HpsProceedingHeading string | HpsProceedingContent string | classification_label string | classification_confidence float64 | classification_reason string | _filename string | _path string | content_char_len int64 | content_word_len int64 | label class label | token_count int64 | conversations list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions to Ministers | Government—Relationship with Support Partners
1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the stability of his Government?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
Hon David Cunliffe : Will he depend on Mr Banks’ vote to pass legislation for the remainder of this term?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : That will depend, obviously, on whether it is either a confidence and supply issue or case by case, as we deal with every party in Parliament. But, in principle, yes, where Mr Banks chooses to exercise that vote on behalf of the ACT Party.
Hon David Cunliffe : If it is on a case by case basis, as the Prime Minister has said, what does it say that he could not muster a majority for his copper tax or the Resource Management Act changes, and how can the country be confident of stable Government over the next year?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : The fact that we have not introduced the Resource Management Act legislation does not mean that we cannot actually command a majority. The member might actually be quite surprised by that, but we will leave that, actually, for another day. In terms of the copper tax, that was never actually tested. We were aware that our partners would not vote for it and we decided not to introduce it. But, anyway, we would not have done so, because after that point the retail service providers decided that they did not want to do a deal with Chorus, so it was a moot point.
Hon David Cunliffe : Does the Prime Minister now know for certain that the Hon Peter Dunne did not leak the Kitteridge report?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : No, I do not know the answer to that. I do not believe that was the purpose of the privileges claim.
Hon David Cunliffe : Then how could he accept him back in his Cabinet?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Because, firstly, we have not done that and, secondly, we accept the member at his word.
Hon David Cunliffe : Does he agree with Colin Craig that man may never have walked on the moon?
Mr SPEAKER : The Rt Hon Prime Minister, as far as he has responsibility.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : No, and one of the great privileges of being Prime Minister is that you get the opportunity firsthand to have some unique experiences. One of mine was having—
Grant Robertson : You’ve been on the moon?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : No, I have not been to the moon. I have not been to the moon, although I know that Labour’s economic policies are developed up there. But, no. As Prime Minister, I had dinner with Buzz Aldrin one night. Buzz looked pretty convinced that he had been to the moon, and he would know.
Hon David Cunliffe : Will one of his unique experiences be to have Colin Craig land on “Planet Key”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Well, there are a lot of people who would like to be part of “Planet Key”, as we saw in the last election, when over a million people voted for National. And how many voted for Labour? Was it 300,000 or 400,000?
Hon Clayton Cosgrove : Not any more, Johnny.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Well, actually, our polling last night did not indicate that.
Hon David Cunliffe : Which is worse: propping up a dying Government based on the vote of a potential electoral fraudster—an ex-Minister whom he thinks may have released secret documents—or an extremist who put out 20,000 leaflets saying that John Key should not be the Prime Minister?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : We deal with MMP. That requires any political party or group of parties to get 61 votes. Come the next election, it will be the same situation. It will be no different for the Labour Party than it will be for the National Party. But what I can say, based on all the things I see, is that the probability of National being able to get those 61 seats is far greater than it is for Labour. The one difference, though, between election 2014 and election 2011 is that I will go into election 2014 with 100 percent of my caucus wanting me to get there and you, Mr Cunliffe, will go there with less than a third of your caucus wanting you to get there.
Hon David Cunliffe : In the run-up to this election, does the Prime Minister continue to intend to hop from cloud to cloud; if so, under which cloud will he find the Hon John Banks and on which cloud will he find Colin Craig?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I do not know, but I will find the Labour Party’s economic policies in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Rt Hon Winston Peters : Does the Prime Minister’s statement that he has to take Mr Dunne at his word in respect of his denial mean that he believes Mr Dunne did not leak the Kitteridge report?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : The member has, on numerous occasions, strongly said that he did not leak the report. I accept the member at his word. There was no conclusion to that report.
Dr Russel Norman : How legitimate does he believe his asset sales programme is, given that it was passed by a single vote in this House and that that single vote was the vote of John Banks, the discredited MP who is currently in front of the courts for electoral fraud?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Well, firstly, I think it is really important that we recognise and actually respect that every New Zealander is innocent unless they are proven guilty. We, as members of this House, actually have a responsibility, I believe, to at least accept that basic principle, which we expect other New Zealanders to accept. Secondly, in a parliamentary majority in this Parliament, you are required to get 61 votes, and those 61 legitimate votes are required. We have them; that is called a majority. If Russel Norman is telling us that if one day—goodness knows if it ever happens—he is part of a Government, he would not count that as a majority, that is a really interesting proposition, which he should get to his feet and tell New Zealanders about now. The truth is that it is just typical Russel Norman—says one thing, will do something completely different. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER : Order! [Interruption] Order! And that includes the member.
Dr Russel Norman : My question to the Prime Minister is in relation to his previous answer. Given that the courts have found that John Banks took a $15,000 donation from—
Mr SPEAKER : Order! The difficulty I am anticipating with this question is that there is a case now that is sub judice—before the court. I am certainly not ruling that question out of order, but I am going to ask the member to rephrase it in such a way that he does not breach Standing Order 112 by referring to a case that is now potentially sub judice.
