edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2 (continued)
Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 434 in the name of Simeon Brown to Schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 437 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 440 in the name of Todd Muller to Schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 442 in the name of Ian McKelvie to clause 27(3) of new Part 9 of Schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 428 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 1 and the following amendment in his name to new clause 48 be agreed to:in Schedule 1 new clause 48 replace 4 June 2020" with "6 July 2020".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 428 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 429 in the name of Jonathan Young to clause 49 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 430 in the name of Chris Bishop to clause 49 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 431 in the name of Nicola Willis to clause 49 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
12. Question No. 12—CustomsGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of CustomsQuestion No. 12—Customs12. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Customs: What recent announcements has she made about Customs keeping our communities safe?Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister of Customs): I'm proud to report that thanks to the tireless efforts of the New Zealand Customs Service and our coalition Government's decision to invest in a stronger smarter border this has led to a record three tonnes of illegal drugs stopped at the border in 2019 before they could hit our streets. Early numbers show that Customs made over 2600 separate drug seizures of class A B and C drugs. This includes 1180 kilograms of methamphetamine 329 kilograms of meth precursors and 739 kilograms of methylene dioxy-methyl amphetamine (MDMA) or ecstasy. This Government made the right call to invest to protect our border and the result is much fewer illegal drugs coming through.Ginny Andersen: What investments have been made by the Government to help bust drugs?Hon JENNY SALESA: This Government invested an extra $58 million in Customs to fight meth and the criminal syndicates who attempt to push these drugs on New Zealanders. This record haul with Customs stopping three tonnes of illegal drugs shows that our decision to invest has definitely paid off. Our Government's record investment enabled Customs to purchase new X-ray surveillance equipment recruit new additional Customs agents and upgrade our international intelligence network. In addition Customs has also been working smarter through offshore collaboration with law enforcement agencies overseas to stop the drug traffickers' products before they even leave the overseas ports and airports.Ginny Andersen: What does this mean for our communities?Hon JENNY SALESA: These drug busts represent over $3 billion worth in social harm according to the Drug Harm Index by the Ministry of Health that was stopped from hitting our streets. However we know that busting the supply of drugs is just one part of this work. We are also investing in reducing the demand for illegal substances. Our Government is putting more resources into addiction into detoxification and into residential care services for New Zealanders who are struggling with drug and alcohol issues.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister what was wrong with the policy of allowing a tonne of drugs to land at Ninety Mile Beach which is a policy that she inherited—what was wrong with that policy?Hon JENNY SALESA: Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: Order! I think suggesting that it was a policy is stretching it a bit. That question is ruled out. ARMS (FIREARMS PROHIBITION ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)First Reading—Leave DeclinedBRETT HUDSON (National): I seek leave for the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) in my name to be set down for first reading forthwith.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is.
10. Question No. 10—EducationDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 10—Education10. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and actions around the reform of vocational education?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes in the context in which they were made.Dr Shane Reti: How many people not taken up by the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST) will be made redundant as he stated in the House on 29 August last year?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: None because if the member reads the bill he'll find that for all of those currently employed by one of the existing polytechs or institutes of technology their employment automatically continues to the subsidiary that will replace them.Dr Shane Reti: Is that also the case where the subsidiaries then become the NZIST?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The subsidiaries will become part of the NZIST on 1 April if the Parliament decides to pass that legislation which I am confident that it will.Dr Shane Reti: What were the concerns raised by the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) when they first advised him not to proceed with the reforms as they stated to the select committee last week?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have never been advised by the TEC not to proceed with the reforms.Jan Tinetti: What progress has been made with the Reform of Vocational Education or RoVE over the six months since his announcement on 1 August?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A lot of progress has been made. Preparations are now well under way for the 16 existing Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITPs) to become subsidiaries of the new New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology on 1 April. Work is well under way on the establishment of Workforce Development Councils that will give industry a much greater voice and a much greater say over the training that is provided in their areas. The early steps of establishing the first two Centres of Vocational Excellence have already been taken and there is a high degree of interest in that and of course the Government is complementing all of that with a significant programme of work to encourage young New Zealanders to consider entering into trades and vocational education.Dr Shane Reti: Did the Tertiary Education Commission initially not advise him against the reforms as they presented to select committee last week?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The officials who prepared the initial advice on the reforms of vocational education and training—as it was back then known I think it was called the ITP Roadmap—presented a set of proposals that the Government did not agree with and we then worked with them to develop an alternative set of proposals which is what have been passing their way through the House over the last six months.
