edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
2. Immigration—Student Fraud and PolicyRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime MinisterImmigration—Student Fraud and Policy2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he said—and I quote him—I think New Zealand is a far better and richer country for having migration the way that we do." why did he ignore the widespread immigration fraud in the Indian student market which is now reaching into hundreds and even thousands of people?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: New Zealand is a better country for migration and I can think of many examples. I can think of an Indian person who came to New Zealand 44 years ago set up a business employed 200 people and from time to time made donations—forgettable or not—to political parties that they thought about. That is all as a result of migration funnily enough from India. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House on my right-hand side will settle.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How sane is an immigrant who would offer $20000 to have breakfast with him and—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again I am asking for a second time for a little more respect from my right-hand corner.Rt Hon Winston Peters: —is he aware of Operation Silver Needle by Immigration New Zealand in Mumbai in November 2014 which found that 90 percent of the applicants were not bona fide and that such organised fraud continues to tarnish our export education reputation?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question very. And in answer to the second part of the question no.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he say that his Government is "working for all New Zealanders" when we currently have 15000 unemployed New Zealand labourers whilst his Government approved work visas for 6500 foreign labourers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Most of that is because of mismatch of labour so it is required in one part of the country and people are located in the other or—as I said yesterday on Morning Report—people have a variety of reasons from being unable to pass a drugs test or a variety of other factors. So of course Work and Income does everything it can to get people in work and one of the major changes this Government made was to re-face if you like the way Work and Income operates to get rid of the old dole and to replace it with job seeker support and that has been highly effective.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How is his Government working for all New Zealanders when his Government has approved dog handlers and dance teachers and over 10000 chefs—more than the restaurants we have got in this country—as skilled migrants whilst we have 70000 New Zealand youth not in employment education or training?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is nothing wrong with bringing in chefs particularly if they are Indian. For some people it can be very lucrative."
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Why are we here? Why are we here and what is this bill that we are debating? The bill that we are debating extends the time frame for the special housing areas. It extends the time frame in which they can be established until 16 September 2019 and it delays the repeal of the whole Act until 16 September 2021. So why are we here doing this under urgency? Why is this so urgent that the entirety of Parliament has to grind to a halt to push this through under urgency? Was this unexpected? Was the Minister of Housing who drafted the legislation in the first place—who put the dates in the original legislation in the first place—unaware when he wrote that that those were actually going to be the dates at which the law expired and the dates at which further special housing areas were not going to be able to be established? If so why did it take until this week for him to bring something to the House to do something about that? A Minister who was vaguely competent in administering the legislation that they themselves had written would have been able to anticipate that this was going to be an issue and would have been able to address that through the regular legislative process. So why are we here? Why are we here under urgency—through the night tomorrow however long it takes—in order to change these dates for the special housing areas when the Government could have done that months ago but chose not to? The Government could have done that at any point since the passage of the previous legislation had it wanted to. It could have changed the dates if it had wanted to and it chose not to so why are we here? Why are we debating this under urgency when the Government could have dealt with these issues had it chosen to do so? It is because of the utter utter incompetent administration of all of the issues around housing. I want to turn my attention to the provision of affordable housing in particular because the departmental disclosure statement makes the observation that of the special housing areas already established there are around 75 percent of them that have up to 10 percent affordable housing. Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I move That the question be now put.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): I move That the question be now put.
