edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Robertson Grant; Mallard Trevor; Hipkins Chris; Bishop ChrisBUSINESS STATEMENTHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order Mr Speaker. I'm taking a point of order in order for the Leader of the House to arrive to be able to speak forthwith.SPEAKER: The Hon—I was going to say the Late Hon"—Chris Hipkins.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. The annual review debate will conclude on Tuesday 11 May. Wednesday 12 May will be a members' day. On Thursday 13 May there will be a debate on petitions on COVID-19 immigration and border policies. Other legislation to be considered will include the second reading of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) and the first reading of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill which will be debated alongside the select committee report on the associated international treaty examination.SPEAKER: I just say to the member who's out of breath after such a short run that he should ride in from Upper Hutt more often!CHRIS BISHOP (National): He should come and do the Lower Hutt park run. To the Leader of the House can I ask the Government when they intend to respond to the Auditor-General's advice or instruction regarding the Ihumātao land appropriation?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): My understanding having just taken some rapid advice is that that's part of the normal validation process.SPEAKER: As a former Associate Minister of Finance who knows a bit about cleaning up messes that have been left behind generally I had to deal with seven or eight every year—and that's in a good year—and there is a process."
Dean JacquiTHURSDAY 6 MAY 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 4 May 2021 - Volume 751
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
11. Question No. 11—PoliceSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 11—Police11. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Police: What are the measures of success if any for Operation Tauwhiro and is she confident Operation Tauwhiro has been successful in reducing gang violence?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Police: The main measures of success include to sustainably reduce the prevalence of violence by gangs and organised crime particularly that involving the use of firearms and to remove access to illicit firearms in gangs and organised crime groups and hold offenders to account. I previously updated the House on the progress police are making under Operation Tauwhiro. In the 10 weeks that it has been operational they have seized 281 firearms seized $2.2 million in cash arrested 319 people seized just a little under 8 kilograms of meth and conducted 254 search warrants.Simeon Brown: Is it a measure of success of Operation Tauwhiro for Ministers of the Crown to be attending and speaking at gang pads?SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that that's not a serious question.Chris Bishop: Point of order Mr Speaker. That is a serious question. The supplementary question that my colleague asked was in relation to a measure of success for Operation Tauwhiro and he is asking whether or not engagement by members of Parliament with gangs is a measure of success for the operation. I think it's a very serious question particularly in light of what's happened in recent days.SPEAKER: Well I think there are a couple of ways of dealing with that which make it clear absolutely clear that the question was ironic—clearly ironic. [Interruption] Order! I'm actually trying to take a relatively liberal approach today; multiple interjections while I'm on my feet doesn't help. The other obvious point is that Ministers are not responsible for other Ministers.Simeon Brown: Is she aware of any other Ministers who have met with gangs at gang pads and does she believe this undermines the measures of success of Operation Tauwhiro?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I am not.Simeon Brown: Does she have concerns with Ministers meeting with gangs at gang pads while a major police operation—Operation Tauwhiro—targeting gangs is currently under way?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: If the member is referring to a visit by MPs in their own party's capacity I have no responsibility. [Interruption] You good?SPEAKER: I'm fine. Both sides settle down.Simeon Brown: Does she have concerns with Ministers or members of Parliament meeting with gangs at gang pads while a major police operation—Operation Tauwhiro—targeting gangs is currently under way?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: If the member is referring to the visit recently by MPs who were attending meetings in their capacity as MPs of their own party I have no responsibility for that.
