edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11570. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Question agreed to.
Upston Louise: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUpston Louise: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō):I am pleased to take the final call in the second reading of the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill. I think there would be one aspect that we agree on in this House and that is that courts are no place for children. If you think about the reform that this bill is undertaking it is really looking at the needs of children first and making sure that the environment and the reform that we are putting in place really provides a structure that is going to be the most useful for them that provides the most safe environment and that provides a lasting resolution. That is why the emphasis is not on what the last speaker David Clendon was implying but on using the family disputes resolution process more so that you can get really lasting outcomes.As a constituent MP I think some of the most difficult cases that I have had before me have dealt with families who have parenting issues income support issues and separation issues with their children and it is very clear to see that it is actually the children who come off the worst in these environments. I am a firm believer that the more we can keep them away from the court process and put other processes in place that assist resolution not just for a month or 3 months but for the lifetime of that child the better. That is why this is quite a different process when we are talking about courts and when we are talking about resolution because children have very different needs from those that can be met by some of the other court processes that we have in place. Yes we have had some significant cost implications in terms of the use of the Family Court but the driver of this really is looking more at how we can have lasting solutions for those who are most vulnerable. And in this case I am particularly interested in the children who are in those families that have had separation and breakup issues so that we are able to have a solution that works for them long term.I disagree with some of the other speakers. This reform is clearly aimed at those who need court assistance—absolutely. But it is not making that the most desirable option. It is trying to look at making sure that those who need legal representation and legal aid absolutely will get them but not making them the most desirable channel for people to go through in terms of resolving these issues. The Government recognises that the Family Court provides only one component that is important in terms of people sortingout their issues and problems. And for the long-term benefit people should be encouraged and other mechanisms provided for them so that they can seek that assistance and get long-term resolution which is of course going to be in the much better interests of the children involved. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to.
Gilmore Aaron: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGilmore Aaron: Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11566. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa ki te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa. I would like to take a brief call on the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill in part because I was not actually sworn in at the point of the introduction of this bill or indeed the proceedings of the Justice and Electoral Committee. But I have read very carefully the deliberations of the committee the bill itself and some of the reports that fed into it. It is obvious to me that this is a positive measure. It is reforming the Family Court in a way that will solve some of the concerns that were raised in the report by the Ministry of Justice in April 2011.Those concerns included that the Family Court is an adversarial environment that places additional stress on already strained relationships. It has been a negative environment for children and is not sufficiently focused on their needs. It is also not focused enough on the needs of the most serious cases—that is ones that involve abuse or violence which is a point I will come to later. It spends far too much time on personal disputes and private matters rather than resolving those serious issues and the legal issues. It is too complex and slow in resolving disputes. I think these are issues with the system as it currently stands that do need to be addressed and resolved and I think the provisions of this bill do a very good job of resolving those issues.I mentioned the issue of domestic violence. We have heard from other speakers on the Government side that this bill does a lot in terms of improving the environment of the Family Court for children and the people who are going through it but also in terms of improving the process and the efficiency of the court. There are three specific measures in this bill that respond to domestic violence in a way that I think is appropriate and positive. Firstly this bill is expanding the definition of psychological abuse in the Domestic Violence Act 1995 to include financial and economic abuse. Secondly it is increasing the maximum sentence for breaching a protection order from 2 years to 3 years. Thirdly it provides for greater flexibility in the development and delivery of mandatory non-violence programmes. Given that domestic violence is verymuch a bane of this country and something that we are working very hard to combat I think these are positive measures and when taken with the other provisions of the bill I think this is both timely and appropriate legislation. I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11561. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura)to theAssociate Minister of Education: What recent announcements have been made to support digital literacy particularly in low-income communities?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Education):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Yesterday Ministers Parata Goodhew and I announced that the Government will fund $1.6 million to Computers in Homes. This additional funding will mean that 1500 families across low-income communities are provided with a computer to take home IT support and subsidised internet connections for 12 months. Parents will also receive 20 hours of computer training at their children’s school. This is great news. I want to acknowledge the 2020 Communications Trust for its hard work and effort in running this highly successful programme. The 21st Century Learning Group which I have also recently established has a mandate to look at improving device access and more learning opportunities for New Zealand students.Colin King: What other initiatives is the Government supporting to improve digital literacy for New Zealanders?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Along with Computers in Homes this Government has a strong commitment to improving digital literacy for all New Zealanders. There is a $1.5 billion investment in fast connections to give 2500 schools across the country access; $136 million over the next 4 years to speed up the school network upgrade project by 2 years; and $9.8 million per year specifically for e-learning professional development. We are providing more than $21 million for laptops to teachers. Recently we announced the Computer Clubhouse programme now called the High Tech Youth Network and that will receive another $1.9 million. We are also investing in online resources such as the Enabling e-Learning community and a virtual learning network and I can confirm that there is more to come.
