edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
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:7871. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members yesterday following points of order in question No. 1 I undertook to review the Hansard. I have now done so. I have on this occasion also watched a video replay of the proceedings. Although the interchange between members was a robust one there was a point at which the Prime Minister made an unparliamentary remark in saying “you back the rapists;”. I did not clearly hear the comment at the time because I was on my feet calling for order. When order was restored I then admonished the Prime Minister sternly telling him that when I rise to my feet I expect him to resume his seat. Had I heard the remark properly or had it been drawn to my attention at the time I would have ruled it to be unparliamentary and required the Prime Minister to withdraw it and apologise for it. Though I accept that members might have been offended by the remark no member raised an objection at the time.Approximately 4½ minutes later Grant Robertson took a point of order on the remark made by the Prime Minister claiming that those words had been repeated. There is no evidence of that remark being repeated. My rulings then addressed more the subsequent comments by the Prime Minister which though very robust were not unparliamentary. When I hear a remark I consider to be unparliamentary I must deal with it. Yesterday I did not; I should have. However if I do not do so it is always open to members to test a particular remark with the Speaker according to Speaker’s ruling 60/4. But I do ask that members raise unparliamentary comments or remarks at the time they are made. It is difficult to deal with them when they are raised much later.I will also take this opportunity to remind Ministers of Speakers’ ruling 196/7: “Ministers when replying should address the question and refrain from making comments that are not relevant to the question that was asked; without terms of abuse being part of the answer.”There is one other matter of yesterday’s behaviour that I wish to comment on. This debating chamber and the select committee rooms are the proper places for robust political debate to occur. For such robust political debate to be taken outside this Chamber and to public areas of our parliamentary complex steps into an area of danger. I would hope that members would consider this carefully in the future.
Borrows Chester: Privilege — Reflections on the Speaker—Comments by Andrew Little and Chris HipkinsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Privilege — Reflections on the Speaker—Comments by Andrew Little and Chris Hipkins[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7871. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members two matters of privilege relating to comments about the Speaker reported to have been made by Andrew Little and Chris Hipkins have been raised as matters of privilege by Tim Macindoe. Because the matters relate to the Speaker he has asked me to consider and rule on them. It is suggested that the comments complained of could each amount to contempt of the House in that they reflect on the Speaker in his capacity as Speaker.In two news articles Mr Little is reported to have stated that the Speaker has “a reputation in short order of acting politically in the way he handles question time” and “National has clearly had a word in the Speaker’s ear leading him to make an unprecedented decision to stop the bill being read this year” and further “the ruling raises serious questions about political interference.” A news article reported Chris Hipkins as saying “the Speaker is interfering on their behalf to ensure the Government does not face that embarrassment” and “[t]his is massive political interference in the parliamentary process by the Speaker”.The matters of privilege raised are significant ones. The Privileges Committee in its recent report stated that “reflections against the Speaker or other presiding officers and in particular any comment that alleges that they have been biased in performing their duties are among the most serious reflections that can be made about members.” I have considered the matters raised and considered their degree of importance. In my view allegations that the Speaker acts on the instruction of the Government and interferes in parliamentary process for political reasons are serious matters that suggest that the Speaker is not only biased in performing his duties but is open to partisan manipulation.The comments complained of were not made in the heat of debate but were premeditated. As experienced politicians they went to the media. The members concerned have not withdrawn the comments or resiled from them in any way but have sought to mitigate them by making comparison with comments by other members on other occasions. It is for the Privileges Committee to determine whether such comments amount to contempt. Consequently I rule that a question of privilege does arise from the comments reportedly made by Mr Little and that they may constitute a reflection on the Speaker in his capacity as Speaker. I also rule that a question of privilege arises from the comments reportedly made by Mr Hipkins in that they may constitute a reflection on the Speaker in his capacity as Speaker. The questions therefore stand referred to the Privileges Committee. I will now vacate the Chair—[Interruption] I am not seeking applause—for Mr Speaker to conduct the general business of the House.
Carter David: Privilege — Reflections on the Speaker—Comments by Andrew Little and Chris HipkinsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Privilege — Reflections on the Speaker—Comments by Andrew Little and Chris Hipkins[Sitting date: 11 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7871. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members I propose to vacate the Chair in favour of the Deputy Speaker in order that he might rule on a matter of privilege.
Points of Order — Leave to Move Motion Without Notice—Armistice DayText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePoints 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.]Points of OrderLeave to Move Motion Without Notice—Armistice DayRON 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—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.
