edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): I am going to focus on the education results under the National Government. But before I get to the substance of my speech I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our Minister of Education the Hon Hekia Parata. Minister Parata has been deeply committed to enhancing the performance of our schools and raising the achievements of our students. She has worked extremely hard and has overcome numerous challenges. She will leave this Parliament with a legacy of a modern education system that is more flexible more efficient more innovative and also more future oriented. I have said repeatedly that education is a key responsibility of any Government simply because our students are the future citizens and future workers. In that sense they are the future of the country. It is important that our students have the necessary skills and qualifications to do well in society and to contribute to a thriving economy. For that reason the National-led Government has made education a key area of our Better Public Services. We have invested heavily in education since we came into Government in 2008. As a matter of fact among all OECD countries New Zealand spends the highest percentage of public money on education. We are spending over $4 billion on tertiary education and a record $11 billion on other sectors of education. We have more than doubled the spending on the youngest Kiwi learners since 2008 to about $1.8 billion. We are spending a lot of money on education but at the same time we have been trying to modernise our education system to make sure that it reflects New Zealand now and in the future. Our efforts have paid off. A recent OECD report entitled Education at a Glance 2016 shows that the performance of the New Zealand education sector compares very well with those of other OECD countries. Also the mid-year report on Better Public Services results released a couple of days ago indicates that New Zealand is on track in lifting participation and achievement from our earliest learners through to tertiary graduates. I will read these three results of education targets: participation in early childhood education is up from 94.7 percent in 2011 to 96.6 percent in 2016; achievement in NCEA level 2 is up from 74.3 percent in 2011 to 83.3 percent in 2015; and the number of 25- to 34-year-olds with New Zealand Qualifications Framework level 4 or above has increased from 51.9 percent in 2011 to 56.6 percent in 2016. We are pleased with all the results but we are particularly pleased with the increased proportion of 18-year-olds with NCEA level 2 because NCEA level 2 gives students more opportunities for further education and employment. Also very often NCEA level 2 is the minimum requirement for jobs. Under National more children are starting education earlier staying in education for longer and achieving better results. Thank you.
Urgent Debates — Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership—Auditor-General's Report
Points of Order — Oral Questions—Allocation of Questions
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATESSaudi Agri-hub—Auditor-General's ReportMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the release of the report of the Auditor-General on the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership. This is a particular case of very recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Given the high level of public interest in the matter it warrants the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. I call on the Hon David Parker to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Carter DavidQUESTIONS TO MEMBERSQuestions No. 1 and 2 to MemberMr SPEAKER: We would normally move now to questions to members but I am aware that the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee is not present in the House. Those two questions are therefore held over until tomorrow.
SpeechMr SPEAKER: I thank all members for their contributions on this. It is a difficult issue. It was discussed at length at the Business Committee yesterday and I attempted to drive a decision to be made by the Business Committee. My job there is to drive that to near unanimity. That proved to be more difficult on this occasion than on many others. Although I accept with some validity the arguments advanced by Mr Robertson I do not think it is quite as clear as Mr Robertson is suggesting and that is why I do request that this matter be absolutely clarified through the review of the Standing Orders so that there can be no confusion in the future.For those members who have not had a chance to see the decision the Business Committee has in the past allocated questions and it last made a decision back in April of this year. In view of the fact that we could not get agreement to change the roster in any way either to reflect the fact that we have had one recent retirement from Labour or to reflect the decision around parliamentary under-secretaries being able to ask questions I have decided that the safest way for me is to just stick with the decision that was made by the Business Committee without any difficulty at all back in April. That is the situation that remains until the matter is tidied up through the review of the Standing Orders which will come into effect without any confusion for the 52nd Parliament.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Mr Speaker I had no intention of commenting on this matter in the House but as others have put their thoughts on record I would just like to record that the position of parliamentary under-secretary is an ambiguous one—for instance being able to enter a member's bill in the ballot. The net effect of your decision to date is to maintain the size of Parliament relative to the executive in respect of the allocation of questions and I think that having Parliament hold the executive to account is a very important function of this House.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Firstly I want to recognise as Mr Robertson has that this is your decision and I would say the correct one. Given that—Hon Member: Funny that.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well we are now 20 years into MMP and there have been a number of evolutions over the last 20 years that have come as a result of arrangements that parties make around MMP. I would make the point that during his time as Clerk of the House McGee himself not only presided over but advised on a number of changes to the Standing Orders that were as a consequence of practice developed by Governments in support of the Government's position on MMP. So I think your decision simply continues that evolution and I am sure that the Standing Orders Committee will be able to make a determination for future Parliaments that reflects the advice you have given the House today.