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11559. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)to theMinister of Education: Has she read and understood each Cabinet paper she has signed off as Minister of Education?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):E te Mana Whakawā āe kā mōhio tūturu ahau ki ngā pepa katoa i haina e au i ahau i roto i tēnei tūranga Minita mō te Mātauranga.[Mr Speaker yes I certainly stand by all the documents that I signed in this position as Minister of Education. ]Chris Hipkins: Did she read and understand her 5 February Cabinet paper outlining her intention to appoint Catherine Isaac as the chair of the partnership schools authorisation board where she recommended that Catherine Isaac’s conflict of interest with the Partnership Schools/Kura Hourua Working Group be managed by her resigning with immediate effect from the working group formally disclosing any interests she had in any school that may be considering applying to be a partnership school and having no further contact with any potential applicants; if so why is Catherine Isaac still listed as a member of the Partnership Schools/Kura Hourua Working Group?Hon HEKIA PARATA: To the first part of the question yes I did know that that was what I had asked her to do.Chris Hipkins: Is Catherine Isaac still the chair of the Partnership Schools/Kura Hourua Working Group?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The working group has been disbanded.Chris Hipkins: Was Catherine Isaac still the chair of the Partnership Schools/Kura Hourua Working Group when it met in February and in March this year?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have the detail of those dates. I think it is unreasonable to expect that I might because that was such a wide primary question but I am happy to come back with that detail.Chris Hipkins: Did she ensure that her recommendation to Cabinet on 5 February that Catherine Isaac resign from the working group with immediate effect was actually implemented?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes I did. I provided that instruction to the Ministry of Education which carried it out.
O'Rourke Denis: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11558. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First)to theMinister for Social Development: Does she consider the direct deduction policy of overseas pensions from New Zealand Superannuation under section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964 to be fair and consistent?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce)on behalf of theMinister for Social Development: As the Minister answered to a question very similar to this 3 weeks ago yes.Denis O’Rourke: When an overseas pension is paid to a pensioner what justification is there for applying section 70 to the spouse in respect of their entitlement to New Zealand superannuation?Hon CRAIG FOSS: The spouse deduction is just one aspect of the direct deduction policy. The rationale for the direct deduction policy is that all New Zealanders receive the equivalent amount of New Zealand superannuation. This may be made up of the full amount of New Zealand superannuation or a combination of an overseas pension and a reduced amount of New Zealand superannuation. This applies to individuals and couples.Denis O’Rourke: Has the Minister received legal advice on the human rights implications of applying section 70 to the spouse of a pensioner who receives an overseas pension; if so does that advice raise the possibility of a claim under the Human Rights Act by the spouse?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I understand that the Minister has not received advice on that matter.Denis O’Rourke: How would the Minister respond to a human rights class action by New Zealand superannuitants affected by the direct deduction of overseas pensions?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I am sure the Minister would seek advice on such matters.Denis O’Rourke: Does she review the use of her chief executive’s discretion under section 70 in so far as it affects overseas occupational pensions under the direct deduction policy; if so when was the last such review?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I understand that the last comprehensive review of all of these matters was in 2007 under the Labour - New Zealand First Government out of which no substantive changes to any of these matters were made.
