edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6991. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I say to the member Richard Prosser that that flag is not part of business attire and I will ask the member either to go out into the lobby or to take it off.
Young Jonathan: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6989. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very happy to make a few points here in the second reading of this bill. When I saw the Red Peak flag initially it had no appeal. It probably still does not. It is probably not going to be my choice if it ends up being in the referendum. But I did see an artist’s rendition of it that showed a meeting house in front of a mountain and the mountain looked like Mount Taranaki and the meeting house looked like Te Ikaroa-a-Māui on Manukōrihi Pā in Waitara. So I thought that was quite a stunning depiction of that flag—far far better than what New Zealand First sees in that flag. It talks about part of our heritage that is not reflected in the current flag.When this whole debate started this conversation and prior Prime Ministers talked about a different flag for New Zealand—this is not something new and I would never say of Norman Kirk that it was a vanity project. I think that people see a new flag as something that can bring the people of New Zealand together in a new way. I cannot say that I am dissatisfied with our present flag but what this referendum does for me is it offers an aspirational opportunity for our future together as the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. I think that this process of bringing amendment to this legislation is responding to a large number of people—it sounds like primarily younger people—who are responding and engaging in a process.I think that this process of a referendum is full of promise full of aspiration and full of opportunity for us to have an emblem and an icon that we can all appreciate and in time to come celebrate under. So I am very happy to support this amendment bill. I look forward to the progress of the referendum in the future and I do trust that we will come to a great result for this nation. Thank you.
Lees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6989. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): From the outset this process around changing the flag has been a complete and utter farce. This debate tonight is just another layer of farce added upon layer upon layer upon layer. The reason we are here tonight having this debate is that there was a poll on Sunday night that demonstrated once and for all that the options that had been put in front of people were roundly rejected by the New Zealand public.Hon Trevor Mallard: He should have believed Farrar. He should have believed Farrar when he said it.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: My colleague Trevor Mallard says that the Prime Minister should have believed his pollster David Farrar much earlier rather than waiting until the 3 News poll came out on Sunday night. Still despite that if the Prime Minister realised that he was on the wrong side of public opinion if he was going to continue this poll-driven insanity that has been on the increase over the last few weeks we still did not need this legislation tonight because actually all the previous legislation did was require a referendum with four flag options. So the Prime Minister and the Government could simply have taken out one of the options—we have got three that look almost the same anyway—and replace it with Red Peak.Actually the thing that appals me the most is that tonight we are wasting Parliament’s time on this issue rather than getting on with the large number of substantive bills that are sitting on the Order Paper that could actually progress the economy the society and our nation. This is completely unnecessary. It is a continuation of this ludicrous sideshow that the Prime Minister initiated to divert attention away from the various car wrecks that have become the litany of this Government.I do not intend to waste too much more of Parliament’s time on this. I simply want to be on record as saying that this is a continuation of the utter farce that this flag-change process has become. It is a waste of the Government’s time. It is a sideshow from the real issues that that Government and this Parliament should be addressing. I think we are much better than this and the politics should have been taken out of it. The Government could have dealt with this in any number of ways but instead it chose the most political route and it chose the route that would divert attention away from its various failures.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6989. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Iain Lees-Galloway—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6988. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.
Borrows Chester: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6986. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think—[Interruption] I do not need any assistance in respect of this. I think that the context in which the member very carefully used that symbol and the fact that it was acknowledged that the Red Peak flag had been altered by somebody else and he had downloaded it from the media he has danced sufficiently on the head of a pin to get away with it this time. But he should be careful because he knows what is at the other end of the pin from the head.
