edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
1. Economy—Reports and Impact on FamiliesBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSEconomy—Reports and Impact on Families1. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy and how does this compare to the international economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Last week the Moody's rating agency released its Global Macro Outlook for 2016-17. It is forecasting growth in the G20 advanced economies to remain stable at low levels averaging 1.6 percent this year and 1.9 percent in 2017. In contrast the Reserve Bank is forecasting the New Zealand economy to grow at more than double the G20 rate—at 3.4 percent for the year to March and the same in the following year. So at a time when many major economies are treading water the New Zealand economy is continuing with moderate consistent growth. Brett Hudson: What other international reports has he received about the New Zealand economic outlook?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As part of a range of international reports issued recently the credit-rating agency Fitch Ratings affirmed New Zealand's AA rating highlighting New Zealand's strong macroeconomic policy framework prudent fiscal management and sound business environment which is rated among the best globally by the World Bank. It also along with other credit rating agencies pointed out New Zealand's exposure to international markets through higher levels of international debt but on their measures New Zealand's position on debt owed to overseas lenders is improving. Brett Hudson: What reports has he seen on recent developments in the domestic economy particularly for our export industries?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Despite the downturn in dairy prices over the last 2 to 3 years the New Zealand economy has continued to grow and total exports have lifted. Tourism beef timber wine and international education have flourished while the dairy sector had its resilience tested. Although there is ongoing volatility in international dairy prices we welcome the lift in milk prices by just under 30 percent over the last month. It has led to a lift in forecast farm-gate prices with Fonterra announcing a lift in the farm-gate milk price by 50c to $4.75 a kilogram. That will be good news for farmers struggling through a cold wet spring but there is some way to go before most of them will be able to break even.Brett Hudson: What does a growing economy mean for New Zealand families and households? Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a bit different for different members of the households. But for instance now that the construction industry has over 10000 apprentices it means that younger members of households can expect to see the best opportunity in a generation to get trades qualifications. That is just a part of the 105000 extra jobs created last year and the more than 250000 jobs that have been created over the past 3 years.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): I just want to take a short call on this Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. I think a lot of the things that have been said about it this evening have already been covered but I think it is really important for us to just sort of stop and note that at times things change in society and then legislation needs to catch up.If we look at the changing nature of medical practice over recent years—whether it is as a previous speaker has mentioned the introduction of nurse practitioners midwives being able to deliver babies midwives getting prescribing rights for certain medications and the like or nurse practitioners being able to prescribe medicines—there has been I think good progress made throughout the years within these professions to allow more suitably qualified people to be able to perform certain tasks that had previously been able to be done only by doctors. So it is important that our legislation now catches up to that. I think this is a good bill that obviously is going to make some changes to seven statutes to ensure that we make the best use of the resources we have available across the sector. I support this bill.
Simpson ScottSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a real privilege to take a call in the second reading of this the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. I know that is a bit of a mouthful but this is a very good practical piece of legislation that I think is quite long overdue.The member Barbara Stewart who has just resumed her seat made mention of the 28 submitters on the bill. I think that with almost no exception we received very good information from those submitters. Over the years modern medicine has changed dramatically. I am the son of a registered nurse; my mother practised nursing in the late 1950s. In those days I recall her telling stories about how nothing happened without the approval of the doctor. The doctor was all-supreme all-knowing and all-important in terms of any patient interaction. What we have seen since those days is a change in the way that our medical professionals are trained and the health practitioners whose roles we are seeking to extend in this piece of legislation are now quite different and more important in terms of providing wonderful service to patients up and down the countryside.I represent a rural provincial electorate and it is in electorates like mine in the Coromandel where I think the greatest benefit of this legislation will come to pass. As community health is more and more focused on care in the community and keeping people in their homes it is more important that our health professionals actually go out into those communities and into the homes. Those communities will be the ones that benefit most from this because there is a greater role for providers. There are also a greater range of services and this was made very clear to us by the submitters—that the range of services that health practitioners are required to attend to these days is much wider than it was even a few years ago. The advancement of technology and modern information means that we do need to change these roles. I think that this bill is a very effective piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation I think whose time has come and I commend it to the House.
