edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Parmar Parmjeet: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParmar Parmjeet: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7924. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill in the name of Carmel Sepuloni. I am taking this call to oppose this bill. I am opposing this bill because I believe that it is not going to do what it claims to do. Instead it will do the opposite. If we look at our welfare system it is working fine because of the National Government’s welfare reforms. It is giving us results. Our focus is to get people off benefits and into work. There are clear obligations for people on benefits. We have intensive management of teens on benefits because we know that if people go on benefits at a younger age then they are more likely to stay on them for a longer time. Benefit numbers are falling. The number of sole parents on benefits is also reducing and thousands fewer children are now in benefit-dependent families. Actually the benefit numbers are dropping for all main benefit types.To me this bill is saying that people should stay on benefit while there is work available. This does not make any sense to me. Actually our focus should be on children in low-income families and that is why this National Government has allocated $790 million in Budget 2015 to help children in low-income families. We are also strengthening the work obligations for sole parents. If we look at the labour market data it shows continued job growth wages are rising faster than inflation and for people on benefits to move into jobs they need jobs. This National Government is creating the environment that helps to create more jobs by signing free-trade agreements with for example Korea and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These businesses are going to invest more and create more jobs. New Zealanders are working hard the system is working fine and people are working hard to get off benefits and into work. I do not see that this bill is going to do what it claims to do. I oppose this bill. Thank you.
Naylor Jono: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7922. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National): Firstly I just want to acknowledge because I want to give credit where credit is due that the Labour Party can from time to time make a good decision—for example last weekend they made a good decision. They came to Palmerston North on a beautiful fine sunny day and had a good time. However this billis not one of their good decisions and it is not going to achieve everything that they think it will. I agree that it is kind of well intentioned but actually it is not really going to make the difference that people want it to make.I am concerned about what I have heard from members on the other side of the House when referring to this bill today. I am concerned because actually they have been saying that all we need to do is offer people a bit more money and that will give them the incentive to go to work. If you think of the underlying premise of that it is almost like saying that people will not bother to go to work unless they are absolutely going to make lots of money out of it. That is the underlying assumption that seems to come out of that from what I have heard from the other side of the House. What we do know is that if people actually get themselves into work they improve their own opportunities for further work and otherwise. That should be a good enough reason for anybody to want to get out and work.Yes we go to work to earn money. We receive benefits if we are unable to work. But simply to say that the only reason why people want to get into work other than being on a benefit is that the abatement rate is too high I think underestimates those very people who are on those benefits who want to get into work who want to be able to restore some pride to their families who want to be able to get out and provide for their families and then contribute to society and contribute to their families and also who want to be able to further their chances for ongoing work.I am not going to support this bill. If I thought that it would achieve what it is setting out to do then maybe I would. But it is ill-conceived it is badly drafted and it is not going to get us to where we want to go. We will not be supporting it.
Muller Todd: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMuller Todd: Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7921. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): That was quite a theatrical flourish. I stand to oppose the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill this afternoon. I find it absolutely extraordinary just listening to some of the sentiment expressed in this debate thus far—when you compare it with the comments from the Labour Opposition only 24 hours ago when we were talking about a bill that actually delivers a real increase to our beneficiaries for the first time in 43 years and the Labour members opposed it every step of the way.When you look at the general policy statement that supports Carmel Sepuloni’s bill the first two sentences are: “Part-time work is a proven way to transition from unemployment into full employment. Labour wants to promote pathways into full employment for all of those supported by social security where the persons are capable of being employed full time.” That is from the same member whosaid 24 hours ago that part-time work takes away people’s choices and who said 24 hours ago that they oppose the Support for Children in Hardship Bill because it will end up with beneficiaries being worse off financially than when they were on welfare—so therefore they oppose it and they opposed increasing 15 hours to 20 hours.It is absolutely extraordinary that we have to listen to some of the comments that Carmel Sepuloni has delivered in support of her poorly thought through piece of legislation. In fact Carmel can I suggest that you look at the Productivity Commission’s report on more effective social services where it says absolutely clearly that fundamentally it is not about the money. Fundamentally it is not about putting more money in the system because we have a higher percentage per GDP—Carmel Sepuloni: He’s talking about social services and the amount of money we inject into social services not into the pockets of human beings.TODD MULLER: —in social services than the OECD. It is about system effectiveness. I think you will learn if you listen more. What this Government has is a track record of actually delivering for those who are beneficiaries by providing the pathways to work—175000 jobs in the last 3 years and 150000 jobs over the next 3 years. It is an economy that is working.Carmel Sepuloni: 6 percent unemployment.TODD MULLER: To use your own words and philosophies back to you part-time work is a proven way to transition from unemployment and poverty into employment and contributing effectively into society. I oppose this bill.
