edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 220 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to clause 28 be agreed to: replace this clause with the following new clause:28Review by Minister of Educationin section 38; insert:35ZOReview by Minister of EducationThe Minister of Education must conduct a review of the current provision and funding of online learning in schools by 2020 and present this report to the House with policy recommendations for a new regime for online learning in schools and potential providers.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand National 54; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
VoteAmendment inserting new clause 11A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 224 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nikki Kaye to clause 5 be agreed to: delete clause 5.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand National 54; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simeon Brown to clause 9 be agreed to: after new section 35C(h) insert:The Ministry of Education must publish detailed definitions of physical and emotional safety by which the school will be deemed physically and emotionally safe.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand National 54; Ross. Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of Nicola Willis to delete clause 13 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand National 54; Ross. Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of Nicola Willis to clause 13 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand National 54; Ross. Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Denise Lee be agreed to: after clause 13 insert:13ASection 385 amended (Reports)After section 385(2) insert:(3)In the event the Minister has issued a statement of Government policy relating to 1 or more of the Teaching Council's functions the annual report as outlined in the above subsection (2) must include a summary of how this statement has impacted on the independence of the Teaching Council its operations and its ability to fulfil its core functions. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand National 54; Ross. Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simeon Brown to clause 14 be agreed to: delete clause 24 of new Part 8 of Schedule 1.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand National 54; Ross. Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 56New Zealand National 54; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 1
Naming and Suspension of Member
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the House name the Hon Dr Nick Smith whose conduct is grossly disorderly and suspend the member from the service of the House.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Question agreed to.Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.
11. Question No. 11—ImmigrationDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 11—Immigration11. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What announcements has he made today about immigration settings for the regions?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Today I have announced updates to the Essential Skills in Demand Lists. This includes replacing the Immediate Skills Shortage List with 15 Regional Skills Shortage Lists. This will allow us to target the lists more precisely make them more responsive to the needs of regional New Zealand and show New Zealanders and migrants where the work opportunities exist throughout the country.Dr Liz Craig: So why make these changes? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: This Government recognises that what is good for Auckland is not necessarily the same as what is good for Ashburton and that a one-size-fits-all system is not delivering the more productive more sustainable and more inclusive economy that we need. This Government has committed to working with the regions to build thriving regional economies. Dr Liz Craig: So what are the next steps for regional immigration settings? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I'm currently considering the results of consultation on extensive changes to the temporary work settings and working with my colleagues the Minister for Social Development the Minister of Education the Minister for Regional Economic Development and the Minister of Employment to create a much more robust system to meet regional labour needs and support the transformation of our economy to one that is more productive more sustainable and more inclusive.
8. Question No. 8—RevenueDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of RevenueQuestion No. 8—Revenue8. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Revenue: What reports if any has he seen about the implementation of the Business Transformation programme?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): I'm happy to inform the House that one of the largest IT projects ever undertaken in the State sector the IRD Business Transformation project has successfully passed its largest and most difficult phase. Over the Easter and Anzac period over 300 Inland Revenue staff successfully transitioned income tax and Working for Families into the new computer system—that's more than 19.7 million taxpayer accounts 100 million records transactions 8.3 million web account log-ins updated over 92000 tests and 2 million customer contacts. I congratulate the Commissioner of Inland Revenue Department Naomi Ferguson and her team for their hard work on achieving this significant milestone.Dr Deborah Russell: What do these reports say about the improvements to service that taxpayers will see as a result of the successful implementation of this phase of Business Transformation?Hon STUART NASH: Good news: officials advise me that in 12 days' time—a mere three weeks since the system went online—the first tax refunds will start automatically flowing into the bank accounts of hard-working Kiwis. If this year is anything like 2018 an estimated $860 million will be refunded straight into people's bank accounts this year. I can also advise that up to 330000 families that have almost 600000 children will now receive more accurate Working for Families payments during the year reducing the risk of finding themselves in debt at the end of the year. These refunds and more accurate payments are only possible because of Government legislation so I would like to thank New Zealand First and the Greens for their support. I am disappointed that the National Party stood in the way and opposed this legislation.Dr Deborah Russell: What assurances has the Minister received about the levels of customer service to taxpayers during this transition period?Hon STUART NASH: March to July is peak season for Inland Revenue so there is always a higher level of calls and interactions with the tax department. To deal with the anticipated 25 percent increase in calls Inland Revenue has taken on an additional 325 staff to help and can deploy up to 900 existing staff as needed. I encourage taxpayers to go online and see what new services are available such as filing for donations tax credits and setting up debt instalment arrangements. It's encouraging to see that many people are going online. For example on Monday there were 324000 logins to online services. It is still early days and there are likely to be bumps along the way. However Inland Revenue assures me it has plans in place and will be ready to respond.
