edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support and congratulate Sir Hugh Williams on his reappointment as Chairperson of the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission plays a crucial role in our society. Sometimes I think we overlook the importance of the role until we look at societies where elections are corrupt and manipulated and we should be grateful that we have a commission that operates to a high standard. We applaud the chair's role in steering the Electoral Commission over recent years in improving the processes around our elections. In particular we appreciate the provision of information in many other languages—other than English—including New Zealand Sign Language. We applaud the support for the Māori roll. We support the introduction of the provision to enrol and vote on the same day. We applaud the promotion of enrolment while also echoing my colleague Chris Hipkins' concern that the data on enrolment needs to be up to date. He was expressing some concern about the current state of the enrolment data. We applaud also the overseas enrolment being easier and better promoted. Finally we support the opportunity for voters who have disabilities to be able to vote in our elections. We urge Sir Hugh Williams to carry on with these processes. In particular we appreciate the performance objective of pushing enrolment over 93 percent—that we believe is a minimum performance measure that the Electoral Commission and his role should be fulfilling—and also the performance measure of increasing voting participation to over 75 percent.So in all we consider Sir Hugh Williams has strong credentials for professional leadership and governance for his role to continue as chair. We note that he is a former judge of the High Court and has in the past been a Palmerston North city councillor and a chancellor of Massey University and has been chair since 2011. We also would like to extend thanks to the 18000 staff in 2300 voting places supporting 3 million voters.Just a reminder to anyone who may be watching on Parliament TV: the election will take place on 23 September. Voting starts on 11 September so please make sure—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We do not need an advertorial. BARRY COATES: —that you enrol and vote. With that the Green Party supports the motion to reappoint Sir Hugh Williams as chair of the Electoral Commission.
Points of Order — Business Statement—Racing Amendment Bill
Visitors — Bangladesh—Parliamentary Standing Committee on Ministry of Foreign Affairs Delegates Korea—Legislation and Judiciary Committee from the National Assembly Delegates
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to speak in favour of the motion before the House making appointments to the Electoral Commission. I do want to acknowledge the important role the Electoral Commission has in ensuring that New Zealand has free and fair elections where the rules are fair and where they are adhered to by all parties and implemented in a manner that is scrupulously fair. I do however want to express some concern at this point that one of the jobs that the Electoral Commission has is ensuring that the electoral rolls in New Zealand are up to date. I fear that we are going to find at this year's general election that there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are disenfranchised from the process because when they go to cast their votes in the polling booth they will find that their votes are discounted because they are not on the appropriate electoral roll. That is of huge concern to anybody who cares about democracy. Those who go to vote should have their votes counted and the Electoral Commission has a vital role in ensuring that the rolls that provide for people to have their right to vote protected are up to date. They are not up to date. It is abundantly clear from the work that we have been doing out and about in the community that there are thousands of people out there—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is about the appointment. CHRIS HIPKINS: —who are not on the roll and who need to have their details up to date. Therefore one of the jobs of those who are appointed to the Electoral Commission—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not close enough. CHRIS HIPKINS: —is to ensure that those processes are implemented and that that work does take place and does happen. The appointments have been consulted on widely across the Parliament. I was not one of those involved in the process but I have been advised by those on the Labour side of the House who were involved in the process that they have full confidence that the process has been fair and that the appointments being made are appropriate. Therefore the Labour Party will be supporting the motion.
Mitchell Clayton; Bridges SimonPOINTS OF ORDERBusiness of the House—Racing Amendment BillCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I seek clarification from the Leader of the House with regards to the work for next week—the work plan? He did not mention anything about the Racing Amendment Bill which was tabled. Is that planned for next week as well?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Business Statement—[Interruption] Order! The Business Statement is given at the start of Thursday proceedings. That is the opportunity really to raise points of order with the Leader of the House. On this occasion if the Leader of the House wants to respond to the positioning of the racing bill for the benefit of Mr Mitchell I invite him to do so.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): Yes well I offered that we could do it in extended sittings this morning but he did not want to.
Bridges SimonBUSINESS STATEMENTHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 8 August the Government will look to complete the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill the first reading of the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday 9 August will be a members' day. On Thursday in the morning the House will sit under extended hours for the Committee stage and third reading of the Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill.
