edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
9. Question No. 9—WomenSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for WomenQuestion No. 9—Women9. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Women: What progress has she seen on closing the gender pay gap in the Public Service?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): I'm pleased to inform the House that the Public Service gender pay gap is the lowest it's ever been at 8.6 percent down from 9.6 percent last year. This is a great result given that the gap was 18.6 percent when the measurement first began in 2000. When this Government came into office we instigated the 2018 Public Service Gender Pay Gap Action Plan and as a direct result of this work we have seen the gap decrease by a third in three years. This shows that with strong partnerships between Government the Public Service and unions positive change is achievable. As the Minister for Women I do want to be clear however that no pay gap is acceptable to me but I am very pleased to see we are heading in the right direction to close it and correct the imbalance.Sarah Pallett: What further work is under way to continue to close the gender pay gap in the Public Service?Hon JAN TINETTI: While the Māori Pacific and Asian pay gaps have also narrowed there are still clearly great inequities for these women. The pay gap for Māori has narrowed in the last year from 9.3 percent to 8.3 percent the pay gap for Pasifika has fallen from 19.5 percent to 17.9 percent and the Asian pay gap has come down from 12.8 percent to 11.6 percent but more work is needed on the ethnic imbalance to close the pay gap. This is why I've launched Kia Toipoto a three-year action plan to tackle gender and ethnic pay gaps and Te Orowaru a new pay equity work assessment tool that helps recognise the value of cultural skills in work including te reo Māori. These two initiatives will support the Public Service to continue to close the gender pay gap and to accelerate gains for Māori Pacific and ethnic communities.Sarah Pallett: What initiatives have been progressed in the last four years that have contributed to closing the gender pay gap?Hon JAN TINETTI: Under Labour New Zealand has made significant progress towards gender equality. In addition to the progress we've made on closing the gender pay gap we've passed the Equal Pay Amendment Act enshrining in law the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. This is delivering significant pay increases for female-dominated workforces and to make sure women are paid fairly. We've also settled significant pay equity claims. We've achieved the highest ever representation of women in several important areas including reaching our target of 50 percent of women in public sector boards and 53 percent in public sector senior leadership roles. We've increased paid parental leave from 22 to 26 weeks; through MP Ginny Andersen's member's bill we've introduced miscarriage and domestic violence leave; we've reintroduced the training incentive allowance; and we've achieved the highest ever recorded rate of female employment.
8. Question No. 8—Rural CommunitiesMARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Rural CommunitiesQuestion No. 8—Rural Communities8. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Rural Communities: Does he believe that rural communities have been properly advocated for and listened to by the Government?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development) on behalf of the Minister for Rural Communities: Yes this Government listens to and advocates for New Zealand's rural communities. Members of this Government constantly meet with members of rural communities and their leaders farmers and sector leaders and will continue to do so. I do note that the Farming Leaders Group is one of the most frequently met with groups by the Prime Minister. Rural communities are at the heart of this Government's priorities of securing New Zealand's economic recovery and rising to the challenge of climate change and sustainability.Mark Cameron: Does he believe adequate consultation was undertaken with rural communities prior to the Government announcing an increased nationally determined contribution (NDC) and global methane pledge at COP26?Hon STUART NASH: There was significant consultation right across the country with regard to the NDC of which our rural communities were a very important part.Mark Cameron: Has he met with the representatives of Groundswell the movement for farmers and rural communities across New Zealand?Hon STUART NASH: On behalf of the Minister: I'm not too sure what Groundswell stands for these days. It's a mixture of—Mark Cameron: If you guys listened.Hon STUART NASH: Well that is based on what I've read on their website and it's a mixture of racism anti-vax etc. etc. But we will continue to meet with farming leaders and engage in rural communities as and when appropriate.Mark Cameron: Will he be advocating for Government Ministers to meet the representatives of Groundswell to hear their concerns about the Government policies?DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Just before I call the Hon Stuart Nash the level of speaking during the asking of questions is loud on both sides. Let's make the next one silent.Hon STUART NASH: My advice to that member would be when he's at a Groundswell rally make sure he doesn't get a photo taken beside someone holding up an anti-vax sign.Mark Cameron: Point of order. If I may with respect the question was quite clear: will he be advocating for Government Ministers to meet the representatives of Groundswell to hear their concerns about the Government's policies?DEPUTY SPEAKER: And my understanding of what the Minister said was quite emphatic. I'm pretty sure he meant no".Mark Cameron: Point of order. Respectfully he was talking about anti-vaxxers not about Groundswell members.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Have you finished?"