9. Question No. 9—RevenueDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of RevenueQuestion No. 9—Revenue9. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Revenue: What is the marginal tax rate for someone on the median wage?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): The marginal tax rate for someone on the median wage in 2019 was 30 percent. However this does not mean they paid 30 percent of their total income in tax. New Zealand has a progressive tax scale; so the average tax rate paid on the median annual wage in 2019 was 16.79 percent. Someone on the average wage of $65000 pays an average rate of 19 percent. It is certainly not 33 cents in the dollar and if members on the other side of the House would like a link to the IRD tax calculator I'm happy to send it to them.Hon Chris Hipkins: Buy that man an abacus.SPEAKER: Order! I think it was Mr Hipkins on this occasion—or maybe I should blame Mr Lees-Galloway.Dr Deborah Russell: What would be the effect on tax paid by a median income earner if they split their income into eight equal parts and funnelled it through the IRD that way?Hon STUART NASH: Well first of all I'm sure the IRD would be alert to that and if any irregularities were involved they would take further steps. Thankfully very few New Zealanders contemplate let alone try to rip off the tax system.Dr Deborah Russell: What amount would a person need to be earning to be taxed at almost 33 percent in the dollar?Hon STUART NASH: A person would need to be paid a salary of over $3 million to be taxed at nearly 33 percent in the dollar. Therefore reports I've seen that claim the average earner would be taxed at almost 33 percent in the dollar are clearly wrong and overhyped by a few million dollars. It's a—SPEAKER: No no the member has answered the question.Andrew Bayly: Thank you Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe that the thresholds at which higher rates of tax are paid are fair for middle-income tax earners and if so why?Hon STUART NASH: I believe the Minister of Finance has answered this question about five questions ago.Andrew Bayly: Does the Minister believe that middle-income earners are paying too much or too little tax and if so why?Hon STUART NASH: Well they're paying a lot less than Mr Bridges said they were.
7. Question No. 7—HealthHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement in respect of the COVID-19 outbreak At every point we have made sure that our decisions have been informed by science"?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes. The New Zealand Government has taken a precautionary approach based on expert scientific and medical advice. So far we have not had a confirmed case of COVID-19.Hon Michael Woodhouse: What changes to advice and processes have been made in the wake of scientific evidence that the incubation period of COVID-19 is up to 24 days not 14 days?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The scientific advice changes as the facts change. The evidence currently suggests that the incubation period is less than that. However I am aware that there are reports suggesting some more. We take the advice of the health officials from the scientists with the most up-to-date science and make our decisions accordingly.Hon Michael Woodhouse: What support if any has the Government provided to individuals wanting to self-isolate but having difficulty doing so due to their being in dwellings with several other individuals?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The steps that the New Zealand Government has taken in setting up a Healthline response as best I'm aware are unprecedented in other countries. We have gone much further than other countries. Certainly I'm not aware of other countries taking the extensive steps that we're taking to contact people who are in the self-isolation situation. So I do acknowledge the member bringing that up. It's good to acknowledge that in New Zealand we are taking perhaps a more cautious approach than other countries but that support for people is through telephone conversations predominantly where we have Mandarin speakers as well as English speakers available to answer any questions for people about the challenges they may face in self-isolation and to provide any necessary support.Hon Michael Woodhouse: So what is his estimate of the number of people who have come back from China and not contacted Healthline and is it possible that these people could not be following self-isolation advice?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Self-isolation is a very effective public health measure and that's why we have adopted it here as other countries have. We have already had over 4000 contacts at Healthline and beyond that we know there are likely to be around a couple of thousand more that have come into the country. I'm awaiting updated numbers currently.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe that the need for individuals to sleep in cars as a form of self-isolation is acceptable and informed by science?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is not my expectation. My expectation is that anybody with any challenges should be ringing Healthline and seeking help in their situation."