Hughes Gareth: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6986. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek a ruling from you. It would be unparliamentary I believe and out of order in this House to raise Nazi slogans and I wondered whether it is appropriate and parliamentary to bring in Nazi symbols as part of a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
Dean Jacqui: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6978. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): You have got to feel a little bit sorry for Labour do you not? There it is each time one of them has to get up—they have to; they do not want to—to make a 10-minute speech on this bill all they have is to fight old battles. It is a bit like every day as usual in the House with Labour. All it has to resort to is the old battles that it has already lost time and time and time again. And here we are yet again in the House with Labour yet again fighting a battle it lost and yet it cannot let it go. Why can it not let it go? Because it has not got anything else. So we will get more speeches in this debate tonight and we will get more speeches tomorrow morning if that is where we go with this bill and Labour has only the one point to make. The one point Labour wants to make is that gee shucks it did not get its own way and now it is really really sore about it.Well here is the news for Labour: we have moved on and in step so has the marvellous Green Party which has played this issue with an absolutely straight bat. In the Justice and Electoral Committee when we first put the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill through the select committee the Greens played an absolutely straight game with us unlike Labour which did everything it could to stall and to muddy the waters and it never quite knew where it stood. It was consistent on one point it lost that point and it will not let it go but we have moved on. New Zealand has moved on and Parliament has moved on and now Labour is in an invidious position.It must have been wonderful in those members’ caucus room this afternoon: “What do we do? What do we do? We opposed the bill but no no hang on. We opposed the bill but we’re supporting the Red Peak. So we’re opposing the bill but we’re supporting the Red Peak”. They must have said: “Hang on we campaigned on having a referendum. What do we do now?” “I know we’ll support the bill.” and “We can’t support the bill; we opposed the bill.” Who would know where Labour was on this because quite frankly it does not know?Meanwhile back in the real world this Government and the Green Party are listening to the folk out there who have a view. And guess what? This piece of legislation allows the people of New Zealand to have a say on what flag they choose to have as their new flag or not. The public of New Zealand will get a yes/no choice they will do it at the second referendum and good on them. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6968. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Annette King—5 minutes.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6967. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.
Doocey Matt: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDoocey Matt: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6967. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is interesting that this is marking 1 year since the recent election—1 year since the people have spoken and this House listened. The people have spoken that they wanted five alternatives and not four very similar to 1 year ago when the people spoke and said they wanted this National Government. The reason they wanted this National Government is that this National Government listens to the people and this bill this New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill is an example of this Government listening to the people. It is an example of this Government working collaboratively with other parties and I commend Gareth Hughes for putting this bill forward.This bill shows that we will put politics aside to listen to what the people want and that is exactly what we have done. When you talk about this process—this logical process—it makes sense to first identify the alternative flag and that is exactly the process this will take. We will identify the alternative flag—now we have five alternatives; I must say there will be many Cantabrians excited that they will have an option that is now red and black—and from the alternatives selected we can go to the next referendum and put it up head-to-head against our current flag.What this bill does is it gives the people of New Zealand choice. This is about democracy. This is a once-in-a-generation once-in-a-lifetime chance for the people of New Zealand to choose. When I go out into my electorate of Waimakariri and I listen to my constituents there are people saying yes and there are people saying no and that is fantastic because what this will give them is an opportunity to get out there and vote and choose what flag best represents New Zealand.That is why it is fantastic to see this Government working with the Green Party—the start of a blue-green movement—to think about how we can better listen to the people of New Zealand. [Interruption] You would think that that party opposite would have listened last time when it had its second-worst electoral loss because the people did not think it had listened to them and that is why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Young Jonathan: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6964. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Can I say that listening to Gareth Hughes’ speech actually underlined some very important components of what this referendum is about. Gareth Hughes started by saying that the flag that appealed to him most of all was the “Laser Kiwi”. I can appreciate Mr Hughes liking that flag but as he thought about it and progressed or engaged in the process he said that the flag that he now supports—evident by the motion that he brought to the House today—is Red Peak.I believe that what is important in this referendum process is exactly what Gareth has shown: that there is an engagement process of New Zealanders being invited to think to engage to discuss to debate to disagree and then to choose. The reason why I did not and do not today support the yes/no vote proposal is simply because it is the process of least engagement—it is the least engagement.A yes/no vote is “Do you want to change the flag without ever considering what the opportunities or possibilities are and going through the process?”—because that is what is being purported. I think that having a choice means a choice between alternatives and the referendum process promotes alternatives for people to consider. So many people whom I talk to say: “It will depend on what the alternative is whether I am going to choose between the present New Zealand flag or a future New Zealand flag.” I think that is important.I also believe that this is a chance where New Zealanders can engage in this process and not just looking at an emblem of the past but consider what sort of emblem and what icons bring us together as a modern New Zealand that represents nationalities ethnicities and age ranges right through this country which is considerably different from what it was 10 years ago. This is a very exciting proposal.You know we have been attacked left and right for having a public process that costs money. The public of New Zealand may not know that it costs $1472 per minute to run this Parliament and that is $2 million a day. Democracy is expensive but what we value are the thoughts the ideas the imagination the goodwill and the engagement of New Zealanders right through this country about this process—the young and old.Is it not amazing that schools are engaged in this process? We know that the schoolchildren do not have a chance to vote but they do have a chance to influence their parents. So I think that that is a great thing.Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I think that what we are doing right now is that we are increasing engagement and I think in a democracy in a free country where we value everybody’s ideas that is a good thing.
