edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
9. Budget 2017—Vote Vulnerable Children Oranga TamarikiJOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for ChildrenBudget 2017—Vote Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki9. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has she made regarding funding to support vulnerable children and young people?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): Last week as part of Budget 2017 I announced that this Government is investing another $434.1 million in new initiatives to support vulnerable children and young people through the Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki. This means that the Government through Vote Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki is spending a total of $857.7 million on the commissioning and delivering of child-centred services. This new ministry's funding will be 18 percent higher than 2 years ago when it was part of the Ministry of Social Development. The funding will support the radical overhaul of care and protection in New Zealand and is part of a 4 to 5 year transformation programme to build a system that is focused on prevention and early intervention.Joanne Hayes: What does this funding mean for caregivers of children in care?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Budget 2017 sees an extra $26.4 million for a caregiver support package that will see the Government provide more support to around 4500 caregivers. Working with caregivers we have been told that they want a 24/7 support service more targeted training more support for children with higher needs and more effective recruitment and retention strategies—and this is what this Government has delivered in Budget 2017.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I suspect the Minister may have been reading from an official document in which case I am asking her to table it so I can hand it on to the member who asked the question in the first place.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No the second part is not necessary. Was the Minister quoting from an official document? She was not.
4. Budget 2017—Vote HealthSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of HealthBudget 2017—Vote Health4. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that Budget 2017 will invest an extra $3.9 billion over four years into Vote Health taking the total health investment to $16.77 billion in 2017/18?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes indeed. Delivering better health services for a growing population remains this Government's No. 1 funding priority. This is reflected in Budget 2017. The additional funding will deliver a range of new initiatives to meet cost pressures as well as population growth including an extra $1.76 billion over 4 years for district health boards to invest in services and to improve access.Simon O'Connor: How much has health funding increased in recent years?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: An extra $888 million is being invested into health services for 2017-18. That is the biggest increase in 11 years. The total health investment is $16.77 billion in 2017-18. That is an increase of around $5 billion across our nine Budgets. None of this would have been possible without the steady management of the economy which has allowed us to maintain sustainable investment into our health services.Dr David Clark: Is the reason he prefers to add 4 years' worth of health spending that he gave district health boards (DHBs) only $439 million for 2017-18 when his officials told him that the total cost pressures for DHBs was $644 million in the last year alone?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No I believe the 4 year total convention was started by Dr Michael Cullen and this Government has continued with that.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a paper showing that his ministry advises based on demographic pressure that in the last year alone the cost was—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need the source of the document.Dr David Clark: It is an OIA response.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act response. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The time has come for me to report progress I suppose—to report something anyway. House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): I just want to carry on from what my colleague Mr Tirikatene was talking about but I am not going to focus on clause 100 but rather on clause 97(3)(c). My concern is around that whole area of a mortgage. While I have not been able to sight it in the bill itself is the Minister suggesting or implying that any mortgagee is required to follow the terms of the disposition of land interests as articulated in the bill? In other words the owners or the kaiwhakahaere on behalf of the owners owes me money—they have not been able to meet the obligations of their mortgage—and so I have that right to dispose of that particular interest. Is the bill implying in terms of the rules of disposition that I as the mortgagee can only dispose of that interest in terms of the bill?I think that is the whole issue we are talking about. I am quite surprised that shareholders—owners of Māori land—are able to mortgage their interest in such a way. If they can and if they do not meet those obligations then Māori land is up for sale. Fa'afetai.
Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora Mr Chair. I just want to respond to the previous speaker Peeni Henare particularly around clause 100 which is the Sale of parcel in ordinary cases". This particular clause actually specifies that "the only way in which a parcel of Māori freehold land may ordinarily be sold …"—and I think this is one of the main issues—"(2) The sale must be—(b) to a preferred recipient or preferred entity …" or if a preferential tender process ends without a qualifying tender to any other person on terms determined by the process.In this one here the decision to offer the land for sale must be agreed by the governance body. If there is not a governance body well then the owners who together hold a 75 percent or more share in the land—75 percent or more share in the land—the sale requires an order confirmation from the Māori Land Court.I think this is the essence actually of this particular clause. I think the other part of it is that there is an amendment to this clause via Supplementary Order Paper 279. It covers the area of the terminology used in this clause which has been changed. So I think the retention of the freehold for the sale of Māori land is considered a proper safeguard. That is what this was about. It was about the safeguard especially as it has been strengthened by enabling owners to raise but not lower the threshold. I think listening to Mr Henare that it was actually about those thresholds. So this one here is actually about enabling owners to raise but not lower the threshold when they have a governance body—to 100 percent actually if they wish. So I think that that is an important part of that one.If the owners of a whole parcel of Māori freehold land decide to offer the land for sale they will be required to give a right of first refusal—so an RFR—to preferred recipients and a right of second refusal to a preferred entity. Just to explain that clause 100 I think actually covers—Peeni Henare: But still 50 percent share can decide.NUK KORAKO: Yeah but when you look at the threshold particularly around the 75 percent—I just really wanted to stand to clarify that particular clause that clause 100. It was discussed in actually quite a lot of detail when looking at this particular part of the bill. Kia ora."
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I just have a very specific question. I was very encouraged by the Minister's introduction to Part 4 where he wanted to give assurances that it is going to be harder to sell now; that the threshold currently at 75 percent for those decisions—our disposition of land—can actually be taken to 100 percent. I am just trying to find out the process for how that is done. For me it begs the question—sure that can be done but will there be any specific whānau land owners who even though it can be done are at a disadvantage and that leaves the onus far too much on whānau land owners having to be more proactive about that than when it should actually be the case. It is just a question about how that is done.I was encouraged to hear that freehold land cannot be gifted to anyone who does not have a tikanga Māori connection. I hear that but then we go to—I am happy to be corrected—clause 100 which is the Sale of parcel in ordinary cases". Clause 100(1) says: "This section specifies the only way in which a parcel of Māori freehold land may ordinarily be sold"—and then it refers to another section. It goes down to clause 100(2) which says: "The sale must be (a) to a preferred recipient"—fine. I am following that that goes back to that list which I think included ascendants children grandchildren and then grandparents parents and also whānau—yes sure. But then I am a little confused about clause 100(2)(c) which says the sale must be "to any other person under an agreement (i) that is made by tender or auction after a preferential tender process for the land ends without a qualifying tender; and (ii) that is on terms at least as favourable to the seller …".I want to make sure that sure there are preferred recipients but this is not a complete stop and restriction and is not saying that it cannot be sold to anyone else. What I am reading in clause 100 is that yes first up are preferred recipients but if that does not happen for whatever reason it can then be sold on. I would just like some clarity because the Minister wants to assure everybody that Part 4 does actually protect against land status change and partitioning and disposition sale particularly for Māori freehold land. I am seeing that it can still be put over to any other person. So I would just like some clarity on that. Thank you."
Mallard TrevorPart 4 Dispositions of Māori freehold land and other landThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question now is that Part 4 be agreed to. It is debate on clauses 96 to 153 and schedules 2 and 4.