5. Question No. 5—EducationJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 5—Education5. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What if anything is the Government doing to ensure that initial teacher education better prepares beginning teachers to meet the needs of students?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Last month the Teaching Council released new initial teacher education programme approval requirements to better prepare graduating teachers for the classroom including a greater focus on practical experience in the classroom. In order to meet those new requirements last week I announced that there'll be an increase to the funding rates that support initial teacher education. The degree-level funding rate will increase by over $600 per student and the taught postgraduate rate will increase by almost $750 per student from the beginning of next year with further increases from 2020. This recognises that the increased requirements by the Teaching Council will increase the cost of initial teacher education but it is an investment well made.Jo Luxton: Will the changes to initial teacher education provide for more teacher training enrolments?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. The Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry of Education will be working with planning directors from the institutions to ensure that from 2020 onwards there is an increase in initial teacher education places. To support this the Tertiary Education Commission will be making funding available to support extra levels of growth in initial teacher education and funding for initial teacher education will be ring-fenced meaning that it cannot be used to support growth in other fields of study when we so desperately need more teachers.Jo Luxton: What response has he seen to this announcement?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The announcement's been welcomed by Universities New Zealand and also by the Council of Deans of Education who have said that it is a welcome acknowledgment of the complexity of both the teaching profession and the preparation of new teachers. Those teachers and principals who have figured out that addressing many of the concerns they're raising will require recruiting more teachers have also welcomed it.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand in opposition to this very important bill—as the members from the Government said—the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill. I did not hear any logical point from any of the speakers and this bill as it was portrayed will be the fourth bill in the justice sector after the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill—which we were debating before this bill—and the Criminal Cases Review Commission Bill. This bill which is supposed to be a bill of the justice sector is being given to the Governance and Administration Committee not even to the Justice Committee. That shows the importance and seriousness of this Government passing this bill on to us. It is a total waste of time of the House—Hon Chris Hipkins: Well sit down then.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: —there are—yes it is. You—not you Madam Deputy Speaker but the Leader of the House—should consider what is important for New Zealanders.Hon Chris Hipkins: Well sit down and stop wasting time.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: You are wasting time because you are wasting time in the House by bringing the bill. [Interruption] Stop laughing about it—think about the Kiwis. There are more important things which are required to be done in this House rather than protecting the name of the Ombudsmen. This bill is total wastage and I stand in opposition to this. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mitchell ClaytonCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I just felt a wave of depression come off my shoulders as the last member sat down; we've just had a little bit of elevation of positivity. Look ombudsman" is one of those words. I think I'll start by saying it sort of captivates your imagination. It's like "bibliography" and "ointment" and "tenacity". But I have to say "discombobulated" is the word that reminds me of the last summary of what was just put through from the member across the House. Look it may not seem very important to some of those members on that side but wasted money is being put in from the hard-working taxpayers of New Zealand to try and stop the legal approach from many people that want to use the name "ombudsman" in their approach for their businesses or their course of action. We are finding ourselves on a semi-regular basis defending the term "ombudsman" from being overused and misappropriately used. Then when they have been given notice that they can't use the word they take the Ombudsmen to court to try and get them to make a precedent so that they can use it. Hon Maggie Barry: Who does that? Elucidate please. CLAYTON MITCHELL: If you're aware of what's going on in Australia—Ms Maggie Barry you've had your turn you might just want to try and listen—you have seen that the word "ombudsman" has been completely used out of context. They've got a beekeepers ombudsman for goodness sake. We don't want to see this very strong independent office to be downplayed or downsized in the hearts and the minds of New Zealanders. It needs to be held in high esteem and therefore protecting that giving them the power to do that it's—Hon Peeni Henare: Protect the integrity of it. CLAYTON MITCHELL: It's all about integrity you're dead right there Mr Peeni Henare. So we'd like to see this bill go through. We're not going to take a huge amount of time taking calls this evening but we see it as something that's very very important. There are already a number of good examples where—for example banking has an ombudsman the insurance brokers have an ombudsman and the Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman exists. If the courts decide that there is an axe to grind with a company which is looking for the Financial Services Complaints Ltd they will also have the ability to apply for this title and it is the place where people can go to where they get an unsatisfactory outcome where they can get a completely autonomous independent review of what has been done. So it's very very important. The Officers of Parliament are completely independent—three separate entities work within that scope which are outside of any controls of this House and that is the Ombudsman that is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and that's the Auditor-General. Those three officers need to be protected—their brand their name what they stand for—because that's what this Government is all about. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Very briefly thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Penk should know that the word ombudsman" comes from the Swedish constitution of 1899 and there it roughly translates as "the guardian of the citizens". It's a very important word and it comes from Government. I was reading a good article in fact in the Penn State Law Review only yesterday on this matter—I recommend it to Mr Penk.It is a very important word. It speaks of an officer of State of Parliament—a guardian of the citizens. There has been creep. We've got an Insurance Ombudsman and a Banking Ombudsman—they're private. We've got to be very careful we don't get any more. That's why this is here. It's a very important bill. It's protecting a parliamentary office and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I do not claim to be an expert in legal issues. Actually I have no background in legal issues. However because this is a very important point and because the tribunal will have wide-ranging powers which we support because we do want to have a very speedy process to resolve the backlog particularly for those 2233 outstanding claims—we want these claims to be resolved as soon as possible—I want to bring the Minister back to the purpose of this particular bill. It says it is to provide fair speedy flexible and cost-effective services" to help resolve claims between policyholders insurers and the Earthquake Commission. So they are fair speedy flexible and cost-effective services. The first word is "fair" so fairness is key to this particular process. I find it hard to see fairness if we are not able to really cross-examine expert evidence. I bring this to the committee's attention because this reminds me of my past experience as an academic at the University of Auckland. I was the director of the postgraduate programme at the department of political studies and then became associate dean in charge of postgraduates. In in those years it was my responsibility to make sure that the work of each student was examined fairly. So initially we had one examiner that was basically the supervisor but the supervisor could be biased either towards or against the particular student and then in the end we actually had two examiners and we removed the supervisor from the examination process. We had two examiners: one from the University of Auckland—internal—and one from another university so they could be external. So in the process if there was a disagreement between the two examiners we would call upon a third examiner to make a final assessment. So it was basically trying to examine everyone's assessment to see whether it's really a fair assessment. That is natural justice for students. So in this case I find it hard to believe that we should restrict the ability of parties to call or cross-examine expert evidence. It is only when you are able to really challenge other people's views or assessments will we be able to really make sure this is a fair process so I would really like the Minister to further explain why cross-examination should be restricted. Why shouldn't any claimants be able to have a chance to challenge other people's views to make sure that we have a fair understanding of a particular case? Thank you Madam Chair."
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Now that I'm talking on the right part of this bill I will outline the Government's opposition to Supplementary Order Paper 226 put up by the honourable member Stuart Smith with regard to clause 37 and the use of experts in cross-examination. We don't agree that pursuing procedural fairness or natural justice more broadly means that the use of experts in cross-examination should be permitted in every case as of right. Clause 37 requires the tribunal to comply with the principles of natural justice when managing claims. However this does not require the tribunal to permit the use of experts if the tribunal considers this unnecessary or permit cross-examination of a party or person. In terms of the use of experts the default assumption is that parties can use experts and have them provide evidence. The tribunal can already limit the use of experts including their number if it considers they are unnecessary—for example when a party has multiple experts of the same discipline. That's in clauses 20 and 27 and I know that is Part 1 of the bill though. In terms of cross-examination natural justice does not always require a right to cross-examination in tribunals. For example the Law Commission's 2008 report titled Tribunals in New Zealand noted that this requirement for tribunals to comply with natural justice normally requires a right to call witnesses and present evidence in support of their case but does not always require a right to cross-examination. The tribunal is not as formal as the courts and does not apply the formal rules of evidence. Information is accepted on the basis of relevance rather than technical admissibility. Therefore cross-examination does not need to play as significant a role in proceedings. It is likely that cross-examination will be allowed rather than not. However allowing the tribunal discretion may be appropriate to address an imbalance between the parties in certain cases—for example when only one party has a lawyer. Cross-examination is not the only way to test evidence in the tribunal. The tribunal has powers to manage the use of experts hold expert conferences and use independent expert advisers that can help assess expert evidence. Cross-examination should be determined on a case by case basis with regard to the purpose of the tribunal to be fair speedy flexible and cost-effective.