9. Question No. 9—PoliceNICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 9—Police9. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement Gang numbers and gang crime will only reduce when police and communities work together to disrupt gang operations and to disrupt their flow of recruits … I welcome the support of all members of this House on this"?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes.Nicole McKee: Did the support she was envisaging include members of Parliament attending events hosted by gangs at gang pads and if so how does this help disrupt gang operations?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: If the member is discussing in her question a recent visit by members of Parliament I as the Minister of Police have no responsibility for those other members of Parliament.Nicole McKee: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Will the member repeat her question.Nicole McKee: Did the support she was envisaging include members of Parliament attending events hosted by gangs at gang pads and if so how does this help disrupt gang operations?SPEAKER: Well the Minister did answer that question.Nicole McKee: Does she believe that it is helpful for members of Parliament to attend events held at gang pads?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: On behalf of the Minister of Police I'm not responsible for those members of Parliament who may or may not have visited gang pads.David Seymour: Point of order. Surely the question which was on notice related to the Minister's statement which did ask members of Parliament to behave in a certain way. Now to simply say now that she's not responsible for that behaviour is a dodge. I think questions about the Minister's view that were on notice should be answered.SPEAKER: I'm not going to suggest a way around it which is relatively simple if people thought about it. But in this particular case the way that the question was asked where members are acting individually as opposed to in the House I think the Minister doesn't have responsibility for their activities as members of Parliament.Nicole McKee: What place is there for gangs such as the Mongrel Mob in New Zealand?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: On behalf of the Minister of Police no place which is why as a Government we have invested $450 million to make sure that our police are resourced to make sure that we do disrupt gang activity."
8. Question No. 8—TransportHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 8—Transport8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does the Government remain committed to all of the projects that comprise the transport portion of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme announced in January 2020; if not why not?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes the Government has not made changes to the New Zealand Upgrade Programme and remains committed to delivery of good transport outcomes along all of the routes concerned. Given the scale of the projects concerned and the fact that the programme was announced pre-COVID a baselining exercise has been done to provide certainty around cost and scope. Ministers are working through the options on how to take the programme forward and announcements on all the rest of the projects will be made in the near future.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why then did he last week refuse to commit to media to delivering all the projects his Government announced in 2020?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That's not the case. The Government remains committed to those projects. I have simply in the media made the comment that the Government remains committed to a sound process to consider the scope and costings of the projects something that we believe is important and I'm surprised that the member doesn't think that's important given the shambles of the Transmission Gully project that that lot left for this Government to clean up and bail out—because they didn't do the groundwork. That's what we're doing now.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will he publicly disclose the new baseline information he has recently received and if so when?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes in due course.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will the Mill Road connection from Manukau to Drury South proceed?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I said in my primary answer the Government remains committed to good transport outcomes and investment across all of the routes concerned in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. That work is proceeding and we'll have further announcements to make in the near future. I note that in the area that the member is talking about we're making very good progress with a number of New Zealand Upgrade projects including State Highway 1 from Papakura to Drury in the Papakura electorate which I dug the sod on last week.Chris Bishop: Is the Government committed to the time line and the quantum of funding for the Melling Interchange project as announced in January 2020?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I said in my primary answer the Government remains committed to the projects within the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. The member needs to spend a bit less time focusing on speculation on Twitter about these projects and what the member could do is to engage in some constructive engagement like the elected member for Hutt South has done who has brought forward to me the importance of that project and I've assured her the project remains an important part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme and we intend to move forward with its implementation as soon as possible.