Korako Nuk; Mallard TrevorNUK KORAKO (National): I move That the question be now put.Hon Members: Mr Chair. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No We have been considering this part for about 2 hours now. We have had well over 20 calls. I think we are able to make a decision.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I hear that the Minister is saying that he covered off I think the specific points that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta was raising in terms of the clarity of the participating and decision-making thresholds but I did just want to add for the Green Party records and for the Committee that the complexity of those—because I have it noted here and I could be wrong that this is a new provision. I hear that the Minister is saying he addressed the House earlier on the specific point of clarity of decision-making thresholds and when a decision is not a decision but I am wondering though whether—so that is the bill and then we have got the Supplementary Order Paper to the bill. It seems that in my research that I have noted it is a new provision and therefore I think I am just asking how with regard to the particular table that is in the bill we are also going to get that clear information to the very people who need to try to understand the road map of how these decisions are going to be made.Whether it has been clarified here in the Committee is one thing but I am particularly concerned then if this is a new provision about how we are then going to ensure that there is reasonable and equitable access for whānau land owners regardless of whether they are part of a large block and shareholding collective or smaller blocks or any whānau land owners who may have less ability to access the specialist knowledge that it is going to take to get through these.And then picking up on Part 3 clause 52 and what other colleagues in the House have said about I think clause 52—Minor cannot vote on decisions and is not counted as participating owner"—and yes it goes down to say that those under 18 years of age "may participate in a meeting of owners about any decision relating to the land; but (b) cannot vote on the decision." I think the Minister was clarifying that in those cases a kaiwhakamarumaru then acts as your vote. I think that is my understanding but what I also wondered about and it may be very unlikely to happen but it got me thinking was whether there would ever be a situation when there is a collective group of under-18-year-old landowners where you may end up with only kaiwhakamarumaru participating in those decisions for them? And I understand that it is unlikely but I was more interested in a legal back-stop about that particular situation or any other situation where we end up with kaiwhakamarumaru being the principal decision makers and vote makers. So those were just two of the main questions that I had in this particular part of Part 3 actually because Part 3 is quite a lengthy part as well. Thank you."
Flavell Te UruroaHon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): I will try to cover off some of the issues that have been raised. Just unfortunately for the Hon Nanaia Mahuta pretty much in my first call this evening I covered most of those issues but unfortunately she was not here to hear it—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Oh sorry. I did not realise. I am sorry about that but I have made those references already so I will not go back over them but I did want to return to some of the issues that have been raised already.One issue raised by Rino Tirikatene talked about minors' participation in meetings. I am advised that 18 is the recognised age of what they call the age of majority. They have legal capacity to make decisions that bind the land and that is under general law. Under the bill there is a mechanism to allow them to actually participate through a kaiwhakamarumaru so—there you go—there is an opportunity to be able to participate there unlike the current situation. It is the same under the current Act where minors need to go to court to get a trustee appointed under a kaitiaki trust. So hopefully that addresses the issue that Mr Tirikatene raised.Adrian Rurawhe pointed out clause 61(3) and noted that the clause states: The trustees must deal with trust property in accordance with any conditions or restrictions set out in the declaration of trust (for example if a declaration of trust prohibits the sale of an interest the trustees must vote in any decision-making process of the owners of the land against a resolution to sell the land)." Just to inform the Committee actually in that clause all this is talking about and all it is saying is that if the trustees have no power to sell shares then if the wider ownership of the block is voting on a proposal to actually sell the block the clause requires the trustees to vote against the sale. This is going to be covered further in Part 4 as we move towards that.So it is important just to clarify those other issues and indeed the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and other members Pita Paraone and Adrian Rurawhe have raised issues that I covered off sufficiently enough earlier to give the Committee some degree of understanding about where this has been sitting. But I thought it was important just to cover off those points so that we do not get too far ahead of coming back to address to them. Ka nui te mihi."
Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): Thank you for the opportunity to be able to participate in this part of the Committee stage. I want to just talk specifically to clause 51C where reference is made to the words participating owners". We have often heard in leading up to this stage—from the time the bill was introduced right up to this evening may I say—that this bill is all about the retention of Māori land. Can I say that when we talk about participating—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry could the member give me the reference again? PITA PARAONE: Clause 51C—participating owners. That is fine for those owners who participate but they may be in the minority in terms of the overall ownership. So what this suggests to me is that we have a minority group that makes up the participating owners making a decision on behalf of the rest of the owners. Most of them—well they are not participating because they are not there people do not know where they are or in fact some of them may have even passed away. So for me that is a concern. It has been a long-lasting concern even under the present administration if the whereabouts of many owners are not known. Where they are not known it seems to me to be very unfair for a small group of owners whom the system or the process knows who they are—or it knows their whereabouts more importantly—to be making a decision for those who may not be aware for a reason not of their own making of what is happening to their land. So they could end up having their land alienated by a small group with possibly only a small shareholding and that I think is an even greater crime than having the authority to make that decision by virtue of this particular clause in the bill. I think that is an issue that has to be addressed and it can be addressed only if people know where the owners are. If their whereabouts are not known then it seems to me the be very unfair for them to have the future of their land determined by that group of owners who happen to be known to the authorities as to where they stay. So to have this process managed by the proposed Māori Land Service is I think an even greater insult to those shareholders. As we have often heard our people are a mobile people. So people who are living offshore for instance or away from home can have the future of their legacy—can I say—which they would hope to leave to their children being lost by virtue of the fact that they are not regarded as participating owners. So I hope that Minister Flavell might be able to explain how this will in fact prevent the sale of Māori land. As I go on to the rest of that clause I do not have too much difficulty with that other than to support the comments made about those shares that owners have decided to retain within whānau trusts. I think the notion of whānau trusts does have its merits because it prevents the downsizing of the families' shares. Hon Members: Mr Chair. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh what a dilemma. I call the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. I would have given the call to Meka Whaitiri because she is the spokesperson but anyway."
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti. I want to address both the establishment of w'ānau trusts and the operations of w'ānau trusts. I just want to take up something that the Minister in the chair Te Ururoa Flavell said and it relates to clause 61(3) which seems to me to be saying that if a w'ānau trust in its declaration does not want land or interests to be sold then it has to declare it as part of the declaration. Given what the Minister has said—Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Reference?ADRIAN RURAWHE: Oh sorry—clause 61(3). I understand that the clauses around the disposal of land are coming up in a later part—in Part 4 I think it is. It seems to me that if it is in fact that shareholders beneficiaries must be consulted and must vote on whether or not land is to be sold then what is the purpose of having this line within this clause? It would seem to me that that is redundant that the w'ānau trust based on what the Minister's answer to a previous question was does not apply to this clause and that this clause is basically saying that if a trust or if the shareholders want to they can in the declaration allow or enable the trust to sell that land or sell their interest And yet there are situations or clauses that are coming up in later parts that the Minister has said the beneficiaries and the shareholders must vote on. So what is the purpose of having this as part of the declaration? It would appear to me to be inconsistent with what the Minister has said and totally redundant.I also want to pick up on and refer to clause 59(1) and the two ways in which w'ānau trusts can be established and a declaration made—it also seems to me that it is not as straightforward as we are led to believe. I think as the Māori Land Court judges said in their submission it would require a relatively sophisticated document.Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Reference again please?ADRIAN RURAWHE: That is clause 59(1). I just think that in that sort of situation then it may be more cumbersome for a w'ānau to go through to make that declaration.Further on still with w'ānau trusts and I know this is coming up also in Part 7 but the alienation or the selling of the trust under clause—oh it actually comes up later on but it is relevant to these clauses in establishing a w'ānau trust. That is relating to what I said before on clause 61 that it does impact on the ability to use those clauses later on in this bill.Clause 66(1) which entitles the beneficiary of a w'ānau trust to—
Points of Order — Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill—Debate on Part 2
Whaitiri Meka; Borrows ChesterPOINTS OF ORDERLeave to Reopen Debate on Part 2—Te Ture Whenua Māori BillMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move that the Committee of the whole House on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill be instructed to reopen debate on the question that Part 2 stand part.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be objection.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh; Borrows ChesterENERGY INNOVATION (ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 24 May.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to stand and support the second reading of the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins for her leadership in sponsoring this bill. The previous speaker on the last bill Rino Tirikatene mentioned that this Government should be doing something important. This bill is a very important bill that brings in some of the changes to our energy sector so we can have a diverse opportunity to talk about this. This omni-purpose bill aims to encourage energy innovation including emerging energy technologies and increased variation in energy-related business models so that New Zealand is well placed to effectively respond to its evolving environmental and energy objectives. New Zealand is one of the signatories on some of these issues and we want to ensure that we have got legislation in place to deal with such issues. National is committed to ensuring New Zealand meets its international commitments regarding global climate change. Consistent with those commitments the National-led Government is focused on improving the efficiency of New Zealand's use of energy. As of now we are producing more than 80 percent of our energy from the renewable resources which is very well respected all over the world. Efforts are being made to improve energy use productivity. If well managed it can be good economically and will promote innovation while also facilitating efforts to better manage our greenhouse gas emissions. Transport energy and process heat are two major areas where positive gains can and will be made to our climate change commitments while improving the efficient use of our precious energy resources. Our vehicles are mostly run on fossil fuels. If we are able to encourage the use of more electric-driven vehicles then that can really help to reduce our emissions and it will have a more positive effect on our emission house gases. This bill implements part of the National-led Government's electric vehicle programme. It makes changes to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority levy funding and clarifies that electricity industry legislation applies to secondary networks. With these words I commend this bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Stuart Nash. Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh this'll be good.
Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to address this bill the Statutes Repeal Bill. As previous speakers have said it is not the most exciting piece of legislation we are going to have to deal with in this House and in fact as previous speakers have said it is of somewhat dubious value. The Green Party initially supported this bill to select committee. We are unable now to support it any more. We oppose this bill. We oppose it for a relatively simple reason which is that the purpose of the Statutes Repeal Bill should be as stated to remove redundant or superfluous" legislation. It should not be to remove legislation from the books that is in force and that the Government just does not want to observe. I refer to a previous speaker who reminded us that Sir Kenneth Keith when he came to the Government Administration Committee—and I commend the committee for inviting him to appear in person because having somebody of his stature to talk about these issues has been enormously valuable. He reminded us that actually the Government's role is to enact the law. The Government cannot pick and choose what pieces of law it upholds and what it does not uphold. In particular the Sentencing Council Act 2007 was brought into force. The Government chose not to establish a council and not to observe an existing law on the books and it is now trying to remove it via the very dubious process of the Statutes Repeal Bill. We do not agree with that. The purpose of the Sentencing Council Act was firstly to ensure the consistency of sentences and that is partly because of concern about the inequality of sentencing outcomes between Māori and Pākehā. That reason for the bill's introduction in 2007 is still valid today. This bill we believe is taking a piece of legislation off the books that should not be removed and certainly should not be removed in this way. The Sentencing Council Act also aimed to create more consistency with regard to parole board rulings to promote transparency in rulings and to have a base of reliable information.We believe that the Government should have established the council. We believe that the Government should not pick and choose Acts to implement that are already in force. We believe that the Government should not play fast and loose with our law and parliamentary processes. We think this is an act of disrespect to our legal and parliamentary processes. We oppose this bill for that reason. While we would have liked to see the other 136 pieces of legislation taken off our statute book the fact that they have not been is not I do not think a major problem for the future of our country. However the principle that the Government can pick and choose what it does about existing legislation and use circuitous routes that should not be used in order to remove legislation we believe is such an important issue that we have no choice but to oppose this legislation. Thank you."