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to stand and speak in the debate on Part 2 of this bill. Basically the purpose of the bill is to provide a fair speedy flexible and cost-effective service to resolve disputes about insurance claims and Part 2 basically clarifies the definition of mediation and other procedures which are in this Part 2. The application clause in Subpart 1 applies where the tribunal directs the parties to mediation. Mediation is an easy way of resolving a dispute where experts can sit down with both parties and talk about how to resolve the issues which are outstanding. The chief executive must employ or engage a person to provide mediation services that are fair speedy flexible and cost-effective to assist parties to resolve the claims quickly. That's the main purpose of the bill and that continues over here where the mediation service is provided and the chief executive has got that authority to appoint a person who can be a mediator. The bill doesn't prevent any person from seeking and using a mediation service other than that provided by the chief executive under this subpart to settle a dispute to which this bill could apply. The independence of the mediators is a very important part because they are the people who will decide if this can resolve the dispute between both the parties. The mediator must be a person of independence who independently can decide how to deal with the particular claim or aspects of it. They must be independent of any other parties to whom the mediator provides the mediation so he or she should not be related to any of the parties which are subject to this mediation. That is important because the independence will provide justice to both the parties without any dispute. It clarifies in this bill that a mediator who has got a conflict of interest has to disclose to both the parties that he or she has got this conflict and must—unless the other party agrees otherwise—refuse to act or withdraw from acting in relation to the claim. That person has to withdraw himself or herself if he or she is related to any of the parties and one of the other parties objects to it. A party who agrees to the mediator's acting forfeits any right to object to the mediator acting on the basis of the conflict of interest that was disclosed by the mediator. If both the parties have already agreed that this person can be a mediator then later on it can't be claimed that this person had a conflict of interest. So the procedure in relation to this mediation is also specified over here and I understand that Stuart Smith has got a few more Supplementary Order Papers related to this part which he will be debating. I hope that the Minister will consider that this bill should provide a mediation service where both the parties can be able to resolve their disputes which have been outstanding for a long time.
Tolley AnnePart 2 Mediation and adjudication of claims CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to Part 2 which is debate on clauses 29 to 52 and Schedule 2.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to congratulate Stuart Smith for crafting four Supplementary Order Papers two of which I believe pertain to Part 1 so I'd like to address my comments around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 229 around the appointment of tribunal members but before I do that I'd just recall that around 2 percent of all dwelling claims relating to residential homes have yet to be resolved. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! What part is the member speaking to? Hon JACQUI DEAN: Part 1 thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Clause 55? Hon JACQUI DEAN: Speaking to SOP 229 Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Clause 55. Hon JACQUI DEAN: No. No? CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yeah I have it as clause 55. The SOPs aren't in numerical order depending on Part 1 and Part 2. Stuart Smith: It's very confusing. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yeah they are. So the member is speaking to which SOP in particular? Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you. I will revise my contribution. Thank you for the advice. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you—no worries. Hon JACQUI DEAN: Indeed it is a little confusing. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It's OK. I think clarity will reign shortly. I think we're all a little confused at the moment. Hon JACQUI DEAN: Just noting—and I think this is a salient point notwithstanding the confusion around the numbering around the SOPs—that there are around 2 percent of insurance claims which are relating to residential homes from the earthquakes that remain unresolved. We might stand here in the Parliament getting a little confused about which SOPs relate to which parts of the bill but actually this does matter to those 2 percent of homeowners who have their claims unresolved some eight and nine years later. I think if we can focus on that then maybe we will set the right tone for the debate this evening. These remaining claims—this 2 percent—are often those that are technically the most difficult and legally complex. There can be a number of factors that come into the lack of resolution of these claims over all of these years and they can be financial or health-related or are other people the claimants—are they ready? Are they wanting to pursue that claim at the time? There might be financial difficulties involved and this is where we really must remind ourselves that this bill around an earthquakes insurance tribunal is not so much around the process of appointing the people to the tribunal board and the other matters which we will explore. At its heart it is around those homeowners and families and individuals who have gone through a significance shock to their lives and that shock is not yet resolved. I think if we can in this debate really keep that at the forefront of our minds as we are stumbling our way sometimes through the detail of this bill then that can only be for the better.