Turei MetiriaMr SPEAKER: I thank all members for their contributions. I was involved in a meeting so I was not listening to the debate as we led into this. So it is a difficult one for me to sense. The tension was here. I do acknowledge that it is a vigorous debate. We are in a situation where we are in urgency. We are debating something that is obviously finely balanced within this House on the votes that have been taken and it is something that is not going to be aired before a select committee.As to the issue of when offence is taken you cannot define it exactly. It occurs at a time when offence could be taken by a member. There are times when I have ruled that offence has been taken. I have been surprised that offence has been taken and I have said that but if offence is taken and that creates disorder then a presiding officer as Mr Tisch has done in this case will accept that the member has taken offence and ask that that comment be withdrawn. Many times when I have made that decision I have made it without actually hearing the interjection myself; I have relied on the fact that a member said he is offended. If he is offended it is an offence to the whole House—[Interruption] Order! On this occasion that is what has happened here.The presiding officer Mr Tisch has been the Chair; he has been judging the proceedings. It is his job to keep order in the House. Without doubt offence was taken. All members can judge whether offence should have been taken. Mr Tisch has decided that the way to then maintain the dignity and the order in this House is to require the member to then withdraw that comment. If it had been more offensive he may have taken the option of asking the member to withdraw and apologise but as I understand it he did not do that. He simply asked for it to be withdrawn and I further understand that the member then did withdraw that remark. So on that basis I completely back Mr Tisch as he is attempting to maintain order in this Chamber during what has been without doubt a fairly tense discussion over the last hour.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just get clarity then that it is a legitimate point of order for taking personal offence for a male member to be in his own mind in whatever way accused of sexism but it is not a legitimate point of order for personal offence for a female member who takes offence at being told she backs rapists.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I think I covered that in the very first part by saying there are times when remarks will be made and offence will then be taken at that remark and a presiding officer needs to immediately decide how best to maintain order. So I am not going to comment on a particular comment that was made as to whether it meets a threshold. A presiding officer in this case is required to maintain order in the House. Mr Tisch chose to accept that Mr Seymour had been offended by the comment and he then asked the member to withdraw. That member did withdraw. That is my final decision.
Turei MetiriaMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I did not address the question of misrepresentation directly. That was my colleague Chris Hipkins and I think he is right—Mr SPEAKER: No he then spoke further to your point but I do not understand the basic point.METIRIA TUREI: The essential point is in a debate—and we all know that this is a rigorous debate and you tell us that on a regular basis quite rightly—there is a lot that is said some of which can be misunderstood. If a member of Parliament stands up and refers to something that somebody has said particularly if it is a personal comment about them they should be able to debate to mention that personal comment and to make their own analysis about that comment without concern about it being taken as a personal offence. If it is a misrepresentation then that is a legitimate position for another member to take. But to then use personal offence to force them to withdraw and apologise over a comment that was made about them does not make any sense and we still get back to the primary issue which is: what is the definition of personal offence" that is used by the Speaker?"
Carter DavidMr SPEAKER: Can I just ask about part of the explanations received particularly from Metiria Turei—I do not understand the point the member is making about misrepresentation. I can understand the comment made about the offence taken but then you raised a point of misrepresentation that I just cannot follow.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): On the first point the accusation made is not only personally offensive to me; it brings the House into disrepute. So I think the debate around that is moot. Secondly we can argue about whether or not the member genuinely misheard what I had said or whether she deliberately attempted to slur me with the accusation but one way or another it was something that caused offence and brought the House into disrepute. So I do not think we actually need a lot of this debate. I think we are actually ready to move on.
Tisch LindsayThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I subscribe to the view of Chris Hipkins. I specifically asked the member: Did he take personal offence?". If it had been a matter of interpretation that is a debating point but I specifically asked "Did the member take offence?" and that is why I pursued the measure that I did. So I subscribe to your view—it is a very clear one—and that is why I took the course of action that I did."
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I think in considering that matter there is a need to draw a distinction between whether a member feels they have been misrepresented and whether a member takes offence at a matter because the remedies for those things are different. If a member feels they have been misrepresented then there are steps that they can take in order to seek to have that corrected and the threshold for that would be if you like more lenient than for offence. The threshold has to be reasonable for offensiveness or otherwise we will have members taking offence at everything other members say that they disagree with. But if they feel that they have been misrepresented in the debate then there are ways that they can seek to correct it. But asking a member to withdraw or apologise or both for a comment that a member feels might misrepresent what they have said but that is not in itself offensive is going to lead the House into a state of quite regular disorder I would have thought.
Turei MetiriaMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): That was unnecessary I think we can all agree. My colleague is prepared to accept that she did not get the quote completely correct—once we saw the transcript from Hansard—but none the less there still remains the central questions here as to that matter in a debate such as we are having which is that a member should be able to stand and reflect on the comments made by other members that are made about themselves. And second what is the definition of personal offence" that we are to use in this House? Is it an offence to the individual member of Parliament or is it an offence to the House? We have had long debates on that. It is now more confusing than ever."