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. This bill the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill is a good bill introduced by my colleague the Hon Louise Upston the Minister for Land Information. It is important that it is passed forthwith because as we know there have been a range of technical and geotechnical issues faced by the people of Canterbury that have seen some people lose metres off the boundaries of their land whereas others have had the spreading out of the land that has grown the size of their property but severely damaged the ability to properly measure and register that land. So this is an important bill. It is a timely bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee chaired by the able and learned Mr Simpson from Coromandel did a very good job. We did work very cooperatively with members of the Opposition and in hearing submitters. This is a necessary piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.Bill read a third time.
Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill — Third Reading
Williams PotoPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I too rise in support of this piece of legislation. There are just a couple of points I want to make. I know that we should ensure that this bill passes tonight and I will be doing my utmost but I do just want to make a couple of points about this particular bill. The process has to be commended. The ability to have input from Canterbury members from across all of the parties engaged in the discussion has been really useful and I think has encouraged all of us to think that there are better ways to engage with your parliamentary colleagues from across the House when it comes to matters of such significance as dealing with the earthquakes in Canterbury. I would encourage other members when other pieces of legislation are being developed around this to use similar processes. The officials on this were very open to suggestions that were made by my colleagues on this particular piece of legislation and I commend the Minister the Hon Louise Upston for that.The submitters were primarily the council and that group of surveyors who were clear that there were some things that they needed to ensure went into this piece of legislation. Firstly that those interim surveys that were conducted during those first few months and years after the earthquake could be validated under this piece of legislation. Secondly they wanted to ensure that all of the variances that occurred with the movement of land—whether that be through lateral spread whether that be through movement up and down or whether that be through the impact of liquefaction—were all considered when the boundary legislation was redrawn. Thirdly they wanted to ensure that there was a disputes process and a remediation process that was included in the legislation. All of these protections have been put in place. This is a good bill. It will go a long way towards giving comfort to property owners that their boundaries are valid and that the surveys are valid. I commend it to the House.
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): I too stand to take a short call on this most important bill the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill because on the eastern side of Christchurch they had one of the biggest areas where homes were lost through the earthquake. I want to thank the Minister the Hon Louise Upston for the work that she has done on this bill and the collegiality that was shown within the Committee to get this bill to this place. This bill does bring some comfort to the property owners of Christchurch and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House. Thank you.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in support of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill in its third reading. I think this bill is very important because it acknowledges how far we have come. Of course quite often we call them the Christchurch earthquakes" but they are the Canterbury earthquakes. The town in my electorate of Kaiapoi was hard hit in the first earthquake. We are working through these very practical issues now of how we move forward. Next week is a good acknowledgment of how much we have moved forward with the opening of the new Farmers building in Rangiora. It is very much an anchor project of the recovery and I know the whole "Waimak" is looking forward to that opening on 1 September. What we are looking at here—it gives me a lot of comfort that what we are doing in Parliament is giving cross-party support to the people of Canterbury. I think we need to acknowledge that. It is a continuation of the cross-party support for the regeneration legislation and it continues Parliament's standing behind Canterbury. I want to acknowledge all parties in this House for standing up for the people of Canterbury.The reason we have this bill is because the pegs were not lining up with the survey boundaries. We have heard that before with surveys; they were measured as if the pegs had stayed in the land but now they have moved. What we have found out is that we need to give people certainty and reliability and I think that is what Land Information New Zealand is doing through this very good bill. We know it also extends the time out to 2022. We learnt a very valuable lesson in the Valentine's Day earthquake about the risks that are still there for the people of Canterbury so it futureproofs this legislation for ongoing seismic activity. Also it does amend the Land Transfer Act to ensure and clarify that resolutions can be addressed through that vehicle. I would just like to finish by saying that this great bill gives certainty to the people of Canterbury. Thank you."