Calder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCalder Cam: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11557. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.Dr CAM CALDER (National)to theMinister of Education: What reports has she received on the NCEA Level 2 results of last year’s school leavers?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I have received a report from the Ministry of Education indicating that overall in 2012 we have improved to 74.3 percent—which is nearly three-quarters—of all our senior students. That is an over 10 percent increase since 2009 which translates to more than 5000 more students leaving with National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 or higher than there were before we became the Government.Dr Cam Calder: According to the report which particular regions showed significant improvements in school-leaver results?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Although there has been improvement across all regions since 2009 our Government is committed to getting every young person across the line. This has seen for instance in Northland an increase of more than 12 percent over that time or more than 250 kids; in Gisborne an increase of more than 15 percent or another 113 kids; on the West Coast an increase of a whopping 29 percent or another 50 kids; and in Auckland an increase of nearly 9 percent or over 2100 more kids achieving level 2 than otherwise would have.Hon Trevor Mallard: What proportion of the change she has outlined to the House just now followed the reduction in standards after moderation?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not agree with the basis of that question. There has been no reduction in the quality of moderation but there has been in the instances of it because we are dealing with workload issues.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11552. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):Under Speakers’ ruling 152/6 I withdraw question No. 2. Thank you.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11551. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the member. The member raises a very good point but at the end of the day a member does have a right to seek leave for anything in this House. The chances of it then happening I think because the Government has transferred the question are very very slim and I anticipated that and I stated that. Listen at this stage we have had a long session of points of order. I am going to go back on an earlier decision I made. I am going to give the member a chance to ask questionNo. 2 but I am not going to put up with that member rising to her feet and raising yet another point of order. I call question No. 2.Metiria Turei: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that a member has a right to raise a point of order I will allow it but if it in any way relitigates any of the matters that have been discussed this afternoon then the member will lose that question.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11551. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I raise a point of order Speaker. I do not want to prolong things quite obviously but we are in an interesting situation where you have got Speaker’s ruling 152/1 which says: “The Government is perfectly entitled to transfer questions from one Minister to another …”. You have upheld that the transfer was quite reasonable in the circumstances yet we have had something that I think may have crept in before but it appears quite new to me: a Government having made a decision about where a question should go members can then seek leave so the House can overrule a Government. That is not a good place for us to land in. Might I say also that I note that you have previously ruled that the member had lost her question No. 2 and we were moving on to question No. 3.Hon Ruth Dyson: Did not.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well question No. 3 was called Ms Dyson—very very loudly called—
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11551. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I accept that and that is why I did reconsider the matter. Question No. 2 Metiria Turei.Hon Members: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: This is now getting to the very ridiculous stage.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11551. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In your last ruling you said that you will move on and not hear applications for leave. I would ask you to reconsider that ruling because it is a different matter to ask for an interpretation from the Speaker as to whether something is in order or not—which is answered one way or the other—and then whatever that answer is to seek leave for another course. In the second case it is not your decision that is being asked for; it is the House’s decision.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11551. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11551. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I seek leave of the House to have this question transferred back to the Prime Minister.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11551. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty with the point the member is raising is that the member did contest my ruling with a subsequent point of order. She then attempted to raise I think a fourth point of order seeking leave to transfer it. For the cause of goodwill in this House I am prepared to let the member seek that leave. I think we can anticipate the result but she can so seek leave. I will then go back to question No. 2 on this occasion. But I warn members that if in the future they are going to continue to challenge rulings the likelihood of me moving forward reasonably rapidly to the next question will occur. The member can so seek leave.