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Government in support of the Statutes Repeal Bill in its third reading. It is fair to say that for me the repealing of statutes was not a primary driver of getting into politics nor have I had many constituents of the fine electorate of Waimakariri bring up issues around repealing statutes. I do hope this is not the highlight of my backbencher career.I am new to the Government Administration Committee so I was not on it for the hearing of submissions or for the debating of any of the legislation to date but I would just like to for this reading acknowledge the work of the Hon Ruth Dyson as chair ably supported by the deputy chair Paul Foster-Bell.I think it is in fairness an important law removing redundant law and repealing or partially repealing 137 Acts. Overall it is about improving the quality of our law and it does make us think that in a week where the Government has worked hard to improve the quality of the living standards of New Zealanders it still has time to focus on the quality of law. I think it just shows the depth of this Government—that it is able to focus on multitasking at the same time. So I want to congratulate the Government on that.Hon Amy Adams: So much good to do; so little time.MATT DOOCEY: I think it is just a quality Government all round I would have thought.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill.MATT DOOCEY: So back to the bill. I think what this bill identifies is actually the value of a good legislative process. What I mean by that is that when you look at the additional four Acts for repeal they were brought up through the submission process and I think that just shows the value of the public consultation and the value that the public can bring to the legislative process.Overall I think we would call it the Good Housekeeping Bill". We all know the value of good housekeeping—have a good tidy-up and throw things out that you do not need at the current time. I think this bill will oversee a reduction of about 10 percent in the number of Acts and when we look at the repeal of statutes Acts internationally we see it very much as a very cost-effective and timely way of collectively wrapping up Acts that need to be repealed.There has been some discussion tonight around the blasphemy law. I think it is right because it is a section of the crimes amendment bill—it will be looked at within that—and more so because we are talking about public consultation. This bill went out as a draft exposure bill. It had 8 weeks when it received feedback from the public. Quite rightly we will go through any change or repeal of the blasphemy law with the crimes amendment bill when the public can have their say about how that clause might be partially or fully repealed. So I commend this bill to the House."
Woodhouse MichaelSUBORDINATE LEGISLATION CONFIRMATION BILL (NO 3)First ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.
Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move That this debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.
Urgent Debates Declined — Kaipara District Council—Crown Manager Termination
Motions — International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers—Commemoration
Speaker's Rulings — Written Questions—Adequacy of Replies
Visitors — Australia—Accountability and Oversight Committee Parliament of Victoria
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDKaipara District Council—Crown Manager TerminationMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the termination of the Crown manager of Kaipara District Council. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. Mr Peters received information on this matter only on the day before the Budget. An urgent debate cannot be held on Budget day. A ministerial decision to terminate the appointment of the Crown manager is clearly a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility. In considering this application I have noted the significant challenges faced by Kaipara District Council relating to its waste-water management scheme. Clearly there have been some errors in the appointment of the Crown manager. While those matters are concerning I am not convinced they are urgent enough to warrant setting aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.
Graham KennedyMOTIONSInternational Day of United Nations Peacekeepers—CommemorationDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate that this House note that yesterday 29 May was the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I move That this House note that yesterday 29 May was the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers and pay tribute to more than 113000 peacekeepers deployed to 16 missions around the world including New Zealand armed forces personnel and police whose important work reflects the United Nations' commitment to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.Motion agreed to.
Carter DavidSPEAKER'S RULINGSWritten Questions—Adequacy of RepliesMr SPEAKER: Honourable members on Wednesday last week Chris Hipkins asked that I consider the adequacy of some replies to written questions. The particular situation raised with me was when a select committee rejects or edits an Estimates or annual review question. A member may subsequently lodge it as a written question instead. Mr Hipkins was concerned that Ministers often answer written questions by reference to materials provided during the Estimates and annual review processes.Ministers have a responsibility to the House and through the House to the country to account for the public offices they hold. Questions are an important element of this accountability and Ministers should provide informative answers to them when doing so is consistent with the public interest. On 10 September 2015 I ruled that a Minister may answer a question by referring a member to information that is already publicly available. However if a Minister chooses to reply by directing a member to information already available he or she must do so with some particularity. It is not acceptable to simply state that the information has already been released or that it was provided to a select committee. Rather the Minister should provide a sufficiently detailed answer to enable the member to directly locate the information. Making reference to information in answers to Estimates or annual review questions in response to a written question is acceptable only if the information actually addresses the question otherwise the Minister is expected to provide a full and informative answer.I would conclude by noting that written questions usually have a shorter time frame for responses than Estimates or annual review questions and that the same officials are likely to prepare answers to the questions however they are lodged. While it is largely up to a select committee to determine how it operates I urge all select committees to reach negotiated solutions on the admissibility of questions particularly in light of their key role in scrutinising the executive. I intend to circulate a copy of this ruling to all Ministers.