O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I too am going to take only a short call on the third and last reading of this bill the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill because all that needs to have been said on the bill which is a very technical bill has in fact already been said. In a nutshell surveyors in Canterbury did need to have more flexibility to deal with boundary issues as a result of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Some boundaries moved; some did not. Obviously something had to be done about that. But they needed to do it in a way that did not compromise professional standards or create any uncertainty and that has been done by providing that indeed where land has boundaries that have moved then those boundaries will be recognised in that moved position.The bill achieves all of those objectives in I think a very practical sensible and very clear way. That is very welcome. As others have said it means that people in Canterbury know their position know what will happen it creates certainty and people can get on with their lives. Where there are disputes—and I hope there will be very few of them—the bill provides for a robust dispute resolution process which we in New Zealand First also welcome. That is all I need to say. New Zealand First will be very pleased to vote in favour of the bill at this final stage.
Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe. Similar to previous speakers my contribution on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill will be short but I would like to begin by extending our sympathies from the Green Party to the people in central Italy who had that awful 6.2 magnitude earthquake resulting in a number of deaths. Rescuers have been working through the night and the early hours of the morning now trying to see whether there are any survivors in the rubble. We remember that profound sense of disorientation and dislocation in Canterbury on 4 September when we were woken by that big earthquake in the early hours of the morning so our thoughts are with the people in those mountainous hilltop towns and the distress that they are going through.This bill is a good one. It deals with the issue that in the worst-affected areas of Christchurch after the earthquakes surveyors had quite considerable difficulty in locating the legal property boundaries because the measurements between where the survey pegs were and where the markers on the ground were no longer matched the official survey plans. It was difficult for them to determine where the actual legal boundaries lay. This bill is a sensible initiative to ensure that the law is that the boundaries move with the land. As others have said it extends out to potential earthquakes in future so it is futureproofing the legislation. It helps get rid of that uncertainty and it ensures that for any surveys that have been undertaken in Canterbury in this interim period the boundaries stay where the surveyors designated them as long as those surveys were done in good faith and with no negligence. So it is providing certainty. Certainly most surveys that have been done since the earthquakes have been consistent with the principle that the boundaries move with the land but there are around 400 surveys that I understand were done using a different approach. Land Information New Zealand is identifying those and will be actively managing them.As others have done I would like to commend the Minister for Land Information for the very consultative approach that was taken with this legislation. Officials consulted also with CanCERN and with the city council and there was an exposure draft that was produced so a lot of the issues were resolved before the bill came before the House. We encourage other Ministers to do the same. The Local Government and Environment Committee is debating legislation around local government changes. There was no consultation with the sector before that bill was introduced so it takes considerable time for the submitters for the select committee and for Parliament to address what is really poorly drafted legislation. This bill is an example a shining example of what happens when there is good consultation before legislation is introduced so that the role of the select committee is to then only tweak it. So I commend this bill to the House and encourage other Ministers to adopt a similar consultative approach prior to introducing legislation.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. As the past contributions have been clear and concise but succinct I too will take a short call and not deny the good people of Canterbury the passing of this bill to provide a very practical solution to some very real issues. First of all I want to pay tribute again to the Cantabrians who have lived through the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. I can remember those horrific scenes on the television. I am sure that for Cantabrians that is still very very fresh in their minds yet day in and day out they are dealing with the consequences of that earthquake and that includes dealing with their property issues. I too remember learning in law school that when the land moves legal boundaries do not move and one of the practical examples that was given is when you buy property with a river in it that meanders through your property. But of course the gentle time-consuming meandering of a river on land is not the same as the devastation of an earthquake. For some of those Cantabrians dealing with the consequences of that earthquake finding their property structures on their neighbour's land is harrowing not only psychologically but of course when dealing with the legal consequences of that moving forward. This bill is a practical one. It changes the existing law to make sure that the legal boundary will move with the land in a common-sense way. I think given the events of 2010 and 2011 that is a practical pragmatic way forward. Given that this is a very common-sense bill I see no reason in delaying it. I commend it to the House.
