some of the Opposition members road funding to the West Coast has increased by nearly $10 million since 2008. When the economy does well we all do well."
4. Adult Literacy and Numeracy—OECD Report and Government Measures to AddressJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and EmploymentAdult Literacy and Numeracy—OECD Report and Government Measures to Address4. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What recent reports has he received on improvements in adult literacy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): Overnight last night the OECD released its survey of adult skills which showed New Zealand's ranking in adult literacy has improved significantly to fourth out of 33 participating countries in the OECD up from 12th in 1996. New Zealand is also amongst the world leaders in problem solving using technology a skill that has been tested for the first time in the survey. We rank fifth of developed countries in this important skill and have the highest proportion of adults with moderate to high problem-solving skills using computers. These skills are increasingly called for in today's working environments. Adult numeracy skills have remained steady since 2006 and in that category New Zealand is ranked 13th in the OECD ahead of Australia Canada Singapore and the overall OECD average.Jacqui Dean: Why are literacy and numeracy skills crucial for adults?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government invests heavily in this area because literacy and numeracy skills are crucial for people to participate in everyday modern life and gain the skills they need to find sustainable employment and improving those skills is one of the important priorities of the Government's tertiary education strategy. These results are great news for our society and our economy. Our workforce needs world-class skills and knowledge that boost the productivity of the New Zealand economy. The progress we have made is a real tribute to the adult educators and all those involved in working hard to improve literacy in New Zealand.Jacqui Dean: What is the Government doing to further lift adult numeracy and literacy skills?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The survey results follow years of intensive focus by this Government on improving adult literacy and numeracy with the number of adults accessing help with their literacy and numeracy quadrupling between 2010 and 2013 to 175000 people. We are also seeing earlier identification of problems though the adult literacy and numeracy assessment tool introduced by this Government. Improving skills is supported with significant investment of over $300 million in 2015 alone and was further boosted in this last Budget with $14.6 million invested over 4 years so that foundation education at levels 1 and 2 on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework is now completely fee-free from 2017.
Tuesday 28 June 2016 (continued on Wednesday 29 June 2016) - Volume 715
Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
Macindoe TimTIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koe e Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Hineuru iwi. Rather unexpectedly I find myself taking this final call on behalf of the Government but this is sometimes what happens to a whip when the House gets ahead of time and that is what has happened. The final speaker on our list is unable to be here. Unfortunately I am unable to speak with as much knowledge as others who have spoken before me have done on this particular bill but I do nevertheless want to say how proud I am to be here on this day and to acknowledge the contributions of a number of those who have spoken before.I think that what you are seeing today is Parliament at its best and that is because this is one of those occasions when members do all listen to one another with considerable respect and acknowledge very significant chapters in our history. Considerable wrongs are being righted today. Of course as others have said you could never have adequate compensation for the wrongs of the past and we do not even pretend to be doing that. But nevertheless I think that with the expression of genuine regret and a determination to move forward from this and with the considerable generosity of the iwi in accepting the apology and the redress from the Crown we have an opportunity to move forward much more united and much more determined to have a better future in our country respecting one another regardless of race or gender ethnicity or religion or whatever.I am very proud therefore to have been a member of a Parliament that has in recent years made considerable progress in advancing the Treaty settlements that have come before this House. These special extended sittings that we have been having quite regularly on Wednesday mornings in recent times have enabled us to make that considerable progress. But of course that is just the legislative stage and I acknowledge everybody who has worked so hard for such a very long period of time behind the scenes to bring us to this point where on this historic day as we conclude the third reading and finally end a process that has taken so long we can say to you congratulations well done arohanui and may we wish you and your iwi all the very best for the future and thank you for joining the Crown on this historic occasion.Bill read a third time.WaiataThe House adjourned at 12.07 p.m. (Wednesday)