Carter DavidTHURSDAY 3 AUGUST 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSBangladesh—Parliamentary Standing Committee on Ministry of Foreign AffairsKorea—National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary CommitteeMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome two delegations present in the gallery: members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the Parliament of Bangladesh led by chairperson Dr Dipu Moni MP; and members of the Legislative and Judiciary Committee from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea led by Mr Beom Kye Park MP.
Tuesday 1 August 2017 - Volume 724
Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee
VoteJAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We have had at least a dozen Opposition speeches on this part and I think there has been an opportunity to cover everything. A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 73New Zealand National 58; Green Party 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 43New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 328 and 351 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 345 in the name of Michael Wood to insert new Subpart 5A in Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 60New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 347 in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 57 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 60New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 346 in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 58 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 60New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Related and consequential amendmentsThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 351 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 104New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 350 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before the member speaks I will indicate that there are two amendments in Sue Moroney's name that are debatable but are not in order for the purpose of voting because they have commencement dates dependent on an indeterminate event which is inconsistent with the Standing Orders.
12. ANZ Business Micro Scope Survey—Small Business Confidence Employment and Investment ExpectationsSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Small BusinessANZ Business Micro Scope Survey—Small Business Confidence Employment and Investment Expectations12. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Small Business: What recent reports has she received regarding small business confidence in their future?Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister for Small Business): I have received the ANZ Business Micro Scope survey for the June quarter which shows small business activity expectations are at a 2-year high. A net 17 percent of small businesses are more confident about general business conditions for the year ahead. The report also highlights that a net 28 percent of small businesses are eyeing bigger profits on the horizon. This is at a 3-year high and showcases that the benefits of our growing economy are being felt throughout the country. Sarah Dowie: What does the report show in terms of employment and investment expectations?Hon JACQUI DEAN: Small business employs 29 percent of the work force. The ANZ report highlights that the demand for labour is strong at a net 17 percent. This shows that small businesses have confidence in their future and are looking to expand and grow. The report also highlights that small businesses are looking to invest with a net 18 percent looking to invest more in their business in the next year. This is another good sign of the growing economy and the fact that small businesses remain confident about their future.
11. Schools—Risk IndexCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of EducationSchools—Risk Index11. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Education: How will the Government collect risk index data for education funding and how will the ministry ensure that data is up to date given families needing to move often because of the housing crisis?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): The Government collects the information for the risk index through the integrated data infrastructure. This is a large research database containing microdata that is collected from a range of Government agencies Statistics New Zealand and non-governmental organisations. In terms of up-to-date information funding for educational underachievement due to disadvantage will be calculated annually. The member may wish to note that while I do not agree with her characterisation of the housing situation and while the risk index is not finalised one of the factors being considered is school transience which could be linked to housing. Catherine Delahunty: How will schools which can have a 50 percent school rollover have any budget certainty year to year under this individualised funding model?Hon NIKKI KAYE: The member is making an assumption because we have not finalised the risk index. Catherine Delahunty: Why are disability mental health and learning support not included in the risk factors in the risk index? Hon NIKKI KAYE: As I have already mentioned this is a draft risk index and this has been developed—just in terms of the process so far—via research and international literature. It has been worked on with the ministerial advisory group but we will be testing it out with the chief science advisers and the Social Investment Agency. Catherine Delahunty: Why is the Minister not just increasing funding to all schools rather than stigmatising children within schools using an unproven deficit-based risk index?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I disagree with a number of things said in that question but the first point is that under this Government on average we have increased Vote Education by half a billion dollars. As I have already stated in terms of this announcement there will be additional funding. Thirdly the largest point that I have been making out there is that this is about a cultural shift for New Zealand in respect of not discriminating against children and I am confident that we can manage that through in terms of the way the information is presented.
9. ICT Sector—Contribution to EconomyBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Economic DevelopmentICT Sector—Contribution to Economy9. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent reports has he received on the contribution of the IT services sector to the economy?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): I have recently seen a 2017 ICT sector report that demonstrates the strength of New Zealand's technology sector to the economy. The report paints a very positive picture of a strong and growing sector and finds that it is rapidly maturing. There are more firms in the sector than ever before both large and in start-up phase and there are more local and international investors. Through the Government's continued commitment to the sector including our nationwide roll-out of ultra-fast broadband we are seeing New Zealand firms developing and commercialising cutting-edge technologies competing with the best and brightest globally.Brett Hudson: What were the key findings of the 2017 ICT sector report?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Government has backed the ICT sector by investing in enabling technology and innovation and this support is paying dividends. The report finds that the IT services sector makes a significant contribution to our economy. In 2016 more than 11000 IT firms employed 29700 people and contributed $3.6 billion to New Zealand's GDP. In addition these firms invested $436 million in R & D in the last year alone more than any other sector in the economy. The report finds that the Government's strong emphasis on innovation and growth diversification of the economy and providing an economic environment in which entrepreneurs and investors feel confident about starting to grow new smart businesses is clearly paying off.