Robertson GrantPOINTS OF ORDEROral Questions—Allocation of Questions Calculation Including Members of the ExecutiveGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to make a comment and I hope you will allow me to do this around the ruling that you made about the oral questions roster. Mr Speaker obviously you have the right to make the rulings that you do but the Labour Party wants to register its strong concern with the ruling that you made that allows a member of the executive to continue to be counted in the calculation of the number of oral questions available to the Government.It does not matter who that particular member is; it is about the position that they hold within the executive. For the purpose of questions McGee is quite clear that members who hold executive office—Ministers Associate Ministers and parliamentary under-secretaries—are excluded from the calculation of the number of questions available to Government parties. This is clearly not just about the National Party; it is about all parties in the Government.I think in your ruling Mr Speaker that you acknowledged the fact that actually under the rules and guidance that this Parliament operates under members of the executive should not be counted. Just because we have begun operating under a process that has proved to be incorrect does not mean we should continue to do so and the Labour Party strongly believes that members of the executive should not be counted and that we should not go ahead with a process that we all know to be wrong.
Brownlee GerryWEDNESDAY 2 NOVEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.SITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): As notified to the Business Committee I move That the sitting of the House on Wednesday 2 November 2016 be extended from 9 a.m. on Thursday 3 November 2016 for the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the second reading of the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill the second reading of the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill and the Committee stage of the Statutes Amendment Bill.Motion agreed to.
Points of Order — Forest & Bird—Supreme Court DecisionDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Tuesday 15 November 2016 - Volume 718
Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 245 in the name of Richard Prosser be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 12New Zealand First 12.Noes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of Richard Prosser be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 12New Zealand First 12.Noes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Part 1 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Part 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the schedule be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Schedule agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a third time.
Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 103New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 11; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Bill read a third time.
12. Earthquake Kaikōura—Civil Defence ResponseCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Civil DefenceEarthquake Kaikōura—Civil Defence ResponseCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): My question is to the Minister of self defence—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Start the question again.12. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What actions have been taken by Civil Defence to ensure those people in the areas worst hit by the earthquake have enough food clothing water and shelter? Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): In earlier answers today I have outlined the work that the various agencies of Government are undertaking to ensure that that happens. The immediate priority is to get water food and other necessities into those communities and to evacuate people who have found themselves stranded there when they have commitments particularly to overseas flights etc. All of that is in train. Those flights have been taking place today. There have been I understand deliveries of water and food supplies in train. And we of course have the Canterbury on its way down from Auckland. It was to participate in the 75th Navy celebrations as part of the review this week but it is re-tasked to come down along with the offshore patrol vessel Wellington. They will both be in Kaikōura in the next couple of days. They will have supplies and they will be doing supply runs as well as doing evacuation runs. In addition to that you have heard the Minister of Transport today talking about the huge focus that will go on to improving as quickly as possible those lifeline links. I can say that the Minister for Communications has also had discussions with the telecommunications companies about getting the place reconnected and the Minister of Finance has outlined the Government's commitment to financing the recovery. Clare Curran: What additional resources will he allocate to help Civil Defence in its role in the recovery stage which was identified as a weakness by Civil Defence's latest internal review?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes I have been able to observe some of that weakness first hand and of course we will work with Civil Defence recognising that it is firstly a local response that the law requires and then fill the gaps as they are seen.Clare Curran: As Acting Minister of Civil Defence will he be undertaking a review of the Civil Defence response to these events?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Civil Defence always reviews its response no matter whether it is a small local response or a very large response across the country. So yes of course there will be some review of this.Clare Curran: Will extra personnel be brought into rural and isolated communities if needed?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There already have been a number of extra personnel put into Kaikōura District. Other districts are being assessed and as the need is identified it will be filled.