Sio WilliamSu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to seek leave of the House to table a petition to protect Easter Sunday calling on the National Government to allow its MPs a free vote on this issue. Six thousand people have signed this petition.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): You were free to discuss the petition during the course of the speech that you made and you did so. The petition has been declined in question time and that is the end of the matter.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me pleasure to take a short call on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. Before we go any further I take exception really to being told I have been made to do something—and I am quite sure my mother will back up that comment any time you want her to. I think the nonsense we have heard from the other side of the House today is unbelievable and not worth speaking about any further. For me this bill has nothing to do with consumerism religion or even my personal view. In terms of my electorate of Rangitīkei there is a large part that this bill will probably never apply to and never be required for but we do have a piece of our electorate in the north that relies very heavily on the visitor market. Easter is a time when that part of my electorate is very busy. So whether the Ruapehu District Council ever wishes to pick this up and run with it or not is the council's and the community's opportunity. But in my view it could well be that that part of my electorate will take advantage of this type of opportunity.Hon Trevor Mallard: Everything that couldn't be bought on a Saturday—what nonsense.IAN McKELVIE: It has got nothing to do with what can be bought on Saturday and what can be bought on Sunday. The challenge that we have as a community is that we have groups of people who move around the world and around New Zealand in ever-increasing numbers. They are here one minute and there the next and for communities businesses and local collective communities to take the opportunity to serve those tourists to create an environment that will bring tourists back into that area I think is hugely important. This bill gives those people that opportunity. We have heard virtually nothing about this opportunity today and I think it is really important that we do give them this opportunity. The other thing I have heard a lot of today is that councils will be put out by making this decision. They do not have to make this decision. The issue does not have to be brought before councils at all. The community will tell the council if the decision needs to be put before it and the community the collective submissions and the consultation period that they all go through will decide whether or not that community takes up the opportunity to implement this bill. I support this bill. I think it has got some value to some parts of New Zealand and certainly will have some value to the northern part of my electorate should it choose to implement it. I support the bill.
Mathers Mojo; Tisch LindsayMOJO MATHERS (Green): We have had a lot of points raised by both sides and I was going to go over and summarise some of these points that have been made opposing the bill—in particular about local democracy and how this bill will foist the decision making on to local councils. The trouble is that it is a very divisive issue and when divisive issues are decided at a local level it divides communities. It does not build strong communities. We should not be foisting this decision on to local communities in that way. It is divisive for a reason. It is divisive because it is a deeply personal issue for some of us and it is for me. I want to acknowledge the comment that was made by Ria Bond that memories are made on Easter Day. That is absolutely the case for me. Easter has always been in my family one of the most precious days of the year. I have many memories of Easter both as a child when I maybe did not understand the deeper significance behind Easter and as an adult and a mother of three children celebrating Easter with them. We had our own family rituals around Easter because we had the time to build these rituals we had the community space to build these things and we had time out from pressure to do other things because in our family nobody was being forced to go and work on that day. We could have the time to do these rituals to go to church to come back to have an Easter egg hunt and to read the story of why this is important. That is why on a personal level I am deeply saddened by this bill. There are only 3½ days of the year at present when shop trading is restricted. These days are precious and sacrificing one more of these days on the altar of consumerism grieves me personally very deeply. Consumerism and the juggernaut of it are what is trashing the world and the environment. What will this lead to? Will we be debating here in a couple of years whether to liberalise shop trading on Christmas Day on Anzac Day or on Good Friday? These days are precious. They are part of the fabric of New Zealand society and culture. We should keep them that way. Removing these days is inherently anti-family. Many people have made that point but it is worth repeating. It is anti-family. New Zealand workers already have the lowest rate of family time in the world and some of the longest working hours. Families are already under significant stress—juggling multiple jobs getting up at the crack of dawn rushing out and coming back. It is wrong to be undermining that even more with this bill. I oppose it utterly and completely.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Carmel Sepuloni—5 minutes.