Vote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7859. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Vote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7859. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7853. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7848. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 44New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.Part 1 agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7848. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 26Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 95New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question that Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7847. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 139 in the name of Julie Anne Genter to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7847. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Julie Anne Genter to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7825. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7825. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clause 2 agreed to.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7825. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7824. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7814. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Part 1 agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7869. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret interrupting the member but the time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill without amendment the Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill without amendment progress on the Support for Children in Hardship Bill and no progress on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill.Report adopted.
Mallard Trevor: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7867. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to call Poto Williams but as I do that I think I should explain to members that in deciding who gets the call members of a select committee tend to get some preference but Ms Williams has been calling now for over half an hour which is much longer than any other person who is seeking the call.
Mallard Trevor: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Support for Children in Hardship Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7859. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will just make it clear that this is debate on clauses 3 to 10 and the schedule. There are I understand Supplementary Order Papers 135 136 and 137 that also relate to this part.
Borrows Chester: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7848. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members we come now to Part 2. As I indicated earlier this debate is very narrow. It involves clause 16A and clause 16. Members will speak tightly to the matter before the Committee—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As you rightly acknowledged in Part 1 Part 1 did contain the majority of operative clauses in the bill. The Labour Opposition signalled early in the debate on Part 1 that we would be commencing with a number of general contributions and then working through the clauses of that bill in a clause by clause manner. Unfortunately you took a closure motion before it was possible for us to do that. Of course it is going to be difficult to generalise beyond the tight provisions relating to trusts in Part 2 and we will not do so but as we approach clauses 1 and 2 I would ask for your consideration in respect of the scope and duration of that part of the debate because it may be necessary to sweep up some of the technical points that would otherwise have been made in Part 1.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I thank the member for his point of order. I acknowledge that clauses 1 and 2 are generally wide ranging. I do not necessarily accept that there has not been time to fully debate Part 1. I note that the Labour Party has had 16 calls. The member himself has had 15 minutes on this particular piece and at 100 words a minute that is pretty broad-brush. Other Opposition parties took five calls. So there has been substantial debate around Part 1. However I am glad the member accepts that this next part will be narrow and he can let rip on clauses 1 and 2.
Borrows Chester: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7848. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Dyson Ruth: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7848. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to correct my incorrect vote that I just made.
Ross Jami-Lee: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7847. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Borrows Chester: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7845. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I will just give the Committee a bit of an indication. We are even starting to hear the jokes being repeated now. The fact is that there have been 18 calls from the Labour Opposition there have been another 5 calls from the other Opposition parties and 3 closure motions from the Government. Actually if the new material is not novel in any way it will not be lasting long. I have given some latitude bearing in mind that the guts of the bill is in the first part and I am not expecting the second part’s questions to be lasting as long by any means. I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove for his third call on this bill.
Ross Jami-Lee: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7844. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Ross Jami-Lee: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7843. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Bayly Andrew: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBayly Andrew: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7839. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I move That the question be now put.
Tisch Lindsay: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7833. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to call Fletcher Tabuteau.
Bennett David: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7832. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): That was a very arrogant speech from a member who thinks that he would own a city and that it is his city which is not the case. That member Phil Goff has no idea about the Taxation (Bright-line Test for Residential Land) Bill. He was not even on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. He comes into this Chamber and tries a barrage of attacks and yells at this institution to try to explain his point of view. Well let us look at the word that that member used continually through his speech. That was the word “speculator”.Well I have got news for that member: a speculator would pay tax because under New Zealand law and the 10-year rule anybody engaged in the business of buying and selling a property with the intention of resale would be a speculator and they would pay tax. That is a 10-year rule. Those members over on that side say: “No no no no. If we had a 5-year rule instead of a 2-year rule it would be OK.” Well what about 5 years and 1 day? That would have exactly the same problem but that person would be caught because they are under the 10-year rule because they are a speculator in property. Mr Goff if you intend to stand for the mayoralty of Auckland City please understand what property law is about. Please understand the tax law of New Zealand and do not come to this Chamber and mislead the public of New Zealand in a way that shows and demonstrates your lack of knowledge of these issues and your inability to put them across in this Chamber.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No I am going to deal with something first. The member cannot say that a member has misled the House. The member will withdraw that comment and apologise for it. You cannot say that someone has misled the House.DAVID BENNETT: I withdraw and apologise. Going back to the speech from that member the 10-year rule applies to speculators and they are taxable. All this legislation does is deem that within 2 years of that sale it would be automatically considered to be taxable in that way. Just as those members over there want a 5-year automatic requirement this is a 2-year automatic requirement. The 10-year test still applies in both cases and I suggest that that member understands tax law before he comes to this Chamber again.