Tisch Lindsay: Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Electricity Industry (Small-Scale Renewable Distributed Generation) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7915. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call on Gareth Hughes—5 minutes in reply.
Borrows Chester: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: General Debate[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7901. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for her insight but her time has expired.
Carter David: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: General Debate[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7898. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Thank you that is all I need—[Interruption] That is all I need.
Parata Hekia: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParata Hekia: General Debate[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7898. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): No but I said—
Carter David: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: General Debate[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7898. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will check with the member whether she had such evidence during the general debate. I would be surprised. Did the member quote from official documents? No.
Moroney Sue: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: General Debate[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who just resumed her seat—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just have the point of order.SUE MORONEY: —has referred to evidence that she had of good quality early childhood education. I ask that she table that evidence.
Carter David: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: General Debate[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7896. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
Moroney Sue: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7895. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill: What indications of support has she received for the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill?CARMEL SEPULONI (Member in charge of the Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill):I have had numerous encounters with New Zealanders ordinary New Zealanders who come and tell me and my staff that the current abatement rates are prohibitive to their moving off benefits and into work. I have spoken to social service agencies budget advisers beneficiary advocates and importantly employers and they have all told me the same thing: this bill will make a huge difference to helping people to get off benefits out of poverty and into work.Sue Moroney: What reasons have supporters of the bill given to her as to why they are supporting it?Mr SPEAKER: Briefly Carmel Sepuloni.CARMEL SEPULONI: These Kiwis want to get off benefit and into employment but the current system creates a barrier for them being able to do so. Employers have told me that the bill creates incentives for beneficiaries to remain in employment and not to go back on the benefit. Social service agencies have told me that the bill removes a structural barrier to getting people off benefit and into work—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advised the member at the start of her answer that it was to be brief.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7894. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. The question has been accepted as in order. The question can be asked; it does not need comment from my right-hand side. Would the member start asking the question which is in order.
Moroney Sue: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7894. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): My question for what it is worth is to the member in charge of the Social Security Pathway—[Interruption]
Prosser Richard: Points of Order — Leave for House to Request Apology—Unparliamentary LanguageText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Points of Order — Leave for House to Request Apology—Unparliamentary Language[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7891. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 4(1) and Speaker’s ruling 1/2 and recognising the limitations of Speaker’s ruling 1/5 I seek leave for the House being the master of its own affairs to request rather than require of the Prime Minister that he withdraw comments that other members have taken offence to.Mr SPEAKER: Can the member please repeat the Standing Order he is referring to.RICHARD PROSSER: Standing Order 4(1).Mr SPEAKER: 41?Hon Member: Speakers’ rulings.Mr SPEAKER: Oh a Speaker’s ruling not Standing Orders?RICHARD PROSSER: Standing Order 4(1) Speaker’s ruling 1/2 and Speaker’s ruling 1/5.Mr SPEAKER: It is very confusing to understand what the member is doing. Can the member just state it again clearly. I will consider whether it is in order to put the leave and then I will put the leave if it is in order to do so.RICHARD PROSSER: In your response to my colleague Denis O’Rourke earlier—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just have a repeat—[Interruption] Order! I am going to help the member. Can the member just repeat slowly and clearly what he said earlier so we can all look at our references. If the leave is in order I will then put the leave; if it is not I will not. If the leave is in order I will put the leave and it will be over to the House.RICHARD PROSSER: I seek leave for the House being the master of its own affairs to request rather than require of the Prime Minister that he withdraw comments made yesterday to which members took offence.Mr SPEAKER: I am going to put the leave. I think it will be dealt with. Leave is sought to take that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.Question time resumed.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I require less interjection from my right.
Shaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): To the—[Interruption] I am sorry? Speak up.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption]JAMES SHAW: Speak up.
Kuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on the contribution of aquaculture to the Marlborough economy?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): This week I attended the launch of a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report on the contribution of aquaculture to the Marlborough region. The report highlights that aquaculture generates around $276 million of export sales revenue for the Marlborough region or nearly 6 percent of its economic activity. There are 859 local Marlborough jobs supported by aquaculture and the Government is working closely with the industry to reach its aspirational goal of growing to a billion dollars by 2025.Jami-Lee Ross: What are some of the ways in which the Government is supporting growth in the aquaculture industry?Hon NATHAN GUY: The Government is supporting aquaculture through enabling greater market access and also supporting research and development. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will be a major boost for this industry. All tariffs will be eliminated on seafood exports to those 11 countries resulting in an estimated saving of around $8 million for the industry. The Government is also co-investing with the industry into the Primary Growth Partnership. A great example of this is the local SPATnz programme. It is improving the quality and quantity of mussels and could increase exports by $80 million by the mid-2020s.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7876. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I hear that level of interjection from the Hon Ruth Dyson she will leave me no choice but to ask her also to leave the Chamber. Would the member please start his question again so I can hear it.
Barclay Todd: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBarclay Todd: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7876. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): My question is to the Minister of Finance and asks: does he stand by his statement that building a more productive and competitive economy that supports jobs—[Interruption]
Carter David: Points of Order — Leave to Move Motion Without Notice—Armistice DayText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Points of Order — Leave to Move Motion Without Notice—Armistice Day[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7876. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Let me put the leave and then the member can move his motion if leave is given. Leave is sought to move that motion. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Leave to Move Motion Without Notice—Armistice DayText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Points of Order — Leave to Move Motion Without Notice—Armistice Day[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7876. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on the 97th Armistice Day today it being the last day—
Bridges Simon: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7876. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Simon Bridges.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I accept what the member says in his seeking assurance. Of course I also seek an assurance that other members of Parliament while they are also coming to Parliament are not impeded by other members of Parliament unduly and unreasonably in the way that they do their job.Mr SPEAKER: To—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I am expecting silence from my right as well. I give the member an absolute assurance that if any example was given to me whereby a member was impeded from making progress to this House for parliamentary business I would take a very dim view of that. The point I made in my earlier ruling was that I think we need to make sure that we concentrate our political debates here in this Chamber and in select committee rooms and make sure they do not move to the public areas of Parliament; otherwise I can see occurrences like this happening not only on the way to question time but potentially in places like Copperfields. I think that would be a very sad day for this House.
Points of Order — Leave for House to Request Apology—Unparliamentary LanguageText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints of Order — Leave for House to Request Apology—Unparliamentary Language[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7891. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Points of OrderLeave for House to Request Apology—Unparliamentary LanguageRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 4(1) and Speaker’s ruling 1/2 and recognising the limitations of Speaker’s ruling 1/5 I seek leave for the House being the master of its own affairs to request rather than require of the Prime Minister that he withdraw comments that other members have taken offence to.Mr SPEAKER: Can the member please repeat the Standing Order he is referring to.RICHARD PROSSER: Standing Order 4(1).Mr SPEAKER: 41?Hon Member: Speakers’ rulings.Mr SPEAKER: Oh a Speaker’s ruling not Standing Orders?RICHARD PROSSER: Standing Order 4(1) Speaker’s ruling 1/2 and Speaker’s ruling 1/5.Mr SPEAKER: It is very confusing to understand what the member is doing. Can the member just state it again clearly. I will consider whether it is in order to put the leave and then I will put the leave if it is in order to do so.RICHARD PROSSER: In your response to my colleague Denis O’Rourke earlier—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just have a repeat—[Interruption] Order! I am going to help the member. Can the member just repeat slowly and clearly what he said earlier so we can all look at our references. If the leave is in order I will then put the leave; if it is not I will not. If the leave is in order I will put the leave and it will be over to the House.RICHARD PROSSER: I seek leave for the House being the master of its own affairs to request rather than require of the Prime Minister that he withdraw comments made yesterday to which members took offence.Mr SPEAKER: I am going to put the leave. I think it will be dealt with. Leave is sought to take that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.Question time resumed.
Hipkins Chris: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a completely different issue Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I have been assured that a few times this afternoon but I will take the member at his word.CHRIS HIPKINS: It is a very different issue. In the considered ruling that you gave at the beginning of question time you also referred to another incident that occurred outside the House prior to question time yesterday. What I would like to seek from you is an assurance that no member of Parliament whilst in a public place in the parliamentary complex or proceeding to the debating chamber will be in any way impeded in their parliamentary business by any security service either parliamentary or otherwise—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order!CHRIS HIPKINS: I am raising a point of order.Mr SPEAKER: This is a point of order. [Interruption] Order! If we want to see a few gaps on this side I can assist. Quiet—silence please through the point of order. Would the member complete his point of order.CHRIS HIPKINS: I am seeking an assurance from you that no member of Parliament will be impeded in any public place or while proceeding to the Chamber by any security service whether they be parliamentary or otherwise.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Then the member must also for consistency leave the Chamber.Dr Megan Woodswithdrew from the Chamber.