Dr Russel Norman : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was actually quoting from the judge’s decision in the most recent judicial review that Mr Banks went to court about—exactly that case.
Hon Gerry Brownlee : No. Speaking to the point—
Mr SPEAKER : I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
Hon Gerry Brownlee : I think that is a very reckless comment for Dr Norman to have made. There has been no finding; there has been simply a determination that it should proceed to a trial—quite a different matter. Dr Norman has, I think, got himself in some trouble by implying that there has been a judgment, when there has not been.
Rt Hon Winston Peters : Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER : I will hear from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters : With respect, the sub judice rule here involves whether or not Mr Banks knowingly had a declaration filled out, and that is the matter that is before the court. It is not whether he received the money. That has been accepted by his lawyer, and it was by him at court. The sub judice rule concerns his knowledge as to that declaration of return. That is a different matter, and Dr Norman has not traversed that at all.
Mr SPEAKER : Let me hear again from the member, but I would just ask him to be careful and consistent with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings on this matter, which is quite complicated and difficult.
Dr Russel Norman : Given that John Banks received a $15,000 donation from Skycity, does he believe that it is legitimate for him to rely on John Banks’ vote in giving Skycity concessions to massively expand its operations?
Hon Gerry Brownlee : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that not going right to the heart of the case that is going to the court?
Hon Members : No, it’s not.
Hon Gerry Brownlee : No, well, I am sorry. There are constitutional experts and lawyers over here who might think so, but—
Mr SPEAKER : Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I accept that this is a very difficult issue, but I think the way that question is now worded is in order, and it is stating facts that are now in the public arena. The Prime Minister can answer that question.
Hon Gerry Brownlee : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue, though, is how any donation was received, and for him to assert it was received by Mr Banks is, at this point, wrong.
Mr SPEAKER : But that was not the question that—
Hon Gerry Brownlee : It was. He said: “Given that he received …”. Those words are wrong.
Mr SPEAKER : Order! The issue is how it was then described—the receipt of it. That is the issue. I do not think there is much doubt, to the best of my knowledge, that the donation was received. It is then a matter of how it was returned. I have ruled that the Prime Minister can answer the question, and that is the absolute end of the matter.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I do not accept the premise of the question.
Dr Russel Norman : Does he believe that it does damage to the reputation of this House that the vote on the Skycity bill, which gave enormous concessions to Skycity, was reliant on the vote of John Banks, who received a $15,000 donation from Skycity and is currently before the courts on exactly that issue?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : Once again, the member has proved that he cannot count. The majority was two, not one.
Dr Russel Norman : Did he or any of his advisers or colleagues pressure John Banks to stay on as an MP, despite the fact that he faces a trial for electoral fraud, because his Government relies on the single vote provided by that MP in this House to pass his most unpopular legislation like asset sales?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY : No, not to the best of my knowledge.
Economy—Export Sector Performance, Government Financial Position, and Growth
2. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on progress in lifting New Zealand’s export performance and reducing its reliance on borrowing from overseas lenders?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I have received a number of reports confirming strong performance by New Zealand’s exporters, particularly in those areas where the Opposition was most concerned—that is, in the regions and in manufacturing. Exporters have performed well despite strong headwinds from a high Kiwi dollar and difficult export conditions in our traditional markets. Our terms of trade rose 7.5 percent in the September quarter due to export prices rising faster than import prices. This is the highest terms of trade level since 1973, as determined by prices for our exports in world markets. The trade deficit for October was $168 million, the lowest for any October month since the mid-1990s. So prices in world markets are higher than we expected, but our exporters are performing better than was expected.
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi : What progress is the Government making in reducing New Zealand’s external vulnerabilities, particularly in bringing down the longstanding current account deficit?
Hon BILL ENGLISH : First of all, the Government cannot have a direct effect on the current account deficit. What we can do is try to create conditions where our exporters thrive and where imported inflation is relatively low. Last week Statistics New Zealand issued the national accounts for the March 2013 year. They included significant upwards revisions to the estimates of spending by overseas visitors. This has had the effect of boosting our service exports and decreasing the amount that was originally attributed to the private consumption of households. As a result, our recorded level of household and national saving has increased, whereas the current account deficit for the year to March 2013 has decreased. It was estimated previously at 4.5 percent of GDP, and it has now been re-estimated at 3.9 percent of GDP. So the statisticians have discovered that we are doing more exporting and less consuming than they thought.
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi : What steps has the Government taken to help to rebalance the economy towards more savings and exports and to veer away from excessive consumption, borrowing, and Government spending, which marked the mid-2000s?
Hon BILL ENGLISH : There is certainly more to do to rebalance this economy. It has been difficult to have the amount of export growth we would like to see when the exchange rate has been so high. And it has been a wee bit difficult to reduce Government spending when we have had the earthquakes in Christchurch requiring us to commit up to $15 billion to rebuild Christchurch. But despite those headwinds we implemented a tax package in 2010 that favoured savings and exports over consumption and property speculation. The Business Growth Agenda supports businesses to invest and employ, and, as a result, the tradable sector, which was in recession for several years up to 2008, has grown by 11.6 percent from its trough in the second quarter of 2009. But there is still much more work to do.