11. Earthquake Kaikōura—Health ServicesALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of HealthEarthquake Kaikōura—Health Services11. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Health: What updates has he received on the Government's health response to the Kaikōura earthquake?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I am receiving regular updates and the advice is that health systems are responding well across all affected regions. Our focus continues to be primarily on Kaikōura and the brand-new health centre facility is coping well with increased demand. I am advised that 12 patients have now been airlifted from Kaikōura to Christchurch as a result of a range of injuries. The Ministry of Health is working well with the Canterbury District Health Board to ensure that local staffing requirements in Kaikōura are met including the provision from Christchurch of a clinical psychologist emergency management staff and a health protection officer who will assist with assessments of local water sewerage and other public health issues. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding response of the health workforce under trying circumstances and thank them for their work.Alastair Scott: What other health support and advice is available for anyone affected by yesterday's earthquake?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The earthquake support line and Healthline are available 24/7 to provide support to distressed and anxious people as well as to give advice on the appropriate management of any other health issues or injuries. There has been an increase in calls to both these services. As at 10 o'clock this morning they had answered 2690 calls and at the peak yesterday they answered 150 percent more calls than would be normal. We know that this is an anxious time for many and to help respond to the increased demand Healthline has rostered on an additional 20 hours of nursing staff today and has staff on call should they be needed as well as two additional mental health professionals who are now on duty.Hon Annette King: In light of evidence showing an increased demand for mental health services following a disaster will he consider increasing mental health funding to districts that have been seriously affected?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The focus will be on making sure that people in those affected districts have all the resources they need.Hon Annette King: Can I take from the Minister's answer that he has said that if increased resources for mental health services are needed they will be provided in a timely fashion?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think I have already said that we are making sure that that happens.
10. Disaster Preparedness—LegislationCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Civil DefenceDisaster Preparedness—Legislation10. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What progress has been made if any on new civil defence legislation which focuses on large and significant events such as the Christchurch and Kaikōura earthquakes?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I am pleased to confirm that last Thursday the House passed the third reading with unanimous support of a Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill. That new legislation focuses on a smoother transition from the response phase to the recovery stage. However I have to say though that the legislation has a very long enactment date. So from the time that it receives assent it is 180 days before it comes into effect. I think given the events of the last couple of days there may be a need to look at bringing that commencement date further forward. It is my intention to have discussions with all parties in the House with a view to perhaps moving in that direction.Clayton Mitchell: Why did it take 12 months to put through the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Bill focusing on part one of the Christchurch earthquake review when it was fully supported across the House and should have been read under urgency?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are not too many parties that would argue for bills of that size and importance to be passed under urgency. I understand too that the member's own party has a particular aversion to urgency—and urgent matters—being taken to pass bills in the House.Clayton Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand First would be supportive of the Government bringing part two of the Christchurch earthquake review which addresses large-scale emergencies before the House without any further delay?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As Acting Minister of Civil Defence no.Clayton Mitchell: When can we expect legislation that addresses large-scale emergencies such as earthquakes and tsunamis to be brought before the House and will this legislation be put through under urgency?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the important thing to recognise here is a definitional one around what is a large-scale emergency. Although I agree with Andrew Little that the events of the last couple of days affect the whole of New Zealand—they are very much concentrated in a large chunk of the country but they do not affect the majority of New Zealanders in the direct way that the legislation is designed to relieve if you like. So I would argue and continue to—as we did during the process of the passing of the bill last week—that the new legislation does allow an appropriate level of response. But I would have to say that Parliament should also always reserve its right to pass special legislation if there is an event of such a size that it is needed. That was the case in Christchurch. I think the discussions I would like to have with parties over the next few days or beyond around the use of this legislation may be to change some of our consideration about what is a large-scale event.