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I may be able to assist. The confusion here is that I took offence at being accused of describing the member by her gender. I think that is offensive to me and to the House. I would not attack another politician in that way. The confusion has arisen—and the yellows" that I have just had emailed through to me will confirm this—because I said that she was a ball of "self-righteous fury" not a ball of "female fury". Had I said the latter I would be the one apologising but that is not what I said and the Hansard will confirm that I am correct. Can I suggest to the member that rather than self-righteousness she should get some hearing aids."
Turei MetiriaMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): There are two issues as I understand it; others may have a different view. The first was the question of the definition of personal offence". In previous rulings you have made you have said that where there is personal offence taken it is offence to the House as a whole not to the individual. However the Chair did rule that because Mr Seymour had taken personal offence himself that was sufficient to ask my colleague to withdraw and apologise. They are two different definitions of "personal offence" and we sought clarification on which of those definitions should apply.The second matter was that my colleague was described as a female having female fury righteousness in the debate earlier this afternoon by Mr Seymour. She referred to that comment in her contribution during the Committee stage. Mr Seymour took offence at her reference to his previous statement about her in this debate and there is a question now about whether or not a member is able to stand and repeat the statements made by other members in this House about themselves and then be required to withdraw and apologise for that statement. That does not seem consistent with the Standing Orders or the order of the House."
Tisch LindsayHouse resumed.Speaker RecalledThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Mr Speaker you have been recalled on the basis of a decision that I made and this came about when David Seymour raised a point of order about a comment that had been made by Marama Davidson. He took personal offence at the comment that had been made. I ruled that if the member had taken personal offence the member making the comment should withdraw the comment which she subsequently did.In the meantime there were a number of points of order including one from Metiria Turei that said that I was inconsistent with previous decisions that you as Speaker had made. The Hon Annette King made the point that I should consider the decision. I said that I would read the transcript and I would come back on the point that she had brought up and that I would consider again and report back. I have been consistent over the period of time when someone has taken personal offence—that it is an offence against that person's integrity—and I believe that if someone feels offended by such a comment in order to protect the integrity of that person the person making that accusation should in fact withdraw the comment which in this case the member did. We were then to move on but you have been recalled.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I do want to give a fair answer to the challenge that Carmel Sepuloni has given around the timing of the bill and I want to take you through the process and the reason for that timing. The eight developments that are at risk and that this bill addresses arise because of two specific factors. The first is that the council and the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel have chosen not to zone them residential. If it was a special housing area and the independent hearings panel and the council decided that they were to be zoned residential there is no issue—no issue on 15 September. It is a special housing area up to 15 September and on 16 September it is zoned residential under the Auckland Unitary Plan—no problem. The first thing is that we could not know where it was a problem and where it was not a problem until that process was completed on 19 August. The second issue is that in each of those special housing areas there is a legal process for the plan change and that process for the plan change is before independent commissioners. So if you look through each of those eight special housing areas they are being heard by independent commissioners whom neither the council nor myself is lawfully allowed to ring up and say: Hurry it up come on and make a decision before that deadline of 15 September." There are some special housing areas that back in April I was worried would not be through the process but actually are and are not a concern. Here is the further point: I think the Parliament would agree that we want these special housing areas progressed into houses as quickly as possible. The more pressure that we can put on those landowners and those councils to get on and get the plan changes and the resource consents and the houses built I think the better off we are. If for instance I had come to this Parliament in April and provided a generic "get out of jail free" card and said: "Don't worry about the 15 September date because I'm going to extend that date." it would have had exactly the opposite effect that the Parliament would want and that is maximum pressure on both the council and on the landowners to be able to do that transition. So it is for those good reasons—we did not know where the unitary plan had completed we did not know in each of these areas where they were going to be finished and we wanted people working as fast as possible to bring those special housing areas into homes—that the timing of this bill is such that it has been brought before the House today."