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi : What economic approaches would halt the progress being made in supporting exports, productivity, investment, and jobs?
Hon BILL ENGLISH : We have a reasonably good idea what would have a negative effect on New Zealand’s now positive growth prospects, and those are the things that affected our growth prospects badly in the mid-2000s. Three factors were pretty clear from that: an excessive rise in house prices, which doubled in about 10 years; runaway Government spending, particularly from 2005 onwards; and regulatory change that inhibited business and export investment and savings. They were the policies of the Labour Party. We want to avoid those traps this time around.
Student Achievement—OECD Report and Impact of Government Strategies
3. HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) to the Minister of Education: What responsibility does she accept for the New Zealand results as identified in the OECD’s PISA report released yesterday, which shows New Zealand’s test scores in maths, reading and science have all deteriorated under her watch, and that New Zealand’s education system has failed to keep pace with the educational achievements of other countries, also under her watch?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am the Minister of Education, and these responsibilities fall to me. These results are serious but not surprising. The Government is serious about the plan we have for fixing this. The group of 15-year-olds who were assessed last year has been in the system for about 11 years, since 2001-02. Playing the blame game does not help them. These students were not caught by national standards, but they will be caught by National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 and the Youth Guarantee, where the Government has ambitious targets to make sure our children and young people are succeeding.
Hone Harawira : What responsibility does the Minister accept for the fact that the OECD recommendation talked about equity, increasing resources, and targeting disadvantaged children through additional economic assistance, including free meals in schools for students from poor families, yet her Government has chosen to ignore all of that and focus on everything else, including national standards, private education, charter schools, cuts for science advisers, attacks on the unions, criticising teacher standards and then paying them through a broken system called Novopay, the sum result of which has been to confuse, confound, and demoralise—
Mr SPEAKER : Order! That question now is sufficiently long enough.
Hon HEKIA PARATA : Our Government is this year investing $9.7 billion into Vote Education—the highest it has ever been. That is a 74 percent increase on early childhood education and a 40 percent increase on schooling. We have invested $37.5 million this year in raising the quality of teaching so that, all across the system, every child will get a better education. We are investing in a data-rich environment because we do not want to guess; we want to know specifically who and where we need to be helping, and for what. So last week we announced $10.5 million into maths and science resources, and we announced $31.5 million to invest into Building on Success, which are the best elements of Te Pūtahitanga Mātauranga, He Kākano, Starpath, and Gateway, all of which have been proven to be successful for Māori and Pasifika. In terms of—
Mr SPEAKER : Order! That is now a very long answer to a very long question.
Dr Cam Calder : What do the Programme for International Student Assessment 2012 results tell us about the achievement of New Zealand’s young people?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : The results from the Programme for International Student Assessment 2012 confirm what we know about student achievement in New Zealand. Our highest-achieving students are comparable with the best in the world. However, the whole education system needs to be better geared to support all of our students to succeed. We continue to work to ensure we have a well-performing system, but it is not performing for all. That is why we are focused on raising achievement for five out of five learners.
Catherine Delahunty : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. How is it not a failure after 5 years of her Government that New Zealand is one of the only countries in the developed world where the chances of poor kids doing well at school has actually decreased in the years that National has been in power?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : What the Programme for International Student Assessment results tell us, for those who have actually analysed them, is that of the factors that contribute to failure, there is a correlation between underachievement and low socio-economic status, and it amounts to 18 percent. Eighty-two percent relates to quality of teaching and leadership, relates to turning up to school every day, and relates to turning up on time. We are interested in all of those factors because it is a partnership between schools and parents in the community that will affect the results we want for all New Zealanders.
Catherine Delahunty : Why has equity in New Zealand education deteriorated, according to the Programme for International Student Assessment, since National came to power, while Australia has managed to increase the chances of poorer kids doing well there in exactly the same time period?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : Rather than get into comparisons between those particular systems—because actually that information is not accurate—what we have happening here is that we now have nearly 96 percent of all kids under 5 going to early childhood education. This is a significant increase, and addresses equity issues.
Catherine Delahunty : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is giving a great background on early childhood education, but the question was—
Mr SPEAKER : Order! The member will resume her seat. The question was around the difference of equity and performance in New Zealand and Australia. The Minister addressed that straight away. She was saying that she did not agree with that information.
Hone Harawira : What responsibility does the Minister accept for saying that “New Zealand has a good track-record on the international stage, ranking 7th in the world … in reading …”, when just 4 months later, under her watch, we dropped to 13th in the world; or does she instead hold to her new view that it is not that we are doing so bad, it is just that the Chinese are doing so much better?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : If the honourable member had used the full quote from me, what I actually said was that under the previous Programme for International Student Assessment results, New Zealand was seventh on that ranking for reading. But disaggregated by ethnicity, Māori were 34th, and Pasifika were 44th. In every speech I gave I pointed that out, and pointed out that the challenge to us was to get excellence in the system for everyone.