8. Immigration—Visa RequirementsRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of ImmigrationImmigration—Visa Requirements8. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements; if so how?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Yes I do. I particularly stand by my statement that any political party promising to reduce net migration to 10000 would decimate industries and regions and that this Government is not prepared to throw those regions under a bus at a time when they are growing so strongly.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If as he claimed he has toughened [the] English language rules" in October 2016 can he confirm that serious widespread fraud with regard to the English language requirement was a major reason for him doing so?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes I do confirm that there were concerns about the way in which the English language tests were being conducted and also about the fact that the resident application for skilled migrants included 12 months of work in a New Zealand workplace. That did not in and of itself constitute competent English so we changed it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he concerned that when Nigel Bickle Deputy Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and head of Immigration New Zealand had investigators look into this back in November 2015 they found for example 95 out of 98 applicants were not asked for any evidence that they had met minimum English proficiency standards?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I would need more details about the specific example the member is asking about. I presume it is in the international education space. At that point there were certain categories of tertiary education provider that were exempted from requirements. That was changed after November 2015.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When is he going to take some responsibility for example about rules whatever they are being openly and routinely flouted when another MBIE manager Paul Arram in this case found out in June 2016 that out of 105 applications only one applicant was required—that is one—to provide an international English language test certificate; one out of 105 under you?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am not quite sure what the question is but what I would say is that when you have more than 3.5 million people crossing the borders nearly 800000 visas being approved every year and a set of rules some people try to bend them. We fixed that we improved that and we have far fewer problems than we have had in the past.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he has got two investigations by senior people within his department and they are finding that there are thousands of people who have committed fraud what has he done about it when another MBIE investigator Theodore Ashton has concluded that thousands did break the law?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: We do what the public would expect us to do: we investigate and we prosecute."
5. Schools—Risk IndexTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of EducationSchools—Risk Index5. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on funding for children at risk of educational under-achievement due to disadvantage?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): Yesterday I was pleased to announce that this Government has agreed to replace the decile system with a risk index that allows us to better target funding to schools with children and young people most at risk of not achieving due to disadvantage. We will also be replacing the equity index used to allocate disadvantage funding in early childhood education (ECE) with the risk index. This means that rather than allocating funding on the basis of neighbourhood characteristics as the current decile system does the risk index will instead provide fairer funding that better reflects the needs of children in schools and ECE. This will mean extra resources are better targeted to support schools to lift achievement.Todd Muller: What are the next steps on this announcement?Hon NIKKI KAYE: This decision is the first decision made in terms of the funding review looking at funding across our education system. As part of the review the Government has been working with education leaders such as those in the ministerial advisory group for the funding review and the technical reference group which have advocated for change in further funding for disadvantage. We will be working to engage with these groups on key decisions like the implementation date and the factors in the risk index. We are working on a number of initiatives to make it easier for parents to find and assess information about the quality of schools. This includes a project with the Education Review Office that improves its reports and key information as well as making it more accessible to parents. This will involve some investment in greater online tools.