7. Question No. 7—PoliceGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 7—Police7. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen regarding Police's efforts to disrupt organised crime?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I've seen reports that the joint police and customs operation Selena has resulted in 14 people charged with a range of drug offences and $500000 seized while shutting the door on a large-scale methamphetamine-smuggling ring. Police and customs staff established that several baggage handlers at Auckland Airport have allegedly been involved in smuggling methamphetamine since the beginning of this year. Over the course of the year it's believed that the group has or have conspired to smuggle close to 500 kilograms of methamphetamine into New Zealand. This group was also allegedly involved in a failed smuggling attempt of 200 kilograms of methamphetamine that was intercepted at the Malaysian border in October which was destined for New Zealand. I am sure all members of this House will join me in congratulating police and customs for their fantastic work keeping us safe.Ginny Andersen: What other recent actions have police taken to disrupt organised crime and the illicit drug trade?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On Tuesday I advised the House that Operation Mist had resulted in the seizure of more than 50 kilograms of cocaine nine individuals arrested and $300000 in cash cocaine and cryptocurrency wallets seized disrupting one of the major cocaine importing rings in New Zealand. Operation Freya dismantled a sophisticated drug-dealing and smuggling operation making 12 arrests and seizing $8 million worth of drugs in the process. Police are striking real blows against organised crime and the supply of illicit drugs.Hon Member: Oh no one believes that.Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Why do you hate police?Ginny Andersen: How is the Government supporting police in their efforts to disrupt organised crime?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government has put a record number of police on the front line including those with a specific focus on organised crime and the result of this investment continues to pay off. Already the Government has seized $500 million in cash and assets from gangs and criminals in four years alone. Translated that's the equivalent of $1.6 billion removed from the illicit economy an economy that profits from criminal offending and exploiting our communities.Simeon Brown: Has the Minister seen reports of $2.75 million being spent from the proceeds of crime fund to Mongrel Mob member Harry Tam for a drug rehab programme?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I've repeatedly told that member the lead agency on that programme was the Ministry of Health.
2. Question No. 2—Energy and ResourcesTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesQuestion No. 2—Energy and Resources2. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How is the Government supporting the creation of hydrogen refuelling stations?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): The Government is committed to New Zealand's transition to a low-carbon economy. Hydrogen will be a key part of this transition. Green hydrogen will help reduce global emissions reduce New Zealand's dependence on overseas energy sources create significant export revenue and create new jobs. This is why we're investing in Hiringa Energy's plan to establish a green hydrogen refuelling network. The project will see four high-capacity green hydrogen production and refuelling stations installed in the key logistic hubs in the North Island and will provide 100 percent refuelling coverage across the North Island freight routes. We're also funding the TR Group one of New Zealand's largest freight fleet operators who will receive $6 million to purchase up to 20 heavy-freight hydrogen trucks to lease to its customers.Tāmati Coffey: Why is the Government supporting the development of hydrogen as a fuel?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Green hydrogen is one of the platforms that can help us reduce our emissions. New Zealand has considerable renewable energy resources that could be used to produce hydrogen as a next-generation fuel in a sustainable way. Green hydrogen is a potential solution for some harder to decarbonise sectors such as long-distance and heavy transport; iron steel and chemical production; and the maritime and aviation sectors. We will continue to invest to support the use and availability of hydrogen while ensuring the current regulatory settings are fit for purpose as critical in facilitating the safe introduction of new hydrogen technologies in New Zealand.Tāmati Coffey: What broader work is the Government undertaking to support the development of a hydrogen industry in New Zealand?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government is working with business to support various early stage hydrogen projects. This includes providing funding to Ports of Auckland and Auckland Transport to purchase a New Zealand - built hydrogen bus and working with Hyundai to deploy a fleet of medium-duty hydrogen trucks. We're also investing in several hydrogen research initiatives including working with Scion to understand how hydrogen can be produced from biomass and with First Gas to identify how hydrogen can be used as part of their gas network.