State-owned Assets, Sales—Estimated Revenue, Genesis Energy, and Public Support
4. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Why has he revised the estimated proceeds from asset sales down to a minimum of $4.6 billion?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In the first place, it is Treasury’s estimate rather than the Government’s. As I said this morning, Treasury figures in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update will revise the estimated range of proceeds to $4.6 billion to $5 billion, with a mid-point of $4.8 billion. The revised assumption of the share sale proceeds is based principally on the fact that Solid Energy is clearly in no position to be sold any time soon. The proceeds will be less, mainly because one less company will be sold. It also takes account of the results of the share offers to date and, of course, these provide the only real market valuations that the energy companies have ever had. Those values reflect the fact that all electricity companies in New Zealand have lost value, partly because of uncertainty around the future price track for electricity, and partly because of political uncertainty generated by alternative regulatory proposals.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove : Why has he taken so long to revise the estimated proceeds from asset sales, given that he told the public as far back as August last year that Solid Energy was not fit for sale and he has already come in more than $1 billion short on the sales so far?
Hon BILL ENGLISH : As I said, it is Treasury’s role to make the estimates, and it has statutory requirements that have to be met for the degree of certainty about any estimates it makes.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove : How does he reconcile his statement to the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that “The Government never said it was going to maximise the value for taxpayers from the sales.” with his statement at the media stand-up directly after his presentation at the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that “We have an obligation to protect the value of taxpayers’ investments.”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH : Very easily. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee I was asked about the conditions under which the Government made the sales, and I made it clear, for instance, that the Government decided it would retain 51 percent of the companies when, if it sold 100 percent of the companies, it would get more for them. In the stand-up I was asked about KiwiRail in quite some detail. I made it clear that the Government’s role in respect of KiwiRail is to protect the taxpayers’ value, bearing in mind that the reason we own these assets is that hard-working New Zealanders get to the end of the week and very generously hand us 25 percent of their pay packet. They could make good use of it. When we get it, just because it adds up to billions, it does not mean we should be irresponsible. It means we should be very, very careful with the $200 and $300 weekly payments that New Zealanders make to us.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove : How can he claim the asset sales programme is a success when he will not achieve the minimum $5 billion he promised after the forecasting by his own Prime Minister in 2011 that $10 billion could be raised from this, plus he failed to achieve widespread ownership and the power companies are today trading at record lows?
Hon BILL ENGLISH : The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If it says that the shares trading below their sale price is a failure, it certainly would say that if the shares were trading above the sale value, then that was a failure. The Opposition cannot have it both that we ripped off the investors and that we gave away the taxpayers’ assets. Both of those things cannot be true. The sales were a success. We gave out share certificates to New Zealanders, and in return for that we have $4 billion in the bank. I know it worries the Opposition that we are going to be spending that on public assets when it cannot—because it would have to borrow that money from foreign bankers, whom it seems much more interested in—and when we want to provide investment opportunities for New Zealanders.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove : Will the Government still proceed with the partial asset sale of Genesis Energy on the current timetable; if so, why?
Hon BILL ENGLISH : Yes, that is our intention. If the member means that the referendum should determine that decision, I would put this proposition to him: if the Opposition believes the referendum will show overwhelming opposition to the sales, then it should take it seriously and promise to buy the assets back. Everyone knows what the Government will say. The question is whether the Opposition takes the referendum seriously. If Opposition members will not promise to buy the assets back, then they are defying the will of the New Zealand public.
Science and Technology—Science and Society Project and Other Initiatives
5. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What steps is the Government taking to improve the understanding, skills and adoption of science and technology in New Zealand society?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): The Government’s view is that science is vital for New Zealand’s future. We have, of course, increased total funding for science, innovation, and research across the Government to $1.36 billion. Along the way, we have established Callaghan Innovation, committed $278 million just this year for 51 new projects in science investment, and committed just under half a billion dollars for 10 National Science Challenges. The National Science Challenges panel recommended a further special challenge to improve New Zealand’s understanding and appreciation of science, and last week the Minister of Education and I announced the Science and Society project to lift achievement in maths and science, plus science literacy, across New Zealand.
Simon O’Connor : What steps is the Government taking to lift achievement by young people in maths and science?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE : As the latest Programme for International Student Assessment results demonstrate, it is critical that we keep improving the understanding of science and technology in this country, and improve young New Zealanders’ skills in this area. New Zealand needs more young people with science, technology, engineering, and maths skills in our workforce to help us be internationally competitive and to meet our future labour market needs. As part of the first phase of the Science and Society project, last week Minister Parata and I announced that the Government has committed $10.5 million in additional funding for schools to raise student achievement in maths and science. Also, more than half a million dollars is going into the development of more than 60 science learning resources.
Simon O’Connor : What are the objectives of the Science and Society project?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE : The Science and Society project is a unique venture between the science sector and the education sector to lift achievement in science, technology, engineering, and maths subjects, and also raise New Zealanders’ science literacy more generally. [Interruption] Of course, there are some people we cannot help, and they are on the other side of the House. Aside from improving young New Zealanders’ science skills, we also need to improve science literacy right across the population. A 2010 ACNielsen survey showed that although public trust in science and support for science funding is healthy, a lot of people have a low appreciation of the benefits of science, and the Science and Society project will coordinate efforts across Government to lift our literacy. The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, will chair the reference group of experts to advise officials and Ministers.
