edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I am interested in the points that Mr Huo made but I think I should deal with those when we look at Part 2 because we are dealing with this part by part. I think the honourable member is referring to clauses 54 and 55 so I will deal with them then.In answer to the questions that have been raised about clause 4(d) that simply deals with the interrelationship between the two pieces of legislation and maybe we will get on to that Homeric epic Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill later in the evening. Clause 4(d) simply deals with that class of land that is vested in a person for a freehold estate under any other Act" which will include Te Ture Whenua. There may or may not be many in that class but the purpose of clause 4 is to set out in some detail those categories of land in our country that will be subject to the Act. As I say paragraph (d) deals with that class of freehold estate which is defined in clause 5 relating to Māori land. I do not think it is any more important or less important than that.Part 1 agreed to."
O'Rourke Denis; Borrows ChesterDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): This is a non-political bill. It is one that I am sure all parties would wish to support. New Zealand First certainly does support it. It has been a long time in development and I think it will be a great advantage for New Zealand to have it passed so we will be voting for it.Phil Twyford: Denis I was wrong; this is Part 1 we're on.DENIS O'ROURKE: Sorry I thought this was Part 2. So I think I will sit down and reserve my comments for Part 2.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Oh you have been put wrong by Mr Twyford.
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): I would like to take a short call to bring to a conclusion the point raised by the New Zealand Law Society in its submission which I could not get addressed in my earlier contribution before the dinner break. Basically the point raised by the New Zealand Law Society is that it wishes to have amendments to clarify that where a mortgage is executed under a power of attorney it is the identity of the attorney and not the mortgagor that must be verified. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of the donor mortgagor giving power of attorney to someone else in the first place. This is a valid point.What I can say from a lawyer's point of view or from a bank's point of view is that any lawyers or conveyancers would have implemented a rather robust system in verifying the identity either of the attorney or of the donor mortgagor. If the power of attorney had been prepared or executed by that lawyer who is acting for the particular client on the conveyancing matter or prepared by some other lawyers they must have taken the necessary steps in verifying the identity of their respective clients. Likewise mortgagees—namely banks lenders etc.—are best placed to know their customers to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of the mortgagor; namely the borrower.The New Zealand Law Society in its submission has raised a very valid point—that it is the identity of the attorney not the donor mortgagor that must be verified. Thank you.
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I thank the honourable member Michael Wood for his excellent contribution. I will take a call even though I am simply holding the fort because this is actually a very important piece of legislation. The member may be interested to know or maybe not that I was in Adelaide last week—Michael Wood: Try me.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Probably not. Adelaide or South Australia was where the Torrens system was actually invented. There is a Torrens Terrace in Adelaide. The Torrens system was based on a shipping model actually and then it went from South Australia to New Zealand and other parts around the globe. I think it is fair to say it is probably the best system of land registration in the world and we have been very lucky to have it developed over the years here. I think it was a reflection of the fact that when colonisation was taking place the old English system of exchanging deeds just would not work in a country like ours so that is why it was introduced. It is obviously as I said a real world-beater.I was interested by the inclusion of clause 3(d) in Part 1. I think it is really nothing more than a belt and braces approach to examining the purpose. I think that is born out in what the Government Administration Committee said in its commentary. It said it recommended the additional clause to insert the principle to safeguard that fundamental principle of the Torrens system.Of course Mr Wood did mention the issue of manifest injustice which is referred to in some detail in clauses 56 and 57. As he knows the term is not defined. Manifest injustice is referred to in a number of statutes—I can think of the Copyright Act 1994 or the Sentencing Act 2002—but it is one of those terms I guess where you know it when you see it. I think the point of not defining it is to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on the court to look at something in the particular circumstances and say: That could well be a manifest injustice." I am sure that we are going to cover this in greater detail but the bill's provisions have been looked at very closely by the select committee which I think has done a really good job. It has clarified matters to make it clear that fraud does not of itself constitute manifest injustice. The threshold for manifest injustice is very high indeed and an order that would overturn registration bearing in mind the principles of the Torrens system could only be made in exceptional circumstances when compensation would not properly address the injustice.The member raises a number of very good points and I hope that I have addressed them as well as interested the Committee on the origins of the Torrens system.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): And your trip to Adelaide.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: And my trip to Adelaide."