9. Radio New Zealand—FundingGARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of BroadcastingRadio New Zealand—Funding9. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Broadcasting: Will she join with me to acknowledge the work of all media in New Zealand which is so important in times of natural disaster and crisis; if so will she consider increasing our public broadcaster Radio New Zealand's funding in Budget 2017?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: Yes I do agree with the member. The media has done an excellent job of the vital task of keeping the public informed about what they should do at a time of stress. In terms of Radio New Zealand's (RNZ's) funding—of course Radio New Zealand uniquely among media organisations has a guarantee of revenue for future years something that many media organisations would regard with envy. However any bids will be considered in due course as part of the usual Budget process. Gareth Hughes: How long does the Minister think our only public broadcaster Radio New Zealand can continue to provide the high standard of broadcasting we have seen in the past few days when its funding has not been increased for 8 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well clearly up until now it has done a very good job. I have not seen any noticeable deterioration; in fact I have seen some improvements in the broadcasting of Radio New Zealand on the guaranteed funding that it has which as I said makes it unique among media organisations a number of which are fighting simply to stay alive. Gareth Hughes: Given the Minister's comments around the ability to lodge a Budget bid is the Minister concerned Radio New Zealand did not put in a funding bid in the last Budget round with the chairman describing it as pointless beating your head against a brick wall of reality."?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I was not disappointed at all. I know for public organisations it can be a sort of automatic reflex that they bid for more money just because they had some last year and they think can do more good next year. In the case of RNZ though over a number of years it has changed with the times. I am particularly complimentary of its website development. It sees itself now less as an owner of a broadcasting system and more as a content provider. I am sure that the wider media sees benefit in broadcasting content of the quality of RNZ's.Gareth Hughes: Given the excellent work that Radio New Zealand has done in the last few days despite a real-term funding cut of $4 million since this Government came to office would the Minister encourage Radio New Zealand to put in a Budget bid for the next funding round?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well not on that basis. I mean we do not give a public organisation more money just because it has demonstrated its ability to use the money it has. If there is a greater need for the long-term sustainability of the organisation then I am sure the board and executive of Radio New Zealand will see merit in putting up a bid. Equally we also try not to give money to organisations where their services habitually fail because that would also be rewarding organisations rather than just applying money to obvious need."
8. Earthquake Kaikōura—Transport InfrastructureBRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of TransportEarthquake Kaikōura—Transport Infrastructure8. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Transport: What action is the Government taking to repair damaged transport infrastructure following the Kaikōura earthquake?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Government agencies and contractors are working very hard to assess the damaged transport infrastructure following the devastating earthquake and its aftershocks in the early hours of two mornings ago. There has been significant damage to the State highway network particularly State Highway 1 between Picton and Christchurch. Crews are working hard to clear roads where it is possible and safe to do so but in some cases it may take many months really before roads are fully operational—I think that realism is required. We are also working hard to establish alternative routes where there is significant damage but in some cases it may take some time before roads are fully operational. I want to thank all those who continue working hard to clear and repair the roading and rail networks.Brett Hudson: What efforts are being made by the Government to reconnect towns and communities that are isolated following the earthquakes?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well I think if there is one message that I would like to give it is that I want to reassure those who are currently cut off that our priority at the moment—our absolute priority—is access for them and their communities. The State highway network in and out of Kaikōura has been badly damaged but as I have said I am pleased to advise the House that the latest information I have received from the New Zealand Transport Agency is that it hopes to have a road link via State Highway 70 restored in the coming days. Effectively that involves bridge work on two or three bridges there but as I say I can assure those people affected that it is working night and day making this its absolute priority.
5. Earthquake Kaikōura—Government ResponsePAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Civil DefenceEarthquake Kaikōura—Government Response5. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Civil Defence: How is the Government supporting people affected by the Kaikōura earthquake?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): Shortly after the quake happened the civil defence system was activated. Scientists began assessing the quake and the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management began assessing its likely impact and the response that would be needed. At the same time local civil defence teams on the ground began implementing their local plans which were built around the specific needs and local circumstances. The civil defence system in New Zealand is based on local authorities carrying out the initial response on the ground with national coordination where necessary. The National Crisis Management Centre was activated yesterday at 12.34 a.m. after that 7.5 earthquake event. From around that time I witnessed a wide range of personnel from multiple agencies including Police Defence and other Government agencies working together to help support those in need. I would like to thank everyone who has worked long hours since the event to help those people. This effort will need to continue for some days to come.Paul Foster-Bell: How are Government agencies working together in the disaster response?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think they are working together extremely well. Yesterday the Prime Minister and I accompanied by the Leader of the Opposition saw first hand the extensive damage to essential connections and basic infrastructure that has isolated Kaikōura from the north and south. The widespread destruction caused by the earthquake and subsequent aftershocks will take considerable time to repair. Government agencies are on the ground in Kaikōura working to support the local community and stranded visitors. The immediate priority is ensuring delivery of clean water food and other essentials to the residents of Kaikōura and the estimated 1200 tourists in the town. The New Zealand Defence Force is delivering the essential items and an NH90 helicopter fleet has begun airlifting tourists and locals who have been prioritised for evacuation. This will continue for a number of days and so far they expect to evacuate 100 people today. Additional civil defence and emergency staff from outside Kaikōura are also going in to assist and as the State highway remains closed between Seddon and Cheviot the New Zealand Transport Agency as the Minister of Transport said this afternoon is assessing damage and is working with local authorities to establish alternative roads if possible. I would like to congratulate the Kaikōura community on pulling together and looking after each other and the thousands of visitors in their town at this time.