Health Targets—Progress
6. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What improvements in health services are shown in the latest health targets results?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The latest health targets results have recently been published and they show continuing improvement, with record numbers of patients benefiting from surgery and 91 percent of 8-month-olds immunised. These improvements in getting elective surgery mean that over the last 5 years on average 8,000 more patients a year have been treated. These latest results also show that 93 percent of emergency department patients were seen, treated, or discharged within 6 hours. This is the best winter emergency department result since the targets began. These better health services are the result of the hard work of our health professionals, helped by the average extra $500 million a year this Government has invested into our public health service.
Dr Paul Hutchison : What reports has he received on emergency department patients benefiting from information technology advances?
Hon TONY RYALL : There are some exciting information technology advances that are improving emergency department clinicians’ ability to provide better patient care. In the Wairarapa District Health Board, the Waikato District Health Board, and the Canterbury District Health Board, with the patient’s permission, emergency department clinicians are able to access a summary of the patient’s primary-care information held by their general practitioner. This includes the medicines they are on, their lab results, and any other problems the patient may have. This technology gives the emergency department clinicians the opportunity to act much more quickly, knowing they have up-to-date data they can trust and, more important, the patient does not have to tell their story umpteen times to every clinician they meet.
Hon Annette King : In light of that answer, and if there are such positive results by district health boards in meeting his health targets, why has he dumped the chair of the Canterbury District Health Board, Mr Bruce Matheson, whom people in the district thought was doing an excellent job, and is it because the relationship with him has been tested by Mr Matheson’s strong advocacy for the people and services in Canterbury?
Hon TONY RYALL : No.
Hon Annette King : I seek leave to table a document from the Canterbury District Health Board, from board papers, public excluded, which states the relationship with Wellington has been tested—
Mr SPEAKER : Order! The document has been well described. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Welfare Fraud—Information Sharing Between Agencies and Further Deterrents
7. Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: How is the enhanced information sharing between the Ministry of Social Development and Inland Revenue delivering on the Government’s promise to crack down on welfare fraud?
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development): Our enhanced information-sharing between the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development is working well. Since it began in March this year, the ministry has identified and put a stop to more than 5,300 benefits that people were not entitled to, and corrected another 3,000 who were not receiving correct support. Those 5,300 were costing the taxpayer a bare minimum of $56 million per year. Although it is great to see these people getting back into work, they should not have been taking money they were no longer entitled to.
Hon Phil Heatley : How does this enhanced information-sharing fit with other new measures the Government has introduced to prevent, detect, and punish welfare fraud?
Hon CHESTER BORROWS : The key aim of the package of reforms that this Government introduced earlier this year is to stop welfare fraud as soon as possible. I am pleased with the results of our information sharing, as it is allowing us to catch fraud we might otherwise have missed and stop illegitimate benefits early, before the debt really mounts up. This perfectly complements other preventive measures such as streamlined investigation processes, greater scrutiny of beneficiaries who have previously ripped us off, and providing follow-up support to new sole parent support beneficiaries.
Hon Phil Heatley : What is the intention behind trialling home visits to check in with new beneficiaries receiving sole parent support?
Hon CHESTER BORROWS : We recognise that for those receiving a benefit dependent on their relationship status, navigating the benefit rules can be challenging. Although most do it successfully those who do not end up taking money that they are not entitled to and can be left with a massive debt and a fraud conviction at the end of the process. The intention behind trialling a number of methods of contact, including offering to meet at their home, is to look at the best way to keep in touch with sole parent beneficiaries at a time when we know that their circumstances frequently change at 14 weeks to 16 weeks after starting to receive the benefit. There is no sinister intent. This should be a check-in and not a checking-up.
Student Achievement—OECD Report and Impact of Government Strategies
8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that the Government’s educational priorities are leading to an improvement in student achievement; if so, why?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes, although we constantly strive to do better. Why? Because the data speaks for itself: the highest-ever early childhood education participation rate, at 95.8 percent; national standards show an overall improvement, with nearly three-quarters of our students, on average, above or at national standards; last year we had the highest-ever number of school leavers achieving the National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, at 74 percent of school leavers; and exemptions have fallen from over 4,000 under the Labour Government to just 300 under this Government. Furthermore, Andreas Schleicher, who is a special adviser on education policy at the OECD and responsible for Programme for International Student Assessment, noted in an email to me late last week that many of the school policies that New Zealand is now pursuing are very much in line with the conclusions in the OECD international report PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful?.
Chris Hipkins : Why did the Government cut funding for school science and technology advisers, and does she now accept in light of our recent plunge on the OECD rankings from 13th to 23rd in science that that was a mistake?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : We have introduced a number of student achievement function advisers because we are interested in raising achievement for all. We have focused on maths and science through those particular experts.
Hon Trevor Mallard : Answer the question.
Hon HEKIA PARATA : We have also introduced the Learning and Change Networks, which focus on issues like that, and last week we invested $10.5 million into science and maths resources—having answered the question.
Chris Hipkins : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked—
Mr SPEAKER : Order! I do not need the question repeated. I am going to ask the member to repeat the question, but, to be fair to the Minister, it was very difficult to hear the question as it was delivered, which may have been part of the challenge the Minister faced.