2. Economy—ConfidenceMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of FinanceEconomy—Confidence2. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on confidence in New Zealand's economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Confidence in New Zealand's economy continues to be strong. ANZ has released its business outlook yesterday showing that business confidence rose on a seasonally adjusted basis from 26 to 28 percent. ANZ notes in its commentary the diverse range of sectors driving this higher level of confidence—in fact confidence ratings at this level point to strong economic momentum and growth of around 3 percent over the next 12 months or so and that is important for growing more jobs for Kiwis.Matt Doocey: What effect will this confidence have on exporters and job seekers?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Our export sector is particularly confident with export intentions increasing from plus 27 to plus 33 which is its highest level since April 2014. In addition employment intentions rose from plus 24 to plus 26 which is the highest level since May 2014 and that is good news for graduates and job seekers. This result reinforces the challenges some forums are having finding the staff they need confirming this Government's position that now is not a time for a breather or even to have a reset.Matt Doocey: What is driving higher levels of confidence in our growth and economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This Government's strong and consistent economic plan and political stability are giving companies the confidence they need to make long-term investment decisions whether it is Fonterra investing $150 million in its new cream cheese factory in Darfield Air New Zealand adding another 180000 extra seats over the summer tourist season this year or a mum and dad business taking on its first employees with a 90-day trial period the Government's policy programme is allowing companies to add more jobs for Kiwis and increase their wages and that is what is important for New Zealand families.Matt Doocey: What is the Government doing to boost confidence and support companies that are expanding or exporting?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is doing many things including in the Budget in May which saw New Zealand's total infrastructure and capital investment rise to $32.5 billion over the next 4 years which is a 40 percent increase on that for the last 4 years. This is a massive commitment to supporting New Zealand's growing economy and society. Over the next 4 years we are adding new hospitals new schools new roads and new rail services at very high levels. One of the benefits of a strong economic plan and strong growth is the capability to build the new infrastructure that New Zealanders expect in a modern successful society.
Kuriger Barbara; Borrows ChesterSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave to adjourn the House until the next sitting day.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Members—[Interruption] That is enough; I am on my feet. [Interruption] That is enough; I am on my feet. That is enough for goodness' sake! The House adjourned at 9.51 p.m.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of this Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill. You know some years ago a politician in New Zealand made an absolute blunder by claiming that we live in a benign strategic environment. It is true that the State-initiated conflicts of previous centuries including in the first half of the 20th century have reduced a great deal. However terrorism is a real and present threat to many parts of the world and unfortunately we see all too much of that on the newsfeeds. As responsible global citizens we have a duty to make sure that we do our best to prevent such terrorist organisations from using our financial systems people businesses and economy in fact to launder their money to finance their nefarious objectives. Beyond terrorism we need to take care that organised crime is also not able to use New Zealand as a way to channel funnel and launder its ill-begotten proceeds and also other individuals and groups with nefarious intent particularly those people or groups that might look to exploit people particularly youth—promising them great rewards and futures but instead delivering them the nightmare of exploitation and almost slave-like conditions particularly when they also seek to hide the funding of such operations through very opaque means. These labour camps are as dangerous as other forms of organised crime so it is important that as good global citizens we make sure that such operations find it very difficult to move their money around and launder it through our economy and financial systems. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Curran ClareCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I want to address my remarks to the Supplementary Order Paper that has the deletion of clause 58 which is around the Braille—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): 346.CLARE CURRAN: —provision. Supplementary Order Paper 346—thank you Mr Chair. I am actually appalled. I did not sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for this. I have been reading some of the submissions. I have heard Minister Bridges speak generally about these issues but I do not know if he has quite specifically dealt with—Alastair Scott: Very specifically.CLARE CURRAN: Well you know give me the chance to ask the question and some of the questions around this. With reference to the fact that there were 14 submissions on this piece of legislation including from individuals blind citizens—and I know that there have been references made to submissions from the New Zealand Taxi Federation the Office of the Ombudsman The Braille Authority of New Zealand Aotearoa Trust Otago Regional Council other very auspicious organisations and Local Government New Zealand. All of those submissions make reference to this particular clause in the bill.When I actually read the officials' report on this I failed to understand what the logic is actually other than cost for the removal of this clause. This clause required a simple Braille identification mechanism for people who are sight-impaired to know that when they got into a small passenger vehicle it had a safety measure that they could verify then and there. One of my questions to the Minister in the chair is: is it the cost of that that is the reason for the new technology and the reason for the removal of this clause?The precise number of sight-impaired people in New Zealand is around about a quarter of a million at least to maybe half a million people—it would be good if somebody could give me the precise figures on that. That is actually quite a lot of people and it is a significant enough number of people surely for the Government to be paying attention to them as a group in society and their ability to have accessible means of transport.When I read the officials' report I read with some horror around the commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that there was a reference to the fact that the convention does not specifically require the provision of information in Braille and that the convention requires New Zealand to take appropriate measures but it does not identify specific initiatives that must be implemented. So that felt like a kind of get out" clause which I think in terms of health and safety and the accessibility that this Government says it is providing to people—why would the Government say that the provision of an app where there is a tracking mechanism and if there is a problem then the Uber driver or whoever can actually be tracked in retrospect is a solution? How is that a solution where you can track somebody retrospectively but where if there is an issue when they get into the vehicle and an issue occurs and they do not have a mechanism to identify that it is a viable vehicle—"
Borrows ChesterLAND TRANSPORT AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I have a clarification to make on the title of this bill. The bill on the Table is titled Land Transport Amendment Bill. This is the second land transport amendment bill in the 51st Parliament. It is therefore the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) as noted on the Order Paper. I can confirm that the bill that is on the Table is the correct bill for the Committee's consideration and the title will be updated next time it is published.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (Junior Whip—National): I move That the Committee report progress presently and move to consider the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2).Progress to be reported presently.