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I am happy to engage. I note that this is a bill that is going through all stages and so I do want to be able to engage in a proper debate about the issues.The first thing I want to challenge Mr Twyford on is that in his opening comments he said that I had been singularly unsuccessful in growing residential investment in New Zealand. Well let me actually give the numbers from Statistics New Zealand. In my first year 2013 the growth in residential investment was 27 percent. Phil Twyford: It's not all about you Nick.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well no I am simply saying what the record is. It is actually about building houses. I am just simply saying let us look at the actual record: 27 percent growth in 2012; 27 percent growth in residential investment in 2013; and another 29 percent growth in 2015 and 2016. That is the longest—[Interruption] Well I have a simple question for members opposite: cite me 4 years when there has been faster growth in residential investment. Tell me the years in which there has been stronger growth in residential construction than in the official statistics from 2013 to 2016.Tracey Martin: We ask the questions; you answer them.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh! I am making the point that you do not know the answer. So we know now that that is incorrect and members should stop making that assertion.The second thing is the question of how you get affordable houses built. So let us look across New Zealand. Where are the most new homes that are being built in an affordable range? Answer: Christchurch. Actually if you look at the figures from Statistics New Zealand you have over 4500 homes built in Christchurch—brand new homes built—under $500000. Is there affordability regulation in Christchurch? No there is not—no there is not. I say to Mr Twyford the Productivity Commission—not the Government but the Productivity Commission—concluded it did not work. The independent hearings panel in Auckland concluded it did not work. Actually the Auckland Council concluded it does not work.So I simply challenge the member and say there is no evidence that shows that regulating house prices is the way in which we improve the affordability and supply. The best means is to increase supply. That is what this bill does. Let us be very clear in this Committee that this bill will enable Auckland to have 8000 homes sooner—8000 homes sooner—and it is a litmus test for parties in this Parliament as to whether they are part of the problem or part of the solution in terms of growing housing supply in New Zealand.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for allowing me to speak and contribute on this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. The previous speaker Meka Whaitiri mentioned that the Government does not have any plan but I would like to clarify that this Government has a comprehensive plan to address the issue of housing supply and affordability and the issues associated with our strong growing economy. It is very important we need to understand that this economy is growing and more and more houses are required because people are staying here.It is important to understand that we have to free up the land so that the builders can build the houses that are much in need. With this bill we will be able to free up more land and help builders to build a house. It is important legislation and we are looking forward to this vote from all sides of the House but unfortunately the Opposition is not at all happy to support such legislation. Opposition members keep complaining about it but they do not want to support the Government when it is taking steps to address it. Thank you.
Points of Order — Housing Legislation Amendment Bill—Division into Two Bills
Pugh Maureen; Tisch LindsayMAUREEN PUGH (National): I stand in support of this Housing Legislation Amendment Bill at its second reading. We have heard a lot of rhetoric today and in recent weeks—even in recent months—about the need to provide more housing in New Zealand. Yet when this opportunity is before the House on an issue we are all agreed on the need to provide more housing the Opposition cannot bring itself to support a bill that provides the very tools that we will see maintaining the momentum making land available and getting houses built.In a strong and growing economy which is managed ably by this National-led Government we are seeing more and more New Zealanders staying home and coming home—such is their confidence in this country now and in this Government. However National's comprehensive housing plan is further complemented by this bill. We understand the need to ensure that this bill is passed through this House because we want to support more Kiwis getting into their homes.The Hon Nick Smith can be rightly proud of his role in achieving the highest number of houses being built in this country and the passage of this bill through the House is essential to supporting more new houses for Kiwi families. I support this bill. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Peeni Henare—5 minutes.
Parmar Parmjeet; Tisch LindsayDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for this opportunity to take a call to speak on the second reading of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. I am taking this call to support this bill. First I want to congratulate the Minister the Hon Nick Smith for his dedication to improving housing supply and affordability. We know the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 was meant to be a short-term measure to fast track housing development and that is because we are committed to addressing the issue of housing supply and affordability. These issues of housing supply and affordability are not unique to us. Yes these issues that we are facing here in New Zealand are not unique to us. These issues are actually a sign of a country doing well—a sign of a strong growing economy. Yes these issues are signs of a strong growing economy.I am a list MP based in Mt Roskill so my interest is in Auckland. Along with other parts of the country Auckland has made significant progress since starting its housing accord. Since the start of the Auckland housing accord 33000 sections have been created and dwellings consented—that is 33000 in Auckland. So the extension of the Act is important because it is about housing supply and affordability it is about keeping that momentum going and it is about allowing the transition to the unitary plan in a smoother manner.The unitary plan is important to Auckland and the independent hearings panel did a huge job. It was a huge task. It did it in time which was great. The unitary plan is crucial for Auckland's future. We want to see this momentum keep going and it is really important that we support housing supply and affordability because this industry through construction of residential places is not just about housing supply and affordability but is also about supporting the creation of several jobs.If the Labour Party the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party are keen on stabilising house prices then they should support this bill. On this side we are fully committed. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Marama Davidson—5 minutes.