Woods Megan: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the Prime Minister’s statement—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Dr MEGAN WOODS: —and require that he apologise.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I now require the member to leave the Chamber.Clare Curranwithdrew from the Chamber.
Curran Clare: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As somebody who has experienced an attempted—
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member—[Interruption] Order! The member will leave—[Interruption] Order! The member will leave the Chamber.Marama Davidsonwithdrew from the Chamber.
Davidson Marama: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavidson Marama: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a victim of—
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat immediately. I now will require any member who takes a point of order along the same lines to immediately leave the Chamber.
Mahuta Nanaia: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMahuta Nanaia: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a trustee of the Waikato Women’s Refuge Te Whakaruruhau I take personal offence—
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. [Interruption] Order! No. I am moving on from here. I was assured that it was a fresh point of order; I have just been let down by Catherine Delahunty. I will hear from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta but I certainly hope that she is not flouting the rules of this House.
Delahunty Catherine: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDelahunty Catherine: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order; it is not a campaign Mr Speaker. As a victim of sexual—
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! No—we are now getting to the stage when there could be a series of these points of order. I have ruled that—[Interruption] Order! I do not want to ask the junior Labour whip to leave but—Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t say anything.Mr SPEAKER: I saw the member say something.Carmel Sepuloni: I didn’t say anything.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member did. I saw it. I am trying to allow members to stay in the—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order!Sue Moroney: It was me Mr Speaker and I am happy to go—I am really happy to go.Mr SPEAKER: OK.Catherine Delahunty: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: No I just want to deal with Chris Hipkins. If I am assured that it is a new point of order and not the same one then I will hear it. Chris Hipkins it is a matter of custom in this House that as with any issues such as these if offence is taken then it must be dealt with immediately. It cannot be dealt with subsequently otherwise we would have all sorts of campaigns in here with people going over their Hansards weeks and weeks in the past taking subsequent offence and then expecting a withdrawal to be delivered. I will hear from Catherine Delahunty on the assurance that it is a fresh point of order and not in any way the types of points of order—
Williams Poto: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a victim and survivor of family violence and an advocate for victims of violence I take personal offence at the comments of the Prime Minister—
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Was there a further point of order also from Poto Williams? I will hear them all and then rule.
Hipkins Chris: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do accept that you have made a previous ruling with regard to the comments of Ron Mark—that as they had happened previously they could not be withdrawn—and indeed you have made a similar ruling with the Prime Minister’s statements yesterday. I wonder whether you could indicate to us which of the Standing Orders you are drawing on in making that ruling because we have had a good look through the Standing Orders and can find no Standing Order that prevents you from asking anybody to withdraw and apologise for a comment because it happened on a previous day.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Again as I have attempted to explain that cannot be done. What happened yesterday happened yesterday. Collectively it was not addressed well at the time. The time has passed.
Logie Jan: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a victim of sexual assault and an advocate for survivors—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No. This is a point of order so I say to members on my right-hand side that I will hear it in silence. I apologise to the member.JAN LOGIE: As a victim of sexual assault and an advocate for survivors I would ask that the record expunge the comment from the Prime Minister.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: That is not within the Standing Orders.
O'Rourke Denis: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In response to the last point of order that I raised you mentioned that I was seeking leave on behalf of another member; I was in fact seeking leave that the House request the Prime Minister to withdraw his interjection from yesterday.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister whilst I have been in the Chair has not said a word today. I cannot ask him to withdraw and apologise when he has not even made a comment today.
Turei Metiria: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: I just want to check—[Interruption] Order! I have a point of order from Metiria Turei. I just want to check that we are not spending more time relitigating a ruling that I have already given.METIRIA TUREI: No Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Fresh point of order—Metiria Turei.METIRIA TUREI: As the victim of a sexual assault I take personal offence at the Prime Minister’s comments and ask that you require him to withdraw and apologise.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. Again that was ruled on only yesterday. You cannot seek leave on behalf of another member.