6. Question No. 6—TransportJAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 6—Transport6. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about State highway projects?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): As part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme we've announced a fully funded programme of State highway projects—more than $5 billion worth—to help futureproof the economy get our cities moving and make our roads safer. These include the four-laning of the Tauranga Northern Link and Te Puna to Ōmokoroa on State Highway 2 which will improve safety on a dangerous stretch of highway where under the former Government suburban development was allowed to take place without the necessary roading upgrades. It also includes the Melling interchange which will reduce the risk of flooding and help ease congestion at peak times and upgrading State Highway 1 from Whangārei to Port Marsden to four lanes which will improve safety and freight connectivity in the north.Jamie Strange: What State highway projects are there in Auckland as part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I'm glad the member asked that. Not only are we widening State Highway 1 from Papakura to Drury to help make commutes quicker we're also making Penlink and Mill Road State highways so we can speed up their implementation. Upgrading Mill Road to four lanes and connecting Manukau to Drury will not only ease traffic on State Highway 1 but connect fast-growing and job-rich parts of Auckland. Penlink of course will open up growth north of Auckland and connect Whangaparāoa residents to the very successful Northern Busway.Jamie Strange: Will these projects simply be extra lanes of motorway?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No. Our Government knows we must look to the future as we design this very important infrastructure. These projects have been futureproofed to include provision for public transport for freight and for high-occupancy vehicles and of course each of them will have separated walking and cycling pathways to give people real transport choices because we are the Government of infrastructure and the Government of the future.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements and policies?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context in which they were given—in particular my statement that the economic speech given yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition was over-hyped under-delivered relentlessly negative and full of tired ideas.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think Kiwis on the average wage pay too much tax?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think that when you look at the global situation New Zealanders pay tax at a much lower level than most other countries.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think Kiwis on the average wage pay too much tax?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand has the second-lowest tax on labour income in the OECD for the average single worker with no children and for a one-earner married couple with two children New Zealand has the lowest tax on labour income in the OECD.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why has his Government not offered a single cent in tax relief for Kiwis who work?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The tax rates that we inherited—if we're talking about income tax here—have enabled us to be able to rectify some of the problems that we were left with: our run-down hospitals our run-down schools the need to rebuild our police force. All of these things take time to do. We're making good progress on them but the amount of money that's required to do that is the amount of money that we're getting in. We continue to try and build on our programmes of the last two years.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept many New Zealanders are struggling with the cost of living?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I accept that it has been since time immemorial an issue that the costs of living go up. As I said in the answer to question No. 1 the very best way to deal with that is to see wages lift. That's how we'll make New Zealanders more wealthy and we're making good progress on that with average earnings going up by 3.6 percent in the last year.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So when he increased core Crown spending by $6.5 billion last year did he give any consideration to putting some of that money back in the hands of taxpayers?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would have loved to have done that but the problem was we had hospitals that had been run down $2 billion not put into the health system that needed to be kids being taught in school halls and libraries instead of classrooms not enough teachers not enough police officers. So that additional spending is required to rebuild the public services that New Zealanders deserve.Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm reports from Statistics New Zealand today on the household income survey which shows that the median household equivalised disposable income has risen 10 percent in recent times under this Government?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that that is the Statistics New Zealand release today. I can also confirm that the average household equivalised disposable income rose 4.9 percent just in 2019 alone.