7. Question No. 7—Social Development and EmploymentTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 7—Social Development and Employment7. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Fa'afetai tele Mr Speaker. What recent announcements has the Minister for social development made about supporting beneficiaries and superannuitants through their winter months?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week I announced that 1 May would mark the beginning of the Government's winter energy payment. This means that over 1 million New Zealanders receiving either a main benefit or New Zealand superannuation will get more money each week through the winter energy payment. This year the winter energy payment runs from 1 May until 1 October delivering $20.46 per week for single people or $31.82 per week for couples and single people with children. Terisa Ngobi: Why is the winter energy payment important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Because winter is coming. We all know that having a warm home is a key part of preventing illness and supporting people's wellbeing through the winter season. Many New Zealanders struggle with the increased power costs particularly those on low incomes and over the winter months children and superannuitants are most at risk of being hospitalised due to respiratory illnesses. This payment supports them in covering the cost of energy bills and removes the barrier of costs to heating their homes. Terisa Ngobi: How can beneficiaries and superannuitants access the winter energy payment?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Anyone getting a main benefit New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension is eligible to receive the winter energy payment. They don't need to do anything or apply. If they're eligible they will get the winter energy payment automatically.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Last week ANZ's business confidence survey was titled Bouncing back" and it reported that confidence had jumped six points in April with firms' own activity also lifting six points. ANZ said the "solid bounce … indicated that firms are feeling pretty upbeat". It also admitted that the robustness of the data was starting to challenge the bank's own view that the economy would go largely sideways this year. As I said this morning in my pre-Budget speech the New Zealand economy has proved to be resilient in terms of GDP and unemployment. We are well-positioned relative to the countries we normally compare ourselves to.Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index rose strongly up 9.4 points in March to 63.6 the highest monthly result since the survey began in 2002. The result showed a strong boost in new orders and production with manufacturers seeing an increase in demand both locally and overseas. Separately the Performance of Services Index also climbed back into expansion up 2.7 points in March to 52.4. The improvement was led by an increase in activities in sales and new orders.Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on trade and what that shows in terms of economic confidence?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The overseas merchandise trade figures for March show that firms appear more confident in investing more on the back of an improving economic environment. Imports of machinery and plant rose 26 percent to $922 million in March compared with the same month a year earlier. For the March quarter imports of machinery and plant rose 11 percent to $2.4 billion. While the economy is continuing to perform ahead of expectations the global situation remains uncertain and we can expect volatility in domestic and international data for some time."
Salesa JennyASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Speaker this is one of those pieces of legislation that comes before the House and those who aren't imbued in the financial system will look at it with something of horror because it is quite complicated as my colleague Dr Duncan Webb said. However in my experience in the fraud squad from many years ago I got some advice from my detective sergeant. He said Don't get too overwrought when you are confronted with a lot of financial papers in front of you that you have to put together. Simply break them down into something that people will understand."—in our case the jury. So that's how I attack this bill and when you do look down at it this bill is simply something that keeps the whole financial system moving. You might remember back in 2008 when there was the global financial crisis happening. Well what actually happened there was that the reason the world nearly ground to a halt was the financial system broke down. Each of the banks knew they were sitting on this rubbish which were called derivatives which were going to potentially drag them down but they also knew they had this stuff and then they knew that the banks that they were doing business with had this stuff as well. So they weren't going to commit themselves and ensure that they were then going to be subject or vulnerable to this breakdown. So what happened was that it took the American Federal Reserve to step in to lubricate the system. I see you're on your feet Madam Speaker so I'll take that as a—"
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise on behalf of National an MP for North Shore to talk on the Financial Market Infrastructures Bill third reading. National supports this bill.This bill will establish a new regulatory regime for financial market infrastructures (FMIs). It also provides certain FMIs with more legal protections relating to settlement netting and also the enforceability of those rules. The bill would also replace the current regime which is contained in sections 5B and 5C of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. Financial market infrastructures or FMIs using the acronym are multilateral systems that provide trading clearing settlement and reporting in relation to payments securities derivatives and other financial transactions I appreciate it is a mouthful but that is the reality of what it does. It includes payment systems securities settlement systems central security depositories central counterparties and trade repositories. This bill is important because it creates an approved and properly regulated framework for a safe and efficient financial system. National supports this bill as I stated. It formalises policy proposals announced by the Reserve Bank in 2015 and 2016 which were endorsed by the then National-led Cabinet. Under the existing regime the systems and services have very little specific regulation and this bill is intended to bring New Zealand's regulatory framework for FMIs in line with what we see is global best practice. This bill has been well signalled and well consulted on as we've just heard in terms of some of those improvements in terms of the regulatory environment and the governing functions around that bill and this will be a good thing for our financial institutions. The select committee has reflected resulted and looked at a number of amendments in regards to this bill which I think have improved the bill and amendments that we as a party support.I guess just to provide a little bit of background and context in 2015 and 2016 the Reserve Bank released policy proposals relating to an update of the regulatory regime for FMIs particularly for payment systems and as I said these proposals were endorsed by the Cabinet of the National Government. The bill came out of this and has been through—as we just heard—three rounds of public consultation on the proposed framework as a whole and on the crisis management powers contained in it. I think overall as we heard the National Party support this bill I think in terms of it's sensible. I think the point that it will align us with global best practice is a good thing and I would commend this bill to the House.