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Madam Speaker. I'm happy to follow the member Brooke van Velden and her party in support of this bill. At second reading I indicated that I joined the Health Committee at the tail end of this consideration but the number of changes that have emerged through the committee of the whole House process has made this particular bill I think better than at the start of the process given the conversations that have taken place.I have read the bill and I did wonder whether Mr Brown had taken the opportunity to read the bill because there seemed to be a lot of conversation and monologue—which turns out I suggest to be absolute nonsense—around the suggestion that the gangs would suddenly set up and head down to the local service provider and effectively make use of that. If Mr Brown had looked at the bill I would draw his attention to the new section that's proposed to be inserted which is 35DA and it says there: The Director-General of Health may licence drug and substance checking service providers under Schedule 6." which outlines the criteria.So it's very clear that there is a requirement for the director-general to provide the authorisation in terms of the licensing capacity and ability for those that would undertake the service. So if Mr Brown had looked at the bill he wouldn't have had to waste the House's time actually hypothesising around that particular question.What's really important I think in terms of this legislation is that it acknowledges the level of service of those who would be providing this particular service to members of the community. It does in terms of timing flow on from the temporary regime and approach to the 2020-21 summer period. As we've heard the empirical data indicates that 75 percent of people who have availed themselves of this opportunity have changed their mind and that alone is a great basis to be able to support this bill. I commend it to the House."
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to stand for the third reading for this excellent bill. Before I go any further I just wanted to say that whilst I hold Mr Mitchell in high esteem he and I probably would count among the members of this House who may possibly not be as connected with young people as we'd like to think. And I say that because the young people that Mr Mitchell was talking about have actually shown confidence in this Government to the point where the December 31 festival pass is sold out. So maybe not quite as connected as you hope.But I just wanted to say that our starting point is here on this side of the House and our end point is that the safest option is always always not to take the substance. But the reality is that some people will and like our excellent needle exchange programmes which did actually visit quite a few of the pearl-clutching opposition arguments that we're hearing today this is a pragmatic piece of legislation that will substantially reduce harm. I highly commend it to the House.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. Gosh where to start? The member who's just resumed his seat Mark Mitchell said on several occasions to correct him if he's wrong. He most certainly is and it's a shame that he didn't pay attention to—this is the third reading of this bill. It's a shame he didn't pay attention throughout the process and he may have been able to educate himself a little bit more about the data although I do note that the information that he offered in exchange was all anecdotal from his extended family so good on him.He might like to reconcile that with the fact that—you know as has already been discussed in the various iterations of these readings—three quarters of people do change their behaviour when they're presented with the fact that their MDMA has rat poison in it. In fact I would defy anybody to say it's completely illogical for people to you know consume and to carry on in their way.Anyhow summer is fast approaching and it's probably going to be rather an unusual summer in so far as it follows a period of lockdown and two years of global uncertainty. But across the country there's going to be an array of music festivals celebrations and events planned. Although we absolutely do not condone recreational drug use it would be completely naive to think that this broad reopening isn't going to result in young people in particular taking these drugs. All good legislation should try and identify a problem and address something that's an important issue and this does. Increasingly punitive measures simply don't work and all of the research shows that. When it comes to recreational drug use a move towards a health-based approach providing information—which this bill makes explicit; the need to be able to provide people with the correct information and offering support—is the key to actual harm reduction. This is an extremely sensible piece of legislation and it's fantastic that it has been progressed with speed and without complication to its third reading stage. It's been a real privilege to consider debate and now for the final time I commend this bill to the House.