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): E rau rangatira mā tēnā koutou e ngā iwi katoa kia ora mai tātau.[Acknowledgments to you esteemed ones all the tribes and us all.]It is a privilege to take a brief call on this the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. Over the course of time and by previous speakers it is noted that in the early 19th century Hineuru lived and cultivated land in the region between Hawke's Bay and Taupō Moana. Interactions with the Crown started from 1886 and were harsh. In October 1886 there was conflict with the Crown at Ōmarunui and by the end of 1886—a few months later—it is recorded that Hineuru had abandoned nearly all of their kāinga and cultivations due to conflict with the Crown. Thus it started.So today we come to the third reading. Today we go some way to make amends: the Crown acknowledgment cultural redress commercial redress and the apology the last stanza of which reads as follows: Through this settlement the Crown seeks to atone for its past wrongs and to assist Hineuru in lifting the burden of grievance and restoring the well-being of your people and cultural heritage. The Crown looks forward to building a new relationship with Hineuru based on mutual trust co-operation and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles." As part of this process I want to commend the Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson for his work officials of the Office of Treaty Settlements iwi and Crown negotiators the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee Nuk Korako and committee members.I want to conclude by sharing this observation. The business of this House is always special but the third reading of a Treaty settlement bill is extra special. Early in this career it was noted to me: "Shane try and be in the House for a Treaty settlement third reading. The mood is completely different to the normal cut and thrust of the House." I have now been blessed to be here for these moments a few times and to me it is as if a collective sigh is expelled—the sigh of a hundred years; the sigh of a hundred peoples. And just as a sigh is a breath out what naturally follows is a breath in—a breath that brings new oxygen new life and a new day. So I commend and exalt iwi and the Crown to breathe in this new air and marvel at the taste. What is that taste? Ah! It is the taste of settlement—tinged with sadness but still sweet to the tongue. May that taste succour and sustain ngā iwi katoa for many years. With that I commend this bill to the House."
Ngāruahine Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): E koro mā e kui mā e rau rangatira mā o Ngāti Hineuru nau mai haere mai kia ora. Ā tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa. [To the elderly men and women and esteemed ones of Ngāti Hineuru welcome and greetings. So acknowledgments salutations and congratulations to us all.]I stand privileged and humbled to take a short kōrero on the third reading of the Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill. I stand humbled from the contributions that have been given in the House today about the atrocities and injustices that your tūpuna endured and how you have survived and come through to today. I am humbled because I have never—and will never—walked in your shoes. I have no idea about the pain and the hurt that you have suffered through the loss of your land. As I sat and listened to the contribution from my colleague Louisa Wall my heart too fell apart over her contribution about the issues and atrocities that you have faced.Today is a day of remembrance a day of forgiveness and a day of looking to the future—looking to your future to your mokopuna's future. I am just one mere cog in the whole process which will go on after today when the Governor-General receives this legislation signs it off and effectively it receives its Royal assent. So it becomes law and you receive everything that is within your legislation so that you can carry on and thrive.From sitting up there just a few minutes ago and looking around the gallery I understand that you are only but a portion of such a very big group. I just want to say well done. I want to congratulate you. I want to say that in a few years' time when I am visiting over in your rohe I will see many great things from this settlement process that you have been able to grow with yourselves with your rangatahi and with your mokopuna. If ever you run out of ideas ask your mokopuna and your rangatahi—they have got heaps of ideas for you.So without any further ado I stand and I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.
Business of the House
Macindoe TimTIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā kia ora e Te Whare tēnā koutou e Te Iwi o Ngāruahine.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker salutations to you the House and acknowledgments to the Ngāruahine iwi.]It is very good to have you here today. As a Pākehā member of Parliament from the Waikato region I am a little bit too far removed from the action to be able to speak in great detail about this particular bill but this is a very significant occasion. I am delighted to have the honour of taking the final call on behalf of the Government this morning. I congratulate all who have worked on this bill to this stage on the progress that you have made but I also thank the iwi for your courage and your considerable understanding in the process that you have undertaken. As a Government we are firmly fixed on making great progress with the Treaty settlement process and I acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson for the sterling job he has done in leading us to this point. I acknowledge those before him who have also worked on these matters. I acknowledge our tremendous relationship with the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell Marama Fox and the members of the Māori Party and I thank them for the work that they do as well. To all those who have done such great work behind the scenes or up front within the negotiations I extend my congratulations and my acknowledgment. To the Māori Affairs Committee that has worked on the bill as well I commend you for the work that you have done. I endorse the kōrero of my good colleague Jo Hayes sitting beside me who does have much greater knowledge of these matters and in particular I just want to conclude by acknowledging the points that she and others have made that this is of course a matter of great historic significance and your mokopuna—our tamariki—will look back in years to come at the work that is being done now. Their futures are being shaped by the decisions that are being made. So it is my fervent prayer that this will have a very positive outcome for the iwi. I am absolutely confident that it is having a very positive atmosphere and result for our country as a whole. It is bringing to us a much greater degree of understanding. It is right that we correct the wrongs of the past and that we learn from those lessons. I have great pleasure therefore in supporting this bill.Bill read a second time.