Tisch LindsayLAND TRANSFER BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is debate on clauses 3 to 8 and schedule 1.
Responses — Richard Prosser—Statements made by Hon Dr Nick Smith
Urgent Debates Declined — Government Communications Security Bureau—Report
Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just ask you to reflect on that statement. My submission to you is that it was not in the nature of a personal reflection made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith at all and what we had there was really a matter of debate and general debate on party political matters.Mr SPEAKER: No no. I refer the member to Standing Order 359. It is an opportunity for members who consider that they have been misrepresented to consider a breach of privilege. It has become a lesser means of dealing with the matter. I looked very carefully at the statements that were made the allegations that were made. I determined that in fact Mr Prosser had been misrepresented. He is then therefore given the opportunity to clarify that in this House and he has done so.
Prosser RichardRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I wish to make a statement in accordance with Standing Order 359 in response to my words in the House being misrepresented by the Hon Nick Smith. On 9 February 2017 during the debate on the Prime Minister's statement I stated that New Zealand First is saying that when water is exported from this country it should command a royalty paid to the Crown on behalf of the people who own it." In reply to a response from the Hon David Bennett I then gave an example of the comparative value of a royalty paid on a standard barrel of oil relative to a royalty charged at the rate of 10c per litre on an equivalent volume of water.However in reply to my supplementary question No. 3 to question No. 5 during question time on 24 May 2017 which read "Will he support New Zealand First's policy of any potential charge that is applied volumetrically to consented water takes being confined to a royalty only on the export only of water as water only; if not why not?" Dr Smith replied: "I have seen New Zealand First proposals for a 10c-per-litre charge on all commercial water users. That would cost our dairy industry $600 billion a year and effectively destroy New Zealand's largest export industry."In this statement and on three other occasions Dr Smith has falsely portrayed New Zealand First's policy of a royalty only on the export only of water as water only as being a charge on all commercial water users—in particular the dairy industry—which it is not and which it has never been and he has stated that he has seen proposals to that effect from New Zealand First that he has not seen because they do not exist and have never existed.My words have been knowingly and deliberately misrepresented by Dr Smith. This is unacceptable conduct on the part of a senior Government Minister and a member of this House of considerable experience. I thank you for granting this opportunity for the record to be corrected. Thank you."
Carter DavidRESPONSESRichard Prosser—Statements by Hon Dr Nick SmithMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received a letter from Richard Prosser raising with me the misrepresentation of statements he has made in the House by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I have determined that Mr Prosser should have the opportunity to respond to misrepresentation under Standing Order 359. I now call on Richard Prosser to respond to the misrepresentation.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDGCSB—Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's ReportMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Dr Kennedy Graham seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security into the Government Communications Security Bureau's process for the determining of foreign intelligence activity. The report was released yesterday. This is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. Successive Speakers have held that it is for the member making the application to make out a case for the urgent debate. It is not for the Speaker to discover one and I refer members to Speakers' ruling 206/4—Speakers Hunt and Smith. On the information presented to me I am not persuaded that the matter requires the urgent attention of the House; it is a matter that could be raised in the general debate today. The application is therefore declined.
Tuesday 20 June 2017 - Volume 723
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 321 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 320 in the name of Louisa Wall to clause 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14.Noes 74New Zealand National 58; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 317 in the name of Eugenie Sage to insert new clause 8A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 45 Noes 74.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 318 in the name of Eugenie Sage to insert new clause 10 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 45New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14.Noes 74New Zealand National 58; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 43New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12.Abstentions 14Green Party 14.Part 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the schedule be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 43New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12.Abstentions 14Green Party 14.Schedule agreed to.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.