Points of Order — Tabling of Documents—Petition to Protect Easter Sunday
Points of Order — Leave to Progress Through All Stages Without Debate—Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill
Points of Order — Leave to Include Bill in Statutes Amendment Bill—Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): It is a real pleasure to rise and take a call in the third and final reading of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. Before I talk about the substance of the bill I just want to add a couple of points to those Mr Iain Lees-Galloway has made. He seems to say that this bill is going to create inconsistencies. I thought this bill was about improving the inconsistencies that already exist like that on Easter Sunday there are some towns in New Zealand that can actually trade and there are some that cannot. We are giving the power back to the local communities to decide for themselves whether they want to or not. Just because that member decides to talk as if National is this big bad wolf that is actually preventing people from doing what they want to do on an Easter Sunday just because that member talks as if it is a public holiday—it is actually not. That is a misconception that most people have. Easter Sunday is not a public holiday. It is a restricted day. Good Friday is a public holiday; Easter Monday is a public holiday. People can have time with their families if they so choose. On Easter Sunday like any other Sunday people can spend time with their families if they so choose. This is about choices. This is about giving back the power to local communities—like Mr Iain Lees-Galloway's former colleague Ms Steve Chadwick who used to be a Labour MP who actually supports this and who is now the Mayor of Rotorua. Rotorua cannot trade on Easter Sunday at the moment whereas the neighbouring town of Taupō can. So Rotorua will be celebrating this and I think it is wonderful that we are giving power back to local communities to decide for themselves whether they actually want to trade on Sunday. I would like to commend the members of the Commerce Committee who have worked really hard. It is a pity that we could not agree on some of the elements and I am glad that the Minister has introduced Supplementary Order Paper 179 to give back the power to the employees—the workers—to actually say no if they do not want to work on Easter Sunday. As I said during the Committee stage of the debate we have to remember that not all New Zealanders are in fact Christians. Many come from different global backgrounds—a truth that I am sure sours some members opposite in this Chamber—and we have growing ethnic populations with diverse cultural and religious customs and we as a country should celebrate the diversity. What we are saying on this side of the House is that we celebrate the diversity that exists in this country and we are giving back the power to the local communities to decide. The inconsistency that exists currently can be eliminated and fixed up by the local communities if they so choose. We are giving the choices back to the community. I commend this bill to the House and congratulate the Minister on this wonderful work that he has produced.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): This is one of those interesting situations where a procedure of Parliament is being used for the purpose of political grandstanding. [Interruption] Well I mean it is a fact. I feel that I need to tell Mr Sio that he can print that off can put it in a number of envelopes with members' names on them and can put a D" in the top corner with a circle around it and it will make its way to the members. Or—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have heard enough. [Interruption] Order! Members seek leave to table papers as a means of informing members. On this occasion I said I would not put the leave and I think the member has had a significant opportunity in the exchange of points of order for members now to be well informed of the content. We will move on."
Lees-Galloway IainIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In respect of the petition that my colleague Su'a William Sio has sought leave to table it is I understand addressed to members of the National Party rather than to the House of Representatives. Therefore it is not—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. [Interruption] Order! Mr Brownlee.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Therefore it is not a petition that would be tabled through the normal procedures for tabling a petition to the House of Representatives. My colleague seeks leave to table it for the information of the House not to table it as a petition to the House of Representatives.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
Sio WilliamTabling of Documents—Petition to Not Allow Retail Trading on Easter SundaySu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table a petition to protect Easter Sunday signed by members of the Pacific sector community in Auckland asking that we respectfully request that National MPs are given a free vote on the issue of Easter Sunday trading.Mr SPEAKER: There is a way in which petitions are presented to this Parliament and on this occasion there have been no petitions for me to announce. If the member—[Interruption] Order! I am just speaking if I may. If there is a petition to be presented there is a very standardised way for that to happen and then it will get due recognition in this Parliament.