Brownlee Gerry: UrgencyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Urgency[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6955. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded to the introduction and passing through all stages of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. No doubt people will be aware that there was a move this afternoon by the Green Party to seek provision for this bill to be introduced and passed through all stages immediately upon the end of the general debate. That leave was denied by the House. For those who are not familiar with the process any member of this House can deny a motion for leave for a particular parliamentary process.I think the merits of this bill and the proposal are found in the fact that so many people have expressed the view that this particular alternative to the New Zealand flag should be included on the sheet for consideration at the first referendum and then perhaps at a subsequent referendum. Therefore the Government has decided to take the opportunity for the bill to be put through the House in time for the Red Peak flag to appear on the ballot paper. It would be appropriate to take urgency and see the bill go through all of its stages today so that there can be a clear instruction to those conducting the referendum.Urgency is something that this Government has not used a lot of in the past few years but it is I think appropriate in this case because there has been such a large statement by the public and also there is a considerable desire within the House to see this particular provision effected. Those are the reasons for us moving the urgency motion this afternoon.
Brownlee Gerry: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6954. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That the Chairperson report progress.
Williamson Maurice: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliamson Maurice: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6954. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I have to say that that speech by Clayton Mitchell was a breach of the two wonderful old adages—first that if you do not have anything to say you best not say anything and second that a good speech is a short one. So I am going to say that I think the Government has done a bloody good job with the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill and I support it fully. Thank you.
Scott Alastair: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6950. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): They say: “Please explain—please explain how the levies are calculated.” Are they too high? Are they too low? There are rorts apparently.This bill cuts through all of that debate. It closes down the debate it closes down the arguments and it closes down the accusations. This bill is about financial responsibility and transparency increasing the transparency so there is no need to have speculation and accusation. This bill has three principles that must be followed and of course the reporting that must take place outlines quite clearly to the public the assumptions and the projections increasing the accountability and understanding of the levy calculation for the benefit of all New Zealanders. So I commend this bill to the House.
Young Jonathan: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6948. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): We would expect nothing less from you Mr Assistant Speaker. I have to say that the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill is the best thing to happen to ACC since we took over ACC from the previous Government.What this bill does is it gives certainty to New Zealanders that there is a system of support for those who suffer accidents that is sustainable and going to be there for generations to come and when we became the Government you could not have said that. We have seen some robust debate around this but what we are pleased to see and say is that the strength of ACC through this legislation and the responsiveness that this legislation enables in terms of levy setting in a transparent and a clear way is going to bring such strength and solidarity. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.
Mallard Trevor: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6948. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I do call the next member I think the Minister in charge of the bill Nikki Kaye was sort of slightly outside of the scope of the bill for a reasonable part of her speech; the member who followed was worse still. What I am going to rule now is that we are going to come back and we are going to talk about the bill that is before the House not a history of the royal commission and everything that followed it.
Bindra Mahesh: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBindra Mahesh: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6930. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police)on behalf of theMinister of Corrections: Yes in the context in which they were given.Mahesh Bindra: Does he stand by his statement that “staffing levels are adequate” in the units at the Serco-run Auckland South Corrections Facility given that only two staff monitor 240 prisoners?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well yes although I note that the issue of staffing levels is one factor in the review of Serco’s performance and the Minister’s continued statements about that will be a function of the findings of that review.Mahesh Bindra: Is he confident in Serco’s “dynamic rostering system” at Auckland South Corrections Facility given that an unescorted prisoner was assaulted by a mainstream prisoner who took advantage of the shortage of staff?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am very confident that Serco understands what is required to deliver good service at Wiri Prison. I note that it has only just got off the ground. So far things are going very well. There are excellent rehabilitation and reform programmes in place and I think that that member should support them as they go on that journey.Mahesh Bindra: Is he confident in the ability of Serco to keep staff safe at Auckland South Corrections Facility when a staff member was sufficiently injured in a prison assault to be on ACC went back to work and is now on ACC again?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am sure the member will agree that prisons can be dangerous places and from time to time there will be incidents involving injuries to either staff or prisoners. I further note that the number of incidents in the past 12 months is lower than in the last year of the previous Labour Government supported by New Zealand First.Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that Labour raised low staff-to-prisoner ratios at Serco prisons as being a problem with staff walking off the job in October 2013 only to have those concerns dismissed by that Government?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No I cannot but I can confirm that this Government has done a significant amount to improve the quality of the rehabilitation outcomes for employment for drug and alcohol and for literacy and numeracy and that there has been a reduction in the number of incidents in the past year compared with when that member’s Government was in office.