Oral Questions — Questions to Minister
11. Housing—Three Kings DevelopmentDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for the EnvironmentHousing—Three Kings Development11. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for the Environment: Why did he join legal proceedings last year over the $1.2 billion Three Kings development and can this housing project now proceed?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I joined these proceedings out of frustration that a high-quality urban redevelopment project that would provide 1500 homes close to Auckland City had been held up for 5 years despite over 100 consultation meetings and approval by independent commissioners. I was delighted last week that a settlement between parties that have a dispute before the High Court and the Environment Court has now been reached which will enable the project to proceed. Earthworks will be under way this summer. The first houses will be completed in 2019.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What broader system lessons have been identified from the drawn out consenting of Three Kings that will help manage housing pressures in future?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly the planning system needs to be more responsive. The demand for housing in Auckland shifted dramatically 5 years ago so we cannot have scale projects involving 1500 homes delayed for up to 5 years with planning issues. Secondly we need to better integrate the different decisions. That is why in the Resource Management Act reform bill this year the Government incorporated reserve changes into the broader planning process and that would have made a material difference to getting this Three Kings project completed more quickly. Thirdly we need a better framework for major urban redevelopment projects and that is why the Government is specifically proposing an urban development authority Act. And it would actually help if Opposition parties did not spend their energies opposing new houses when they are blatantly required.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What progress has been achieved on the adjacent Three Kings special housing area? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We were able to bypass the legal dispute on part of the Three Kings site through the use of the special housing areas legislation. This 1.4 hectare site now has 99 new homes nearing completion. If anyone doubts the success of the special housing legislation they should visit those homes and see what has been achieved. This also gives me confidence that Fletcher Residential has the capacity to deliver an equally attractive 1500-home development on the adjacent 22 hectare site.
8. Health Director-General—ConfidenceDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of HealthHealth Director-General—Confidence8. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence in the Director-General of Health?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes and that is because he has overseen a lift in performance in hundreds of health services that the ministry oversees including 50000 more elective surgeries 150000 more specialist assessments a year free GP visits for under-13s and 6900 more doctors and nurses across the system. Of course now he is focused on implementing the historic $2 billion pay settlement for 55000 of the hardest-working most deserving workers in New Zealand the care and support workers. But of course there is always more to do.Dr David Clark: Did he instruct the director-general and his assistant Michael Hundleby to call district health board (DHB) leaders on 31 May and 1 June to tell them that misallocated Budget funding would not be clawed back; if he did not so instruct why did they do that?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: My view reached over a number of days is that the ministry had to correct what was a technical error and make sure that the allocations were correct. To the best of my recollection no I did not instruct them to do that.Dr David Clark: When did he first become aware that assembled chairs and chief executives of New Zealand's DHBs on 15 June considered passing a vote of no confidence in Chai Chuah's leadership of his ministry?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I know they had a pretty vigorous discussion last Thursday but I do not know that they considered passing a vote of no confidence. You would have to ask them about that. Clearly you have got a pretty good source there.Dr David Clark: If the director-general of his ministry was proven to have lied to a group of senior bureaucrats would the Minister retain confidence in him?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is all completely hypothetical. What I can tell you is I have found Mr Chuah to be an extremely honest person who every day comes to work and does his best to improve the health outcomes of the population. He is a man of very very high integrity and I stand by that.Dr David Clark: Who then is telling the truth—Chai Chuah who told DHB chairs and chief executives that he had offered his resignation to the Minister or the Minister who said he has not offered a resignation?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Of course we would have to assume that you have got your facts right in the first place. I cannot recall him offering his resignation but he is an honourable man. Look the fact is he does not need to offer his resignation. This is a technical error. It does not change the overall allocation of funding to the district health boards and Mr Chuah has done a very good job for New Zealand health over a very long time.