O'Rourke Denis: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7874. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave that the House request the Prime Minister to withdraw—
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: No no. Again the member needs to actually quote the words that were said and I happen to have them. The Prime Minister towards the end of the answer says: “If those members want to protect sex offenders rapists or murderers go ahead. I am not going to.” I see nothing unparliamentary in that as I have already stated categorically. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet.
Robertson Grant: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hope I can ask for your indulgence as the member who raised the point or order to clarify a matter. I raised the point of order after the Prime Minister used the phrase “protect”—and there were other things but he used the phrase “protect the rapists”. You Mr Speaker I take it are drawing a distinction between using the phrase “back the rapists” and “protect the rapists” because you could perhaps understand why both of those phrases would be I would have thought unparliamentary and certainly offensive. But I just want to clarify that that is the distinction you are drawing—“backing” is unparliamentary; “protecting” is not.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I can give an assurance that the question is in order. Those words are now part of the parliamentary proceedings so the question can be asked. I will be hoping for a fair amount of quiet so I can very carefully listen to the answers from the Prime Minister but if the Prime Minister intends to attempt to repeat such words then I will be acting accordingly.
Hipkins Chris: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just note that question No. 4 quotes the comment that the Prime Minister made which you have now deemed to be unparliamentary. I just want to seek some reassurance from you that as that comment has not been withdrawn and remains part of the parliamentary proceedings and parliamentary records the Opposition is still able to question the Prime Minister on that and in fact quote from it because as long as it has not been withdrawn then it is still part of the parliamentary proceedings.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to go back and carefully study Hansard. The words that he has quoted are in fact Metiria Turei’s interpretation of the words as she felt they occurred. [Interruption] Order! I do not want to start by asking members to leave the Chamber. When I am on my feet I expect silence from all members. As I have ruled when I interpret the other comments that were made though they were robust I do not consider them to be unparliamentary. The first comment the one at which offence was ultimately taken was unparliamentary. I should have dealt with it. I did not. It should have been raised with me at that time.
Shaw James: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just in reference to your ruling about what was and what was not unparliamentary in 2003 a Speaker ruled that it was unparliamentary to allege that the Opposition was supporting gangs. That was under Speaker Hunt in 2003. So I find it odd that it is parliamentary language to say that the Opposition is supporting rapists and murderers but it is not parliamentary to say that it is supporting gangs. There are some other examples of unparliamentary language such as “angry smurf” “shag spiders” “Barbie doll” “bigot” “chicken” “monkeys” “sewer rat” and “gutless” and they—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the point of order to a conclusion.JAMES SHAW: —have all been ruled unparliamentary. I find it extraordinary that you could say that it is parliamentary to say that members of the Opposition are backing rapists and murderers.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I was hoping I had made it more clear in my ruling. The comments to which the member then refers I do not consider to be unparliamentary. I totally agree that the earlier comments which I quote in my ruling are unparliamentary. The problem with the situation yesterday is that it was 4½ minutes after those comments were made before any member suggested that offence was taken.
Turei Metiria: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7872. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is just to understand the chronology. As the Hansard is printed on the parliamentary website Marama Davidson asked her oral question and the Prime Minister then responded with an answer that ended with: “If those members want to protect sex offenders rapists and murderers go ahead.” Mr Robertson then stood up to take a point of order. You dealt with a number of points of order with Mr Robertson and Mr Hipkins as is expected and then I raised the exact point of order with you saying that we took offence to that comment. There was no sooner opportunity to do that. We did so at the time and you refused to accept it.
Carter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7872. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave serious thought. First of all I disagree that there were a number of occasions at which that comment was reported. As I said in my ruling I have studied it very carefully. It was a comment but it was stated only once. I cannot ask a member to withdraw a comment subsequent to the event if it is not dealt with at the time. We had a very good example of that when only last week there were allegations made in this House that some people claimed to be racist and I was then asked in hindsight for that remark to be withdrawn. I cannot do that. That is the point I am making in my ruling. I want to deal with these matters at the time. It is important that I jump on them but if I do not then you as members must jump to your feet at that occasion so we can deal with it at the time. If a withdrawal and apology is demanded then I can exercise that. [Interruption] Order! To the Leader of the Opposition I am on my feet.
Shaw James: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for ObjectionsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary Language—Procedure for Objections[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7872. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for reflecting on that Mr Speaker. We were hoping that you would ask the Prime Minister to rise and withdraw his remark and to apologise for it. He did say on a number of occasions that he felt that not just the Labour Party but Opposition MPs including Green Party MPs were backing rapists and I would ask that you ask him to—