Coffey TāmatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): That was rich—that was rich—for the Opposition to stand there and tell us that this is a legacy project of the Prime Minister. I'll tell you what this is: this is a public health response to a global pandemic. And if there's one thing that I've heard time and time again it is Thank God the National Party aren't running this country." Thank God they haven't taken over the reins because they would have tightened their belts. They would have made sure that everybody was walking in misery that we would have had that record high unemployment that was predicted at the start of this pandemic. We were talking about 25 percent unemployment rates but we've completely turned that around because we've taken a people-first approach. We've taken a public health approach. The previous speaker Penny Simmonds got up and talked about how the Government thinks that it knows best and do you know what? There's a little bit of that that's true but what we need to point out is that the Government is elected to lead and that's exactly what we've been doing. I'm pretty sure that the Prime Minister would prefer not to be going through a global pandemic right now. I'm pretty sure that the Minister of the COVID response would prefer not to be inundated with COVID-19 issues. I'm pretty sure that he'd like to focus on education which is actually a huge thing in New Zealand and needs lots of support. But we've been landed with this so we as a Government must lead and that's why the people voted for us last year. That's why they continue to have faith in our approach which is a people-first approach. We have to make those tough decisions—that's right—because there's no playbook. We didn't know that this was happening but what we've done is we've trusted our instincts we've gone out there we've spoken to the people on the ground and we've had to make some tough decisions. Of course we've had to make some tough decisions. And I congratulate all of our Ministers who have put their shoulders to the wheel to make sure that this bill in particular is an extension of the good work that we've gone and done. So on behalf of all of the rational people out there across New Zealand I completely support this bill."
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. A couple of months ago the president of the UN General Assembly opened the annual general debate reflecting on the darkest days of the pandemic. He spoke of when cities were shuttered and vaccines still a dream and how the world's people came together as never before. These have been entirely unprecedented times and here in New Zealand we have come together. While our COVID response has its foundations in law—the Act and soon the amendments—what we've achieved is something New Zealanders have done together demonstrating the strength of our social contract. These are unusual powers being legislated for in unusual times and they are entirely in sync with the duty of a responsible Government to weave into legislation time-bound laws of exception to address unprecedented circumstances.The last speaker Melissa Lee referred to the committee stage where several questions were asked and the Minister provided robust responses to those questions. He explained the overarching authority of the police in terms of the power to stop. He spoke about the existing Privacy Act protections that apply but also the provisions of the bill which make it clear that the data collected for contact tracing is only used for contact tracing.He also highlighted the fact that our response hasn't been a static one; it's an evolving one that actively looks to what are reasonable limitations to ensure a proportionate response as the circumstances evolve. It is why there have been changes to the managed isolation and quarantine requirements. I'm proud of our continued collective COVID response and I commend this bill to the House.
Utikere Tangi; Salesa JennyTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Happy to take a call to follow on from what really are scare tactics and scaremongering coming from the other side of the House. This really is just an opportunity to signal to the rest of the country a continuation in a positive sense of the protection methods that have been put in place because this effectively is a framework that will allow for things to continue to be put in place in what are clearly changing and dynamic circumstances. This legislation before the House today authorises or gives ability to the relevant Minister to make the orders that many in this House will be familiar with: orders around border entry requirements quarantine and isolation testing vaccination and others. And so to suggest that members may not support this bill suggests that we should simply do away with any opportunity to have any of those orders do away with any opportunity to put in place some support and some safety for our community.I've noticed that often members opposite they tend to pick and choose what it is that they want to talk about. So when I have a look at new section 32R—let's take a look at that. If we were to look at this bill which is quite simply that new section 32R seeks to remove the word seize" in relation to possessions that are in places of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities. That means that there would be no power of search or surveillance. In not supporting this bill one could think that members opposite actually are quite happy for people who are going about their business who happen to be in MIQ facilities to be simply not subject to the protections and freedoms that others might expect in other circumstances. So we can all pick and choose particular aspects of bills and legislation. But when we look at this as one whole I'm delighted to be able to support it and commend it to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call."