4. Earthquake Kaikōura—Government Financial PositionGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of FinanceEarthquake Kaikōura—Government Financial Position4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: What is his initial assessment of the fiscal impact of yesterday morning's earthquake and what if any new or changed Budget allocations is he considering in response to the earthquake?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first question we do not yet have a detailed assessment. And in answer to the second I expect that there will probably be categories of funding similar to Christchurch although this is yet to be considered. The initial recovery costs are welfare costs business continuity and infrastructure support to the local council—in this case a very small council—the roading contingencies are clearly not going to be enough. And there will likely have to be some contribution to KiwiRail which is likely to have significant disruption to its income.Grant Robertson: Is it his assessment that Crown guarantee under section 16 of the Earthquake Commission Act will be needed to meet the cost of claims from yesterday's quake in light of the remaining resources in the Natural Disaster Fund being required for the settlement of outstanding claims in Canterbury?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Quite possibly.Grant Robertson: How does he intend to finance the cost of infrastructure repairs to roads and rail in particular; will this be different from operational spending?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The process followed in Christchurch was to discuss pretty intensively with the council what share it could feasibly take given that it has got a relatively small low-income rating base. With regard to roading some of that would come from the National Land Transport Fund but that may need to be supplemented by the Government. So we will just work it through on a case by case basis but it will probably be similar to Christchurch.Grant Robertson: Is he giving any consideration to establishing a specific infrastructure fund to meet the large scale of the cost that will arise from rebuilding critical networks?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Most likely the largest need is for road and rail. Certainly funding for that will be fully transparent because people need to know whether it is being paid for by the taxpayer or in this case by road users. But we are open-minded about a mechanism that gets the funding properly targeted and in a transparent way.
2. Earthquake Kaikōura—Economic Impact and Government Financial PositionMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of FinanceEarthquake Kaikōura—Economic Impact and Government Financial Position2. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received about the economic impact of the Kaikōura earthquake?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): At this point the priority is on getting assistance to those who need it and restoring services to affected areas. There is no funding constraint on that; the job just simply has to be done. Treasury has provided some preliminary advice which is that the Kaikōura quake is significant but it is going to be quite difficult to get a clear picture of overall cost.Matt Doocey: What steps is the Government taking to respond to the earthquake?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The shorter-term steps have been outlined by the Prime Minister and the Minister in charge of earthquakes—[Earthquake]Hon David Parker: It's working.Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is working. So we know that repairing roads and other utilities is a costly and long-term solution which is likely to have an impact on Government expenditure and will have some impact on tax revenue.Matt Doocey: How well placed is New Zealand to deal with the consequences of the earthquake?Hon BILL ENGLISH: This time I will be more careful with what I say. Ha ha! The economy is generally in good shape. Government debt is relatively low. We have Budget surpluses. We are in about as good a shape as we could be to deal with this natural disaster.Matt Doocey: What financing options does the Government have to respond to the Kaikōura earthquake? Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is a range of pretty straightforward options. The Government has capacity to borrow to the extent that we do not actually have cash surpluses and we want to make sure that financing is not an impediment to the rapid recovery particularly for the vital transport links that have been so affected by the quakes.