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11551. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there are a couple of issues here one of which is that you are absolutely entitled to rule at any point that you have heard enough about a matter and insist that a member either raise a new matter or move on. You are absolutely entitled to do that Mr Speaker. But where a Minister has transferred a question a member is entitled to seek leave to transfer it back. So the situation that we have here is that Metiria Turei having had your clear ruling did not contest that and asked to seek leave to transfer it back. She is entitled to do that.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11550. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: No we have had this in the past. The question has already been transferred and that is the matter that has been raised. I have given the reason and I am not going to put up with the member jumping up to her feet and down raising points oforder when the point of order was clearly questioning a decision. I took the member at her word that it would not but she did do that.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11550. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you for two clarifications. One is that where in the past members have stated that they are raising a point of order on a different issue those members have been taken at their word and I am concerned that you did not take me at mine—that is the first issue. The second is that I seek leave of the House which I am entitled to do for this question to be transferred back to the Prime Minister.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11550. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is now disputing the decision I have given as to the right for this question to be transferred. I have got a mind to move immediately to question No. 3 but I will on this occasion show a little bit of goodwill to the member. I now invite her to ask her question.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A different issue—genuinely—Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption ] Order! I will give the member one more chance to move to question No. 2 otherwise we are immediately going to question No. 3. I will—Metiria Turei: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: No the last point of order was meant to be a fresh one; it was again disputing my ruling. If the member wants to ask the question she should proceed to do so.Metiria Turei: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 3 Alfred Ngaro.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11550. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 152/2 which you have referred to also but I refer to a particular matter that is referred to in that Speaker’s ruling where Speaker Wilson said: “Ideally such changes”—transfers—“should be rare arising only from real and significant conflicts of interest. Where they do occur it would be helpful if the Government were to ensure members are officially informed.” I would ask that you seek from Government members what the Prime Minister’s conflict of interest in answering this question is.
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11550. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: No I need no further assistance on this thank you. There are a number of Speakers’ rulings around this particular issue and I particularly want to refer Ms Turei to Speakers’ rulings 152/1 and 152/2. It is the Government’s right to transfer a question. There would be only very exceptional circumstances when the Speaker would rule that not appropriate and that would be if I in any way anticipated that the Government was avoiding answering a question. In my mind this question can very easily and justifiably be transferred and it has been. Subsequent to the transfer clearly the wording then required some alteration because it was a statement made by the Prime Minister and not by the Minister for Economic Development. There was further discussion between the Office of the Clerk and the member for that wording to then be approved by the member. So the question stands if the member wants to ask it. If the member does not want to ask it she does not have to and we will move immediately to question No. 3.Metiria Turei: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order?Metiria Turei: It is on a different issue.Mr SPEAKER: It is not in any way disputing the ruling given?Metiria Turei: No.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear a fresh point of order.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11549. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):Two points on that last point from the member. I think what we are seeing more frequently are attempts by particularly the Green Party to rewrite the Standing Orders by virtue of Speakers’ rulings. There is a process for the rewriting of the Standing Orders and I would suggest that those members do participate more fully in that process. But on this occasion Speaker’s ruling 152/1 which does protect the Government’s right to transfer questions to the appropriate Minister where there is going to be the most information available does stand. Indeed the member has proved to the House that that is the right course of action in this case by insisting on asking this very question directly to the Prime Minister during the supplementary questions to question No. 1. The Prime Minister while answering as well as possible clearly said that there was other information that would be better answered by the Minister responsible for this particular aspect of Government involvement. Therefore the transfer is not some deception but a genuine understanding of what is required by the House when a question is asked and the expectation that the answer is better given by another Minister.Hon David Parker: Speaking to the—
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11549. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I would also refer you to Speaker’s ruling 152/5 where although it is accepted that questions can be transferred to Ministers and that in those circumstances there may be some grammatical changes that need to be made to the question to make sure that it is relevant it is none the less an issue if a question is in effect out of order as a result of the transfer. So it is not sufficient to simply say a question can be reworded but that actually there is a serious issue if a question is out of order unless it is reworded. That suggests that it should not have been transferred in the first place.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11549. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):This is an area that we have had some experience in recently and I thought the point we had got to was that when questions are transferred like this they should at least be reworded to say: “Is it the Minister for Economic Development’s understanding that the Prime Minister stands by his statement?”. What that does is it at least goes to the real question and that is what is in the mind of the Prime Minister not his subsidiary Minister because that is the right of members to ask.