Chris Hipkins : I am happy to speak louder, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER : No. What would be helpful would be just to get the cooperation of the member’s own colleagues as the question is asked.
Chris Hipkins : Why did the Government cut the funding for school science and technology advisers, and does she now accept in light of our recent plunge on the OECD rankings from 13th to 23rd in science that that was a mistake?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : Because we decided to put that funding into student achievement advisers who would work across the entire curriculum, including in maths, science, and technology. We also decided that we would target resources to those who need it the most. We also decided to invest in research that told us, for instance, that 40 percent of teachers do not feel confident to teach science and maths, so we are investing to make sure that they do have that confidence and will raise their teaching practice.
Chris Hipkins : Why did the Government cut $35 million from teacher professional development in its first Budget in 2009, and in light of her statement yesterday that New Zealand’s decline in OECD rankings was partly due to “under-investment in raising teaching practice” will she now admit that that was a mistake as well?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : Under this Government we are investing, on average, $70 million a year in professional learning and development—$70 million a year. We have also taken heed of what the sector wanted, which was to have more of it distributed out in the regions. However, in listening to the profession and hearing that it still does not think that it is quite right, I announced this week that we would review professional learning and development, and are involving all of the organisations that have an interest in it, because the profession, which we listened to, has asked for it.
Paul Foster-Bell : How does New Zealand compare with other countries participating in the Programme for International Student Assessment?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : New Zealand remains above the OECD average. The highest-achieving students in New Zealand are comparable with the best in the world. I am sure all of us in this House are pleased about that, but there is no doubt that we are now facing an achievement challenge. Fortunately, this Government has been working to a plan to address this. The other countries that we benchmark ourselves against, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Finland, have, to varying degrees, declined—[Interruption] I am sure that the Opposition members are interested, going by their response. Those countries have declined while the performance of education systems in Asia—Shanghai, China; Hong Kong, China; Singapore, for example—continues to rise. This is both a national and global challenge that we can and must rise to, and that is why our Government and I, as Minister of Education, are focused on raising achievement for every one of our children.
Chris Hipkins : Why does she continue to attribute our drop in the OECD rankings to the rise of Asian countries, when New Zealand has been overtaken by other countries—among them, Liechtenstein, Estonia, Poland, Ireland, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Australia, Slovenia, Denmark—or perhaps we should focus a little bit more on delivering a broad and balanced curriculum that might include things like geography?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : Because, regrettably, this is a complex issue. Unfortunately for the member, linear, single correlations do not actually work here. What the Programme for International Student Assessment data tells us is that there are a range of challenges, and we have a plan focusing on each and every one of them.
Chris Hipkins : How much money has been spent on the implementation of national standards in primary and intermediate schools, and how does that compare with the amount the Ministry of Education spends on teacher professional development in reading, writing, maths, and science?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : I do not have to hand the precise figure about the development and implementation of national standards. I do not have that precise figure to hand, but what I can tell you is that we invest $304 million over 4 years in the professional learning and development of teachers.
Hon Trevor Mallard : I seek leave to table in the House a map showing Europe is not in Asia.
Mr SPEAKER : Order! Order! Most members have no trouble, Mr Mallard, in finding a map to have a look at where countries are.
New Zealand Defence Force—Joint Amphibious Task Force
9. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Defence: How have recent New Zealand Defence Force exercises contributed toward the Government’s goal of developing a Joint Amphibious Task Force?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): The New Zealand Defence Force recently completed Exercise Southern Katipō, one of the largest military exercises ever conducted—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER : Order! I just need to stop the family chatter that is occurring between both sides of the House. Could the Minister please start his answer again?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN : The New Zealand Defence Force recently completed Exercise Southern Katipō, one of the largest military exercises ever conducted in New Zealand. This involved 2,200 military personnel from 10 countries. The exercise tested the New Zealand Defence Force’s ability to mount a medium-scale amphibious operation involving maritime, land, and air assets. I am pleased to advise the House that the exercise demonstrated that the New Zealand Defence Force has made great progress in building amphibious capability, and remains on track to have a fully operational joint amphibious task force by 2015.
Jacqui Dean : What is the value to New Zealand in the New Zealand Defence Force developing a joint amphibious task force?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN : The Defence White Paper 2010 placed a greater focus on security within our own region. Accordingly, the Defence Force turned its focus towards developing the capability to deliver humanitarian assistance and respond to security situations in the South-west Pacific. The ability to deploy land forces across large stretches of ocean, by sea or by air, and sustain those forces once there, is therefore crucial to the New Zealand Defence Force.
Jacqui Dean : What capability upgrades has the Government invested in to help deliver the joint amphibious task force?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN : Recognising that amphibious operations would require strength and capabilities, the Government has committed to a number of capability purchases, including a new fleet of medium and heavy operational vehicles capable of being deployed in medium and high threat environments, and an increased number of upgraded Seasprite helicopters with a range of upgraded avionics, communications, radars, weapons, and other systems on board that are superior to the existing fleet.