Foss Craig: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoss Craig: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7820. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Just briefly I will answer a question the member had regarding Tokelau. Tokelau was informed of our intention and feedback was sought from it regarding our intention to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The member may know that Tokelau is not eligible to be a member as it is not a member of the Asian Development Bank or the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for his interest. Just quickly I note that those shares will go on to the Crown’s balance sheet as an asset and any capital that could be called would be there as the member described as a contingent liability. Thank you.
Tabuteau Fletcher: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7817. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Not to labour the point but everything that has been spoken of in these contributions I actually tend to agree with. Investment in China and in the neighbouring Asia-Pacific region is essential for the development of that region. I concur with the previous contribution from Stuart Nash that investment in infrastructure development in those underdeveloped regions will bring up the social capacity of those memberships.What I wanted to point out and what I still insist on is that the underlying commitment on behalf of this Government to this infrastructure agreement bank is based on lies told to New Zealanders. The Government has sold off our assets and told us they would be used for New Zealand but they are most clearly not being used for investment in New Zealand. That is our issue with this legislation. We cannot agree with the cries about what message it would send to China and what message it would send to the regions when we do not contribute. I contest that New Zealand First as the name might suggest is more concerned with what message it sends to New Zealanders when our commitment to this bank is based on lies from this Prime Minister.I just want to finish my contribution with a very technical question to the Minister in the chair the Hon Craig Foss. You will forgive me Mr Chair. It is actually in relation to our commitments under the joint statement of principles of partnership. New Zealand is expected to ensure adequate consultation with Tokelau on any treaty such as this one that we are committing ourselves to. My understanding is we have not undertaken that consultation. I would be happy—and I would hope—if this could be proven to be incorrect. But we do have a commitment. I would like to understand what consultation has been undertaken on the part of this Government because we are expected to do so under our own legislation when it comes to these financial trade agreements. So I put it to the Minister and I hope I am proven wrong that we have not consulted as per our obligations. I would be intrigued to know what that feedback from consultation is. Thank you for your forbearance Mr Chair.
Mallard Trevor: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7814. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): This is debate on clauses 6 to 11.
Macindoe Tim: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7812. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.
Foss Craig: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoss Craig: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7810. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Just to give a quick answer to Mr Goff’s point—yes Mr Goff you are correct. There are similar organisations such as the Asian Development Bank the IMF—the International Monetary Fund—and the World Bank which we contribute to and have capital invested in as well as presumably this one if Parliament passes the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. The callable capital has never been called upon Mr Goff for your clarification. To the previous speaker Mr Tabuteau—I guess that if New Zealand was an island nation that had no interest in the development of its region or other economies or peoples or cultures or countries that member may be correct. But actually there is an obligation and responsibility to be part of this region and those other organisations which are similar to the organisation we are proposing to invest in here—for example the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank—invest in the Pacific actually helping sustainable energy projects and helping countries to become self-sufficient. I guess in brief that part of being a leading developed civilised nation with a solid economy and great history in helping other countries develop is that also as these Asia-Pacific countries—Asian countries in particular—that this organisation will be assisting grow their interest in New Zealand products and services grows as well. So it is actually in a roundabout way an investment in our region to help grow our Asia-Pacific region particularly which will in turn over time assist opportunities for the New Zealand economy to grow alongside them. Thank you.
Carter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Police—Investigation into Abusive ImagesText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Urgent Debates Declined — Police—Investigation into Abusive Images[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7803. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Tracey Martin seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the actions of the police in relation to degrading images posted online by a group of high school boys. In order for an urgent debate to be held there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. It was reported yesterday that the police had warned boys who posted images and that charges would not be laid. Although the Minister of Police is answerable to this House for police operational matters under our system of Government the decision to prosecute or not is not a matter of ministerial responsibility.The purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government accountable for an action that has occurred for which it is responsible. There must be a distinct Government responsibility for the particular case that has been sought to debate. An urgent debate is not an opportunity for a general debate of issues of concern to members. The application is therefore declined. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! That sort of behaviour is—[Interruption] Order!
Shaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7803. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In relation to Speaker’s ruling 61/1 which reads: “The cause for a matter to be withdrawn in the House is not that one member feels aggrieved. A member is required to withdraw something because the House itself is affronted.” You referred to this in your earlier ruling. It says “not one”. How many members would need to feel affronted before you ruled that it would be affronting the House?Mr SPEAKER: There is no formula that I can give the member that may help in a future situation. I have got to judge the tone of the questions that are being asked the tone of the answers that are being given and then make a call. There is no formula that I can give about whether it is four who rise to do so. Often we get the case—in fact I can think of numerous cases—where a member says that he has taken offence I rule that that is in my mind not a matter of offence and three or four otherswill rise almost in an orchestrated campaign to try to join in. That has happened before in the past. I make a call depending on the circumstances as I have explained. As I have said to this House I will certainly review the proceedings earlier today.James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order?James Shaw: Well in relation to—Mr SPEAKER: No. I have dealt—[Interruption] No we have spent a lot of time on this matter. I have dealt with it. If the member has a fresh point of order I am only too happy to hear it but at this time I have dealt with this other matter.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7803. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order!
Hipkins Chris: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7803. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I seek leave to move without notice a motion of no confidence in you as the Speaker as a result of your rulings today.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7803. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I already gave an assurance earlier to Chris Hipkins who asked that I do reflect. I will do so.
O'Rourke Denis: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7803. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Concerning Standing Order 386(2)(c) which refers to “discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament” may I respectfully request that you reflect upon whether any of your rulings today were not consistent with the Standing Orders?
Adams Amy: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAdams Amy: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7802. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications): In answer to a supplementary question during question No. 10 today it has been brought to my attention that my answer may have indicated that the $50 million Mobile Black Spot Fund is in addition to the $450 million this Government is spending on rural connectivity. It is in fact included in that $450 million.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7802. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to correct that. Is there any objection to that course of action—[Interruption] Order! Is there any objection? There is none.
Adams Amy: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAdams Amy: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7802. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications): I seek leave to correct an answer given in question time earlier today.
Doocey Matt: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDoocey Matt: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7800. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Justice: What progress can she report on construction of the Christchurch Justice and Emergency Services Precinct?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): The $300 million Christchurch Justice and Emergency Services Precinct continues to make good progress. The steel superstructures for both the justice and emergency services buildings are now complete with two of the three buildings to have roofs on by the end of this month. Work has also started on the foundations for the car park building which is the final building in the precinct. The project remains within budget and on track.Matt Doocey: How will the Justice and Emergency Services Precinct improve the way the Government delivers justice services in Christchurch?Hon AMY ADAMS: When completed the precinct will encompass around 1100 staff and 900 visitors across five levels 42000 square metres of floor space and 19 court rooms. It will locate the key justice agencies allowing police the Department of Corrections and the courts to share services and resources—for example having one set of secure cells to house offenders saving cost travel time and risk. These financial savings alone are estimated to amount to $9.8 million per year to say nothing of the intangible benefits that will accrue.
Carter David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7800. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: I can assist the member. I determine whether the House has taken offence judging by the order of the House at the time and the context in which the remark is made. In this particular case I was conscious that the Prime Minister had said that he had information from an Australian politician—I think it was from the Australian Prime Minister—stating that a number of these people who are detained are there for very serious crimes. That influenced the decision I gave earlier. But what the member is doing now is simply taking an opportunity at this stage to relitigate a decision I made earlier. That in itself leads to disorder.
Prosser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7800. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification on an issue that occurred earlier during question time with regard to a member taking offence and requesting that words be withdrawn.Mr SPEAKER: Where is the member referring to?RICHARD PROSSER: It is Standing Order 119. My question is as to what criteria are used by yourself in determining whether the House has taken offence because there appears to be some ambiguity between Standing Order 119 and Speaker’s ruling 61/1.
Davis Kelvin: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDavis Kelvin: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7798. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in Serco’s ability to train its prison staff; if so why?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): There are a number of issues to do with Serco under review at the moment and my ongoing confidence will be dependent on the outcome of that review. I expect the Department of Corrections to hold Serco to account for the terms of its contracts—that includes the necessary training for staff required under legislation.Kelvin Davis: Does he think it acceptable that after 2 years Serco has still failed to meet the standards set out by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority when training prison staff?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: My understanding of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority report is that 100 percent of those at Auckland South Corrections Facility and 95 percent of those at Mt Eden Corrections Facility had completion rates to qualify as corrections officers as required by the law.Kelvin Davis: What sort of employer has his Government contracted that sends its staff into dangerous situations without proper training and then wonders why there are fight clubs and contraband?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have said in this Housealready those allegations are currently under review. I am awaiting the findings of that review and until we receive those I cannot make conclusions from that.Mahesh Bindra: What training support does the Department of Corrections provide to Serco; and who pays for it?Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I am sorry. Can you just repeat that question?Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please repeat the question.Mahesh Bindra: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am happy to repeat the question and simplify the question to suit the Minister’s level of understanding.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the sort of behaviour—[Interruption] Order! That is the sort of behaviour that brings the House into disrepute. Would the member—[Interruption] Order! Would the member repeat the first question as asked.Mahesh Bindra: What training support does the Department of Corrections provide to Serco; and who pays for it?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: According to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority report there is no support in terms of the Serco New Zealand Training Limited services that are provided to Serco.Kelvin Davis: Why did he refuse to front up to Kiwis and give comment to media on this story yesterday?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Well I front up to Kiwis every day so I do not know what that member is talking about.