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11549. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer you to Speakers’ rulings 151/5 of Gray and Tapsell. My primary question was originally accepted and authenticated by the Clerk of the House and directed to the Prime Minister concerning his own statements. Only the Prime Minister can know whether or not he agrees with or stands by his own statement. This is not a question that could reasonably be answered by any other person and therefore should not have been transferred according to Speakers’ rulings.
Vote: Bail Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Bail Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11535. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes101New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes19Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Tisch Lindsay: Bail Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Bail Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11532. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split-call.
Mitchell Mark: Financial Reporting Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Financial Reporting Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11517. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):It is a pleasure to take a short call on the Financial Reporting Bill. It is a very good bill. It is a bill that is in line with the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. It is a big part of our aim to reduce red tape and compliance costs for small and medium sized businesses especially as they make up 70 percent of the New Zealand economy.I would just like to address the comments made by Andrew—Williams was it?Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: David Cunliffe.MARK MITCHELL: Oh David Cunliffe. It was also Andrew Williams too actually. The select committee process is actually a very good process that does work. If there are changes that need to be made to bills and tweaks that need to be made it is the select committee process where this happens.There were two very good changes made through the select committee process as Mr Cunliffe and Mr Williams mentioned. The first was to increase the threshold at which a not-for-profit entity must prepare financial statements on an accrual rather than a cash basis from $40000 to $125000. That is actually a big move and that will help reduce compliance costs.The second was to extend the deadline by which large companies that are not issuers must prepare financial statements from within 3 months after the balance date to 5 months. This too is a very very good change. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11504. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Families Commission Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a second time.
Vote: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11504. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Question agreed to.
Heatley Phil: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHeatley Phil: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11504. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei):I rise to support the Families Commission Amendment Bill. It introduces a new function in research monitoring and evaluation; establishes a social science experts panel; and requires the Families Commission to develop an annual families status report.There are some changes absolutely. There will be one commissioner. The new functions include independent monitoring and evaluation to drive quality services for families. The commission will remain an autonomous Crown entity which should give members a lot of confidence about what we are doing.The Families Commission currently receives $8 million in funding each year—$32 million over 4 years. It is still a substantial body and does substantial good in this country. I support this legislation.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to.
Beaumont Carol: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBeaumont Carol: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11502. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I just really want to follow my colleague Moana Mackey in explaining our concerns because Labour did support this bill the Families Commission Amendment Bill to the Social Services Committee. We wanted to look closely at the implications of the bill and to look at what the role of evaluation and research should be in relation to what was being proposed. We now oppose this bill having considered it carefully during the select committee process. We believe that the changes proposed to the commission in this bill continue an agenda that is about fundamentally altering the commission’s nature as an autonomous Crown entity and really making it something more akin to a Government department or ministry. We believe that the net effect of that is really to compromise the commission and to limit its independence and most important its ability to advocate effectively for families.So given those changes we stand by our policy for the disestablishment of the commission instead replacing it with a “Ministry for Children” in order to focus on policies and programmes to ensure that children and families are the centre of all policy. I just want to say that my colleague Jacinda Ardern is doing a great deal of work in this area because in the end what happens to our children is the most important thing. As members of Parliament we should be considering everything that is done in this House in light of what the implications are for the future generations. At the moment in this country we can see the fact that we now have a situation where many young people do not believe that they have a future in this country. They do not believe that they have a right to a job or do not believe they will get a job. They do not believe they will own a house. What are the implications of that? What are the implications of so many children living in poverty? How will that flow through over the next decades? The implications are very very serious which is why in Labour we do believe that children and families should be at the centre of all policy. So as I said earlier this bill does limit the advocacy function of the commission and we believe that that really effectively means that it is meaningless. It is not going to be sufficient for doing what needs to be done.Probably the final point I would make is that the governance structure as established is very confused. I think my colleague Moana Mackey went through the fact that there will not be the ability to have the range of disciplines reflected in this that is necessaryfor something as multidisciplinary as this. So with those few words I just again repeat that Labour is opposing this bill.
