edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a little disappointing to see the alarmism from over the other side because what we do know and what we heard in the Finance and Expenditure Committee is that in fact the Reserve Bank now takes into account multiple factors when setting monetary policy. So we know already that much of what we've got in this bill is doing no more than making transparent Reserve Bank practice including when interest rates are considered taking into account the impact they will have on employment. We know for a fact that no responsible Reserve Bank Governor would simply adjust interest rates willy-nilly without regard for the consequential impacts on the economy.Of course it's correct to say that in the long run interest rates will not affect employment but we also know that in the short run they have a direct immediate and significant impact. So when there are changes and sometimes shocks in the economy because we have a small economy that is subject to shocks those shocks can be evened out very effectively by monetary policy which takes into account employment issues. So it is entirely appropriate that in this bill there is a dual mandate which says Yes we want price stability and we want maximum sustainable employment at the same time." What is even more appropriate is the fact that the balance of those targets is set by the Minister of Finance and given as a task to the Reserve Bank Governor and the team around the Governor.The division in the House on this bill in fact illustrates a deeper divide because the other side of the House would have us wash our hands of this and say "Let's just create the Reserve Bank and set it on its course." as if by some magic it will perfectly manage the economy.The Reserve Bank is part of Government. Its role is to make New Zealand a better place so that New Zealanders can lead better lives. To do that it needs to be an appropriate part of the system of governance as well and the appropriate place for that governance to come from is in fact the Minister of Finance. So it's quite appropriate that the Minister of Finance can set remits for the monetary policy committee. It's appropriate because that is exactly the function of Government to talk about stability to talk about full employment and the Minister of Finance can appropriately give direction as to the balance to be struck. What is more it must be said that it's disappointing that the minority views also thought that it was inappropriate.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m."
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Robertson Grant; Mallard TrevorQuestion No. 8 to MinisterHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker I seek your guidance. I want to seek leave to table a document that is available on the internet. It relates to the question around the meningococcal outbreak that we were discussing before. The reason I seek your guidance about this is because you yourself indicated in a ruling during the question that this is a very serious life-or-death matter. The May Ministry of Health immunisation update that Mr Reti used as one part of his question—well frankly he's misrepresented it and I seek leave to table it in the House now.SPEAKER: Well that's a very serious allegation. We have an experienced member in Dr Reti someone who is right across the area and to suggest—I know the member didn't quite suggest that he deliberately misrepresented something but to suggest that he—oh I can't get a word to get the proper description—is something which I am concerned about. Having said that because of the serious nature of this I am prepared to put the leave which of course any member can reject. Leave is sought for the tabling of the document which is I presume a printout from a website. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Lees-Galloway Iain; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. Next week the House will further consider the Employment Relations Amendment Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill and the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. On Thursday 6 December the Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapu o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) will receive its second reading. As previously notified to the Business Committee there will be an extended sitting on Thursday morning.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Noting that the Government expects to make progress with the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill next week has there been further consideration of the proposals from Dr Shane Reti for the inclusion of a licensing regime in the bill to make it workable so we avoid the ridiculous situation of it being legal for people who have a terminal illness to possess and use cannabis but illegal for people to supply it to them?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I suggest the member consult with the Minister in charge of the bill.
Wednesday 28 November 2018 - Volume 735
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 112New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 8Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Bill read a second time.
Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill — Second Reading
11. Question No. 11—Pacific PeoplesANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific PeoplesQuestion No. 11—Pacific Peoples11. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What recent reports has he seen on the Pacific economy?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): At the Pacific Aotearoa Summit held on 13 November the Minister of Finance the Hon Grant Robertson launched the Treasury report The New Zealand Pacific Economy which highlights the significant contribution Pacific New Zealanders make to the economy. The report is the first of its kind provides us with a rich source of information in understanding the actual scope and range of areas where Pacific New Zealanders make their contribution. The report is useful for Government ministries and agencies at both national and regional levels including local government to better engage with Pacific peoples.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What are some of the findings of the report?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Some key findings show Pacific peoples contribute $8 billion towards New Zealand's GDP that there are approximately 1500 Pacific business employers and 500 not-for-profit organisations with assets totalling $8.3 billion. The report confirms that Pacific peoples are active in almost every area of the New Zealand economy. The report also recognises the significant contribution Pacific New Zealanders are making to our cultural and community well-being. Pacific people spend at least 27000 hours per week on voluntary unpaid activities that directly contribute to community stability cohesion and well-being.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What is the significance of this report?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: It highlights that despite the inequalities that Pacific people face in areas such as health housing education and employment they still make a valuable contribution to the economy. This report challenges us to consider how much more Pacific peoples could achieve for themselves and for our country if we were to work together to reduce the inequities and barriers they face. There is more to the monetary aspect of this report as Pacific people define wealth more broadly in terms of family faith language culture and knowledge and these broader aspects will be taken into account as the Government develops the well-being budget.
10. Question No. 10—CourtsCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville) to the Minister for CourtsQuestion No. 10—Courts10. CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville) to the Minister for Courts: Does he have confidence in the Ministry of Justice's response to lightning strikes by court staff?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister for Courts: On behalf of the Minister yes.Chris Penk: Does he agree with the comment of the Chief District Court Judge that as a result of lightning strikes there may very well be a miscarriage of justice arising out of undue delay." and if not why not?Hon STUART NASH: That is the fine judge's opinion.Hon Simon Bridges: Put away the ring binder Stu.SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.Chris Penk: Does he agree with the Secretary for Justice that ongoing strike action undertaken by court staff is "irresponsible" and "unsafe" and if not why not?Hon STUART NASH: I'm not going to enter into any debate about negotiations that are under way at present.Chris Penk: Has he seen the statement by the Law Society that a particular alleged assault that took place in a courtroom would not have happened but for the strike action undertaken by court staff and if so is he concerned for the safety of those in courtrooms as a result of ongoing strike action?Hon STUART NASH: I haven't seen that statement."
5. Question No. 5—HealthRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 5—Health5. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about capital investment in hospitals?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): More good news: last Wednesday I joined the Prime Minister at Middlemore Hospital to announce that the Government has set aside $80 million to fix longstanding building and infrastructure issues at Counties Manukau District Health Board (DHB). Earlier that week I was on the West Coast to confirm a $20 million investment in the Buller Integrated Family Health Centre. Staff and patients in our public health service deserve high-quality facilities—this Government is committed to delivering on them.Rino Tirikatene: How will the $80 million investment at Counties Manukau DHB improve facilities?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Well the building issues at Middlemore including rot and mould in the walls will be well-known to members. The DHB can now plan with certainty for four important projects that will tackle those legacy issues and better position it to cope with a growing population with complex needs. Those projects are re-cladding the KidzFirst building relocating the radiology department to a more modern and suitable building establishing a radiology hub at the Manukau super-clinic site and improving critical infrastructure at the super-clinic including new plant room IT and medical gases. Further investment will be required at Counties Manukau in coming years but these projects will make a real difference to staff and patients.Rino Tirikatene: How much of the $750 million the Government invested in Budget 2018 for capital works in health has now been allocated or prioritised for specific projects?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is the biggest capital injection in about a decade into our health system and in recent months we've announced $275 million for critical infrastructure at Auckland DHB $200 million for a new elective surgery unit at North Shore Hospital $24 million for new endoscopy and cardiac care capacity at Whangarei Hospital $7.1 million for Bay of Islands Hospital $8.4 million for individualised units for people with severe mental health and intellectual disability needs and $21.3 million additional to the new children's hospital in Wellington and of course that's all additional to the $80 million for Counties Manukau that we've just announced. So in total since Budget 2018 we've announced investments in our hospitals of more than $600 million. More will be needed but this is a sign that this Government is committed to our public system and to our public hospitals.