Speaker's Observations — Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Clocks
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): I was privileged enough to sit down at a wedding a couple of years ago and I happened to be sitting next to a mutual friend who was a builder in Auckland. The wedding was in Palmerston North but he was down there from Auckland for the wedding and I said to him: What are the challenges that you really think are facing us in terms of the challenges that we're facing with rising Auckland housing prices and otherwise?". He said it was pretty simple to him: it was the restriction of supply brought about by the changes that the Auckland City Council had made to the district plan. He said that what we do need to do is get the process moving a lot quicker and get it so that we can actually get more houses built. In 2013 we had the special housing areas put in place and what that enabled us to do was—as a short-term measure at that time—fast track housing development and address those constraints on housing supply. It has been successful in that to the point that we are actually seeing a huge number of houses built compared with what was happening before those housing areas were put in place. We have seen a huge number of consents being processed since those were put in place. It does not just happen instantly—that houses are magically built. I know that those members on the other side of the House think they can have a policy where they wave a magic wand and houses will simply appear but it does take a process. These special housing areas have been successful in speeding up the process. There is still a need for this to continue over another 3 years. So quite succinctly the primary purpose of this bill is to extend that for a longer period of time so that we can remove that constraint on housing supply in Auckland and help get this moving a lot better for those people in Auckland."
Urgent Debates Declined — Recorded Burglary Victimisations—Increase in Number
Twyford Phil; Mallard TrevorPOINTS OF ORDERLeave to Divide Bill into Two Bills—Housing Legislation Amendment BillPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the bill to be divided into two bills as described in my amendment; for the bill containing Part 1 of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill to be set down for second reading forthwith and for the bill containing Part 2 to be referred to the Social Services Committee to be reported by 25 November 2016.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that process? There is objection.
Mallard TrevorThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call a member I am just taking a little advice as to whether we alternate or whether we—because of course National—sorry I have muted my own mike. I am just taking a little bit of advice before I call a member. I have seen the two members who have called. I am taking a little bit of advice. There is a Business Committee decision as to the order of calls but it does not take into account when a party chooses not to take a call as happened earlier. So I am just getting some advice as to whom I should call.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to take this call on the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. This is an omnibus bill and yet another tool in National's tool kit in its comprehensive housing plan. There are now 213 special housing areas (SHAs) across New Zealand. They are in Auckland Christchurch Wellington Tauranga the Western Bay of Plenty Selwyn Tasman Nelson and Queenstown and they have the capacity to build and provide 70000 homes. We need to protect these SHAs and provide for more.Worthy of note in this bill is that it sets time limits on lodging resource consents and plan variations which in turn encourages developers to begin building in special housing areas quickly. Consents must be lodged within 12 months of an SHA being gazetted. If this bill does not progress the SHAs listed above will lapse and the developers will need to restart their plan change process under the Resource Management Act. This could delay that housing coming on stream by at least 2 years and potentially up to 5 years.This Government is serious about building houses and this bill is an important part of improving the supply of land and providing the tools to get houses built. I commend this bill to the House.
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take this call on the first reading of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill. I am taking a short call to support this bill. To that member who just spoke Denis O'Rourke: yes people are coming to New Zealand. We are attracting people from all around the world because the economy is doing so well under this National Government. Unemployment is 5.1 percent—below 5.5 percent when compared with a year earlier. Wages are rising faster than inflation. These are the reasons why people are coming to New Zealand. We are attracting international students to come to New Zealand we are attracting tourists to come to New Zealand and we are attracting economic migrants who are looking for better opportunities—they are coming to New Zealand. It is a contrast to what was happening under the previous Labour Government when people did not want to live in New Zealand because they could not see any scope and they could not see any opportunities for themselves and their children here. They were moving overseas to live and work and that is why we did not have this pressure that we are experiencing under this National Government. We are a very fortunate country to be in this position where people want to come and live here in New Zealand. National does not have a blame policy like the New Zealand First Party and the Green Party. Talking about the median house price—like the Green member Metiria Turei who spoke before did—this means that there are houses of higher and lower value than the price of $1 million. It does not mean $1 million is the minimum house price; it means it is the median house price. It does not mean that there are no houses available for less than $1 million or that houses are not available for more than $1 million. This Government has been working hard to improve the supply of houses by signing housing accords by establishing special housing areas and also we are very keen to reform the Resource Management Act. That is why this legislation is important because this is to extend the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 so that more special housing areas can be established as appropriate. I support this bill and commend it to the House.