Doocey Matt: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDoocey Matt: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6930. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the Government made on delivering the Urban Cycleways Programme in Canterbury?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): It was a real pleasure recently to open in Christchurch the very first of the Government’s urban cycleways in the South Island. The new Mataī Street East section of Christchurch’s Uni-Cycle route and the Rolleston to Lincoln cycleway are now open for use. Last week the first stage of the Papanui Parallel cycleway was opened to the public. These new cycleways in Christchurch and Selwyn will make cycling a safer more attractive transport choice for thousands of people cycling to school to uni and into the central business district.Matt Doocey: What other cycleways are planned for Canterbury as part of the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Cantabrians are showing a real commitment to getting on their bikes. The Government is responding by accelerating a further nine cycleways in Canterbury worth $66 million as part of our Urban Cycleways Programme. Seven cycleways are set to be rolled out across Christchurch City while two cycleways will be built linking Kaiapoi Rangiora and Woodend. The innovative cycleway designs will provide safer cycling routes assisting with the recovery of the city and encouraging more active travel as I say to work to schools and to recreation.Matt Doocey: How does the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme benefit communities?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Government’s $333 million Urban Cycleways Programme is the single biggest investment in cycling in New Zealand’s history and it will change the face of cycling in New Zealand. The programme’s goal is to make cycling a safer and more attractive transport choice. That is because cycling contributes to healthier communities and safe and attractive cycling infrastructure can encourage people in urban areas to change their travel patterns. These benefits are why the Government committed to the Urban Cycleways Programme and I look forward to seeing more Kiwis enjoying the benefits of the 54 cycleways as they are completed all around the country over the next 3 years.
Reti Shane: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeReti Shane: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6928. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made to improve teachers’ learning and development so that it lifts student achievement?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Today I was delighted to announce substantial changes to the provision of professional learning and development to support teachers to do an even better job for students. There has been dissatisfaction with professional learning and development across the sector confirmed by my professional learning and development advisory group through its consultation and reporting in 2014. I have listened to those concerns because I want students in every school and kura to have leaders and teachers who are actively engaged in professional development that supports and challenges them to be the best that they can be and to accelerate their students’ learning.Dr Shane Reti: How will these changes lift student achievement?Hon HEKIA PARATA: There is clear evidence that links effective professional learning and development to improved student outcomes. It is also essential that professional learning and development is delivered in a way that incentivises schools to collaborate and is targeted at schools that need the greatest help to lift student achievement. Over the next 3 years professional learning and development will be focused on a small number of national priorities in the areas of mathematics science reading and writing and digital fluency and a pilot in health and physical education. These priorities are based on student data of where the biggest challenges are rather than on opinion. Priority will be given to schools as they grow into communities of learning because they are already working together on achievement challenges. Schools in areas with persistent underachievement—for example in Northland—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the answer to a conclusion.Hon HEKIA PARATA: —and Gisborne and on the East Coast—will also be prioritised.