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he consider it part of his role as Minister of Finance to ensure that the collection and use of tax revenue is undertaken carefully and in the best interests of all New Zealanders?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes.Hon Amy Adams: As the Minister of Finance does he accept that if the Government imposes higher taxes on the owners of residential rental properties this will lead to higher rents for tenants?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No not necessarily. There is evidence on both sides of that argument internationally. What I do believe is that all New Zealanders should pay their fair share of tax.Hon Amy Adams: So is the Minister of Finance really saying he doesn't accept that higher costs on landlords are likely to lead to lower supply and higher rents for tenants?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I said was that internationally there is conflicting evidence on this matter about whether or not those kinds of taxes lead to an increase in rentals which is the question that the member asked. What I do know for sure is that if you have a Government that for nine years fails to address the supply of affordable housing in the economy that really is going to put pressure on.Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with the Tax Working Group that a capital gains tax would likely lead to increases in rents?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Tax Working Group—I presume the member is referring to their interim report—actually note exactly what I've said: that there is conflicting evidence on that matter.Hon Amy Adams: So does he expect that the $325 million additional revenue that Budget 2018 says that this Government will take from landlords through ring-fencing losses is going to mean higher rents for tenants?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've said there is conflicting evidence on the impact of those sorts of policies. What I do know is that the fundamental thing that will change the rental market in New Zealand is increasing the supply of housing.Hon Amy Adams: Why is it that we have a Prime Minister who can answer that she expects rents to rise but the Minister of Finance doesn't seem aware that that's how the market works?SPEAKER: Well inasmuch as the member has responsibility.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can only refer to what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said on behalf of the Prime Minister which is that there may be some temporary increases there—the point being that the failure to create supply in the market over the last nine years will take a little bit of time to correct.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) released its December Quarterly Predictions showing that growth is expected to average about 3 percent per year over the next three years. The NZIER said that there are many favourable conditions supporting growth and that recent data points to solid activity for example in the retail construction and services sectors. They did warn about some risks to the New Zealand economy including the international situation. However the NZIER said they expect the effects of these risks on real activity to be muted.Willow-Jean Prime: What did the NZIER say about business activity?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The December Quarterly Predictions said that activity indicators suggested demand was holding up despite business confidence remaining in the doldrums. The NZIER went on to say: Despite weak business confidence firms remain optimistic about increasing their headcount." They also said that wage growth is expected to pick up as firms invest to become more productive leading to higher skilled jobs with higher wages for Kiwi workers.Willow-Jean Prime: What other reports has he seen on actual business investment?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday Statistics New Zealand released the latest merchandise trade data for October 2018. Westpac economists said that the imports data reflected some positive trends in domestic activity and said that firmness in demand has encouraged increased investment spending by businesses with imports of machinery up 7.5 percent over the past year and imports of transport equipment up 10 percent. This is the real data which reflects real investment decisions made by businesses. In other words there's serious momentum in the economy."
Swarbrick Chlöe; Tolley AnneCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Madam Chair thank you. I just wanted to touch on the point that was raised by the member in the chair just previously with regard to how those who are in possession of these substances are not going to be captured by this. The clause that we're debating is clause 4 which amends section 70 to increase the penalty for selling or supplying unapproved psychoactive substances." However—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Having said that I'm very sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m."
Webb Duncan; Tolley AnneDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Just a point of clarification: you did rule a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) out of order and I think it's numbered 164. Now I didn't see an SOP by me tabled with the number 164 so I'm just really seeking your clarification on that point just so that we know what's debatable and what's not. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So at this stage there is no—I have been advised that it was tabled in the last session. We are just checking that. It is obviously not on the Table so therefore there can be no debate if it doesn't exist. So we will overlook that at this stage.
Tolley AnnePSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES (INCREASING PENALTY FOR SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 31 October.Clause 4 Section 70 amended (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Before we continue I want to advise members that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 164 in the name of Dr Duncan Webb to clause 4 to replace 8 years" with "1 year" is out of order as being contrary to the principles and objects of the bill as agreed at the second reading and therefore this amendment will not be debated."