Barclay ToddTODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to be able to speak in support of the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill—and it is also a privilege to speak after Phil Twyford given his positions on housing in New Zealand creating a fiasco of their own. This is the guy who called for a national emergency on housing but will not support urgency on important housing legislation. I have been a strong advocate for an extension of the special housing areas because my electorate has benefited considerably from seven special housing areas to date and because of this legislation which I hope will pass we will benefit from another hopefully up to half a dozen special housing areas—an additional couple of thousand houses coming on board in Queenstown which is considerably important. Phil Twyford was opposed to the HomeStart initiative but has expressed supportive comments in the past. He also wanted a capital gains tax—now he is opposed to that. Phil Twyford was also in favour of selling State houses but is now opposed to it. He has got more positions on housing than anybody else.This is an important piece of legislation. It is a great bill and if he were to talk to any developer any community housing provider any home loan business or any business in any of the fastest-growing areas within this country he would know that they are also in support of this legislation. If he had been down to Queenstown—which he has—instead of just going up on to the ski field and having a great time if he had actually talked to the Community Housing Trust there he would have found out that we have benefited by over a thousand new houses in the Queenstown area delivered only under special housing legislation. We have had seven special housing areas under this and we hope to see some more.Andrew Little's Public Works Act provisions are not needed; that is another example of how out of touch those guys are around housing in New Zealand. We have got a perfect case in point in my electorate at the moment where the Housing Act is preventing possibly the onsale of Government-owned land to be used for worker accommodation and affordable housing simply because a former owner—20 30 or 40 years ago—can put up his hand and say I might quite like that piece of land." Actually that land is necessary to use for special housing and worker accommodation. This provision that we are passing today enables that demand to be met very quickly so it is a privilege to be able to support this legislation. I want to congratulate the Minister on all his hard work in this space and thank him on behalf of my electorate for facilitating more houses being built. Thank you."
Robertson Grant; Borrows ChesterGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just seek your guidance. As this bill has been introduced to the House under urgency obviously a few of us are playing catch-up to be able to prepare. There is a regulatory impact statement on the Table around Part 1 of the bill but there is no regulatory impact statement dealing with the matters in Part 2. I request your assistance and your guidance. Should we expect one of those or just blunder on?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter for the Government to provide that documentation to support its urgency motion. Challenge the Government on it. No doubt it is a point for debate. Let us hear it.
Carter DavidSPEAKER'S STATEMENTSChamber Lobbies and Galleries—ClocksMr SPEAKER: Just before I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith I do just want to point out to members that clocks have been added as a guidance to members. They will show the speaking time remaining. Although they are there as a guide to members ultimately the presiding officers will have complete discretion as to when to start a speech and when a speech concludes. I apologise for interrupting the Minister.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDBurglaries—IncreaseMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Stuart Nash seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the increase in the number of recorded burglary victimisations by 14 percent in the last 12 months. The urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible and it must relate to a particular case of recent occurrence. The urgent debate procedure is not intended to address a continuing problem such as burglary statistics—[Interruption] Order!—which do not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence and I refer members to Speakers' ruling 210/5 and Speaker's ruling 210/6. On this basis the case raised does not meet the test for me to set aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.