Tisch Lindsay: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11502. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. Carol Beaumont.
Roche Denise: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11495. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green):Our main opposition to the Families Commission Amendment Bill is that it takes away the likelihood of independent and thorough research into families and issues that concern families. We will be opposing this bill. We do not believe it is good for New Zealand. We do not believe that it is good for New Zealand families. We will be voting against it.
Tisch Lindsay: Business of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Business of the House[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11495. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I think it is very clear. Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Business of the House[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11495. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):Mr Speaker you will notice that I had my head down very carefully reading the words provided to me by the Clerk of the House to give effect to this agreed position.
Mallard Trevor: Business of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Business of the House[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11495. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):Just before we say that we do not object I want to make it clear that those are calendar days not parliamentary days because they will not exist otherwise.
Tisch Lindsay: Business of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Business of the House[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11495. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?
Brownlee Gerry: Business of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrownlee Gerry: Business of the House[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11495. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 3 July 2013 and on Thursday 4 July 2013 and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 378.
Business of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBusiness of the House[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11495. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 2 July 2013(continued on Wednesday 3 July 2013 )Business of the HouseHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):I seek leave for there to be a question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 3 July 2013 and on Thursday 4 July 2013 and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 378.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):Just before we say that we do not object I want to make it clear that those are calendar days not parliamentary days because they will not exist otherwise.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):Mr Speaker you will notice that I had my head down very carefully reading the words provided to me by the Clerk of the House to give effect to this agreed position.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I think it is very clear. Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Roche Denise: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11494. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green):I am not sure I am going to get through my speech before the bell goes tonight either. However just to go back to what I was saying before I was interrupted we were looking at the Families Commission the work that had been done before the changes that are in this Families Commission Amendment Bill and particularly the changes and their impact on evaluation and research.I am making a case that the changes under this bill will mean that there will be a loss of independence in the research that will be compiled around theFamily Status Report . This is particularly important when we look at how the committees are being set up—in particular the expert advisory committee. We do not believe that this bill will actually benefit families and children the way the commission has.Debate interrupted.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11494. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a second time.
Vote: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11494. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Question agreed to.
Hauiti Claudette: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHauiti Claudette: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11494. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):I congratulate the Minister for Building and Construction the Hon Maurice Williamson on his tireless efforts in bringing this bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) to the House. Nō reira mārama nui ngā mahi kei riro i a noho.[Let industry be rewarded lest idleness get the advantage .]Ka whakamihi ahau i tēnei pire ki to Whare. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.
Ross Jami-Lee: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Building Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11492. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):This Building Amendment Bill (No 4) is a piece of legislation that the Government is fully supporting and wanting to get through the process of Parliament and I commend the bill to the House.
Goldsmith Paul: Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoldsmith Paul: Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11491. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):It is my pleasure to speak in accord with this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) which is allowing local boards to continue delegating responsibilities as they currently do under the Auckland Council arrangements. There is no question that we have had a massive change in Auckland’s governance since the rearrangement. It is important because it is a multibillion-dollar exercise that it is running its own affairs efficiently and that its regulating powers do not add costs making houses more expensive or making doing business more expensive and difficult.I think that overall the impression is that the Auckland arrangements at both the council level or the governing board level and the local board level are settling down reasonably well. I do commend the energy and enthusiasm of a number of the local boards. They are I think in terms of Desley Simpson over on Ōrākei Local Board where I am based doing great work in the community. But it will take years for the system to work itself into a stable state. I am not sure that the council has quite got the share of the rating burden right for example but we are making good progress on transport. I am sure the mayor has been singing “Pokare Kare Ana” a great deal over the last week because the Government and the council are working closely together to get Auckland moving. We see that the Auckland Unitary Plan which is such a vast task will take years to get right.There is no question that we will need to monitor and consider the arrangements in Auckland carefully over the next years but that is not really the task of this bill. The task of this bill is to make sure that we can continue with local boards delegating responsibility as they currently do. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.