Consumers' Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill — Third Reading
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a privilege to take a short call on the Consumers' Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill which is in the name of Gareth Hughes and is going through its third reading tonight. I just want to congratulate the member for all his hard work and mahi in bringing the bill this far and the difference that it is going to make. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): Hey I'd like to acknowledge all the previous speakers. I've had enough of Mark Patterson's puns in the House tonight—I'm not one to tell porkies! All the issues have been well traversed. The Nats support this bill. Parliament costs $300 a minute so I'm going to speak for one minute and save us $1200. I commend this bill to the House.
Smith Stuart; Tolley AnneSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Well it is great to have this bill get to the third reading and it's an opportunity to reflect on how it got here. I would like to congratulate the member Gareth Hughes for shepherding it through what was at times quite a difficult select committee stage but we got it there and it's now here for the third reading. But my constituent who I hope is in the—oh he is there. It's fantastic to have Steffan Browning here who was the originator of the bill and to have him in the gallery to enjoy this moment tonight is I think fantastic. It wasn't the last act that Steffan did in his time in this House but it was pretty close to it. So it's fantastic to have him here to enjoy this moment. I think what drove Steffan was of course the right for people to know exactly where their food comes from and the country of origin that it comes from. He's a very great supporter of the farmers market in Blenheim and I think that sort of speaks really to what drove him. Coming from Marlborough of course which is New Zealand's largest wine-producing region every bottle of wine actually has on it the country of origin. So it's a given in the wine industry and it has been for many many years and it is quite natural that people would expect to know where everything else that they consume comes from. You make your own choice whether you're going to drink a New Zealand wine or a Chilean wine but you now also can make a choice whether you're going to eat a New Zealand potato or an Australian potato or an Irish potato. I think that we all actually understood that. The select committee was all behind it and obviously the House is all behind it. There were some sorts of difficulties with the legislation as we thought there would be when we worked our way through. In the end we found out that the Minister had the right through regulation to do it anyway. To be able to pass the various regulations is quite difficult legislatively to put it all in legislation as to where a food type ends or as to when does it become a New Zealand item or an Australian item when you start to add other ingredients into a food item for sale so I think it's fantastic that we got there in the end and I'd like to commend this bill to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a five-minute call.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Well it was clear to see the National Party heritage of that member Mark Patterson coming to the fore again as he commended—the tone in his voice as he admired—the Hon David Bennett. Fantastic work—come on over son. Come on over. Now look. Let's delay no more. The time is here. This bill can now progress. It can be released into the legislative wilderness to commence its merry journey. We've heard from the other side of the House how it has taken some time to reach this point and I encourage them to delay no more. Seize this opportunity. Shorten your calls and advance it forthwith. So clearly we've heard it gives the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the right to include regulatory powers to capture some consumer information standards. Yep those are appropriate on certain foods and that's around single ingredients. That was one of the big complicating factors here: how do you assess a country of origin if there are multiple potential ingredients—etc. etc. So we're talking fruit vegetables meat and seafoods—captured in fresh or frozen state—able to be included under this.Now one of the concerns we'd had and it was voiced by the Hon Nathan Guy initially on this side was around the potential for this to become a non-trade barrier and given trade is so important for New Zealand that was a big concern for us. That's been alleviated though and so we're happy to support it at this stage. It's important to touch on—and I don't think I've heard it actually in tonight's debate—that this is for retail sale of food products. So where they're sold in supermarkets for example it would be required to have this country-of-origin labelling but if food is sold in a presented state in a restaurant for example then that is not required—also any food being sold at a fundraising event. So you can imagine a local community group going along to their local Bunnings Warehouse store for example. They've got enough to worry about with trying to determine whether onions should be on top or underneath sausages without having to then worry about trying to include an origin for that particular product. So on that basis this side of the House commends the bill and encourages the opposite side to get on with it. Thank you.