Thursday 25 August 2016 - Volume 716
Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA personal vote was called for on the question That the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 62Adams (P)DowieKuriger (P)Scott (P)Bakshi (P)Dunne (P)LeeSeymour (P)BarclayEnglish (P)Lotu-Iiga (P)SimpsonBarry (P)Finlayson (P)Macindoe (P)Smith N (P)Bayly (P)Flavell (P)McClay (P)Smith S (P)Bennett D (P)Foss (P)McCully (P)Tisch (P)Bennett P (P)Foster-Bell (P)McKelvieTolley (P)Bishop (P)GoldsmithMitchell M (P)Upston (P)BorrowsGoodhew (P)Muller (P)Wagner (P)BridgesGuy (P)Naylor (P)WilliamsonBrownlee (P)HayesNgaro (P)WoodhouseCarter (P)Hudson (P)O'Connor S (P)Yang (P)Coleman (P)Joyce (P)Parata (P)Young (P)Collins (P)Kaye (P)ParmarDean (P)Key (P)Pugh (P)Teller:Doocey (P)KorakoReti (P)RossNoes 59Ardern (P)Fox (P)Mathers (P)SepuloniBall (P)Genter (P)Mitchell CShaw (P)Bindra (P)Goff (P)Moroney (P)Shearer (P)Bond (P)Graham (P)NashSioBrowning (P)Hague (P)O'Connor DStewart (P)Clark (P)HenareO'RourkeTabuteau (P)ClendonHipkinsParaone (P)Tirikatene (P)Cosgrove (P)Hughes (P)Parker (P)Turei (P)Cunliffe (P)KingPeters (P)Twyford (P)CurranLittleProsser (P)WallDavidson (P)Logie (P)RobertsonWhaitiriDavisMahuta (P)RocheWilliamsDelahuntyMallardRurawheWoodsDysonMark (P)SageTeller:FaafoiMartin (P)Salesa (P)Lees-GallowayBill read a third time.
12. Health System—FundingBARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of HealthHealth System—Funding12. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement Budget 2016 will help New Zealanders continue to access the healthcare they need"? Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. Budget 2016 allocated an extra $2.2 billion to health over the next 4 years. As part of that the Government is spending $124 million for Pharmac to provide more access to new medicines $96 million to provide more elective surgery and $39 million to start the roll-out of the bowel screening programme. There is also an extra $25 million for primary care in the Budget and over time we have increased the number of doctors and nurses in the system by 6000.BARBARA STEWART: Does he believe New Zealanders are continuing to access the healthcare they need when Waitematā District Health Board (DHB) bowel cancer sufferers have to wash and reuse catheters even though the catheter packaging states they are for single use only because the DHB is supplying only half the number needed for patients?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes and that sounds pretty operational to me.Barbara Stewart: Does he think it appropriate that New Zealanders predominantly elderly New Zealanders are being asked to wash and reuse the catheters resulting in multiple infections so that DHBs can save just over $1 per day and is this an example of the efficiency savings he is demanding of DHBs?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look although it is operational I find that pretty unlikely because that would be a source of infection so that would not be correct clinical practice and I would find it hard to believe that is really happening. So come and see me about it. Barbara Stewart: Does he think it appropriate that when constituents do complain directly to his office of this exact situation they receive one box of additional catheters and then no changes are made to the long-term care for that constituent?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well what I can say is that I am a local MP in the Waitematā DHB catchment area and we have had fantastic feedback about the performance of the Waitematā District Health Board over time—the services there have just got better and better. It is very well run by Lester Levy and Dale Bramley and people are actually really happy with the service because they are getting more and more access to the quality healthcare they need all the time. So look if there is a problem with the catheters come and see me."
11. Border Control—Combatting Child Sexual AbuseMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of CustomsBorder Control—Combatting Child Sexual Abuse11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Customs: What updates has she received regarding the interception of child sexual abuse material at the border?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): In the past financial year the Customs Service prosecuted six individuals caught travelling with child sexual abuse material or sharing it through the internet. Forensic examination of their computers and phones located 537636 images and videos. In one of the Customs Service's largest cases by volume one man was arrested after being caught online with over 400000 images. This investigation was launched after a referral from the US authorities. The Customs Service is focused on targeting and prosecuting people who possess and share child sexual abuse material to protect children in New Zealand and internationally.Melissa Lee: How is the Customs Service working with Government departments and international agencies to fight child sex abuse crimes?Hon NICKY WAGNER: The Customs Service and agencies collaborate through shared intelligence both locally and internationally. A recent letter from Interpol has praised New Zealand as an example to the rest of the world on how online child exploitation is dealt with especially the working relationships between the Department of Internal Affairs the New Zealand Police and the Customs Service. Behind every image and every video of a child someone is suffering horrendous abuse. People who keep and share these publications make victims' suffering even worse.