Webb Duncan; Salesa Jenny; Dean JacquiDr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the committee report progress on this bill.Motion agreed to.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The committee has considered the Appropriation (2019/20 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the report be adopted. [Interruption] Order! There will be silence when taking a vote. I'll do it again. The question is that the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well we've given another round of questions. So there has been a lot of discussion today in the House around the Māori Health Authority and we've heard from the Prime Minister that a separate agency is required by the Treaty—or words to that effect. So the broad question I have for the Minister is: what does he believe the Treaty requires in terms of decision making in education? Is there a plan to have a separate Māori education authority or some such establishment?So it was a very interesting discussion that was launched today and I hope that as a country we will talk about this properly. We heard from the Prime Minister in the House today around the concept of partnership and decision making. Her statement was that consultation with Māori is not good enough and that it has failed in the health area and that the basic principle of partnership is that you have an equal say—those are the words of the Prime Minister in the House today.I personally struggle with that concept in the sense that through the normal democratic process under the one person one vote principle all New Zealanders including Māori elect a Government and on the basis of their manifesto to govern until they are kicked out and now we have another suggestion which is to say that the two Treaty partners that elected Government gets 50 percent of the say in one way of interpreting and Māori whoever speaks for Māori—whether they are elected or appointed or how that is arranged—have an equal say in decision making which is if I'm not over interpreting that a colossal change in our constitutional arrangements. Most New Zealanders would assume that we are all treated equally under the law and it is one of the things which makes this democracy the great place that it is. And now we're told that the Treaty requires decision making on an equal basis 50:50. So there are real implications and questions around democracy in the process and it is hard to argue that it doesn't create different types of citizens—well that is a risk of how that is interpreted.So the question I have is: in the education framework what does the Minister see as what the Treaty requires in how decision making is made? We've seen a couple of examples recently in the development of curriculum. So in the history curriculum I noticed the advisory board was 50:50—Māori and everybody else. Is that a deliberate decision and is that a basis of how he intends to make decisions? And likewise in the development of the commerce area I was interested—so I'm interested in decision making around curriculum but also the broader structures of how the ministry and decision making is organised and what he believes the Treaty requires in terms of how those decisions are made.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd just like to ask the Minister in the chair about school attendance. The Education and Workforce Committee reports on page 6 of its annual review that the Minister told the committee that he would be working with the ministry to improve attendance rates. I just wonder if the Minister could elaborate a bit—or perhaps he did at the committee; our member is away today—for the benefit of people here on two questions: why he thinks there is a decline in attendance.He said in the House—or he has at least alluded in the House to the fact that people go on holidays. I don't know if there has been an increase in holidays or if there could be some other explanation for increasing levels of attendance. If he can diagnose the reasons why students aren't attending then I think it would be easier to have confidence that the work he is doing with the ministry might reduce it.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. We all of course across this Parliament have a deep concern about our educational outcomes in New Zealand. We acknowledge that the most powerful route out of poverty is through education. We also have a Government that talks a lot about the knowledge economy our bright future in technology and high-paying jobs the green economy. And so you know the question that's on a lot of people's minds—to the Minister—is: how does he think New Zealand is going to prosper in this knowledge economy in this technology-rich economy of the 21st century this globally competitive technology-based economy? How are we going to prosper in that when our maths performance in particular is falling off the pace—and it's one that's been the case for a while? You know we started off around fourth in the Programme for International Student Assessment rankings for maths; now we're 22nd and it is falling. I acknowledge the work that is proposed and I'm sure the Minister will mention the changes to the NCEA requirements around literacy and numeracy. But I do make the point that the real challenge is also at the primary and intermediate school so no matter what you do when someone is 15 or 16 is always going to be a struggle. The related question I have for the Minister is: how do we know if young girls and boys are progressing at school and doing well at primary school and intermediate school in the absence of consistent assessment? Now the Government decided to throw out national standards. They decided not to try and improve them or perfect them or work with them—discarded them—and so how does the Minister reassure himself and the rest of the country that children are progressing effectively year in year out and so that will lead to better maths outcomes in the years ahead?