Smith Nick; Williams Poto; Dyson RuthHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just ask your indulgence for a moment around a practical issue associated with this bill. There are significant commercial contracts that expire on 15 December and the House has only one members' day prior to the end of the year. My preference would be to seek leave for the committee stage and third reading to be set down for the next members' day and so I seek leave to do so—that is to be clear that the committee stage and third reading both be set down for the House's last members' sitting day on 12 December. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. We have that clear. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I'd just make a suggestion to Dr Smith that he put that through the Business Committee—the normal practice.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Madam Assistant Speaker I'm happy to take that. I just did want to give members notice that we do have that practical difficulty and if we could work together to find that solution that would be sincerely appreciated.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): So can I clarify—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can I clarify I will not put the leave today but I'll give notice to the House that it would be my intention either to seek leave or seek approval of the Business Committee to be able to manage the issue in that way. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): That's perfect. Thank you very much.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to make a brief contribution. First of all I thank my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his contribution but most importantly he's one of the most experienced MPs and also most committed to his electorate and he also has a PhD in civil engineering. The purpose of this bill is to authorise access to the Crown land to enable the Waimea Community Dam to proceed so this according to Dr Smith is a no-brainer. I did some research online and my conclusion is indeed that this is a no-brainer. This project has been under discussion for decades. In 1979 a study was commissioned and then there were also proposals for other small dams in the area and in the region before 1993 but it was the severe drought in Tasman in the year 2000-01 that highlighted the magnitude of water shortage in the region. Ever since then of course there has been more discussion and debate but eventually the Waimea Community Dam was selected. The dam has many benefits. First of all it will improve the flow of the Waimea River which means a healthy river ecology because of the normal flow of the river. It also means that this normal flow will ensure a steady supply of water for urban and rural needs. Economically this dam is also very very important because horticulture is particularly important to New Zealand and that region is really a base for horticulture in New Zealand. So it has national strategic importance. In terms of GDP there is a figure here: the dam could increase the region's GDP by over $900 million over 25 years. So it is indeed a no-brainer. For that reason I commend the bill to the House.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I obviously haven't taken any part in this discussion to date and I just want to congratulate the Hon Nick Smith on bringing a bill to the House that really will I guess last—well outlast him for sure but the result of it will shore that district up for many years to come. I think that's a pretty significant thing to do.I want to comment on one or two other things with respect to water storage and related to this bill. I had the opportunity to drive up the valley and through to the West Coast a few months ago and just sort of observe what goes on in that part of New Zealand and it's amazing the amount of opportunity there is not just for agriculture interestingly or for food production but for recreation to shore up the values of that river and to create an amenity and an area that that community will benefit from for many years to come.I also want to make a comment on the conservation land and the issue we have of using conservation land for what some in the House term commercial purposes". In fact when you use conservation land for a thing like a dam it's actually using conservation land for conservation purposes. You could easily argue that because I think that the value of these types of projects goes way beyond the value that perhaps commercial businesses might get out of it and extend into the recreation and into the amenities of the area and become of huge value to the people that live in those areas.So I think that it's a great project. It's a project that we should be replicating throughout New Zealand and I think it's a sad thing that we're not. It did occur to me and I was thinking about water storage and when you look at the greatest water storage we've got in New Zealand—you can probably call Lake Taupō that—Lake Taupō of course didn't require a resource consent to build it; it just needed a slight explosion and actually that's how we got our biggest source of water in New Zealand. So I don't think it's any mystery the fact that we should be looking at every opportunity we can to put propositions like this in place and I think it should be a much easier process than it is. When you think of the length of time that this has taken Mayor Kempthorne and his team to put in place it's pretty extraordinary that they would persevere for so long but the result of that perseverance will be significant. I just hope that we can get this type of project operating in many other parts of New Zealand and perhaps without the kind of grief that we've had certainly in one or two of the larger water storage proposals of the last year or two.So I don't want to add any more to the discussion other than to congratulate the Governance and Administration Committee the community and certainly the member who brought this bill to the House. I look forward to it getting through by Christmas and I also look forward to the next time I drive up that valley—and I think someone said earlier that it was the biggest boysenberry-producing part of New Zealand. I look forward to going up that way sometime when there are a few boysenberries for sale on the side of the road. Thank you."