6. Fuji Xerox—Fraud AllegationsRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime MinisterFuji Xerox—Fraud Allegations6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Before making a statement does he check the facts; if not why not?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes to the best of my ability. But as the member may have noted Prime Ministers are often asked new questions on a very wide range of topics and if I cannot check the facts beforehand I will often make a statement that indicates that I will go and check them before answering.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If time of preparation is important if New Zealand is meant to be corruption-free with high-quality Government as he told business leaders in his state of the nation address why then has Fujifilm Japan revealed $500 million worth of fraud in its operations in Australasia much of it involving New Zealand taxpayers' money?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member's allegations were correct—and I understand there are certainly problems with Fuji Xerox and its financial reporting which may breach International Financial Reporting Standards—then that would be concerning and the appropriate authorities should have a hard look to assess whether it did have any impact in New Zealand and whether there were any measures that should have been taken here to prevent the behaviour.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talking about appropriate authorities as the Prime Minister mentioned can he assure taxpayers that not one dollar of the $55 million the Government spent with Fuji Xerox between 2012 and 2016 was as a result of corruption backhanders or bribes?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: My understanding is that there were no problems about the delivery of services by Fuji Xerox in return for Government payment but of course I cannot make guarantees short of a very thorough investigation if that is what is required about what happened to the $55 million the New Zealand Government paid it. But I am assured the services were delivered to the value agreed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that Mr Fix-it's" DNA is all over this issue is it acceptable for businesses to win contracts from his Government despite paying no tax ripping off schools and headlining in the New York Times depicting New Zealand as a corrupt banana republic?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those are allegations the member has made. The assertion that seems to have some substance is that they under-reported their profits or over-reported them—whatever—and if that was the case then they would have broken financial reporting law in Australia and in New Zealand. Allegations beyond that I have not seen substantiated but there do seem to be grounds for investigation."
4. Tax System—Proposed ChangesKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of RevenueTax System—Proposed Changes4. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Revenue: What is the Government doing to make tax simpler for individuals?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): Yesterday the Minister of Finance and I announced the release of a consultation document that proposes changes to make tax simpler and fairer for individuals. The main proposal is that individuals who receive only income like salary wages and/or interest would no longer have to provide information to Inland Revenue or file tax returns in order to get any refunds due. Currently Inland Revenue does not automatically pay out all refunds and people generally need to request them. Under the proposal Inland Revenue would use the information it receives from employers and banks and automatically issue a refund or a notice of tax to pay. This will mean an extra 1.1 million people would not have to provide any information about their income to Inland Revenue bringing the total number of people who do not need to file any returns up to 3 million. Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: In what other ways will the proposal make tax simpler for individuals?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The proposed changes are aimed at giving individuals more certainty by helping people to be on the right tax code during the year by clarifying the rules on who has to interact at the end of the year and how they interact with Inland Revenue and by making it easier when people have to interact. The proposals also include an easier digital process for getting a special tax code and an easier process for claiming a donation tax credit. This builds on legislation currently going through Parliament which would see Inland Revenue receive income information from employers and banks more quickly and is part of our work to make taxes simple and as fair as possible. I have sent out to all members an information pack to help all members to be able to advise their constituents.
Hudson Brett; Tisch LindsayBRETT HUDSON (National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to hear from Meka Whaitiri because she is on the select committee.
Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): I rise to address clause 6 in Part 2 and particularly Supplementary Order Paper 321 submitted by the Minister the Hon Nick Smith. Supplementary Order Paper 321 prescribes the form of development that should take place on this land. It says there should be no cows or grazing. It says that after 6 months there should be at least 5.3 hectares of sports fields. It says that then there should be no less than 8.4 hectares of sports fields. What gives the Minister the right to dictate these precise terms for the use of land and override the democratic process and the interests of others? This is from our perspective an example of high-handed dictatorship by the Minister on the use of this hugely important land.I echo my colleague's interventions in talking about how important this land is. It is vital for a just Treaty settlement for Ngāti Paoa and we respect that. But it is also vital land for the local community and open space in an area that is increasingly going to become short of open space. It is important ecological habitat for two endangered species.My concern is about having those considerations overridden by the Minister dictating to Ngāti Paoa about having to use their land for particular purposes—for housing and other purposes—and dictating to the local community and to Auckland Council. As we have heard earlier in the debate the Mayor of Auckland has been forced to write in strong terms to the Minister. This is vintage work from the Minister Dr Nick Smith. It is in short a mess. It is another example of the Government using legislation to tell mana whenua local people and the Auckland Council what to do. But we are not North Korea and the Minister is not Kim Jong-un. We oppose this overriding of democracy.I support Supplementary Order Paper 317 put forward by Eugenie Sage. This would ensure there are basic consultation processes that are applied by using the resource consent process. That would bring some considerations of consultation and would guard against some of the haphazard and dictatorial methods that have been applied to this bill so far.This bill has pitched mana whenua against the environment and against local people. This should not be the case. We should be able to work out a satisfactory arrangement for the benefit of all. This is unique open space. It is habitat for the northern dotterel and shore plover. It is Treaty settlement legislation by another name. But it is bad legislation. We support Ngāti Paoa in reclaiming a small part of their land as redress for their land having been stolen. But we also support open land for conservation and we support maintaining the habitat and protecting two endangered species. This bill is a mess. It has created division where there should be none. It is bad legislation and we should rightfully be concerned as a House when legislation like this gets forced through by the Government. Thank you.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Statistics): I do want to just make a couple of comments on some questions that the member Meka Whaitiri asked about the interpretation of the words more or less" in a couple of the clauses in the preliminary provisions in Part 1. It is a long time since I studied land law at Auckland University but delving back into the memory banks I can recall that actually the term "more or less" is very standard legal terminology when it comes to land law. In fact I would think that probably on just about every land title in the country where there is a surveyed measurement it will reference a point that says "more or less". My understanding of that is that it is historical and it is traditional. In this case in the preliminary provisions of Part 1 the specificity of the area of land to be considered in each of the mentions of land in clause 3 goes to four decimal points. That is actually very specific but I think that that term "more or less" is a standard land law phrase that is used. I do not think that the member should be at all concerned about it. I think that the member can probably—as can the rest of the Committee—take some comfort from the fact that in the bill the pieces of land are measured to four decimal points in terms of hectares so that is quite a precise piece of measurement.I am mindful of a situation that occurred after the Canterbury earthquakes when land actually moved and there were some issues to do with title. What was required there rather than having a complete resurvey of the entire Canterbury and Christchurch region was that a piece of legislation was passed in this House to account for those sorts of things. So I would like to give the member a little bit of reassurance in that regard. I do not think that there is anything in that area. I think she raises a good point; it is a worthwhile point and I thank her for doing so.Part 1 agreed to."
Delahunty CatherineCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I will take a brief call. I acknowledge that Part 1 is not the substantive part of the bill but nevertheless I thought the last speaker Meka Whaitiri made some interesting points about the definition of more or less".The point that I want to make is in relation to clause 3 "Interpretation" which refers to the "Auckland combined plan" the "Auckland Council" and the "Housing Act Minister". It is described in clause 4 that this is an Act that binds the Crown. What I want to say about that is that actually I am here tonight to mihi to Ngāti Paoa. There are things that have happened in this country that pre-date the Auckland combined plan the Auckland Council the housing Minister and the Acts that bind the Crown. What happened in this country and what happened to Ngāti Paoa—I am here to mihi to them. I think that that needs to be our focus as well as acknowledging the flaws in this bill—and there certainly seems to be some loose drafting here which is an interesting point that Meka Whaitiri has made.People talked in the debate on Part 1 before the dinner break about a much-loved piece of land. Let us remember who loved it first. Thank you."