Carter DavidTUESDAY 30 MAY 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSAustralia—Accountability and Oversight Committee Parliament of VictoriaMr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Neil Angus chair of the Accountability and Oversight Committee of the Parliament of Victoria Australia and his delegation present in the gallery.
Wednesday 22 March 2017 - Volume 721
Public Finance (Sustainable Development Indicators) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Public Finance (Sustainable Development Indicators) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Noes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Student Loan Scheme (First Home Repayment Diversion) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Noes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
11. Schools Buildings—InvestmentMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Associate Minister of EducationSchools Buildings—Investment11. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent reports has she received regarding school property?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education): I am pleased to confirm I recently had an update on this Government's investment in school property. Over the last 8 years there has been more than $5 billion in funding committed towards school infrastructure which is the largest investment ever by any Government. In that time we have built over 30 new schools. In the last few years we have moved on more than 30 major redevelopments worth close to half a billion dollars. Since 2014 we have spent around $300 million on additional classrooms to help schools manage growth. This is a Government that is building for growth improving the quality of our schools and ensuring all students have somewhere safe and healthy to learn. Matt Doocey: What updates has the Minister received about progress on the Christchurch schools rebuild programme? Hon NIKKI KAYE: In November 2013 the Government committed $1.137 billion in capital funding over 10 years to rejuvenate the education network in greater Christchurch. I can confirm that the programme is proceeding on schedule and within budget. It comprises a total of 115 schools: 13 to be built on new sites 10 to be built on existing sites 34 schools to be fully redeveloped and 58 to be moderately redeveloped. To date 10 schools are complete 24 are in construction 46 are in design and 35 are in the programme. This includes the stunning new Lemonwood Grove School opened just last Friday by the Prime Minister me and the hard-working local Selwyn MP the Hon Amy Adams. Jonathan Young: What recent announcements has the Minister made regarding school property in New Plymouth?Hon NIKKI KAYE: On Monday I announced that $3.6 million in property projects are now under way in New Plymouth. This includes a new $2 million learning support centre for students with special education needs at Spotswood College and $1.6 million at Te Pi'ipi'inga Kakano Mai Rangiatea for four extra classrooms to meet roll growth. I would like to thank that member for attending the sod turnings on behalf of myself and for his dedicated advocacy for the educational needs in the New Plymouth area. This investment is part of a $12 million commitment since 2016 that we have made to New Plymouth to support school redevelopments and growth.
10. Youth Justice—Youth Court AgeDARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentYouth Justice—Youth Court Age10. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes in the context in which they were made.Darroch Ball: Does she stand by her statement … the research tells us dealing with 17-year-olds in the youth justice system offers us the best opportunity to break that cycle of reoffending and help these people grow into responsible adults."; if so why?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes.Darroch Ball: How can she sign off on a change in the Youth Court age when in the evidence she provided it contradicts what she has stated—for example "transfer of juveniles originally arrested for property crimes was associated with a decrease in reoffending compared with juveniles initially arrested for similar crimes and retained in the juvenile system" that limitations "cannot be accounted for by statistical models" and that other important factors "are not able to be accounted for in this analysis"?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Because the evidence is very clear that by intervening early in a young offender's life we have a much better chance of supporting them to live very successful lives and the statistics are very clear that the interventions at that very early stage see not only a reduction in the amount of reoffending for most of those youth but also a reduction in the types of offending they are taking part in. Many youth make mistakes but the purpose of the youth justice system is to keep them out of the criminal system to make them aware of the effect of their actions on the victims and also to help and support them to live much more successful lives.Darroch Ball: Is it not a fact that the Minister has not even read the research she has signed off on because if she had she would have seen that it states: "It would be justifiable to conclude that diversion is no more effective than the traditional justice system." that limitations "cannot be accounted for by these statistical models" and that other important factors "are not able to be accounted for in this analysis"?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have that piece of research in front of me. What I can say is that there is much evidence available that shows the effectiveness of early intervention in young people's lives. That is a particular piece of research. There are numerous pieces of research that show it.Darroch Ball: Instead of using contradictory and mixed evidence at best why does she not just listen to the Police Association which has said today that there will not be a decrease in reoffending if the Youth Court age includes 17-year-olds and that it will in fact likely increase reoffending?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think that if you are going to quote organisations in the House you need to quote them correctly—that is our expectation.Darroch Ball: I just did. Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No. My understanding is that the association is saying that that would be the effect if there were not adequate resources put into supporting those young people. And that is what this Government intends to do."