Ngaro Alfred: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7798. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Can he confirm that the number of building consents issued for homes in Auckland over the last year is at a 10-year high and can he advise what increases have been achieved in each of the last four years?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes 8700 building consents were issued in Auckland in the last year and this is the highest for more than a decade. The annual rate of growth in Auckland house build rates over the past 4 years has been 18 percent 31 percent 28 percent and then 27 percent in each of those last 4 years. This is the fastest and longest sustained growth in Auckland since records began. There were 2 years of growth over 15 percent in 2002 and 2003 and 2 years in 1993 and 1994 but never before 4 years of year-on-year growth over 15 percent.Alfred Ngaro: Does the Minister have any other economic data alongside the building consent numbers that supports the picture of rapid construction growth in Auckland?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I do. All of the relevant data points to a construction boom. The labour force figures from Statistics New Zealand show the number of people employed in construction has gone from 45000 to 75000. That is the highest number ever and with an additional 30000 people in Auckland working in construction shows the pressure we also have to ensure that the quality of building work is maintained. We also have the value of residential building work. That has gone from $1.4 billion per year to $3.5 billion per year. We have the AECOM National Construction Pipeline Report which shows that 80000 new homes in Auckland are to be built over the next 5 years compared with 30000. The last figure I would draw the House’s attention to I accept is crude but is an international measure and that is the skyline crane count which is currently in Auckland at 79 which is also an all-time high.Alfred Ngaro: Have any independent estimates been made of the number of houses expected to be constructed in Auckland in this parliamentary term and how do they compare with other previous Parliaments?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The National Construction Pipeline Report is produced by AECOM and is based on both actual building consents issued and the forward projections based on the number of subdivisions that have been approved. It projects 36000 homes being built in Auckland during this parliamentary term. That compares with 17000 in the last parliamentary term—so more than double—and that 36000 would actually be an all-time record of more houses built in Auckland during the term of this Parliament than any other Parliament in the history of this country.
Lee Melissa: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLee Melissa: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7790. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to move its books from an $18.4 billion deficit to surplus between 2011 and 2015 while still supporting New Zealand families?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Although money has been tight we have focused on continuing to support New Zealand’s families and making sure that every dollar we spend goes a long way. That is why we have been able to do things like extend paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks extend free doctors’ visits and prescriptions for children under 13 and raise benefit payments for families with children which will occur on 1 April next year while still moving the books from a large deficit to a round balance.Melissa Lee: What additional support has the Government provided to superannuitant families in particular?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The payment for national superannuation is automatically indexed to a combination of the average wage and the consumer price index. Since April 2008 the amount a couple receive in national superannuation has increased from $880 a fortnight to just over $1150 a fortnight an increase of over 30 percent. In that time the cost of living has increased by around 15 percent. So superannuitants have had payments increased at twice the rate of inflation since 2008. We are committed to keeping the retirement age at 65 and ensuring that national superannuation keeps pace with the average wage.Andrew Little: No you’re gilding the lily now—gilding the lily. Can’t tell us straight.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well it is good to see over the weekend the Labour Party adopting our policy.Melissa Lee: How has the Government been supporting families to get better jobs and earn higher incomes?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course the job is never done on better jobs and higher incomes but the average annual wage is now $57300. That is over $10000 per annum higher than it was in 2008. Over the last year average wages increased by 3.1 percent when inflation was just 0.4 percent. Of course the unemployment rate is higher than we would like it and the Business Growth Agenda sets out 500 specific policies to assist with more investment and more employment.Melissa Lee: How has the Government been supporting New Zealanders who cannot get a job?Hon BILL ENGLISH: For those who have children in the last Budget we announced an increase of benefit levels for the first time in 43 years coming into effect on 1 April 2016. However we have a very broad and flexible programme through the welfare reform to assist people who do not have jobs. We are now using extensively data that enables us to work out who will benefit most from assistance from the Government and we have been targeting particular groups such as single teen parents and those who have some disabilities either of a mental or physical nature to assist them to get ready to be able to take jobs.