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I just restate for the member that the bill does nothing around teacher pay so that's an irrelevant part of the debate. Hon Nikki Kaye: But it is relevant because these conversations are going on at paid union meetings.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well I don't think anyone's talking about the Teaching Council at the paid union meetings; I think they're largely talking about their pay. But they are talking about workload and the activities of the Teaching Council do have an impact on teacher workload. So if the Government wanted to issue a policy statement for example that said that we want to reduce unnecessary compliance burden on teachers including around things like teacher appraisal for example then I would expect that that is the sort of thing that the Teaching Council should have regard to. Now they don't have to follow the direction of the Government but they do actually have to consider it. That's all this does. It requires them to consider it. They don't have to follow it but they have to consider it. It's really quite common sense. Why would they not consider it in fact? You know a future National Government comes in and says This is our overall policy with regard to the teaching profession." why would they not want the Teaching Council to be considering that? It doesn't give them any more power than us to direct the council. There is no power there to direct the council. It simply says that the council has to give regard to that when making its decision. So it's not a hugely controversial thing and particularly it gives the Government an ability—given that many of the issues around workload for example that are being raised through the current negotiating round they're actually outside of the Government's control. They relate to decisions made by the Teaching Council or decisions made by school senior management. So the ability of the Government to say "Yeah we hear you and actually the Government's policy is that schools and so on should be doing these things." that's a perfectly sensible normal thing for the Government to be able to say and like I said it doesn't bind the hands of the council in any way."
Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move That the committee report progress on this bill and move on to consider the Education Amendment Bill (No 2).Motion agreed to.Progress to be reported presently.
Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee
Rurawhe AdrianANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 7 May on the Appropriation (2017/18 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.Annual financial statements of the Government and Finance and Government Administration Sector (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The time remaining in this debate is six hours and 25 minutes. When we were last considering this bill we were debating the questions that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the previous financial year be noted and that the reports of the committee relevant to the Finance and Government Administration Sector be noted. Kieran McAnulty moved that progress be reported and the call is now available to him.
Points of Order — Land Transport (Roadside Drug Testing) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce
Speaker's Rulings — Written Questions—Responses
Hipkins ChrisEDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)Instruction to CommitteeHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 224 in my name. Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 224 proposes the insertion into the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) of a clause amending section 162 of the Education Act 1989 to set out a procedure by which universities may change their name. It is necessary that the House instruct the committee of the whole House to consider this amendment as it is beyond the scope of the bill. However the House may issue such an instruction as the amendment is not foreign to the bill—in other words it would have been within the Standing Orders to have it included in the bill had it been in the bill as it was introduced. The change that is proposed by the SOP has been the subject of consultation and has been supported across the House. Motion agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry; Mallard TrevorHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder in what close proximity to today's most recent events we might see the release of the Debbie Francis report into parliamentary bullying.SPEAKER: If the member would care to come either to the Business Committee or the Parliamentary Service Commission as he is entitled to he will find out.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would the Speaker be prepared to take a late submission to that report?SPEAKER: No.
Mallard TrevorNAMING SUSPENSION OF MEMBERSPEAKER: I'm invoking Standing Order 90. I name Nick Smith for grossly disorderly conduct.Hon Nikki Kaye: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: No. There is no point of order at this point. The question now is That the House name the Hon Dr Nick Smith whose conduct is grossly disorderly and suspend the member from the service of the House.
Smith NickPOINTS OF ORDERLand Transport (Roadside Drug Testing) Amendment Bill—Leave to IntroduceHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House for the Land Transport (Roadside Drug Testing) Amendment Bill to be set down as the first members' order of the day on the next members' day on 22 May.SPEAKER: Leave is not going to be granted for that.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You need to put the leave.SPEAKER: Well I've made it absolutely clear that I won't grant leave for it.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh you're opposed to helping getting drug-drivers off the road as well?SPEAKER: I have made it absolutely clear that I am very unhappy with the member and his approach—Hon Dr Nick Smith: For standing up for my constituents?SPEAKER: The member will leave the House.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Soft on drugs like the Government.SPEAKER: Order! Right no—come back please. The member will resume his seat.