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much. Thank you Madam Speaker; I appreciate it. I'm not entirely sure where to start here so I think probably what I'll do is I'd like to actually in the consideration of this bill basically present a short review of the presentation and questions that the Health Committee had with the COVID19 Testing Technical Advisory Group which was led by Professor Murdoch from memory—forgive me if I have the name incorrect.So to address the diatribe of the member opposite about rapid antigen testing I'd just like to point out that Professor Murdoch highlighted that rapid antigen testing does indeed have its place but the reason why it's not been rolled out in New Zealand so far is that it has a 30 percent sensitivity rate and what that means is that we can miss seven out of 10 positive tests—that's what's called a false negative; so basically 30 percent sensitivity. So when you're in a period of time where it's absolutely critical with low case numbers to pick up every single positive test rapid antigen testing is not the way forward. However I do argue that it has its place—its place Professor Murdoch said if you can hear me over the barracking from the other side of the House is in a community where we have high levels of cases. And we are hoping not to be there but we may and we are reviewing this constantly.The speaker opposite also seems unaware of a thing called incubation period a time where somebody may actually be incubating a virus not actually showing a positive test and that's why we've had the requirement for people to stay in isolation even though they may be fully vaccinated because although it's unusual it happens occasionally that we do have people become infected even though they are fully immunised.According to my calculation 12353 New Zealanders from adjusted population figures are alive today because of this Government and I commend this bill to the House.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you Madam Speaker. Speaking of ridiculous and obnoxious I love the fact that Chris Bishop and I can hear the same information in select committee via officials and he manages to come up with a whole other spin on it but never mind!This bill makes amendments to the COVID Public Health Response Act to allow the Government to simply continue to improve its response to this pandemic as things evolve because they do over time and as we move more and more closely towards what needs to be a careful reopening one that's been afforded to us one that we've actually all earned because of our world-leading response to this global pandemic—whereas it's just been described as some sort of legacy project. And as far as I can see of all the legacy projects that you might like to choose in this world keeping our mortality rates as low as they have been and our economy as healthy as it is is a pretty damned good one. There should be a significant infringement fee and fine in place for people who are willing to purposefully and repeatedly jeopardise our safety and breach these orders.This bill also takes seriously the need for contingency planning. Should we face a severe outbreak one that actually threatens to overwhelm our public resources the bill allows for the Government to make the most of—to harness—the testing capacity that we have in this country by allowing those labs to simply pitch in and focus on COVID testing and also it allows for suitable compensation for those services. It's temporary it's worst-case scenario but testing remains one of our most important tools and it's too important to not make these very serious but very necessary sort of contingency plans for.As the Minister for COVID-19 Response said just earlier even as the border restrictions loosen over the coming months which they will do managed isolation and quarantine still plays a role in our response and particularly for those who can't safely isolate at home. So whether they're entering New Zealand or whether they've tested positive in the community this bill also makes changes to accommodate so to speak that continued reality and on that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSDEPUTY SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Patrick Szetey requesting that the House pass legislation to ban any vaccine passport system in New Zealand that could restrict the movement and freedom of the population based on their personal health status.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: The 2020/21 annual report of Network for Learning.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General Insights into local government: 2020report of the Health Committee on the report of the Ombudsman: Oversight: an investigation into the Ministry of Health's stewardship of hospital-level secure services for people with an intellectual disability.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reports are set down for consideration.
Woodhouse Michael; Rurawhe AdrianHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order. Thank you Mr Speaker. Thank you for the ruling and I agree with you that the role of the presiding officer is indeed an occasionally thankless and always difficult one. McGee and Speakers' rulings also go on to say that the voice vote isn't a contest for loudness it's not automatically the right of the majority to have it declared; otherwise we're wasting our time on the consideration of various parts of a bill. My concern with the way in which the ruling is worded is it's very difficult for members of the committee or the House to know whether a presiding officer has indeed made a mistake or whether it was his or her intention to call the way that they did. One needs to rely on the words meaning what they mean. The Standing Orders provide for this.Firstly if there is an error during a vote whips or personal voters are free to change that vote before the result is declared but however it is arrived at the declaration of a result is final and the House has it within its power by the leave of the House to change it. My suggestion to you Mr Speaker is that the committee had it within its power to consider that. If the whip recognising her error—because I submit that she also made a mistake in not calling for the party vote—could have sought the leave of the committee for a party vote to have been held at that point and she did. So my question is firstly is this a Speaker's ruling that will go on to Speakers' rulings in the future and how do we reconcile that with the existing powers of the House and the committee to fix its errors by leave?Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point—DEPUTY SPEAKER: No I don't—Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to that point of order Mr Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well it's not really a point of order so I'm just going to rule that I have ruled and that is the end of the matter and we will continue on to the business of the day.