Seymour David; Carter DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might assist the member who has just resumed his seat Grant Robertson to know that I have Supplementary Order Paper 207 to the Statutes Amendment Bill containing that member's bill ready to go already.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.
Robertson Grant; Carter DavidLeave to Progress Through All Stages Without Debate—Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment BillGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill to progress through all stages without debate after oral questions today.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Robertson Grant; Carter DavidPOINTS OF ORDERLeave to Include in Statutes Amendment Bill—Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment BillGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the interests of cooperation across the House I seek leave for the Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill to be included in the Statutes Amendment Bill currently before the House.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 25 AUGUST 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 7 September the Government will look to complete the second readings of the Māori Purposes Bill the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill the first reading of the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Next week is an adjournment when select committees may meet to progress their business.
Wednesday 24 August 2016 - Volume 716
Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
VoteCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Clause 1 not agreed to.
Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Looking at the number of calls we have had—the member in the chair has had six and Mr Young has had four—I think there has been ample opportunity for people to express their views.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
12. Wine Industry—Export Growth and Government InitiativesPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for Primary IndustriesWine Industry—Export Growth and Government Initiatives12. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on growth in wine exports?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): A recent report from New Zealand Winegrowers shows that New Zealand's wine industry is on track to reach its target of $2 billion of exports by 2020. Wine exports have risen by 10 percent in the last year to just under $1.6 billion. This is the 21st consecutive year the industry has experienced significant growth. I congratulate the industry which is meeting at the Romeo Bragato Conference in Blenheim today.Paul Foster-Bell: In what ways is the Government supporting this growth in wine exports?Hon NATHAN GUY: The Government will continue supporting the industry through market access research and development biosecurity and through supporting legislation. For example the $17 million Lifestyle Wines Primary Growth Partnership programme has already eclipsed its domestic sales target. Industry members have also given strong support today for joining in a Government-Industry agreement on biosecurity which is great news. Finally the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill will help give international consumers confidence in New Zealand's wine as well as reassuring them of its value for money.
10. Family Violence—Family Violence Information Disclosure SchemeJONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of PoliceFamily Violence—Family Violence Information Disclosure Scheme10. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Police: What is the Police doing to assist potential victims of family violence?Andrew Little: Not much.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Quite contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said in addition to attending more than 100000 family violence call outs a year the new police Family Violence Information Disclosure Scheme is providing victims and potential victims with the information they need to leave potentially dangerous situations. The scheme allows potential victims of family violence or concerned relatives or friends to request information relating to the violence history of a new partner. This is an idea that I brought back to New Zealand after a visit to the UK in 2013 modelled on Clare's Law". To date a total of 55 cases have been referred to the scheme since it was launched in December 2015.Jono Naylor: In what other ways is the scheme used to prevent potential victimisation?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Police can also proactively release family violence information if they believe someone is at risk from their partner. Police have done this 31 times since the scheme was launched. This is just another example of the excellent preventative work that New Zealand police do every day. Additionally a number of the requests have been made in relation to sex offenders living in the home of a new partner and children. This was not the original intention of the scheme which was aimed at intimate partners and their children. However these requests have been accepted and after consideration disclosures have been provided to reduce the risk of sexual assault on children."