Electoral Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Smith Nick; Rurawhe AdrianHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chairman. Firstly can I congratulate the Minister on the small piece of regulatory reduction that has occurred by removing reference to both form 20 and form 21. The only thing I would note is it is a small step forward for the overwhelming—one small step for man when at a time the Government is passing so much extra regulation. But it is a good step and I want to acknowledge that.The bit where I am wanting the Minister to make a further contribution is around clause 19 and this ongoing debate that we're having around the issues of writ day and its extension by a further 10 days. That is part of clause 19 in regulation 12. That is the rationale for New Zealanders having to wait a further 10 days under that regulation for the Electoral Commission to conclude the election cycle. I think most New Zealanders out there find the uncertainty that already exists between the results on election night and the time it takes to get the writs—and of course you've then got the significant period of time. In the first-past-the-post days we generally got a pretty clean election result and from writ day the Government could get on with business.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member but it has come time for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill with amendment and progress on the Electoral Amendment Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'll just take this opportunity to respond as briefly as I can to the very good points raised by the Hon Tim Macindoe and Chris Penk. Just on the last point to Mr Penk there is a difference between something that is not allowed and the act of disallowing it. One I think requires the application of intellectual or physical force the other is a state of being.In relation to clause 19 of the bill that I think Mr Macindoe raised which is about the Electoral Commission sending to the returning officer basically the up-to-date list of people who enrolled on election day. There is an existing provision that that provision emulates but obviously it aligns with the fact that the enrolment now goes right down to the end of polling day. It is obviously to ensure that the returning officer has an accurate roll against which to count the votes. So it's an existing provision amended just to accommodate the election day enrolment.Then in relation to clause 24 and the provisions for members of the Defence Force—there is also an existing provision and the only material change to the provision in the bill is the removal of a reference to form 20. It looks different because the previous regulation was drafted some time ago in the days when the Parliamentary Counsel Office did seem to be interested in the number of words being used. It seems to be less of an issue these days. So a lot more words are used to achieve exactly the same thing apart from the deletion of form 20 but that is what that provision amounts to. I hope I have answered the members' questions.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Mr Chair. As anticipated by my colleague the Hon Tim Macindoe I would indeed like to take a call just to comment briefly on the members of the Defence Force regulation within the electoral regulations as amended by Part 2 of this bill.There's a particularly corny line in some kind of military film—I think it was actually on a submarine—and it was to the effect and I'll excuse myself from the American accent: We're here to defend democracy not to practise it." But in fact as has already been alluded to by the Chair I think it was—the fact that our Defence Force people are indeed defending the values of democracy isn't a good reason for them not to have the opportunity to practise it. In 2007 I was a member of the Australian Defence Force and had the opportunity to cast a vote in that election. I was overseas even from the point of view of Australia—I think in the Middle East—and I would just like to place on record that notwithstanding the laws of that country that require voting I did not avail myself of the opportunity to vote. I may have broken the law but at least I cannot be blamed for the rise and then the fall and then the rise and then the fall of Kevin Rudd. I'm just interested in the fact that there's a witness needed to sign a declaration. I suppose it's inevitable that Defence Force personnel even on deployment will have the opportunity to have a witness available to sign and verify the declaration that they have made under regulation 52 of the Electoral Regulations 1996. On Navy ships this might be in what's called the ship's office where a new sailor would be encouraged to go and ask for a "thick regulator" which sounds like a bit of engineering kit but actually it's a rude way of describing one of the naval policemen or police persons. A regulator being sort of the shorthand for that in the way of being asked for a can of striped paint or a left-handed hammer and so on.Anyway a member of the Defence Force I presume civilian or uniform alike is captured by the regulations. So it seems sensible for the reasons that others have stated that we provide in these consequential amendments for the regulation to be amended in this way even though actually I do share the point—I can't elucidate the matter that Mr Macindoe has raised in relation to that so the Minister might have to spare both of our blushes.My final note is just the circular nature which amused me—nothing wrong with it. Replacement regulation 52(2) set out in clause 24 states that "If a special vote cast by a member of the Defence Force is not allowed … the Returning Officer must disallow [it]." I suppose you can't really say much other than the fact that if it's not allowed it must be disallowed. Fair enough I guess. So I'll leave it there for tonight. Thank you Mr Chair. To the Minister and anyone else able to provide further comments on that all the best."
Little AndrewPart 2 Related amendments and repealsHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chairman. I'll just speak very briefly on this part of the bill and this includes a number of consequential amendments just to make sense of the rest and tidy up the relevant regulations. I note in particular in clause 19 the change to regulation 12 of the Electoral Regulations. That again is consistent with the newly acquired right of those who wish to cast a vote but who are not on the roll at the time of the election day to turn up on election day and to both enrol and cast a vote. That provides the mechanics for the Electoral Commission to send the returning officer a list of the persons whose names have been entered on the electoral roll for that district after writ day and up to the end of polling day. The only other part I would draw the committee's attention to which I thought was interesting is the allowance and disallowance of votes of members of the Defence Force. So every effort is made to ensure that members of the Defence Force serving here or overseas can participate in our democracy—the very values of which they are in fact defending abroad. So we want to do our best to make sure that their vote counts and that is provided for in that particular regulation. On that basis I conclude my remarks.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move That the question be now put.