Dean JacquiCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): There being no further speakers we move now to the annual review debate for education. The Minister in the chair Hon Chris Hipkins.
Mallard TrevorRt Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Speaker): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm sort of not used to taking calls. I want to thank the member for his initial comments because I think early in his comments he summed up the situation pretty well. I did make a serious error and it's something that I've apologised for and it has caused distress—unnecessary distress—for a number of people.I do want to make it clear that I am in no way pretending to be a court. I haven't actually discussed the case that is at the centre of this with the woman involved—I've had no discussion with her at all. I have had as I've indicated a couple of brief discussions with the general manager around which I got the context of it and I have had discussions with other women about alleged sexual assaults alleged rapes which are related to this workplace. But I do want to make it clear in this case that I'm not being a judge and jury but what I am saying is that my default position is to believe what the woman has said. The next position is that I when there is an independent separate careful five- to six-month investigation into a matter believe the results of that and when the police make a decision I will believe that. Now that doesn't make someone criminally guilty but what it does is give me confidence to support the general manager in his decision. It's not my decision; it's his decision. But I will stand behind him when he says that the particular individual is not a fit and proper person to work here.
Mallard TrevorRt Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Speaker): I'm happy to I think reiterate the comments I made on that matter. And I think that the decision of the chief executive not to settle on that question in the Employment Court is one which is appropriate because to pay money to someone who in the second independent investigation was found to have sexually assaulted someone who the police investigation found sexually assaulted someone—Hon Michael Woodhouse: They're not pressing charges.Rt Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Order! Sorry I'm the wrong person.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Why don't you let me keep order.Rt Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Sorry. I should've Madam Chair. The point that I am trying to make is that many of us who know a bit about the way women have been victimised and the way that things work through the police system and work through the courts know that a significant proportion of them especially if they've had periods of being victimised over a long period of not being believed privately and publicly by public figures choose not to expose themselves choose not to expose themselves to the court process. And there are other cases where the police make a decision that there's a very real chance of not being successful in a case. I want to say that in two cases that I have been dealing with there is one of each that fits into that category. While I am always someone who when a woman is properly supported will support them going to the police I will support them through the process. I am not someone who thinks women should be pressured into proceeding with charges especially when they have been repeatedly—repeatedly—publicly disbelieved by people who are meant to be community leaders.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I see no movement from the Speaker so I will add to the questions: what we know is that the taxpayer has stumped up about $338000 avoidable costs—Hon Scott Simpson: So far.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —as a consequence of this—so far; quite right Mr Simpson. I'd like an update. I've heard that there has been another $7000 of legal fees that have been paid. We now know that the $331000 as it was in December and the extra $7000 is not the end of the story because we have had a revelation that there is a separate legal process under way which is almost certain to cost the taxpayer more money and that is—I now know and the chief executive wasn't prepared to say it but it is a personal grievance under the Employment Relations Act—that he told the Governance and the Administration Committee on 10 March that he was not prepared to settle. In fact the Minister answered a written question about whether he thought settlement could be achieved before reaching the Employment Court. The one-word answer was No." When I asked Mr Gonzalez-Montero "Why?" he was quite bullish; he said he would rather lose the case and be right than settle with this fellow. Now that is I think a reflection of a process that is going to lead to a significant sum of money needing to be paid by the taxpayer. It's not his money it's not Mr Speaker's money either; it's the taxpayers' money.If the case was so strong why two years later has this not been settled? It hasn't gone to court because there is backlog at the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court because of COVID—probably not before the second half of this year. But should it go there at all? Any lawyer worth their salt would encourage some kind of mediator settlement.Or they're to have this litigated in another court it is called a criminal court. That is usually where serious sexual assaults get handled. I wish it was. Then we could hear the evidence rather than a Speaker standing up under privilege and accusing somebody of serious sexual assault and that is it. If only it were that easy.I'd like to know how much money we are on the hook for. And given the proximity of the Speaker to his chief executive and that they seem to be hand in glove does he believe that the response the select committee was given about a steadfast refusal to settle in the face of a cause of action that seems to have some merit is an appropriate response?"