Points of Order — COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2)—Voting Process Part 1
Rurawhe AdrianDEPUTY SPEAKER: Kāti rā tēnā rā tātou. Can I thank the Hon Michael Woodhouse for raising this matter and also the matters that the Hon Chris Hipkins has also raised. I've watched the video and I have read the draft Hansard. I've got a written response which covers most of the things that both members have raised. Can I just say that it's not easy being a presiding officer and getting it all perfect nor is it easy for members either and on a number of occasions whilst presiding I myself have gone back for a party vote that wasn't called for on both sides of the House.But to be more specific when the presiding officer declares the result of a vote that is almost always the end of the matter. When a vote is decided on the voices a presiding officer can expect that in all normal circumstances the Government will be the majority—and that's from McGee page 247. However in this instance the Chairperson declared for the Ayes on an Opposition amendment. She subsequently admitted to the committee that she had made an error in declaring the result that way when it was drawn to her attention. A party vote then resolved the matter.Where the presiding officer realises they have made an error it is within their power to go back and correct it. That happens occasionally where a presiding officer declares the result of a party vote incorrectly either because the votes were added incorrectly or because an error was made in announcing the result. In those instances the Speaker corrects it without further reference to the House. In my view this is a similar situation. It is my ruling that the Chairperson corrected the error by holding a party vote and the result of that vote stands.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): That submission is not consistent with the video transcript of what occurred this morning. I wasn't in the Chamber but I know because I watched that video the business having been concluded that the Chair went on to consider a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of David Seymour. I know that because she had moved on to that item of business. There is no question that the result of the vote on Melissa Lee's SOP having been declared the Chair saw the matter having been concluded and moved on to Mr Seymour's SOP. There is no question that a challenge was sought and Speakers' rulings are clear: if the House wants to challenge a vote it has to do so at that time.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Well speaking further to the point of order Mr Speaker—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll just take this one.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately the pace at which the committee of the House proceeds is the sole determination of the Chair. The Chair had not moved on to any further business therefore the vote had not been concluded. In fact only about a moment later there was an instance where the National Party did not call for a party vote immediately and the Chair sat there for a good 15 seconds looking at the whip from the National Party in silence to see whether they were going to call for a vote. The pace at which the Chair determines a vote has been concluded is a sole matter for the Chair.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point—my final point I hope.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Final one—Michael Woodhouse.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Speaking to that point. Thank you Mr Speaker. I wasn't in the committee at that time. However I have watched the video of the exchange very very closely and I agree with the Leader of the House with the first half of his description on what normally happens during the taking of a vote.In respect of what happened this morning his recollection of it is very different from mine and that is this: a party vote was not called for. The Chair declared the result and I draw the House's attention back to Speakers' rulings which are very clear that if the members want a party vote they must challenge the Speaker at the time when the result is declared. It is that that did not happen. And indeed when—regardless of the merits or otherwise of this whether this was within the Standing Orders—the Chair then declared a Noes vote the Government whip in the chair called Aye to this. Therefore it was only very very belatedly and certainly after the result of the vote that was declared that a party vote was taken.In respect of the summing up of the committee of the whole House what I would suggest to the House is that indeed we had two decisions that were declared by the Chair. My submission to you is that it was the first decision that was valid and not the second one according to the Standing Orders.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Speaking to that point of order Mr Speaker. I was in the House for that exchange. As the Speaker will be aware having been a presiding officer in committee stage of the House on many many occasions it is not at all unusual after the presiding officer declares what their view on the voice vote was for there to be a challenge to that. It happens almost every day where the presiding officer will say The Ayes have it." and the Opposition will say "No no the Noes have it." The theatre of that happens in this House almost every day. In this particular case the presiding officer indicated that perhaps she'd changed her mind on the voice vote and how the voice vote went. Either way a party vote was then called for and a party vote was held.Once the party vote has been held it is the party vote that is the definitive vote and that has always been the case except where a personal vote is then called for and the presiding officer determines that a personal vote is appropriate and there are limited reasons for doing that. So in this case the committee did hold a vote the vote was conclusive and then ultimately the bill as reported back by the committee—and the report-back motion from memory was a unanimous one; the report back to the House from committee was accepted unanimously by the House. It is therefore the bill as reported back by the chairperson of the committee that the House now considers."