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Tisch LindsayPOINT ENGLAND DEVELOPMENT ENABLING BILLIn CommitteeThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members the House is in Committee on the Point England Development Enabling Bill and the question is that Part 1 stand part. This debate is on clauses 3 to 5 and the schedule.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Despite what the last speaker Iain Lees-Galloway said the economy is growing. It is a pleasure to take the final call on the second reading of this Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill. I do not have any claims to fame when it comes to high altitude or rockets or anything like that and Mr Lees-Galloway did make reference to making sure there are no cowboys in the industry. Well I know quite a lot about cows and there is a famous nursery rhyme about the cow jumping over the moon so who knows? Who knows? But what I am very proud about is the fact that we are going to be the 11th country in the world to be able to launch rockets into outer space. Yes it will be a huge growth phase and I am extremely proud of it. It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a second time.
Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill — Second Reading
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): It is a great privilege to stand and support this bill before the House. It is a very good thing that New Zealand's legislative framework is enabling technology to advance. Who would have thought that here in New Zealand we would see this sort of legislation coming to this House and going through thankfully with support right across this House. We are one of just a handful of small developed nations where innovation is incredibly important. It is important because we do not have the scale of large nations like the United States of America Europe Great Britain and right through Asia. We are a small nation of 4.7 million people and so we have to be smart we have to be agile and we have to be innovative and it is good to see that we have a Parliament that supports this sort of work.It has been estimated that this bill will enable companies such as Rocket Lab to function and bring to the New Zealand economy over the next 20 years up to $1.5 billion worth of economic value. That is tremendous. Not only is it going to enable jobs to be created but it is going to put us on the leading edge of this wave of technology and innovation which is where the world is going. It is incredibly important that we as a nation grasp hold of these opportunities. We are very thankful for the vision the hard work the tenacity and the push-through that companies like Rocket Lab have brought into our innovation and technology space because it sets a standard and it sets a precedent for other people to follow. It is great to see this bill which is going to open up more opportunities for New Zealand to work effectively in this space and to be there with other leading countries of the world. I am very happy to support this bill to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It would be remiss of me not to at least mention in passing that this is a very important time of the year for Māori mostly known as Matariki but where I come from we call it Puanga. Of course it is all about the revelation of the stars in the sky that indicate a particular time of the year and we call it in a modern context our Māori New Year. I wanted to talk about that as one connection that I have to outer space and the importance that we place on the celestial bodies.I was trying to think of how I could discuss this issue from a Māori world view. I went through the submissions and there was one submission that caught my eye from one Mr Jimmy Pohe who lives in Māhia Peninsula and whose family has whakapapaed to that land where Rocket Lab will now be launching its rockets. Mr Pohe had some concerns about the impact of Rocket Lab on his and his whānau's ability to go fishing and to collect kai moana. What Mr Pohe asked was that in no way should Rocket Lab be given exclusive use of the coastal area. In my reading of the bill that is not going to happen and so I just wanted to acknowledge Jimmy Pohe for first of all putting in a submission and second of all to allay any concerns that he may have.I want also to acknowledge Rocket Lab and we have had a number of acknowledgments to Peter Beck in particular. He is obviously a man of great ability and tenacity to along with his colleagues get this project to where it is today. I want to acknowledge them.Going back to my Matariki/Puanga kōrero we see this as acknowledging the past but looking forward to the future. I just want to connect those two things together. This is definitely about looking forward to the future. I want to recognise all of the speakers who have focused on that because looking forward to the future with this Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill will provide New Zealand and New Zealanders with huge opportunities particularly around employment and just the opportunity to be participating in this very exclusive sector I would say with only 10 other countries involved.There was one other thing that caught my eye and it was in one of the documents that I read which is that they may be sending human ashes into space. I am assuming that they will go up and then come back down again. It would not be a good idea to be adding to the orbital debris that already exists in space I do not think. It did make me think about one of the sayings that we have in Māori E ngā mate kua wheturangihia." which basically means "Those who have passed on and become celestial beings." It would give a whole other meaning to that—a literal meaning. With that I want to commend the bill to the House. Of course the Labour Party supports this bill. Kia ora."
Graham Kennedy; Tisch LindsayDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker; I do not need the full 5 minutes. This is simply to reiterate the Green Party's policy of supporting this bill right through presumably to the third reading for the reasons that have been already advanced.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Adrian Rurawhe—5 minutes. Tēnā koe.