Thursday 2 May 2019 - Volume 737
Taxation (Research and Development Tax Credits) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Research and Development Tax Credits) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
11. Question No. 11—EmploymentJAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of EmploymentQuestion No. 11—Employment11. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Employment: What recent reports has he seen on the labour market?Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Yesterday like the Minister of Finance said the household labour force survey was released and we were very pleased to see a drop in the unemployment rate to—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. Mr Bennett can you just try and control yourself. I had meetings with primates recently who made more intelligent noises.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I just wanted to support much of what the Minister of Finance said—that we both saw the household labour force survey that was released and we're very pleased to see the drop in the unemployment rate to 4.2 percent the second-lowest in 10 years and that wages grew 3.4 percent over the year to 31 March which shows the Government's approach to supporting employment is working remarkably well.Jamie Strange: What did the household labour force survey release indicate for Māori?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I was encouraged to see that Māori employment has continued to head in the right direction—5100 more Māori were employed and the underutilisation rates for Māori fell 1.7 percentage points to a low of 19.1 percent. Māori unemployment fell a whole percentage point to 8.6 percent I believe the lowest ever in the history of the survey. These figures represent real people real whānau and real communities who are seeing a difference in their lives and we should all celebrate that this Government is doing such a fantastic job at the moment.Jamie Strange: What did the household labour force survey say for those young people who are not engaged in earning or learning?Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The survey released yesterday was positive with the rate for those not engaged in education training or employment falling to 13.2 percent. Obviously we still need to reduce this number further which is why the delivery of our training and employment programmes such as Mana in Mahi He Poutama Rangatahi Pae Aronui and first year fees-free tertiary education are vital to the long-term success of our rangatahi—our young people.
9. Question No. 9—Housing and Urban DevelopmentMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 9—Housing and Urban Development9. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: When can renters expect to see legislation introduced to reform the Residential Tenancies Act and protect their right to a secure home?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): The Government is committed to improving the balance between providing renters with security of tenure and allowing them to make their house a home while protecting the rights and interests of landlords. Officials received over 4500 submissions on the policy proposals. We're currently working on the policy and with Cabinet's agreement we're aiming to introduce legislation this calendar year. Marama Davidson: Does he continue to support ending no-cause tenancy terminations?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well we're committed to improving the security of tenure for renters and striking the right balance between a tenant's right to make a house a home and ensuring that landlords can still get rid of rogue tenants. Cabinet will be making policy decisions in due course on this but we consulted on removing no-cause terminations because we want renters to be able to put down roots in their communities.Marama Davidson: Has he instructed officials to consider how to prohibit rental bidding so that property managers are no longer able to run rental tenders like the one Cutlers recently advertised in Dunedin?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well it was disappointing to see that property management company treating the renting out of properties to students as some kind of contest or a game. Having a home is a basic necessity and making students compete against each other for a flat is distasteful. Officials are currently looking at considering the options on banning rental bidding.Marama Davidson: Does he agree that our law needs more protections against frequent and significant rent increases? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well as the Reserve Bank says rents are set primarily by supply and demand which is why so many of our policies are designed to increase the supply of housing. We consulted on limiting rent increases to one per year because in a rising market as we've seen over the last decade in so many parts of New Zealand frequent and large rent increases can have a punishing effect on renters. Angie Warren-Clark: What other changes has the Government made to make life better for renters? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well the healthy homes standards will set minimum standards for insulation heating ventilation moisture and draft control so that rental homes are warm and dry. They are part of the Government's plan to improve the health and well-being of children. Ministry of Health data shows that at least 6000 children are admitted each year for what they call housing-sensitive hospitalisations and Otago University recently found that homes that are damp or mouldy cause more than 35000 nights in hospital.