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): I want to ask the Minister in the time we have available for this debate one more time when will he address the two critical questions I have just asked which is what explains the gap between May 2019 and December 2020? Why is there 18 months of legal wrangling and threats and bullying when he knew within 24 hours he had made a mistake and was wrong? What explains that? We are yet to hear one skerrick about that. And secondly—and I've explained why this is important already—did he follow through and plead truth in a statement of defence to the court and if so why?
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you Madam Chair. I've sat through this entire debate this evening and parts of it have been really difficult to sit here and to listen to. I think what the viewers at home may be seeing and perceiving here is far more weight being put on accusations of bullying of a man versus a report which identified serious sexual assaults within Parliament and the Speaker who has come forward and said I'm going to take this seriously and I'm going to do something about it." I've heard some horrific statements in the House tonight that perhaps there might have been something going on and we don't know the full story. It really sounds like "She asked for it. Her skirt was too short. She was drunk." I didn't like what I heard. [Interruption] You said it. [Interruption] I'm sorry—Madam Chair? [Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!Chris Bishop: Point of order—point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member Chris Bishop will resume his seat. Now this is a serious matter—this is a serious matter and I would ask all members to retain some decorum in this committee.Chris Bishop: Point of order. She has just said words that are grossly offensive about members of the Opposition and she needs to withdraw and apologise for those.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. The member has taken offence. The member will withdraw and apologise.Chris Bishop: We did not say that.WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I didn't say you said it.Chris Bishop: You did.WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Madam Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Chris Bishop will stand withdraw and apologise.Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Speaking to the point of order Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No thank you. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: You've ruled? OK sure.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I have ruled. Thank you.WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you Madam Chair.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I do hope this is a fresh point of order.Hon Michael Woodhouse: In so far as a ruling had been made for somebody to withdraw and apologise it is a fresh point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yes thank you. Thank you very much. I will ask Willow-Jean Prime to stand withdraw and apologise.WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I withdraw and apologise. Thank you Madam Chair. What I want to ask the Speaker tonight—in the short amount of time that we have left because this entire debate has been taken up on one part of the Francis Review—is Mr Speaker the Minister alluded to the work that has happened since we received the Francis Review—the work that a group that was cross-party worked on and the steps that have been taken. I want the Speaker to please explain to this committee and to the listeners listening in tonight more detail around what it is that we have done since we received that review what has been the work of that working group where we are at with that and how many of the recommendations we have implemented. Let's not lose sight of the fact that there are serious things in that report that need to be addressed by Parliament so that we change the culture of this place. Thank you."