Smith Stuart; Tisch LindsaySTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Unfortunately I was not on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee when the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill was being debated and was going through the select committee. However I do feel I am qualified to speak on this having attended the launch of a space shuttle out at Cape Canaveral some years ago. I would have to say that when I watched that shuttle roll on to its back and head off over the Atlantic Ocean I had no idea that some years later we would be having launches here in New Zealand. Having the 18-metre Electron rocket head up into space a few weeks ago is really testament to our great development in New Zealand. I think we saw a good example of that of course on the weekend with New Zealand's foiling yachts which are leading the world. We spent less money than the other teams and to date we have the most advanced boat on the water and I think what we are seeing with this Electron rocket is also a great advancement. But to deal with this and the matter at hand we need to have the relevant legislation that covers off all the possibilities in the future of an industry in this country. The select committee has done some really good work in this area getting all of—they might seem dry sorts of details but defining what high altitude" is and what outer space is is actually quite important in order to meet our obligations in an international world. Peaceful purposes not putting military installations on celestial bodies and those sorts of things really come home when we look at what is happening in the Korean Peninsula as well. So it is a very important bill. It marks a very important step forward in New Zealand's technological future and I commend it to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes."
Goodhew JoHon JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): Well it gives me some pleasure to rise this afternoon. Listening to the tenor of the debate and knowing the speeches that have gone before in the second reading of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill it amuses me somewhat—as I am sure it does others—to hear the members of the House all competing over who can take the credit. I think that on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee there has been a wonderful openness to learning about literally the space that this bill occupies because it was new space to all of us. There were terms that we did not understand and required quite a lot of clarification about I might add and there were treaties I had no idea existed—quite a few of them—and they all needed to be encompassed in our understanding of where we fitted into the world of space and high altitude.We are now one of 11 countries it is my belief currently able to launch satellites into space and New Zealand needed to—I know there were a lot of jokes a lot of jokes about you know this was space age and this bill was coming before us and this was out-of-space travel and all the rest of it. But the reality is this is a great investment in a future sector that is going to continue to grow our GDP. Yes there need to be skilled people. Yes there need to be people like Peter Beck who are willing to take a punt and be extraordinary in progressing a project such as this. On the select committee we tried to get the nuts and bolts tightened down and there was a great attitude across the select committee to doing that.But I have to say that it is a very supportive Government that sees that our third-largest exporting sector is now the tech sector. That is a $16 billion contribution to GDP and there are more than 28000 firms and almost 99000 people. Would it not be great if we got to 100000 people because our space industry was going literally gangbusters and in fact the large number of launches from the Māhia Peninsula that are projected actually go ahead? I have been given a short opportunity this afternoon. The members of the committee have already enunciated well the debates we had—not really debates; the settling of issues that we did in the committee—so I rest my case and certainly support this bill.
Appropriation (2016/17 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — First Reading
Smith NickAPPROPRIATION (2016/17 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILLFirst ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move That the Appropriation (2016/17 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.
Voting — Correction—Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill
Mallard TrevorVOTINGCorrection—Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement BillThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): On 8 June when the House was considering the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill the result of the vote on the tabled amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 324 was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 58 Noes 62. The correct result is Ayes 55 Noes 62. The record will be corrected accordingly.