Graham Kennedy: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6926. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I do. I stand by our 30 percent emissions reduction target I stand by our commitment to 90 percent renewable energy by 2025 I stand by the hundreds of millions of dollars we have committed to climate change research and afforestation and I stand by our health policy of treating Ebola virus victims with modern medicine rather than homeopathic remedies.Dr Kennedy Graham: And will he also rule out direct military engagement by New Zealand in Syria or will he be signing us up to another conflict when he goes to New York next week?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government has got no intention of expanding its current mandate outside of Iraq.Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Prime Minister believe that the justification of collective self-defence is viable in Iraq Syria and Yemen given the complex and varied situation in all of these three countries?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member said it is a very complex situation.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the United Nations Security Council has not authorised armed force in Syria will any use of such force there amount to aggression which is prohibited in the United Nations Charter?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is asking me a hypothetical question on behalf of some nations that I cannot answer.Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not a hypothetical question. Armed forces are being used in Syria.Mr SPEAKER: No to give the benefit of the doubt I am going to invite that member to repeat the question so it is then over to the Prime Minister as to how he chooses to answer it.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the United Nations Security Council has not authorised armed force in Syria will any use of such force there amount to aggression which is prohibited in the United Nations Charter?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think so. If the member is referring to the air strikes that are being undertaken by the United States and others to degrade the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) I think that that is fundamentally the right thing to do—ISIL is the reason why millions of people are leaving Syria. They are people who want to return and they can do so only when ISIL is not in the position to persecute them.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that this House resolved over a year ago that New Zealand should quickly ratify the Kampala amendment which will make aggression a leadership crime why has his Government not done this yet?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member would need to put that question down for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Tabuteau Fletcher: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6924. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence): I have been in this House since 1996 and a Minister since 2008. There have been significant Government decisions during that period of time and there have also been societal changes. I am not prepared to say anything other than that I may well have changed my view on some positions that I thought were perfectly relevant at the time.Fletcher Tabuteau: Does he stand by his statement in April that he did not favour one company over another in procuring replacements for the air force fleet of C-130 Hercules; if so will he confirm that he did not favour one bid over any others in the sale of 10 Iroquois helicopters?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Those are matters that are handled by the Ministry of Defence. They are quite remote from a Minister and there is no opportunity for a Minister to favour one company or another. So my answer would be no.Fletcher Tabuteau: Were the Kiwi bids summarily rejected because of a Government blunder a miscarriage of the tender process or a political promise to the US?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think that had the question been asked by New Zealand First’s defence spokesman that person would know that a number of disposals of defence equipment even years after they have been purchased still do require sign-off from the original seller. So that process would most certainly have been entered into and does have an effect on whom you can accept a tender bid from.Fletcher Tabuteau: Is he aware that one regional New Zealand - owned and operated company lost the opportunity to create more than a dozen jobs when its bid of nearly $5 million - plus was apparently not even considered?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I said at the start Ministers do not engage on a day-to-day basis with the tender process. If I did that member’s party’s defence spokesman would be the first person to come here and say that I was meddling where I should not be. So the answer is no.Fletcher Tabuteau: The tender process asks for evidence of best value for New Zealand so how does selling the Iroquois offshore add value to New Zealand considering that a regional New Zealand business bid would have directly added value to our regional economy?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That sort of question which was I suppose built around a statement that is largely formulated by New Zealand First’s regional development policy which is all about creating something out of nothing and then expect nothing in return—I cannot answer that question because it never ever happened. But what I would suggest is that that member goes to the New Zealand First defence spokesperson and suggests that it may be an interesting topic to put on the agenda at the next meeting of the former motor pool attendants army association.
Shaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6920. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that his Government has achieved “a lift in the average wage of more than $10000 a year”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. In fact New Zealand businesses and employers have achieved that. According to a Statistics New Zealand quarterly employment survey the average wage was $46578 when we came into office in 2008. The latest official figures for the June quarter 2015 show that the average wage is now $57058. That is an increase of more than $10000 over 22 percent.James Shaw: Does he understand that using the average income increase masks the fact that higher incomes have risen so disproportionately to lower incomes?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: By definition averages have to account for all of the incomes across the spectrum and then they get divided by the number of people in the labour market.James Shaw: Does he see that this growing inequality is a problem worth addressing given that since he came to power the income increase for the top 10 percent has been nearly four times greater than what it has been for the bottom 10 percent?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member goes and has a look at the Bryan Perry studies he will see that there have been various different movements in terms of income inequality—for a start off it moves around by investment income. But I would say that the Government is addressing the least well-off in society. We are the first Government in 43 years to raise benefits and on average we spend $7.8 billion each year on income support for low-income families.James Shaw: Given that the report by Bryan Perry which the Prime Minister has described as “the definitive study in this area” shows that the lower third of incomes were flat does he still believe that the economy is working for all New Zealanders?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In my opinion yes because one of the things the economy is doing is generating new jobs—199000 new jobs since 2011—and the fastest way to take people out of poverty and help low-income people is through employment.James Shaw: Just so we understand given that a third of New Zealanders have seen no gain in their incomes in real terms in the last 3 years—the period after we started recovering from the global financial crisis—does he still believe that the economy is on the right track for everyone?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do.James Shaw: Does he keep using the average income statistics to justify a series of policies that overlook the reality for a third of New Zealanders?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I just use them because they are the statistics provided by Statistics New Zealand and because it was the primary question that the member asked me.