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. I have great pleasure tonight in standing up and speaking in support of the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill in its second reading. I have a great affection for this scheme and I also share a little bit of ownership with it because half of the lake is going to be in the electorate of West Coast - Tasman and it's going to serve the people of the Tasman area extremely well.I acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee for the unanimous support of this bill. I think that was a great partnership and a significant step in making sure that this bill actually reaches its desired conclusion. I'd just like to take up a couple of points that the previous speaker Marama Davidson made around the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause and the reality is that the reason that we need this water augmentation scheme bill is because it doesn't rain all day every day it rains at the wrong times of the year and we need to capture the water that falls at the times of the year when there are not as many demands on that water. So in the Tasman and Nelson region—very hot dry summers with a fantastic horticultural sector there that needs the guarantee and the surety going forward that they're going to have water.So the cause of the need for this is purely because we need to ensure that there is security of the water supply. I can assure the former speaker too that there are going to be no shortcuts taken in the monitoring of this development and that the people who are engaged by the Tasman District Council to monitor biodiversity are experts in their field—they're are highly qualified and we can trust them to do an open and transparent job of the monitoring of this scheme.The big winner of this bill is the river—the Waimea River. We know that the issues that we have with water quality are when the river flows are extremely low and so we have the algae build-up we have the fish dying. This scheme is a fantastic support to that biodiversity and to ensure the river health. I'd just like to quote from a submitter to the process—the former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Morgan Williams who said You don't keep a river alive unless the water is flowing through it. With a dam it allows you to keep the river flowing keep the river alive keep it healthy. And also keep the aquifers topped up. Rivers by definition if they are going to stay healthy they need to keep flowing".That is what this bill is about. It is about ensuring that we can maintain river flows but it is also about maintaining the economic biodiversity and the economic viability of established businesses in the Nelson and the Tasman area and ensuring that those workers who have committed to their roles there and who have moved there to support those industries have a viable future. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House."
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of this Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill in its second reading. Actually I'd like to thank and congratulate fellow members on the Governance and Administration Committee for their very ready agreement to travel to Richmond to hear directly from local people their views on the bill. Most people we are aware are supportive of the scheme but it also gave an opportunity for those that are less favourable to it to have their voices heard as well. We chose as we have done several times to not only hear submissions in the provinces but also to do so on a non-sitting day and I'd just like by way of quick reference to thank the Business Committee for on another occasion recognising the work that our committee is doing and permitting us to attend a hearing in another part of New Zealand on a sitting day.I think this approach we have been taking really does open democracy up to New Zealanders right across the country and where we have visited other places—Richmond being the case in point here but also Thames Coromandel and also Gore recently—we've been warmly welcomed and it's been very clear from those submitters that they appreciate Parliament travelling to give them a local voice.This scheme is a very pragmatic and sensible scheme for the area. It's one that will provide security of supply for urban water users as well as principally horticulturalists in the area. As other members have said it's a way to address possible risks of nature by ensuring that in times of need there is still plenty of water not only to produce obviously for the local economy from the land but also to make sure that urban users have the supply they need. Along the way and along with that it will also help improve the quality of the river. So it's a situation where in almost every respect one would argue that everyone wins.In fact on a small but still related piece to that the commitment the council has made to working to get public access to land around the dam and indeed access to that also goes some way or a very good way to making sure that those that wish to use the conservation land and area around the proposed dam have freedom of access to enjoy nature and to recreate the way that they wish to.So the process itself was hugely beneficial and enjoyable for the committee members. I trust—I hope—that those members of the public that chose to submit in Richmond also got something useful from the process. I'm absolutely convinced that residents of Nelson and Tasman will definitely benefit from this dam when it is implemented and in action and I commend this bill to the House.