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Well the member who's just resumed his seat is quite wrong. I have said what I said in Parliament outside the House and I'm happy to say it again and the reason I said it outside the House is because it's based on court documents. Everything I did when I turned up here on 21 March and gave my speech the famous speech that the Speaker thinks that he's somehow a hero for allowing in Parliament because I basically attacked the integrity of the Speaker—and I stand behind every word of that. He seems to think he should get some sort of special credit with the public for allowing it. I have said that and everything in that speech is based on the statement of defence and the statement of claim that I applied to the High Court to get. What those documents show is precisely what I've ventilated in this Parliament and said outside the Parliament and I'm happy to say so again and I'll say: the Speaker is a bully. I'll say it outside Parliament and if he sues me I will turn up to court and I will defend it. And guess what! I will plead truth and I will prove it over 20 years of this Speaker's behaviour in the Parliament. I believe the charge fits in relation to this case.There are two very simple questions that have not been addressed that we deserve an answer to. The first is: what explains the gap between May and December 2020? Remember he is on the record telling us he knew he was wrong within 24 hours but there was no settlement till December. What explains the gap and what explains what happened in the gap which is legal letters going back and forth and a claim by Mr Mallard that he would plead truth and he would put the plaintiff's reputation on trial at the trial? What explains that? We're yet to hear anything in relation to an answer. And the second question and this is very important: did he follow through on the legal letter and plead truth in a statement of defence to the court and if so why? Here's why that matters. Because if he filed papers with the court saying that he intended to plead truth that is contradictory with what we now know to be the case which is that he told Parliament or the Governance and Administration Committee that he knew within 24 hours he was wrong. Both things can't be true. Either what he told the court is right which is that he was going to plead truth or what he told the select committee is right which is that he knew within 24 hours. Both are appalling. Either he's misled the court or he's misled Parliament neither of which is appropriate for a Speaker. We need an answer to both questions.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. The advice of the briefing of the Minister in late March or early April is consistent with the time line provided to the committee by the chief executive in his letter dated 17 December. Although I do note that he didn't decide to formally reopen the investigation until 13 May. But what we're asked now to believe is that having been briefed on what the Speaker himself describes as a serious sexual assault that he drew no nexus between that information and a subsequent 30-second conversation he'd had with the chief executive. The Francis Review which highlighted this very fact—that it was an entire coincidence that on the day that he was talking about the Francis Review that he was talking about a rapist being in the building and that the threat had been cleared by that afternoon. That he simply didn't know that they were one and the same thing—I'm sorry it frankly fails the sniff test. That is why I lodged a Privileges Committee complaint on 10 March 2021—addressed by the Deputy Speaker because of the obvious conflict of interest—because of what I believe was the clear inconsistency between the information provided on 16 December to the committee and subsequent advice on 10 March from the CEO that said he had indeed briefed the Speaker. Both of those things could not have been true and I believe that gave rise to a question of privilege.I was staggered to note that that was ruled out on a technicality because apparently there was a belief in the Speaker's office that I had gone to the media. That was quite wrong. Newstalk ZB speculated—having heard exactly what I had heard—exactly the same thing. Well I think Mr Soper on Newstalk ZB said I wouldn't be surprised if National were thinking about a Privileges Committee complaint." Apparently that was me talking to the media. So on that technicality a very important question of privilege was ruled out. I find that very very disappointing because the House is none the wiser about this frankly inconceivable sequence of events.I have one more question for the Speaker in relation to apparently these three complaints that we don't know anything about but that I am advised that at least the substantive complaint has been closed by the police. There is no question of charges. The only person talking about serious sexual assault right now under privilege is the Speaker himself. But I would ask this: was one of those investigations as recorded on the file of the individual concerned dating as far back as 2008?"