State-owned Assets, Sales—Estimated Revenue, Legitimacy, and Treasury Forecasts
10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Has he been advised whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement on asset sales that “mixed ownership will free up $5 billion to $7 billion”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I just checked with the Prime Minister and he does stand by his statement. He also advises me that he stands by the statement that if the Greens are really opposed to the asset sales policy, then after the referendum they will promise to borrow billions of dollars and buy back the shares. So far, they have refused, which, the Prime Minister advises me, means the Greens do not really mean what they say.
Dr Russel Norman : Does he believe that the asset sales programme has legitimacy, given that it was passed in this House by a single vote, that of John Banks, a man who received a $15,000 donation from Skycity, of which Justice Heath yesterday said that “Those donations were not expressly disclosed in [John Banks’] Return. Rather, they appear to have been classified as having been made anonymously.”?
Mr SPEAKER : Order! We have now got into the difficulty again of where we were, where the member is now starting to refer to details of the case. I will invite the member to ask the question again in line with Standing Order 112.
Dr Russel Norman : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a case that is from yesterday. I am reading the judgment. I am not doing anything other than reading the judgment from Justice Heath yesterday. It is a settled case. John Banks is going to trial.
Mr SPEAKER : I will invite the member to repeat the question. If I am dissatisfied with it this time, I will rule it out of order.
Dr Russel Norman : Does he believe that the asset sales programme has legitimacy, given that the deciding vote in this House was that of John Banks, and that Mr John Banks has been found by the courts yesterday to have received two donations from a company associated with Kim Dotcom and one from Skycity Entertainment Group, and “Those donations were not expressly disclosed in the Return. Rather, they appear to have been classified as having been made anonymously.”, as referred to in the judgment by Justice Heath yesterday?
Hon BILL ENGLISH : Yes. Parliament passed the legislation. The Supreme Court examined the whole process. The Financial Markets Authority examined the whole process. A whole lot of interested investors bid on the shares and legally received their share certificates, and we now have $4 billion in the bank—$4 billion we do not have to borrow off foreign bankers in the way that that member will need to if he decides to buy back the assets.
Dr Russel Norman : Why did Treasury advise the Government in the Budget Policy Statement that asset sales would increase the Government’s deficit, as measured by the operating balance excluding gains and losses, which is the standard measure of the deficit?
Hon BILL ENGLISH : I think, as we have discussed in the House before, there are a number of ways of measuring the impact of asset sales on the Government’s fiscal balance. The calculations that have been done under one version show it is mildly positive, another version mildly negative, and a third version roughly neutral. As I explained to the member this morning at the committee, the impact directly on the Government’s balance was not the main driver of the sales. The Government set out subjectives for this process some time ago. The real question now, though, is if the referendum votes show a majority are against the asset sales, will the Greens and Labour take the referendum seriously and promise to buy the assets back?
Dr Russel Norman : Has he actually read the Budget Policy Statement where Treasury says that the asset sales programme will increase the Government’s deficit, and will that increase in the deficit not now be larger, because he has raised less money than originally projected?
Hon BILL ENGLISH : I think the member’s question points to the problem with those calculations, and that is they are all hypothetical. For instance, if the Government still owned those assets, the fact is we now know they would be worth considerably less today than what is on the Government’s books. Treasury actually has not done that calculation. It is actually pretty meaningless. The most important issue is that the Government’s debt is at least $4 billion lower than it otherwise would be, but if the Greens can get around to promising to buy the assets back—which you would think they would, judging from their criticism of the sales process—then they will have to go and raise at least $4 billion of debt to buy them back.
Education Sector—Learning Media and Student Achievement
11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied with her own performance as Minister of Education; if not, why not?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes. Having said that, I will not be satisfied until we raise achievement for five out of five of our children.
Rt Hon Winston Peters : How can she be satisfied with her performance when Learning Media has gone under and, after the Government changed the contract rules, left millions of dollars of unpaid debt owing?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : That is not so. We have worked significantly with that company over a long period of time and, regrettably, it was unable to be successful. My focus as the Minister of Education has to be to ensure that the New Zealand School Journal and the Māori-medium resources, that which Learning Media has developed over time, are transferred to equally capable—in fact, more capable—providers than it had become.
Rt Hon Winston Peters : Does the Minister not understand that this is a matter of integrity and honesty when dealing with elderly people in particular; and why did the Government buy four lots of shares in Learning Media after she had announced on 4 September at the wind-down that four lots of shares were issued to the Government to enable Learning Media to pay off a debt of over $4 million to Westpac, a foreign owned bank, and yet it left all the other creditors high and dry? Where is the integrity in that?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : That is not correct, and we have worked legally, appropriately, and prudently through this process.
Alfred Ngaro : Does the Minister have a plan to raise student achievement across the board?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : Yes. Since I became the Minister of Education, I have been relentlessly focused on how we fix every part of education, from early childhood, to primary, to secondary, to senior secondary, and to the secondary-tertiary interface, because we want every young New Zealander to get a better education. This Government has been investing in and delivering on a plan to better engage with parents, to report on achievement data, to value and strengthen the teaching profession, and to support 21st century learning environments. We must continue to build on our successes, investing in quality teaching and education leadership to raise achievement for five out of five of our children.