9. Primary Sector—Project Funding AnnouncementsIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesPrimary Sector—Project Funding Announcements9. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has he made on how the Government is supporting growth in the primary sector?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Recently I announced two Sustainable Farming Fund projects aimed at the better use of irrigation. The first project is led by Irrigation New Zealand and will identify the benefits of irrigation good management practices and the barriers to taking up new technology. The second project looks at the positive effects of irrigation on the water-holding capacity of soils in Canterbury. A report by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research found that irrigation contributes $2.2 billion to the national economy and this has the potential to increase further of course in a sustainable way.Ian McKelvie: What specific announcements has he made about support to combat animal and horticultural disease? Hon NATHAN GUY: Of course we cannot grow our primary sector without protecting it as well. That is why I have announced $1.2 million of funding for three projects to combat animal and horticulture diseases. The first project will look at facial eczema and develop guidance on how to best monitor and manage the disease. The second project looks at helping track and control bovine viral diarrhoea which affects around 80 percent of New Zealand's dairy and beef herds and it is estimated to cost dairy farmers around $100 million a year. The third project aims to reduce infection in potato seed tubers increase the yield and reduce the use of agrichemicals.
7. Trade—International DevelopmentsTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of TradeTrade—International Developments7. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Trade: What recent announcements has he made on New Zealand's trade interests?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Trade): A fortnight ago with the EU Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström I announced that New Zealand and the European Union have concluded scoping discussions towards a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the EU and that both sides will now seek mandates to launch negotiations. New Zealand and the European Union both recognise there are substantial benefits to be gained from free trade and we are now one step closer to a high-quality comprehensive FTA that can deliver great outcomes for our citizens. Two-way trade between the EU and New Zealand sits at around $20 billion.Todd Muller: What announcements have been made on advancing New Zealand's trade relationship with the United Kingdom?Hon TODD McCLAY: Two weeks ago I met with the British trade secretary Liam Fox in London. Secretary Fox indicated that New Zealand along with Australia will be the first countries to negotiate new free trade agreements with the United Kingdom as soon as it is in a position to do so. This is excellent news for New Zealand exporters to the UK with current two-way trade sitting at around NZ$5 billion.Todd Muller: What opportunities has the Minister identified on improving trade with Latin American countries?Hon TODD McCLAY: Last week I was in Chile and met with the Pacific Alliance countries. The Pacific Alliance will offer associate membership of the alliance as a precursor to trade negotiations with selected countries. This is a significant development and I expect New Zealand to be one of the first countries to start negotiations with that trading bloc. The prospects of a high-quality and comprehensive trade deal for New Zealand with the Pacific Alliance have now increased significantly.Todd Muller: What statements has the Minister seen on the future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?Hon TODD McCLAY: Last week TPP Ministers met in Chile to discuss ways forward for the agreement. We made a firm commitment to collaborate in keeping markets open to the free flow of goods and services and investment advancing regional economic integration and strengthening the rules-based international trading system across the Asia-Pacific. We have agreed that high-level officials will meet to consider options for next steps. It is too early to know what the outcome of these discussions might be but the New Zealand Government will continue to fight for better access for our exporters in overseas markets.