6. Schools—Communities of Online LearningDr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of EducationSchools—Communities of Online Learning 6. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about expanding 21st century learning options for parents and whānau?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Yesterday the introduction of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill was announced in this House. It is the biggest update to education in 27 years and will provide flexibility for parents and whānau and for children and young people at the centre of learning. One of the proposals is the establishment of communities of online learning that will enable online learning in whole or in part as a supplement to classroom learning or a complement to what their schools offer. Digital fluency is the universal language of the 21st century. In the future a provider including our mainstream schools tertiary providers or private providers will be able to apply to become a community of online learning. This will give students parents and whānau the benefit of a digital option grow their digital fluency and ensure they can be global citizens in an increasingly connected 21st century world.Dr Jian Yang: What measures will she put in place to ensure the quality of education is maintained for the young people who choose this option?Hon HEKIA PARATA: To become a community of online learning a provider will be required to meet a very high threshold. They will be required to undergo an accreditation regime to ensure that students will have access to a great New Zealand education. They will also be subject to monitoring and an intervention regime just like all our schools. Providers will also have to provide evidence of their capacity to provide pastoral care and to meet the well-being needs of students. They will be subject to an accountability regime including reporting against agreed student achievement outcomes financial reporting requirements and Education Review Office reviews. We also propose to set strict enrolment criteria—for example a restriction on the enrolment of students for whom there is a high risk of disengagement in an online environment. We welcome the submissions of parents families and whānau and the education sector to the select committee.
3. Job Creation and Unemployment—StatisticsMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of FinanceJob Creation and Unemployment—Statistics3. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that There are more jobs and people are being better paid"; if so why?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The latest household labour force survey shows unemployment down to just over 5 percent. It shows that in the last year 100000 jobs have been created and that the average annual wage has increased well above the rate of inflation over the last year which means higher real wages for households. The Government will continue to focus on policies that underpin moderate and consistent growth that delivers more jobs and higher incomes to households.Matt Doocey: Given that wages are rising at the same time that inflation remains low how is the spending power of earnings for New Zealand workers tracking?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Based on Statistics New Zealand figures annual increases in earnings have now exceeded inflation for 19 consecutive quarters or every quarter for nearly 5 years starting from about the time the Labour Party said we had a cost of living crisis. This is the longest unbroken increase in real wages in the 26 years that this has been recorded.Matt Doocey: How do employment levels in New Zealand compare with other developed countries?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Comparisons with other countries are interesting and in this case positive but it is no reason at all to be complacent because there are still too many people who do not have work and too many people who would want to have higher incomes. But I can say that the employment rate in New Zealand—that is the proportion of all people over 16 in work—is now the second-highest in the OECD. For every 100 people who are 16 or older 66 have a job. That includes people who choose not to work or retirees. In Australia the equivalent figure is 61 in the UK it is 60 and across the OECD the average is 56 in 100 having a job. Matt Doocey: Does he agree with recent reports in the Dominion Post that wages have stagnated; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I disagree with it because it is not supported by the facts. Since this Government came into office average annual wages are up 25 percent and that is more than double the rate of inflation over that period. The article which I think came from the most recent Labour Party leader is simply wrong. Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that median household income has increased by 1 percent in real terms under his Government whilst it increased by 27 percent under the last Labour Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I cannot."
Mallard TrevorThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Marama Fox.Marama Davidson: Marama Davidson.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Davidson. I really apologise.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak to this bill. I would first like to thank the member Peeni Henare for conceiving and working up this bill which does address an important issue. Let me address though why this is challenging. Firstly there is the inability to identify slave labour components. In a complex multi-source logistics and manufacturing global supply chain how do you identify what was done in a slave labour environment and what was done in a standard environment? Secondly there are the real risks of being caught up in trade restrictions and being challenged by the World Trade Organization (WTO).Thirdly the case is made—and I heard it just a moment ago—that Belgium and the USA have such legislation. Well the USA has actually always had slave labour legislation since the Tariff Act of 1930 but only recently has it closed the loophole that still allowed products to be imported if they otherwise could not meet consumer demand—the consumer test of 1930. Even so after many years of legislation with little impact it too struggled to identify the sources of slave labour. I think we should also reflect on the fact that the USA is currently having that legislation challenged in the courts as well.Belgium has also been mentioned. Since 2003 Belgium has had a social label for products and services that meet the ILO covenants which include rejection of child labour and forced labour. The Belgian social label requires chain management of the entire production chain down to the raw materials phase. For example for a T-shirt it is not just the sewing workshops but also textile factories and cotton fields. Because this is too expensive and complex the Belgian production chain has been looked at in what is called a delimited fashion. That assesses a social analysis of the whole production chain using volume weight costs and risk. This is a work in progress for Belgium as well. The social label in Belgium is guaranteed by the Government. It is underwritten by Belgian law for socially responsible production and it is awarded by a committee called the Committee for Socially Responsible Production. A recent report on the Belgian experience shows that few businesses take it up consumers do not understand the value of the label and it does not significantly affect consumer purchase choices.I think there are other tools that we can bring to this problem. Firstly I think we can support anti-slavery measures through the WTO and the 1998 International Labour Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Secondly we require ILO provisions in all our free-trade agreements. Thirdly expanding the issue of slavery beyond trade to include slavery in all forms via the United Nations. I want to reinforce that we are absolutely supportive of the intention and principles of anti-slavery and would welcome engaging with the member on steps forward that learn from the approaches that other countries are taking and which help us fine tune and develop new tools that we might use. I commend this contribution to the House.