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): At 1 p.m. today the Minister came to a decision and made that determination and made that announcement to the media and to the New Zealand public. At 3 p.m. today in this Chamber the Minister walked through his considerations both at the time when he made his determination the information that was available to him and every single subsequent action that he took since he became aware that there was perhaps further information that he needed to turn his mind to.I want to take up the comments that the deputy leader of the National Party made earlier. She focused on the fact that we have said that one of the benchmarks that we will hold ourselves to is not necessarily the errors but how we fix up the mess. Now as the Minister said today in this Chamber he accepts that there has been a dent in public confidence as a consequence of this determination. He acknowledged that. He accepted that. What he did was front and he said in this House I will not run away from my responsibilities and my obligation." That there is a Minister who has worked hard to ensure that the safety and the best interests of New Zealanders are maintained. So I think our colleague rose in this House during what has been no doubt a time of tribulation and took responsibility for the decisions that have been made and he has made every single action since that time to ensure that the trust and confidence of the New Zealand public will be restored as a consequence. So he's committed to fixing the process—fixing his processes and ensuring that that determination is the right one from this point on. So we conclude this debate—what do I say at the end of an urgent debate? That's it—thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed."
Urgent Debates — Immigration Minister—Decision on Karel Sroubek
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Just to go off the point that was just made: the Minister just stood in this House and took responsibility. He responded to new information and acted swiftly to rectify the situation. It has been acknowledged and accepted that public confidence has been shaken by these events and there has been a commitment to being upfront and fixing this situation.
Hipkins Chris; Tolley AnneHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A member speaking is entitled to respond to interjections. There have been a lot of interjections during this debate. In fact the Minister was incredibly restrained in his contribution when he was faced with not just interjection but a barrage of abuse through his contribution which was clearly a well-set-out and well-considered contribution to the debate. I think the Deputy Prime Minister was responding to interjections that were irrelevant but the fact that the interjections were irrelevant—he's still entitled to respond to them.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes I accept that and if he had merely just responded to them and moved on and if we hadn't had all that beforehand I would have been very tolerant.
Speaker's Rulings — Written Questions—Standards of Accountability
Points of Order — Stoke Kiwibank and PostShop
Motions — Women Voting in Aotearoa New Zealand—125th Anniversary
Visitors — Australia—Queensland Legislative Assembly Ethics Committee Delegation
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATESImmigration Minister—Decision on Karel Sroubek ResidencySPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Mark Mitchell seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the decision by the Minister of Immigration to revoke his residency decision in respect of Karel Sroubek. This is a particular case of recent occurrence—the Minister's decision was announced at 1.03 p.m. today. The normal deadline for applications for urgent debate is one hour before the House is due to sit. However where a matter occurs after the time but before the House sits the Speaker may allow the application: Standing Order 389(1) and Speaker's ruling 189/6 apply. This matter is clearly one that involves ministerial responsibility. The immigration status of Mr Sroubek has been a matter of considerable parliamentary and public interest. I judge it to be a matter that requires the immediate attention of the House therefore I have decided to allow the debate to be held today. I call on the Hon Mark Mitchell to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.