7. Schools Canterbury—Infrastructure InvestmentMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of EducationSchools Canterbury—Infrastructure InvestmentMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): My question is to the Minister of Education and asks—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Faafoi Mr Doocey has as much opportunity to ask a question as anybody else.7. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about investment in education infrastructure in Christchurch? [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask—I know the member Dr Megan Woods sits very close and so every interjection I do hear. Could she please desist with less interjection as I call the Hon Hekia Parata.Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Since June of this year Minister Kaye and I have announced over $67 million in projects to build new schools and classrooms in Christchurch. This spending is part of the $276 million being invested in Canterbury's school infrastructure as part of Budget 2016. The total investment package is made up of around $168 million towards the Christchurch schools rebuild programme $100 million to build two new schools and deliver two relocated and rebuilt schools around $8 million for new roll growth classrooms and $6 million for a seismic strengthening fund for integrated schools. Additionally yesterday the Hon Nikki Kaye announced revitalisation of the city's CBD as the Government announced the site for the new $30 million Christchurch school Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery which will be a significant step towards the revitalisation of the CBD.Matt Doocey: What investment in schooling infrastructure is under way in Kaiapoi?Hon HEKIA PARATA: In the last week Minister Kaye and I announced the Government would invest a further $6.6 million in the redevelopment of Kaiapoi High School in North Canterbury on top of the $15.5 million already announced for the project. Kaiapoi High School is one of 115 schools that are being remodelled rebuilt or repaired as part of the 10-year billion-dollar Christchurch schools rebuild programme. This programme is now in its third year and is making excellent progress with seven schools completed 10 in construction 21 in design and nine in the planning stage. I am looking forward to visiting Kaiapoi North School tomorrow—with the fabulous local member of Parliament—where construction work is starting on its redevelopment.
5. Lincoln University—Financial Position and SustainabilityTRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and EmploymentLincoln University—Financial Position and Sustainability5. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What reports has he seen on the financial sustainability of Lincoln University?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Acting Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): I have seen a number of reports. Because of its small size Lincoln University has struggled to be financially sustainable since before 2007 well before the Christchurch earthquakes. The Government through the Tertiary Education Commission is working to help Lincoln University to return to profitability. Having increased agricultural funding rates by over 50 percent across the last three Budgets Government funding for Lincoln University has increased 65.3 percent since 2008 compared with a 24.2 percent increase for the university sector overall.Tracey Martin: Is he aware of reports that the new vice-chancellor for Lincoln University last week told staff that We have 1 year to get to a surplus or we are dead."?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I mentioned in my primary answer there are some challenges for Lincoln University in returning to profitability which the Tertiary Education Commission is supporting it with. In terms of options available and decisions to be made they are decisions for Lincoln University.Tracey Martin: What actions are his offices taking to pursue the previous vice-chancellor Andy West's mismanagement and the dodgy awarding of taxpayer-funded contracts to his mates such as Roger Pikia?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question makes a very serious allegation and should not stand. Mr SPEAKER: The first part—[Interruption] Order! I heard the first part of the question and there was absolutely no problem with that. I did not hear the second part because again of noise coming from the member's own colleague. I will invite the member to ask the question again. If it is in order we will proceed. If the member adds something that is out of order and makes an allegation she risks losing the opportunity for that question.Tracey Martin: What actions are his offices taking to pursue the previous vice-chancellor Andy West's mismanagement and the dodgy awarding of taxpayer-funded contracts to Andy West's mates such as Roger Pikia?Mr SPEAKER: The question is in order.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Decisions for Lincoln University are matters for the university to consider and those relate to anything to do with the vice-chancellor.Tracey Martin: Is he concerned that Lincoln University may be so financially damaged by these recent vice-chancellor decisions that the 2017 Future Footprint is also now under threat?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I simply refer the member to my answer to the primary question which talked about the levels of funding and support over and above other universities that this Government has made. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Mark this will be the last time I ask you to cease interjections certainly in that tone as well."