Estimates Debate
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (Minister for Food Safety): Mr Chair I want to take just a very brief moment of your time first of all to thank Ian McKelvie and the team on the Primary Production Committee. It is a very good committee very well led and chaired. The members of that committee from all sides of the House have a distinct interest in agriculture and horticulture. I think it is a very valuable committee in this Parliament.I note that most of the speakers have talked about biosecurity. As food safety Minister I also want to talk about food safety and how important it is and how the next generation of the New Zealand brand will be very much dominated by having higher food security and food safety standards that will underpin our products so that customers will get the kind of quality product that they can trust. That is really important for a growing agricultural industry.The other thing I just want to mention is the importance of trade. When we look at an industry that is worth about $38 billion this year and going up next year as well—and note the Opposition parties' opposition to anything to do to grow that base of agricultural and horticultural export by their opposition to trade policies. I think that is very destructive to a very strong industry that people work hard in. They put their whole lives and their family's investment on the line and politicians in this room play politics with that and go around trying to get votes from those communities while at the same time opposing the one thing that would actually assist them to grow their businesses. So with that thank you.
SpeechPrimary SectorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members we now come to votes in the primary sector B.5 volume 9. The question is that Vote Lands and Vote Primary Industries and Food Safety stand part of the schedules. Before I give Ian McKelvie the call it is my intention to make a considered ruling following an inquiry by Jami-Lee Ross by way of point of order earlier when he asked me to make clear the reasoning behind my asking chairs to give their speeches in a non-partisan manner. I have consulted with the determination of the Business Committee for Wednesday 7 June this year and its agreements around the Estimates debate. At that it agreed that the committee chairpersons would lead off each sector debate in order to set out the major findings of their committee. Those speeches do not count as part of that party's allocation. In fact for chairs who have made inquiries of me in this matter I have made it very clear that they should be neutral and report the findings of the committee and not make a political speech because that is something that comes in the Minister's role or as far as other members are concerned. So what I am going to do is reinforce my earlier ruling to make it clear that chairs of committees can have a second speech if they so wish and they can be as partisan as they want to at that stage but for the first speech that will not be the case.
Prosser Richard; Mallard TrevorRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Sorry I did not want to interrupt the member Meka Whaitiri's contribution and my apologies if I misheard her. I do congratulate Kelvin Davis on his elevation to the deputy leadership of the Labour Party. But if I heard the member correctly she claimed that he was the first Māori deputy leader of a party and I think the record should have to reflect that Ron Mark actually beat him to it.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think the member knows very well that he is trifling with the Chair. That is not a matter of a point of order. If the member wants to debate it then he takes a call.Votes agreed to.
Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe. It is a pleasure to take part in this debate looking at the Estimates particularly the Estimates that affect the portfolio of the Minister for Māori Development. Can I say in the first instance that when the Māori Affairs Committee discussed these Estimates we had some concern about the level of work that is required of Te Puni Kōkiri in its capacity to carry out those duties that have been assigned to it. One has to question whether in fact it has the capacity to do the job well. I as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee did have some reservations about the capacity of Te Puni Kōkiri to do the work that it is supposed to do. I think that part of the difficulty is that it has got rid of experienced staff or that the staff that it has employed do not have what I would call the life skills for the issues that our people out in the regions are having to face.The question of Whānau Ora for instance—the ability of Te Puni Kōkiri to monitor the success or otherwise of that particular programme. It has been going for some time now and we have yet to see some evidence as to how the success so to speak of that programme is measured. I just want to put that on record in terms of the concern that New Zealand First has about that particular programme in light of the level of funding that it has received since its inception.The other issue I wanted to talk about is the whānau-centred family violence intervention. While that has been allocated $9 million over 4 years the nub of the matter for me is getting qualified facilitators to help families and to address the violent behaviour that is quite common in whānau-centred family violence. I also acknowledge the level of funding towards the Rangatahi Suicide Prevention Fund but I believe that while it may be a major concern amongst the Māori community it should not be left entirely to Māori funding to address that particular issue. I just wonder whether in fact the $9 million that has been made available over 4 years is sufficient.The Māori Land Service—we have heard from Minister Flavell that they have allowed for 18 months to establish the service after the passing of Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. Can I suggest that in spite of what the Minister might say this is a covert way I believe of doing away with the Māori Land Court and I would suggest to this Committee that the level of funding that has been allocated for the establishment of the service itself could be better utilised by restructuring the Māori Land Court. I would hope that the Minister does give that thought some consideration because there is concern out amongst the Māori community irrespective of what some of them have said about the Māori Land Court itself. It is better the devil you know than the one that you do not know and I believe that Māori are correct in having some concern about the role of the Māori Land Service.