Tolley AnneELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We turn now to the Electoral Amendment Bill. And as we come to Part 1 can I just make the comment that I would like to remind you all that the House has agreed to the bill's second reading which establishes the narrow principles and objects of this bill. So matters relating to prisoner voting lowering the voting age and donations including foreign donations are outside the scope of this bill and will not be debated. Consequently Jami-Lee Ross' Supplementary Order Paper 324 is ruled out of order on that basis.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I am very happy to speak to the issue of the pace at which the Government is moving. There is no question that we are moving at pace with regard to these reforms. There is of course a risk of moving more slowly of stagnation and also of prolonged decline effectively because some of the institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) and some of the industry training organisations (ITOs) have actually been clear that if we are going to go ahead and do this—and the Government has indicated we are intending to go ahead and do this—actually they risk losing staff they risk losing the employers who are currently engaged in training if there is too much uncertainty over too long a period of time.In fact we constructed this in a way that there is some flex in the way that the reforms are implemented. So if you look at the ITP sector—the polytech sector—most immediately they become subsidiaries and most immediately that's about the only thing that changes for them. So they'll continue to function much as they do now on 1 April as they were at the end of March. So there is then a transition period that spans over several years where the Opposition if they wish to campaign on a different approach will have that opportunity to put that to the electorate. Of course we will be putting to the electorate these proposals; the Opposition will have an opportunity to propose a different approach and the transition timetables of course will give them some ability to do that.With regard to workforce development councils and the establishment of workforce development councils the ITO sector has been very very clear that the longer this takes the higher the risk of losing employers and the higher the risk of having fewer apprentices being taken on. In fact some of the ITOs are going so far as to say that the transition that we're engaged in at the moment is already taking too long and in fact they want to move at much greater pace.With regard to the technical issue around part-year reporting officials have been working very closely with the Office of the Auditor-General to make that process as unbureaucratic and as seamless as possible so that it doesn't create undue compliance burden on the ITPs as they move from being independent entities to being subsidiary entities. I can give the member the reassurance that that work has been progressing very well.
Smith Nick; Tolley AnneIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Schedule 1 (continued)Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the committee for my Supplementary Order Paper 435 to be put to the committee. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Smith NickSPEAKER: Before I hear from any other member—because I don't want this debate going off in a way which is contrary to the Standing Orders—I let Dr Smith as the father of the House have a long period for his argument. But I am going to before I hear anyone else draw everyone's attention to Standing Order 307(5) which postdates Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith's ruling. It was a matter that was carefully considered by the Standing Orders Committee and by the House in the adoption of the changes of the Standing Orders in 2011. What 307(5) says is Where amendments are proposed that in the opinion of the chairperson are the same in substance the chairperson may select amendments…" etc. That is a much tighter arrangement than what used to occur and that was a very deliberate decision of the Standing Orders Committee under the leadership of Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith. It was of course a unanimous decision of the committee and of the Parliament to change the rules to that effect. So we've gone from having any suggestion of an objective test to one which is subjective. The Chair has made it very clear what her opinion is and that is not something for the House to second guess.I will say that this has been a matter of previous ruling in 2018 14 August 2018 a very good ruling on the part of my Deputy Speaker Hon Anne Tolley when considering the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill with a parallel approach as to exemptions for particular primary produce.It's a relatively new Standing Order in our experience Dr Smith but it is now pretty well-established and one which has been reinforced recently by a ruling from the Hon Anne Tolley. So what I want to make clear is that I will only hear argument on the substance of the application of that Standing Order. I will not hear about this polytech that polytech or the importance of something else. If anyone can give me a reason that indicates that it's not actually Ruth Dyson's opinion then that is the only argument that will work here. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Speaking further to the point of order the substantive question under Standing Order 307(5) is that the Chairperson has that discretion if they are the same in substance and the key question I wish to put to you is that the issue of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology as compared with the Christchurch Otago or any other—SPEAKER: No. Order! The member will resume his seat. I have made it very clear—and I have read it to the member—and the question is "in the opinion of the chairperson". Do I have to say that again? It is "in the opinion of the chairperson". It is a discretion which this House decided to give to the Chairpeople of committees. They have that and it's not something in my opinion that they can be second-guessed on. Given that I don't think there's any matter now I have to rule on. I'm going to declare the House back in committee—I'm not sure whether the Chair is going to come from my left or right—for further consideration of this bill on the following matter."
Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Bill — Speaker Recalled
Dyson RuthCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Speaker prior to the mistakenly adjourned dinner break at the start of the voting on Schedule 1 I indicated to the members that there were 13 amendments proposing amendments to clause 27(3) of new Part 9 of Schedule 1 to exempt certain polytechnics from the transitional arrangements that convert existing polytechs into New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology subsidiaries. I indicated that the amendments were so similar in substance that I proposed to test the will of the committee putting the question on a random selection of these very similar amendments. I then proceeded to put the vote for four of those amendments the only difference between them being the name of the institution. At the end of those four votes being lost I ruled that the remaining nine were out of order.The Hon Dr Nick Smith challenged that. We had an exchange in relation to the specific Speaker's ruling 177/2 potentially.Hon Tim Macindoe: 117/2.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you the Hon Tim Macindoe 117/2 from Dr the Rt Hon Lockwood Smith in 2010 ruling out subsequent amendments because of their similarity to the ones that had already been negatived by the vote of the committee. Dr Smith believes that this is not an appropriate ruling to judge the amendments that I ruled out of order and so recalled the Speaker.
Mallard TrevorHouse resumed.Speaker RecalledSPEAKER: Madam Chair I just want to indicate that I have been following this matter from outside the Chamber. I do want to give members an opportunity to put their point of view—hopefully with a little more relationship with the Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings rather than the substance because I've heard quite a lot of sort of substance of things but not necessarily a relationship. But because it is now the dinner hour I am going to adjourn the House and I will come back here at 7.30 p.m. to hear those arguments.Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.SPEAKER: The House is resumed. Before I ask the Hon Ruth Dyson to address me I do want to apologise for my error. I probably as a long term believer in dinner breaks declared it as a dinner break when in fact I should have heard the point of order and continued and dealt with it. I apologise for that.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek the recall of the Speaker.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Certainly.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is a very significant ruling. It changes substantially the role of the Opposition and it is the appropriate way for this substantive extension of the Speaker's ruling to be dealt with.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I think you have to move that the Speaker be recalled.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move That the Speaker be recalled.Motion agreed to.
Dyson RuthCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. I think you've made valid and interesting points. This was a subject of discussion at the presiding officers' meeting earlier today. There was unanimous agreement that this was the correct process to follow. I believe that there would be a different perspective on it had members not made such clear contributions during the debate and if they wished to have their opposition to the proposal recorded but that wasn't the case so my ruling stands.The question is that Schedule 1—
Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Tim Macindoe.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you Madam Chair. I've listened carefully to your explanation as to why you would wish to invoke Speaker's ruling 117/2 but I would respectfully suggest to you that it shouldn't be applied in this case because while as we who were there at the time remember the Auckland governance debate and the endless sort of succession of dates there this is not a comparable situation. And in fact the explanatory note that is in the Speaker's ruling there notes in brackets A series of amendments to change a date ruled out of order after an amendment to change the date had been defeated." They were all substantially the same apart from the fact they were moving one day backwards in time as I recall. Here is something that is very different. Yes there are a large number of polytechnics from around the country that are indicated but I would strongly associate Waikato and Wintec with the comments that Dr Smith made a moment ago in relation to the Nelson polytechnic for which he was being the champion because I feel the same way. But—and this is the difference—we all acknowledge that there are some polytechnics that are listed in those series of amendments that are not doing so well and that are therefore not comparable. If we weren't looking at a bill—or rather a measure from the Minister—that is effectively using a sledgehammer to crack a nut then it might be that some approach of the type that you are suggesting would be appropriate. But here we have a number of polytechnics that are very different in their circumstances very different in their financial position very different in their viability and very different in the problems that need to be addressed. That's why Madam Chair I would ask that this particular Speaker's ruling not be invoked because the amendments that our side of the House have been putting forward are not the same."
Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Speaking to the point of order look I would just like to take a moment to back up the Hon Nick Smith's point and I'd ask Madam Chair a very well-respected person that you are in the Parliament with your long-serving career just to reflect on actually the serious point that the Hon Nick Smith has made. These are institutions in which our communities have invested over long periods of time and they are being effectively in our view wiped out by this legislation. And I accept there's a debate that's going on around then where those functions transfer but I think it is reasonable and it is fair for you to consider whether it is appropriate to then remove the ability of this Parliament to record those members that voted for each of those institutions to not exist.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Speaking to the point of order as one of the members responsible for that ruling being made in the first place during the debate on the Auckland super-city and having sat on that side of the House for most of the eight years since that ruling was made—or for all of the eight years since that ruling was made—I can confirm that other Chairs of the committee have used that ruling in the same context that you are using it now. In fact it's been used to rule out amendments exempting local authorities for example one at a time from various provisions of legislation. This is not a novel or uncommon use of that. In fact it's been discussed on many occasions through the Standing Orders Committee where the decision was made to confirm that ruling on the basis that Parliament should spend its time in debate not in voting on repetitive amendments.
van de Molen Tim; Dyson RuthTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Thank you Madam Chair. Can we just clarify that those amendments as a result of the representative sample you took which were voted down—those amendments are actually voted down rather than ruled out of order but they were in-order amendments?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I was on the point of questioning that myself actually but my advice has been that they're ruled out of order. May I double-check that and get back to you? That was what I—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'll just finish my sentence if you don't mind. That's what I set out before I put the first group of votes—that because they were very similar in substance I would take that representative sample and then the rest would be ruled out of order.
Dyson RuthCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): As a result of the these votes the following amendments are out of order: the Hon Gerry Brownlee's amendment relating to the Ara Institute of Canterbury set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 432; Lawrence Yule's amendment relating to the Eastern Institute of Technology set out on SOP 433; the Hon Dr Nick Smith's amendment relating to the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology set out on SOP 435; Dr Shane Reti's amendment relating to the Northland Polytechnic set out on SOP 436; Sarah Dowie's amendment relating to the Southern Institute of Technology set out on SOP 438; Maureen Pugh's amendment relating to Tai Poutini Polytechnic set out on SOP 439; Dr Parmjeet Parmar's amendment relating to Unitec New Zealand set out on SOP 441; the Hon Tim Macindoe's amendment relating to the Waikato Institute of Technology set out on SOP 443; and Brett Hudson's amendment relating to the Whitireia Community Polytechnic set out on SOP 444.
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members there are 13 proposed amendments to clause 27(3) of new Part 9 of Schedule 1 to exempt certain polytechnics from the transitional arrangements that convert existing polytechnics into New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology subsidiaries. These amendments are so similar in substance that I propose to test the will of the committee putting the question on a random selection of these very similar amendments.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I think it's important to note at this point that Part 2 the consequential repeals revocations and other amendments—basically it sets out what happens as a result of the decisions that the committee has already made in Part 1 of the bill. I do note that there are some orders that are being revoked here including three examples of amalgamations of polytechnics that were done under the last National Government. It is repealing some amendments to the Education Act relating to the governance of polytechs—for example the ones I referred to earlier—again enacted under the last National Government. The points being raised by Dr Smith I think I responded to in my comments on Part 1.
Dyson RuthPart 2 Repeals revocations and other amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): We move now colleagues to debate on Part 2: clauses 70 to 73 and Schedule 6.
Allan Kiritapu; Dyson RuthKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Andrew Bayly: Madam Chair? Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): It's OK; I did hear you. Hold the line please caller.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity to just respond. There was a point that a member raised earlier which I didn't respond to in my first contribution and that was issues around the risk assessment put forward by officials. I think it's important to note that the quoting that he was doing in that was from the unmitigated risk assessment and in fact the point of doing an unmitigated risk assessment as you say—if you don't put any mitigations in place what could go wrong? The risk assessment did that and it did it fairly and it pointed out all of the risks. Of course mitigations have been put in place that deal with many of those issues—in fact they deal with all of the risks. There are mitigations in place for all of the risks. No reform of this nature has no risks. The question is how you manage it. I'm confident—and it's all spelled out there—in the business case and in the Cabinet papers that were released and how those risks are being managed. One of those is very considered in the risk of declining demands—so in declining participation declining employer support. One of those is a very real risk; it's a real risk of continuing with the current system as well because we're already seeing that declining participation. There are mitigations in place to stop that and probably one of the key ones is that the processes are being done over a period of time. It's being done very carefully and very considerately. It's not being rushed and it's being done in a very collaborative way so that those who are involved in the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics sector and in the industry training organisations sector those who are involved in workplace training do have the opportunity to have their voices heard and be involved in designing the future. I think that's very important. That's the way the reforms have been designed and that is a big part of how we mitigate those risks.