Mitchell MarkCUSTOMS AND EXCISE (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS MADE BY SLAVE LABOUR) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 10 August.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to finish my call on the Customs and Excise (Prohibition of Imports Made by Slave Labour) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill again Mr Henare—someone whom I personally have a lot of respect for. Hon Member: What about his rugby ability?MARK MITCHELL: That is outstanding. It goes without saying. I just want to say that the spirit of the bill is right. I think we would all agree in this House that we want to see human trafficking and slavery rubbed out right throughout the world. The problem with this bill is that it is just too wide in its interpretation. We live in a world now that has got a sophisticated complicated global supply chain and the real challenge would be for us to identify and say what products may have been produced in countries where slave labour is used or where slave labour has contributed to the production of an item. Just a very quick example of that would be sugar. Sugar—if it was an at-risk product—is obviously produced in many countries around the world. We do not know whether or not slave labour has been used to produce it in some of those countries. Maybe there is a strong chance that it has been. But the fact of the matter is that if we in New Zealand try to ban products being sold and ban people from having access to those products that have sugar in them you can see the challenge that we would be presented with in terms of how we would ban those products. So although I think the spirit of the bill is right—I commend the spirit of the bill—in a practical sense this bill cannot be used in any real meaningful way to try to combat slave labour or identify products that have actually been produced or manufactured with the use of slave labour. Thank you very much.
Borrows ChesterMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House having adopted the Committee's report that it has rejected the bill does not set down the bill for third reading despite Standing Order 310.
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will report this bill to the House informing it that the Committee in rejecting clause 1 has rejected the bill.House resumed.The Chairperson reported that the Committee had rejected all the provisions of the bill.Report adopted.
Parker David; Mallard TrevorHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I will quickly respond to the last two points made which is I am afraid repeating what I have said earlier because these points have already—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am actually going to sit the member down. I am not going to allow him to respond to irrelevancies.
Faafoi Kris; Mallard TrevorKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am not quite ready to do it yet.Hon Member: Well we are.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I respond to Jonathan Young's point when he was just referring to new section 7A inserted by clause 11 on Supplementary Order Paper 203 about records being required to be kept about the number of hours spent providing the service by the contractor and the remuneration for those hours. Of course if you read down to new section 7A(6) it says: This section does not apply if— … (c) the agreed rate of remuneration is calculated otherwise than by reference to the number of hours worked … and (d) the principal reasonably believes that the agreed rate of remuneration … is sufficient to remunerate … at a rate that is higher than the prescribed minimum rate …". I do not think I need to say more than that."
Parker David; Tisch LindsayMINIMUM WAGE (CONTRACTOR REMUNERATION) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I seek leave for the Committee to take all questions across all clauses schedules and introductory parts as one debate.Hon Member: And voted on separately?Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes and vote on the clauses separately. Thank you.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.