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt Mr Korako's speech but I raise a point of order to express this side of the House's concern at your use of the word neutral" when it comes to speeches from the chairs of committees. I have read the Business Committee's determination and whilst chairs are expected to set out the major findings of the committee the Business Committee's determination did not say that chairs must be neutral. I do note you have pulled up a number of our chairs around that and suggested that they must be neutral so I wanted to outline that concern—that I do not believe that is quite the determination of the Business Committee and that any member of the Parliament unless they are a presiding officer is likely to have some partisan aspects to their speeches. I wonder whether you could reconsider the way that you have been ruling.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will reflect on what the member said. I have been involved in discussions around the difference in the role of that speech and the reasons for giving an extra speech to the chairs of committee and actually it is a speech for presiding officers from the committees. My understanding—and I am happy to reflect on it and I am happy to discuss it with colleagues—is that they are effectively extra speeches in order to set out what happened at the committee in the tone of the reports rather than the tone of a partisan member.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): Thank you for reflecting."
Mallard TrevorMāori Other Populations and Cultural SectorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members we now come to the votes in the Māori other populations and cultural sector B.5 volume 8. The question is that Vote Arts Culture and Heritage Vote Internal Affairs Vote Māori Development Vote Pacific Peoples Vote Sport and Recreation Vote Statistics Vote Treaty Negotiations and Vote Women stand part of the schedules.
Points of Order — Oral Questions—Minister of Health Remarks
Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): In the last 9 minutes that I was using for my last two calls last week I concentrated on the funding or lack thereof really of the police force what the Government thought it was promising and really the drivers of crime because we hear about the drivers of crime from the National Government all time and how it is trying to tackle the drivers of the crime but the real driver of crime which I have highlighted on many occasions in this House is the failing youth justice system.I have brought it up so many times in this House that I do not think there is anyone who would stand up and really say that the youth justice system is actually working. There is no way that they could say that the youth justice system is working—with an 80 or 90 percent reoffending rate in the Youth Court higher than that when offenders go to a youth justice residence and a 60 to 70 percent reoffending rate when the police are dealing with them through diversion and especially when you look at the major indicators of youth crime you see that the serious offences are increasing. No one can deny that. In 10 out of 12 police districts within the last couple of measureable calendar years—2015 and 2016—offences have increased by 40 percent.The reactive approach from this Government is more police. Well unfortunately you cannot arrest your way out of a failing justice system. If you do not have a justice system that backs up the increased number of police it will not work. We need a justice system that is accountable that ensures there is personal responsibility taken by the young people and of course one where there is consistency of consequences. And all of those things need funding which there is very little of. You need resources and basically and fundamentally the youth justice system needs to be completely overhauled. If this Government really wants to make some inroads into the serious offences being committed by the young people of this country it needs to put some funding into the youth justice system.
Mallard TrevorESTIMATES DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 27 July on the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill.Justice Sector (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): There are 4 hours and 10 minutes remaining in the debate. When we were last considering the bill the Committee was dealing with the votes in the justice sector in the Estimates debate. Darroch Ball had the call and while he had 1 minute and 23 seconds we will give him 2 minutes.