Mallard TrevorRt Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Speaker): I apologise to the member for not answering his question because it's a—Chris Bishop: You haven't answered anything.Rt Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Sorry?Chris Bishop: You haven't answered any question; you've just defamed us.Rt Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Either the member wants to have a serious discussion about a very serious issue or he just wants to chip. As I indicated in my opinion this is something which is very important.On the question that Mr Woodhouse raised I was briefed in either late March or early April in a very limited way by the chief executive that a female staff member had approached him that there had been an accusation of serious sexual misconduct that it was a matter that had been previously investigated and that he was encouraging the woman to formalise a complaint and he was putting support around the woman and was encouraging her to go to the police. That was the extent of it then. I think it came up on one further occasion in a 30-second conversation where he indicated that she was waiting for the results of the Francis Review before making a decision as to her progress and then on the day following the release of the review he indicated to me that he had suspended the person and as the member is aware that he then instigated the new investigation which went on I think until November and at the conclusion of that investigation—so you know it wasn't on the spot that he was sacked; it was an investigation—Hon Michael Woodhouse: No he was suspended on the spot.Rt Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He was suspended; he was on full pay through until November until the—I think he was still general manager—chief executive was satisfied that he had a proper ground for dismissal and he took that action. Subsequently when he was—you know I want to be a little bit careful because there's still the possibility of—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Too late for that. Rt Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well no it is not too late because there is a question still of details around something which may yet be as the members are aware an Employment Court case. Now I will say that at the moment there is not one that you know there's been nothing that has lodged but the chief executive has made clear to the Governance and Administration Committee based on the information that he has from the second the independent review and the citing of police documents that he is on absolutely solid grounds and he will not make a settlement because he thinks that the message that making a settlement would give would be that it is acceptable to pay money to people who have sexually assaulted their work colleagues. And you know those decisions are not mine; they are his—that's the way that that works. But I say that that is a proper perspective.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to add some further questions for the Minister the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard's consideration and the House's ventilation of the issues in relation to the court case that didn't go to trial but that was a live issue throughout most of 2020. We know that these issues and proceedings we are talking about date to May 2019. Later on that year there was the filing of a statement of claim by the plaintiff to the Speaker the Minister in charge of Parliamentary Service and there was an exchange of letters between counsel for both parties—pre-trial skirmishing I think you would say. I want to ask the Minister in particular why his lawyers told the plaintiff that he would defend the case vigorously and why his lawyers said that his reputation would be at the centrepiece of the trial and I want to know why he did that in the context of what we now know to be true or what we now accept as the truth which is that the Minister knew within 24 hours that what he'd said was wrong. It's worth recalling that's what we were told in the Governance and Administration Committee hearing in relation to the annual review of the Parliamentary Service: that the Speaker who came on his own volition to tell us in response to a question from me knew within 24 hours that he'd made a mistake. So the question that obviously follows from that is if the Speaker knew he'd made a mistake within 24 hours—a number of questions follow from that. Firstly why he didn't apologise straight away and admit that he'd made a mistake—because it's worth recalling this has ended up costing the taxpayer $340000 and rising and we need to know why there wasn't an immediate admission of wrongdoing. Why when the plaintiff wrote to him or his lawyers and said I'd like an apology and a retraction and a commitment to not say it again" that was not met with immediate acceptance. Again bearing in mind he knew immediately or nearly immediately he'd made a mistake why was that not met with acceptance? Why was that rejected? Not only was that rejected the defendant in this case the Minister wrote and said "If the case proceeds I will plead truth" which as any defamation experts watching will know means actually at trial the defendant will lead evidence to prove that what he said—and in relation to this it's about rape—was correct and true. I say again let's bear in mind that the defendant knew within 24 hours. So why then was there an exchange of legal letters in which the defendant intended to prove truth knowing it was wrong? Because that's the point: knowing it was wrong there was an exchange of letters in which the defendant said he would prove truth. Why did he say he would do so vigorously and put the reputation of the plaintiff at trial? This whole issue turns I believe on the timing of the knowledge of wrongdoing by the Speaker. He told us in committee he knew he'd made a mistake within 24 hours and the question for the Minister is why he then did not clean up the matter immediately and instead spent 18 months fighting a legal battle that has ended up costing the taxpayer over $340000—and rising."
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Madam Chair. We had a good hearing of the Parliamentary Service annual review but we canvassed very serious matters to do with the conduct of the Speaker and I want to ask two particular questions at the start of this exchange to the Minister in charge of Parliamentary Service. In relation to the Francis Review and the publicly reported comments that have led to an ex gratia payment to a former employee of the Parliamentary Service when did he find out that what he said was wrong and who told him what he'd said was wrong and why thirdly—to start things off—he then told his lawyers to tell the plaintiff that he intended to plead truth in the defamation claim lodged by the plaintiff?