Woodhouse MichaelPOINTS OF ORDERCOVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2)—Voting ProcessHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order. I raise a matter of order that has some implications for the business of the House this afternoon and it relates to an exchange and decision that was made by the committee of the whole House in the COVID-19 response bill that was being debated. During voting on Part 1 of that bill a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of Melissa Lee was called on the voices for the Ayes. The result was not challenged and the chair of the committee moved on to consider the next SOP. What followed was a challenge to that ruling which led the chair to then declare the result of Melissa Lee's SOP for the Noes and a party vote was called for.Now my submission to you Mr Speaker is that that was an invalid process and outside of Standing Orders particularly Standing Order 141 which says The Speaker asks members to answer 'Aye' or 'No' to the question and states the result of the voice vote. Any member present may then call for a further vote to be held." That did not happen. Furthermore in Speakers' rulings we have a requirement at Speaker's ruling 66/2 that "When the Speaker declares the result on the voices that unless challenged is final and may not be disputed." Speaker's ruling 67/1 states that "If members want a party vote they must challenge the Speaker at the time when the result is declared. A party vote does not follow automatically because a voice is given for the Noes." In the case that we're discussing I'm sure it would equally apply if the voice was for the Ayes.This is important because my submission to you is that a vote validly cast means that Ms Lee's SOP stands part of the bill that we will be debating after question time in its third reading. I seek your considered ruling upholding Standing Order 141 and the Speakers' rulings 66/2 and 67/1."
Hipkins Chris; Woodhouse MichaelBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week legislation to be considered will include the remaining stages of the Moriori Claims Settlement Bill and the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. On Thursday there will be a special debate on the report of the Environment Committee on its inquiry into the Natural and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper. I've notified the Business Committee that I intend to move urgency on Tuesday for a bill concerning the next stage of the response to COVID-19. If urgency finishes by 1 p.m. on Wednesday that afternoon will be a members' day.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. In the Business Committee the chair of the committee invited the Minister responsible for the traffic light bill to share a draft with the spokespeople for COVID-19 response in other parties and I wonder if he will be taking up that invitation.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The bill has not been finalised yet but once we have a bill if I'm in a position to do so I'll certainly make sure that a copy is circulated.
Rurawhe AdrianTHURSDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2021The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSDEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia tau anō te rangimārie ki a tātou. E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.[Allow peace to prevail over us once again. Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen]
Salesa JennyPart 4 Cost recoveryCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 4 which is the debate on clauses 51 to 59A on cost recovery. The question is that Part 4 stand part.The question is that the Hon Damien O'Connor's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 105New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 9ACT New Zealand 9.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 31; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 9ACT New Zealand 9.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3) — First ReadingDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill — Third ReadingDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Thursday 5 August 2021 - Volume 753
Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
1. Question No. 1—Economic Development Science and Innovation CommitteeMELISSA LEE (National) to the Chairperson of the Economic Development Science and Innovation CommitteeQuestion No. 1—Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee1. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Chairperson of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee: What public statements has the chair made if any on behalf of the committee regarding the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee's Inquiry into the Review of the Radio New Zealand Charter?JAMIE STRANGE (Chairperson of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee): Kia orana Mr Speaker. As chair I released a media statement on behalf of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee on 25 June this year outlining the contents of the Radio New Zealand charter what the inquiry would be addressing and encouraging the public to be part of this important review by submitting on the inquiry. In an interview with Mediawatch published two days later I echoed the message contained in the media release.Melissa Lee: How many submissions have been received to date for the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee's inquiry into the review of the Radio New Zealand charter?SPEAKER: No that's not a matter the chair's responsible for.
12. Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer AffairsNAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs12. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent reports has he seen about the supermarket industry and the cost of groceries?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Last week the Commerce Commission released its draft report into the retail grocery sector. The draft findings indicate there are problems with the current state of affairs and that New Zealanders would get better prices range and quality if there was increased competition in the sector. The findings of this report are currently out for public consultation until 26 August and I'd encourage people to read the draft and make a submission. The next few weeks of feedback will inform the Commerce Commission's final recommendations set to be released on 23 November.Naisi Chen: Why did the Government direct the Commerce Commission to look into the grocery sector?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The average Kiwi household spends a large amount of its weekly expenses on food and this has been increasing year on year. In fact in the year to June 2019 food was the second-largest expenditure item for Kiwis with the average household spending an average $234 per week on it. Put simply consumers deserve to know if they're getting a fair deal at the supermarket checkout and the Commerce Commission's findings currently suggest that they may not be. Delivering on our 2020 manifesto commitment to examine competition in the grocery sector is something we are doing.Naisi Chen: What reactions has he seen on the draft Commerce Commission report?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Katherine Rich of the Food and Grocery Council said that the market study will be positive for Kiwi shoppers and grocery manufacturers. She also says that making sure consumers are getting a fair deal is a fair question for the Government to ask in a small market where there are two dominant market participants. Jon Duffy of Consumer New Zealand has welcomed the recommendations in the draft report saying With the supermarket trade carved up between them the two big chains are in a cosy position and there are significant barriers to potential rivals establishing a presence. That won't change without regulatory intervention."QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS"
8. Question No. 8—FinanceDAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 8—Finance8. DAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Is the Government concerned about the gap in average weekly income between New Zealanders and Australians; if so what actions if any is the Government taking to reduce the gap?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government is actually continuing to close the wage gap with Australia which had got worse under the previous National-ACT Government. Since the 2017 election average weekly earnings in New Zealand have been rising on average by 3.3 percent per year compared to 2.9 percent per year in Australia according to the latest data from our respective statistics agencies. In answer further to the second part of the question the Government is continuing to roll out our plan to secure the recovery from COVID-19 which has seen our quarterly unemployment rate fall to 4 percent compared to an equivalent rate of 5.2 percent for Australia in the June quarter. Our employment rate for 15- to 64-year-olds at 77.6 percent is also higher than Australia's at 75.3 percent.Damien Smith: Does he disagree that the gap in average wages between New Zealand and Australia has not improved since 2017 and that the last available data shows that the average Australian worker makes $1807 per week compared to the New Zealander who makes $1328 per week?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. As I said in my primary answer in the period from 2017 until now average annual growth in average weekly earnings in New Zealand is 3.3 percent; in Australia 2.9 percent. If we do compare that to the period between 2009 and 2017 in New Zealand the average annual weekly earnings rose 2.9 percent and in Australia 3.6 percent. So yes there is still a gap but we're closing it.Damien Smith: Is he concerned that the gap may increase as Australia offers tax relief to their workforce whilst his Government offers tax increases at home?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.Damien Smith: Is he concerned that the higher wages in Australia will lead to New Zealanders looking for opportunities there instead of at home unless we act urgently to boost incomes here?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my earlier two answers we're closing the gap.Hon Michael Wood: Can the Minister confirm that a part of the Australian wage setting system is sector-based bargaining?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that and in fact there are a number of similarities between that and the fair pay agreements that are being introduced by this Government—I look forward to the ACT Party's support for them.