Brownlee GerryPoint of Order—Penalties for InterjectionsHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You just I think have indicated that we're losing four supplementary questions—SPEAKER: Five.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Five—five tomorrow. Well of course that sir would be because of your lack of acceptance of the outrage expressed by people on this side of the House at the very provocative answers given to questions by the Minister of Statistics. The reality is that it is his responsibility and he had plenty of time to be able to ensure for himself that the census would go appropriately. It hasn't and he has to be responsible. For him to try and sheet that home to a previous Government is completely unacceptable and for us to lose the opportunity to question Ministers simply because we expressed some degree of surprise that a Minister would be so audacious as to try and obfuscate his own responsibilities by pushing them off on the previous Government like this I think is extremely unfair.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker.Hon James Shaw: Point of order.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): The fact of the matter is that laying out the chronology of events with respect to the decision making is surely not provocative. It was a plain statement of fact and if the member can't handle that then he should find a new profession.Hon Gerry Brownlee: With all due respect Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: Well does James Shaw have anything positive to add?Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Statistics): I just wanted to point out that I have actually referred to the member Mr Brownlee before for using points of order to try and make debating points and if he wants to have a general debate slot on the census he's welcome to do so or if he wants to try and call an urgent debate—SPEAKER: I think that member's just compounding the problem. Now the issue that I have is that in the initial part of the last supplementary answer that the Minister was giving both sides of the House erupted clearly with contrary points of view on whether a few months was a reasonable amount of time to correct what are alleged errors in the preparation of the census. There were different points of view and members were expressing that quite loudly from both sides to the extent where I was having trouble hearing the Minister. I then required members to be quiet to be silent other than the Minister in replying. That was understood by all members up to a point where one very loud member on a couple of occasions and three other members made interjections absolutely contrary to what my instructions were. I'm at a loss what to do. Should I toss them all out? I mean there might be a problem for a subsequent debate if I did. Or do we keep going on the basis that I did previously?Maybe seeing as it's Wednesday I'll be a little bit reasonable and revoke my decision but I do want to say to members that when I require silence—but I will also say to the Minister when he is answering under that sort of requirement he does have an obligation to cut down the politics and just stick with the facts a bit more.
Nash Stuart; Penk ChrisQuestion No. 10—Amended AnswerHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister for Courts: I seek leave to correct an answer given on behalf of the Minister of Justice.SPEAKER: The member seeks leave to correct an answer he gave on behalf of the Minister of Justice. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.Hon STUART NASH: I can confirm that the Minister of Justice has seen the statement from the Law Society which Mr Penk referred to.CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was to the Minister for Courts rather than the Minister of Justice.Hon Stuart Nash: Can I—SPEAKER: That Minister saw it too. OK? Can we accept that? Thank you.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S RULINGSWritten Questions—RepliesSPEAKER: I've received a series of complaints from members about replies for written questions relating to diary matters and briefings. In most cases they were right to raise these issues with me because the replies did not meet the required standards of accountability to the House. I'm aware that there was a proposal for the proactive release of ministerial papers and diaries. That will reduce the need for written questions and Ministers may be able to direct Ministers to the source of the information they're seeking. In any case and certainly in the interim Ministers are obliged to give informative replies to all the questions they are asked where it's consistent with the public interest to do so. Speakers' rulings 176/5 and 177/5 apply. I have been given too many examples where they have not.Hon Amy Adams: Most transparent ever.SPEAKER: And I might say to the Hon Amy Adams support from her in these circumstances does not do the cause of her colleagues who raise these matters any good.
Smith Nick; Mallard TrevorPOINTS OF ORDERPublic Services—Stoke KiwiBank Branch and PostShopHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House for notice of motion No. 16 in my name to be put without debate.SPEAKER: Is that something that has been discussed?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): No.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action?Hon Members: Yes. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Probably not a good time to make that interjection.
Genter Julie AnneMOTIONSWomen Voting in Aotearoa New Zealand—125th AnniversaryHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to recognise the 125th anniversary of women voting in Aotearoa New Zealand.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I move That this House celebrate the 125th anniversary of women in Aotearoa New Zealand voting for the first time and acknowledge the work of the suffragists to make our country a world leader on women's rights.Motion agreed to.
Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 28 NOVEMBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSAustralia—Queensland Legislative Assembly Ethics Committee DelegationSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome the Queensland Legislative Assembly Ethics Committee led by Mr Joseph Kelly who are present in the gallery.[Applause]
Tuesday 27 November 2018 - Volume 735
Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
Child Poverty Reduction Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of David Seymour to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 1ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 119New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross. Amendments not agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of David Seymour to clause 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 1ACT New Zealand 1Noes 119New Zealand National 55: New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.