Carter David: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth Hughes Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information ProvidedText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth Hughes Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information Provided[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I will look further into the matter and come back either directly to the member or to the House itself.
Robertson Grant: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth Hughes Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information ProvidedText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth Hughes Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information Provided[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on a ruling that you made on 10 September that in answering written questions members should either provide a sufficiently detailed answer to enable the member to directly locate the information or provide it in the reply to the written question. Following your ruling questions were lodged with the Minister of Education who was in fact the cause of the ruling in the first place to enable her to answer fully questions that had not already been answered. These questions have not been answered within the 6-day time frame that Standing Order 382(4) requires and the Minister’s office has not responded to emails asking when those answers could be expected. I would not normally raise this in the House but because it is in direct response to your ruling I would ask for your support in getting answers to those questions.
Carter David: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth Hughes Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information ProvidedText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth Hughes Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information Provided[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hughes Gareth: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth Hughes Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information ProvidedText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth Hughes Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information Provided[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name to increase the number of flag options in the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act 2015 from four to five and for the bill to be set down for its first reading before Government Order of the Day No. 1. Also I seek leave for the bill to progress through all stages today including the time provided for the extended sitting on Thursday 24 September and for the bill to be progressed before business set down for the extended sitting.
Carter David: Visitors — Australia—Delegation ParliamentText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Visitors — Australia—Delegation Parliament[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome a delegation representing the Parliament of Australia led by Dr Andrew Southcott MP Chairperson of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit which is present in the gallery.
UrgencyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUrgency[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6955. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]UrgencyHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded to the introduction and passing through all stages of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. No doubt people will be aware that there was a move this afternoon by the Green Party to seek provision for this bill to be introduced and passed through all stages immediately upon the end of the general debate. That leave was denied by the House. For those who are not familiar with the process any member of this House can deny a motion for leave for a particular parliamentary process.I think the merits of this bill and the proposal are found in the fact that so many people have expressed the view that this particular alternative to the New Zealand flag should be included on the sheet for consideration at the first referendum and then perhaps at a subsequent referendum. Therefore the Government has decided to take the opportunity for the bill to be put through the House in time for the Red Peak flag to appear on the ballot paper. It would be appropriate to take urgency and see the bill go through all of its stages today so that there can be a clear instruction to those conducting the referendum.Urgency is something that this Government has not used a lot of in the past few years but it is I think appropriate in this case because there has been such a large statement by the public and also there is a considerable desire within the House to see this particular provision effected. Those are the reasons for us moving the urgency motion this afternoon.A party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.
Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6954. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3)In CommitteeDebate resumed from 9 September.Clauses 1 to 3Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That the Chairperson report progress.A party vote was called for on the question That the Committee report progress.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) and no progress on the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill and the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill.Report adopted.
Points of Order — Leave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth Hughes Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information ProvidedText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Leave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth Hughes Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information Provided[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderLeave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth HughesGARETH HUGHES (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name to increase the number of flag options in the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act 2015 from four to five and for the bill to be set down for its first reading before Government Order of the Day No. 1. Also I seek leave for the bill to progress through all stages today including the time provided for the extended sitting on Thursday 24 September and for the bill to be progressed before business set down for the extended sitting.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information ProvidedGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on a ruling that you made on 10 September that in answering written questions members should either provide a sufficiently detailed answer to enable the member to directly locate the information or provide it in the reply to the written question. Following your ruling questions were lodged with the Minister of Education who was in fact the cause of the ruling in the first place to enable her to answer fully questions that had not already been answered. These questions have not been answered within the 6-day time frame that Standing Order 382(4) requires and the Minister’s office has not responded to emails asking when those answers could be expected. I would not normally raise this in the House but because it is in direct response to your ruling I would ask for your support in getting answers to those questions.Mr SPEAKER: I will look further into the matter and come back either directly to the member or to the House itself.