2. Question No. 2—Māori EducationKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)Question No. 2—Māori Education2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): What recent announcements has he made about growing and strengthening an education workforce that can integrate Te Reo Māori into the learning of all ākonga in Aotearoa New Zealand?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): The Government has begun delivering on its plan to integrate Te Reo Māori across the education system with the launch of Te Ahu o Te Reo Māori which will support the workforce to use Te Reo Māori correctly every day in every classroom. Te Ahu o Te Reo Māori is designed to improve all levels of Māori language ability across the education workforce. Staff can participate in a Kura Reo - style learning programme with support from a group of experts some of which will be delivered through wānanga and online learning support. This Government has made it clear that by 2025 Te Reo Māori will be an integral part of all students' education. With the launch of Te Ahu o Te Reo Māori we have begun delivering on that commitment.Kiritapu Allan: Has he received any reports on the education workforce's reaction to the new initiative?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We know there is increasing demand from students and whānau—Māori and non-Māori—to provide more Te Reo Māori in learning environments. Since the launch of Te Ahu o Te Reo 304 registrations of interest have been received—95 in Waikato 79 in Te Waipounamu 92 in Taranaki and Whanganui and 40 in Kapiti-Horowhenua—and 71 percent of registrants identify as non-Māori with 29 percent coming from those who identify as Māori.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): I speak against this bill the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill. Why? Because this bill encourages poorly targeted spending. Look at the purpose: number one the bill restores the purpose of local government to promote the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of their communities." This is extremely broad. It covers basically everything. So with this kind of purpose how can you really define your spending? How can you really find the target? So this is a way to spend money wastefully. That's why we are against it. Now the consequence of this would be the rates will go up because the councils will spend—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. Members this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 7 May 2019. Ka kite anō.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m."
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to participate in this third reading of this bill the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill and in opposition to this bill. It has been a coincidence that every time I have stood in the debates on this bill I have followed the defence Minister and the Minister for Veterans speaking before me the Hon Ron Mark. I would like to acknowledge the passion he has for local government. In every contribution I have always reminded him that he will be a very good Mayor of Carterton again if he stands in the coming local body elections because of his knowledge and his passion. It will be a good opportunity for him again to serve his people in Carterton.This is the bill which the National Party is opposing because of the reasons which have been expressed by the previous speakers from this side. As we know this bill is going to affect the people because we know that the development contribution which is going to be imposed after the passing of this bill will increase the housing prices. It will increase. That side the Government is trying to say that they want to build houses which are affordable but this bill is doing the opposite to that. This is a very badly-thought-through bill which is going to affect the people particularly the first-home buyers because the new subdivisions will have to pay extra money for the contribution.Similarly on the commercial side if we look the new developments—the commercial buildings—will have to pay extra levies for the development of the property and I think this is not a good idea. This shows what they are trying to say but doing the opposite of which is really unfortunate for the people. I hope that this Government will realise one day that the steps they have taken were the wrong ones.Lastly I would like to say the effect that gives the councils to create the branch-off things—they will be able to implement new levies for the ratepayers and that is going to affect the back pocket of the people. With these words I won't be supporting this bill and National won't be supporting this bill.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. National does not support the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill at its third reading nor indeed did it at any of its previous readings as it went through the House. The reason is very simple: this was merely an exercise in panic on behalf of a new Government without a plan who hadn't done any work in Opposition who suddenly found themselves unexpectedly in the position of having to bring legislation to the House. They went on an exercise around caucus saying Quick quick quick. I need some quick wins. I need some quick wins" and up stepped Paul Eagle to the rescue to suggest "I know I know. Here's a quick win—here's a quick win Minister: let's put the four well-beings back into the Local Government Act 2002." "Oh thank you—that's awesome. Let's do that." And so here we have the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill coming through the House. The policy development and the policy behind this bill are so thin that they are non-existent and that is why amongst several reasons National will not support this bill. It is merely a tit for tat.In 2012 the National Government took the four well-beings out of the purpose section of the Local Government Act—just out of the purpose section of the Act. There was a reason for that and that was to focus local government expenditure on good quality infrastructure together with its community. It was to focus local authorities on good value spending—spending for good value. I suspect that Labour New Zealand First and the Greens disregard the fact that it is people who pay rates. I think there is a collective view over that side of the House that rates are to be gathered from those rich people also known as developers because the development contributions regime has now been changed so that a developer who develops land—a subdivision and it might just be the land or it might be a land and housing package—can again be levied on activities that are unrelated directly to that development.One of the members who spoke earlier in this third reading—in fact I think it was the first member Willie Jackson who gave the Minister's address—noted that changing the development levy regime would make rates cheaper for other people. Yes but at whose expense? And doesn't that just make the price of housing and sections more expensive? You increased costs on the development of a subdivision or a section being developed by taking development contributions not directly related to that subdivision. Where are those extra costs going to go? Those extra costs are going to go into the price of a section or the price of a house and land package. What happens then? The cost of housing increases. So in the view of the National Party Opposition this is an own goal of epic proportions and just serves to highlight the paucity of policy development thinking and the lack of rigour and joined-up policy plans of this Government. National does not support this bill."