Urgent Debates — District Health Board Funding—Allocation Errors
Urgent Debates Declined — Fuji Xerox—Allegations
Visitors — Republic of Mexico—Senate Delegation
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATESDistrict Health Board Funding—Allocation ErrorsMr SPEAKER: I have also received a letter from Dr David Clark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 errors in district health board funding allocations made by the Ministry of Health. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Last year the House held an urgent debate on financial mismanagement at the Ministry of Health in relation to a building project. The matter raised today is arguably even more serious since it involves the incorrect allocation of funds for the delivery of health services. Dr Clark has pointed out that the Health Committee has already had its Vote Health 2017-18 hearing and that there was no disclosure of the issue at that time. The committee did not have the opportunity to question the Minister of Health on the matter. Public confidence in the health system is essential. Having carefully considered this application I believe it does require the urgent attention of the House. I therefore call on Dr David Clark to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDFuji Xerox—Fraud AllegationsMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Fuji Xerox scandal. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. The application sets out the administrative and ministerial responsibility that Mr Peters considers attaches to the Government in this matter through a range of State sector agencies. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is investigating the matter to give assurance to the Minister for Economic Development. The External Reporting Board has not taken any action over the allegations because it does not provide auditing and assurance services. The Serious Fraud Office has not commenced an investigation. There is no ministerial responsibility for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General since it is an Office of Parliament.The purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government to account for an action for which it is responsible—Speakers' ruling 207/2. Several previous Speakers have ruled that the absence of action on the part of the Government is not a particular case of recent occurrence—Speakers' ruling 212/2. To date the Government's actions have involved seeking assurances from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and no findings have yet been announced. On the facts available the application for an urgent debate of the matter has not reached the point where it warrants setting aside the business of the House. Therefore the application is declined.
Hipkins Chris; Lees-Galloway IainPoints of Order—Unparliamentary LanguageCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could explain why on a previous occasion you ruled that it was acceptable for the Prime Minister to tell the Opposition to get some guts" but you ruled that the phrase that I just used in connection to the Prime Minister is not in order?Mr SPEAKER: It depends on the tone and the behaviour of the House at the time but an interjection like that I considered to be unparliamentary. I asked the member to withdraw and apologise and he did so.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Is this another fresh point of order?CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. On what basis was that unparliamentary?Mr SPEAKER: Order! No no I have dealt with that. I have asked the member to do so. It is exactly the same rule as for everybody here. If he wants to relitigate it then that is disorderly in itself and I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber. If he wants to raise another new point—[Interruption] Order! If he wants to raise a new fresh point of order on another matter I am only too happy to hear from him. [Interruption] Order! The member will now leave the Chamber.Chris Hipkins withdrew from the Chamber. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to clarify is it now your ruling that "get some guts" is unparliamentary?Mr SPEAKER: No and the member now is trifling with the Chair and at risk of also joining his colleagues. I will deal with matters at the time but an interjection like that was simply done to inflame the situation in this House and create disorder and I ruled accordingly and asked the member to leave."
Carter DavidTUESDAY 20 JUNE 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSRepublic of Mexico—Senate DelegationMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome a delegation from the Senate of the Republic of Mexico led by Senator Ana Gabriela Guevara Espinoza.
VoteMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members the question is that the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That all the words after That" be deleted and replaced with: "this House has no confidence in a government that has had nine years to build a better New Zealand yet we have a housing crisis we have mental health services on the verge of collapse we have education that is becoming more and more expensive and we have infrastructure that is unable to cope with the demands of surging population and it is time for fresh thinking and real solutions."Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a second time."
12. Budget 2017—Disability Support ServicesDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Disability IssuesBudget 2017—Disability Support Services12. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent Budget announcements has the Government made regarding investment into disability support services?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): Budget 2017 will invest an extra $205.4 million over 4 years to maintain and improve disability support services taking the total funding to $1.2 billion for the year 2017-18. This covers community-based home support personal care caregiver support and residential care as well as equipment services. Around 32000 New Zealanders and their families will benefit from these services every year. Dr Shane Reti: How does Budget 2017 progress the expansion of Enabling Good Lives? Hon NICKY WAGNER: Budget 2017 invests $27.1 million over 3 years for the expansion of Enabling Good Lives in the mid-central region. Enabling Good Lives is based on the principles of giving disabled people more choice and more control over their lives. The trial demonstrations have already benefited hundreds of disabled people and families in Waikato and Christchurch. The Government is working closely with the disabilities sector to co-design the Enabling Good Lives model to transform disability support services and give disabled people greater independence and flexibility.