New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill — In Committee
Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Can I acknowledge the previous speaker's contribution. The Hon Damien O'Connor is someone who knows a lot about horticulture from his own electorate and is someone who thinks that the meat industry needs to be rationalised and thinks this would be a great model. Of course what he does not talk about is the importance of the Primary Growth Partnership initiatives where the meat industry has come together on several programmes and is actually proving to be doing and achieving a lot in regard to collaboration. But importantly coming back to this bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill can I thank the Primary Production Committee for the great work that it did under the leadership of the chair Ian McKelvie. This is a very important bill and as the previous speaker has already mentioned the Horticulture Export Authority—or HEA as it is well-known—has a proud history of around 29 years.The framework works overall very well and this will indeed allow it to be modernised. But before I take you through the bill I think it is important to realise that the horticulture industry is in really good shape with exports to around 100 countries. Indeed when we look back to 1989 its export earnings were worth around $1 billion and now we think about what it has grown to which is around $3.5 billion and the Ministry for Primary Industries is forecasting that by 2025 it will indeed be about $5 billion of exports.The bill will update the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act 1987 and make some of the key provisions in the Act more flexible and clearer for the industry. There are nine active product groups currently involved. The Act is critical for the horticulture sector. Most of the industries in the sector are indeed small but with many producers and exporters it allows them to get involved and collaborate in the market opportunity of their products. This is indeed enabling legislation. Producers and exporters decide when to come into this framework and once under the framework they decide on the overall marketing strategies for their export produce. Great standards are a key component of their marketing strategy. Indeed I do have Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 247 in my name on the Table here this evening. After consulting with the authority—and indeed I think there was some confusion by the authority when it came in to talk to the select committee about whether it should be fees or levies or both—the bill that we are debating this evening is focused on fees and the authority now recognises the fact that it wants to indeed have the levy mechanism in the Act. So this SOP 247 under my name which I believe will get widespread support from the Committee will indeed enable the authority to collect levies from product groups which it currently does under contract but it will be in the legislation.So I commend this bill and this SOP to the Committee and once again I thank the Primary Production Committee for the great work that it has done.
O'Connor DamienParts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I am certainly not going to delay the progress of this piece of legislation. In my view it is perhaps one of the most sensible pieces of legislation we have had in this House because it goes right to the heart of coordination and collaboration across primary sectors and specifically here of course horticulture. I have one question for Minister Nathan Guy: why not meat? He knows that because there is such profound wisdom in having the kind of coordination across the meat industry that we are actually putting in place through the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill. It amends an Act that came into force when Labour was in Government in 1987 and brings it up to speed. It allows groups to have flexible marketing strategies in new markets. It allows this through Supplementary Order Paper 247 which the Opposition will support. I have to say the Primary Production Committee is normally right on the ball and very very efficient but clearly we had some dud instructions from the Minister—Hon Nathan Guy: Ha ha!Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —to the committee which meant there was an omission which the Minister will no doubt explain where we have to include the ability to take a levy in the primary legislation and not just allow for regulations that would then set it. I am sure that everyone in the industry will be happier with that legislative guideline for what is effectively a tax. That levy will enable the Horticulture Export Authority to get on and do its job. It takes a very small amount from the product groups I have to say and oversees a growing volume of exports across a number of some of our big sectors but some small ones as well. It does things like updating penalties for offences under the Act and clarifies the requirements of product groups that want to get into or out of the group—all sensible things. The select committee has studied this piece of legislation and we thought it through very thoroughly except for this last-minute glitch which the Minister is amending through his Supplementary Order Paper. Labour supports this legislation and always has done. We put it in place in 1987. We support its ongoing principles and we think this Government should be applying this across other sectors—particularly in meat and wool—where we would have far better export outcomes for the whole of New Zealand.
Faafoi Kris; Tisch LindsayNEW ZEALAND HORTICULTURE EXPORT AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I seek leave for the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill to be taken as one question for the purposes of the debate with the question put separately at the end of the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that matter. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill — In Committee
Charities Amendment Bill — In Committee
Goodhew JoHon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I rise to take a brief call and to express some sentiments to the Committee the first of those being that as other members of the Committee have done so tonight we have a Charities Amendment Bill before us and we have many charities springing into action in North Canterbury in the South Island and also here in Wellington to assist people who have found themselves in dire straits and even just needing support during this time after a significant earthquake. So I do want to send my best wishes out to them and thank them for the work that they are currently doing and the considerable work that is probably ahead of them as they support other New Zealanders.I want to respond to the members tonight who have raised the issue of the reason why we are here with a separate bill rather than the amendments coming under the Statutes Amendment Bill. The power as the Hon Ruth Dyson has mentioned already of any one select committee member or one member of this House to disagree with one point or a part in the Statutes Amendment Bill is very powerful indeed and it is a very strong check and balance. It is therefore—and I thank the member for her generosity towards me—not going to surprise you that I was under every impression that in fact what I proposed for amendment was completely non-controversial. When it became of concern to some members of the charitable sector—and I do take issue with the previous speaker Jan Logie's comment about the last 8 years; I have been the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector now for 5 of them and I have seen a distinct change in terms of confidence and also the working relationship between the Government and this sector. I have to say that they know my number and I know theirs and we have a full and frank exchange of ideas and views. They did tell me they were worried about this and it did not matter how often I said to them: I still believe and have legal advice that it is not a matter for you to be concerned about."We are here and we are now in the best place we can be. This has been resolved to the satisfaction of the members of the Government Administration Committee and I hope the members of this House. We are moving forward we are making good changes that have been fully canvassed in the former debates here tonight and also in the second reading and I thank the members of the committee for finding a way forward. I very much appreciate that because I do believe the changes that will come about as a result of this bill will make for a better Charities Act. With that I thank the members again and in my view this is a good path to move forward on."