Davis KelvinKELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia īnoi tātou. E Te Atua Kaha Rawa kia atawhai manaaki anō hoki mātou i tēnei tāima kia ngākau tahi mātou. Ka īnoi atu ki a koe kia manaakitia ngā haerenga i roto i Te Whare i tēnei rangi hei painga mō te motu whānui. Ka inoi atu ki a koe kia manaakitia rātou katoa mā kua tau mai nei ki roto i tēnei Whare kia rongo ai i ngā kaupapa e pā ana ki a rātou. Ka īnoi atu ki a koe i runga i Te Ingoa Tapu o tō Tama a Ihu Karaiti. Āmine.[Let us pray. Almighty God we seek that you care and also protect us at this time to ensure that we are all of one heart. We pray that you support the proceedings in the House today for the betterment of the nation at large. We pray that you look after all those who have come into this House to hear the proposals that relate to them. We make that plea to you in the Holy Name of Your Son Jesus Christ. Amen.]
Flavell Te Ururoa; Mallard TrevorKARAKIAHon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): He rā anō tēnei e Te Pika kua moea te pō kua oho ake tātau i te ata nei ā anei te manuhiri kei runga ake nei. He inoi noa ake tāku ki tētahi ki a Kelvin Davis pea hei wāwāhi i wā tātau kōrero i roto i te kupu kōrero ki te wāhi ngaro tētahi kōrero karakia nei māna tēnā hei kawe hei tīmatanga i tō tātou rā mēnā kai te pai tērā ki Te Whare.[This is another day Mr Assistant Speaker we have slept the night and have woken up this morning and here immediately above us are the visitors. My plea is simply to seek that someone perhaps Kelvin Davis open up our contributions by way of an incantation to the place unseen or a prayer. I leave it for him to consider how our day should start if that is fine with the House.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that process? I take it the member was seeking leave. There appears to be none.
Finlayson Christopher; Mallard TrevorTUESDAY 28 JUNE 2016(continued on Wednesday 29 June 2016)BUSINESS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave in relation to the Ngāti Hineuru debate for all amendments in my name to be incorporated into the bill and that when order of the day No. 6 is called by the Clerk we proceed directly to the third reading.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.
Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA personal vote was called for on the question That the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 62 Adams Dowie Kuriger Scott Bakshi Dunne (P) Lee Seymour (P) Barclay English (P) Lotu-Iiga (P) Simpson Barry (P) Finlayson Macindoe (P) Smith N (P) Bayly Flavell (P) McClay (P) Smith S (P) Bennett D Foss (P) McCully (P) Tisch Bennett P (P) Foster-Bell (P) McKelvie (P) Tolley (P) Bishop Goldsmith (P) Mitchell M (P) Upston (P) Borrows (P) Goodhew Muller (P) Wagner Bridges (P) Guy (P) Naylor (P) Williamson Brownlee (P) Hayes Ngaro Woodhouse Carter (P) Hudson O'Connor S (P) Yang (P) Coleman Joyce (P) Parata (P) Young (P) Collins Kaye Parmar (P) Dean Key (P) Pugh Teller: Doocey (P) Korako Reti RossNoes 59 Ardern (P) Fox Mathers (P) Sepuloni (P) Ball Genter Mitchell C Shaw Bindra Goff (P) Moroney Shearer (P) Bond Graham Nash (P) Sio (P) Browning (P) Hague O'Connor D Stewart Clark (P) Henare (P) O'Rourke (P) Tabuteau (P) Clendon (P) Hipkins Paraone (P) Tirikatene (P) Cosgrove (P) Hughes (P) Parker Turei (P) Cunliffe King Peters (P) Twyford (P) Curran (P) Little Prosser Wall (P) Davidson Logie Robertson Whaitiri (P) Davis Mahuta (P) Roche Williams Delahunty Mallard (P) Rurawhe Woods Dyson Mark (P) Sage Teller: Faafoi Martin Salesa Lees-GallowayBill read a second time.Sitting suspended from 10.10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)