Seymour DavidTUESDAY 1 AUGUST 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.POINTS OF ORDERPersonal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Use of sponsor"DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise for your attention a matter that I have only now been able to raise and it relates to question time last Thursday and Standing Order 120. During that exchange the Minister of Health said that I was being motivated by my "sponsor" in asking questions. Mr Speaker I take grave offence at that insinuation and I ask that you require him to withdraw and apologise.Mr SPEAKER: I had a look at the transcript of question time and my interpretation of the transcript would be that the words that the member has now quoted were not exactly the words that were used by the Minister in answer to the question. He did use the word "sponsor". I think that on reflection he could have chosen a better word to use but I do not believe considering it was an answer to a supplementary question that the criticism just raised by the member is valid on this occasion.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order that is being taken?DAVID SEYMOUR: Well yes it is Mr Speaker in that what I am saying is that I take offence at the use of that word.Mr SPEAKER: It has been a well-known ruling for a long time in this House that if the member takes offence he has to do it at the time. To do it a number of days later is simply too late for me to deal with it in that way."
Wednesday 2 August 2017 (continued on Thursday 3 August 2017) - Volume 724
Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
Simpson ScottThird ReadingHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Statistics) on behalf of the Minister of Civil Defence: I move That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. Bill read a third time.The House adjourned at 9.53 a.m. (Thursday)
Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Statistics): I would like to just thank and acknowledge members who have contributed to this Committee stage of the bill for their contributions. I have been listening carefully to them and I am sure that members of the technical advisory group will probably study the Hansard equally as carefully. This bill makes a very minor amendment to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act of 2002. It allows for the current National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy to be in place and to continue in place until 9 April 2019. So this as members have said is a technical small but important piece of legislation to enable really the work of the technical advisory group that has been set up to look at exactly the sorts of issues that members from around the Chamber have been highlighting. It will allow it to do its work in good time and to then report back to consult with and to digest the information from submissions from people organisations and professionals from around the countryside. This piece of legislation allows it to do that and that is exactly because of some of the concerns that have been raised about civil defence and our ability to respond in emergencies. I come from an electorate in the Coromandel where exactly those sorts of issues are foremost and front of mind for many people in my electorate and have been over recent times. It is fair to say that the Government does have concerns about the current system and that is why the technical advisory group has been established. So just in conclusion I want to once again thank members for their contributions in this Committee stage. Clauses 1 to 4 and schedule agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Simpson ScottSecond ReadingHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Statistics on behalf of the Minister of Civil Defence: I move That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.Bill read a second time.
Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Statistics) on behalf of the Minister of Civil Defence: I move That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. On behalf of Minister Nathan Guy who has a longstanding commitment to speak at the Pipfruit conference in Hawke's Bay this morning I would like to take the opportunity to firstly thank parties of this House for their support for this bill we have before us today. This bill makes a minor amendment to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act of 2002 to allow for the current National Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Strategy to remain in place until 9 April 2019. Under the Act the Minister of Civil Defence must complete a national CDEM strategy. The strategy sets out the overall direction for civil defence and emergency management in New Zealand.The Act requires a strategy to be in place at all times. The current strategy is due to expire in early January 2018. However as the House will be aware in light of emergencies this year like the Kaikōura earthquake we have formed a technical advisory group (TAG) to identify where improvements in New Zealand's civil defence structure could be made. The technical advisory group has been consulting with communities and organisations up and down the country and the group will deliver its final report to the incoming Government. It makes sense to first consider the recommendations of the technical advisory group before finalising a new strategy. This will allow the public to reflect on any outcomes of the TAG process when making their submissions on the next strategy. However the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act does not provide a process to extend the current strategy. Therefore this bill is needed to allow the current strategy to remain in place until the recommendations of the technical advisory group have been considered and depending on what the technical advisory group recommends this could include a legislative change.In conclusion Mr Assistant Speaker and members of the House this bill is a minor amendment to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act of 2002 to provide for the existing National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy to remain in place until 9 April 2019 to provide time to consider the outcome of the technical advisory group review. Thank you once again for the support of members from across the House throughout this process. I commend this bill to the House.
Tisch LindsayWEDNESDAY 2 AUGUST 2017(continued on Thursday 3 August 2017)CIVIL DEFENCE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)First ReadingThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members the Business Committee has determined that this bill will move directly to first reading where the calls will be limited to the Minister—5 minutes—and one call of 5 minutes each for all other parties. There will be no debate on the second reading. The Committee stage will be taken as one question with debate not exceeding 90 minutes. There will be no debate on the third reading. This bill is set down for first reading forthwith and I call on the Minister.
Wednesday 2 August 2017 - Volume 724