Borrows ChesterCHARITIES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClauses 1 to 12AThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I draw it to the attention of the Committee that all of clauses 1 to 12A will be considered as one debate and voted upon separately.
Faafoi Kris; Tisch LindsayBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEKRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I seek leave for each of the five bills at the Committee stage on the Order Paper to be taken as one question for the purpose of debate with the questions put separately at the end of each debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to take a short call on this the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I first want to echo the views from around the House and offer my condolences also. I also want to thank my medical colleagues in the region who are and will be providing the care and support that I know they will to this community. This bill received 16 submissions and two supplementary submissions including submissions from the New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys and the New Zealand Law Society. The main purpose as has been discussed here is to implement a single trans-Tasman registration regime for Australian and New Zealand patent attorneys.There were many points of discussion. As we have heard the key point of discussion came around the single application process and the single examination process. On advice from officials and with the will of the Commerce Committee it was decided that there were not any significant benefits in that remaining so it has been removed.The other main recommendation from the select committee is for clause 4 to amend section 92 so that potential opposition to applications for more than one invention—what is being called the lack of unity of invention—cannot occur. With that it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I stand in support of the third reading of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. First of all I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Commerce Committee Melissa Lee for her leadership. There were some issues that were discussed in the select committee and I think she showed her leadership by acknowledging those issues which were resolved and the bill was reported back to the House. The main purpose of the bill is to update the 60-year-old regulatory regime for patent attorneys and modernise it in line with the latest regime. Kiwis are known for their innovation and businesses need to have protection. Most of the business we do is between New Zealand and Australia and if we have got a single regime where we can have patent attorneys who can work together and have a single application process it can help businesses to focus more on the innovation part rather than on the paperwork. This bill is part of the Government's commitment to helping businesses to grow not only within New Zealand but also internationally and our ambition is that a New Zealand company can conduct its business as easily in Australia as it can at home. It is for both sides. The Australians will also have similar provisions so that they can easily file one application for the patents. With these words I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to take a call on this Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its third reading. I too in taking a call today just want to quickly acknowledge what has happened in the country recently with the earthquakes and add my thoughts and prayers to those families who have lost loved ones courage to those who remain and encouragement—certainly to my own constituents—to dig deep in their support of the community. As many have noted it is in times like these that the community of New Zealand comes together strongly and certainly my community in Tāmaki stands to join strongly in that.This is a good piece of legislation and I do want to acknowledge Minister Paul Goldsmith for having brought it to the House. There have been niggles in the process I think that is very fair to say but that is the whole dynamic of the select committees to work that through. So I am obviously acknowledging Melissa Lee and her work there.At the heart of this bill is effectively the continuing development and relationship between New Zealand and Australia where we try to cooperate more closely and not to duplicate unnecessarily. So fundamentally this bill is about seeking first and foremost a single register for patent attorneys across Australia and New Zealand. Importantly—as a side note—not all patent attorneys are actually attorneys in the strictly legal sense but that is the title that they use. We are going to be moving towards a single qualification scheme between Australia and New Zealand and a single code of conduct to facilitate that engagement.As some others have touched on too there is going to be a new board a new area of oversight again with New Zealand and Australian representatives. There is a lot of minutiae in the bill. I know a number of colleagues on both sides of the House will be touching on that and I have in previous discussions so I do not intend to repeat myself. Fundamentally this is about drawing New Zealand and Australia closer together—in this case through the work of the patent attorneys important as that is. I commend this bill to the House.
Ministerial Statements — Earthquake—Hanmer Springs