Rt Hon Winston Peters : What is not correct: that after 4 September—the announcement made then, of course, was by that Minister and Mr English as the shareholding Ministers—the Government then arranged four separate loan issues by way of shares to a defunct, declining company to pay Westpac over $4 million in debt and left the other creditors like Anaro Investments, with a number of old people with their life savings, high and dry? What is not correct about that?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : We have not paid off all of Westpac’s debt.
Rt Hon Winston Peters : What action will she now take to make sure that those elderly investors, who were, after all, the landlord in this case, are paid not a lousy $300,000 but the $1.3 million they are owed by way of money on the outstanding lease; and when will she ensure that the financial arrangements entered into by a company she owned are honoured?
Hon HEKIA PARATA : That is a commercial matter that is being worked through.
Housing—Homeownership, Affordability, and Supply
12. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his statements?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I do. I stated that we needed to free up land supply, particularly in Auckland, and we have passed and are now implementing the special housing legislation. I stated that we needed to reform social housing, and we have passed that bill and supported the bill, with a record number of community social houses. I stated that we needed to expand our help for first-home buyers, and we have doubled the number of KiwiSaver first home deposits and trebled the number of Welcome Home Loans. I stated that we needed to get our own houses in order, and we have, this year, delivered on our commitment to insulate every single State house. I stated that we needed to rein in housing development costs and, yesterday, we passed the first reading of our bill to do just that. I could go on and on.
Mr SPEAKER : No, you cannot.
Phil Twyford : Does he stand by his ambition to make the dream of homeownership a reality for more New Zealanders, given that census data shows a 2 percent reduction in homeownership, largely on his Government’s watch; first-home buyers have disappeared from the market because of loan-to-value ratios; the average house price in Auckland has gone up by $180,000 since 2008; and mortgage repayments on an average Auckland house—assuming a 10 percent deposit and a 25-year mortgage—have gone up by $430 a month since 2008?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH : The data from the census released by Statistics New Zealand shows that homeownership levels in New Zealand have been in decline consistently since 1987, and that is why the Government is making major policy changes. But if you look at the history of homeownership in New Zealand, the single most important factor for New Zealanders being able to afford their own home is interest rates, and they are at their lowest level in 50 years and are half what they were when Labour was last in Government.
Phil Twyford : Has he sought advice on the likely further reduction in homeownership, given that the Reserve Bank is predicting interest rates of 8 percent next year, and does he realise that 8 percent interest rates—assuming a 10 percent deposit and a 25-year mortgage—would increase mortgage repayments on an average Auckland house by $850 a month?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH : I can assure that member that this Government is very focused on keeping interest rates low for longer. That is exactly why the Reserve Bank has introduced the loan-to-value ratio mechanisms, which members opposite have vigorously opposed. The biggest threats to interest rates are the very policies that he and his Green mates are advocating.
Melissa Lee : What advice has the Minister received on housing affordability over the past decade?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH : The Home Affordability Report, the Massey University index that compares average house prices, incomes, and interest rates, shows that they deteriorated by 57 percent between 2003 and 2008. In fact, according to Massey University, housing affordability was at its worst in 2008 when compared with any other time in New Zealand history. That same index shows that housing affordability has improved in every year since 2008.
Phil Twyford : Does he stand by his statement that housing supply is the core of the challenge now that the latest building consent data shows that seasonally adjusted building consents have gone down by 2.3 percent since the introduction of loan-to-value ratios—that is, from 1,625 in September to 1,588 in October—and will he heed the warnings of the Registered Master Builders Federation that loan-to-value ratios threaten thousands of new builds every year?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH : The biggest threats to first-home buyers are high interest rates and house prices going up like they did between 2003 and 2008. Unlike members on that side of the House, we on this side of the House respect the independence of the Reserve Bank, because that is the best long-term way to ensure financial stability.
Melissa Lee : What advice has the Minister received on home building consent numbers and increased activity in the construction sector?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH : I am advised that the number of building consents issued in the last quarter was the highest in 5 years. We are building 4,000 more homes per year than we were a year ago, and building a lot more houses than we were building in the last quarter of 2008. Last week the GDP figures came out and what they showed was the biggest ever—the biggest ever—increase in residential house building. That shows that this Government’s supply policies are working.
Phil Twyford : I seek the leave of the House to table a document showing the Minister that there was an earthquake in Christchurch.
Mr SPEAKER : I ask the member to use a bit of sense before he raises a point of order.
Phil Twyford : Why does he think that the Prime Minister told journalists that he was tracking Auckland building consents week by week and that they were going up, and has he advised the Prime Minister that, in fact, Auckland building consents have gone down by 24 percent since May and have decreased every month for the last 4 months?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH : Oh, the member is making his numbers up. The number of building consents in Auckland is 25 percent higher than it was a year ago. It has been consistently growing quarter by quarter and, as we have seen with the special housing areas legislation, already we have freed up another 5,000 sections. Before Christmas we will be doing at least that number again. My question to members opposite is: why have they opposed every single measure, such as the special housing areas legislation, that will actually enable Auckland to build more houses?
Phil Twyford : I seek leave to table the report from Statistics New Zealand on building consents—
Mr SPEAKER : Order! Statistics New Zealand information is very freely available to all members.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although accepting your ruling, I just say that, as I understand it, you did rule a couple of weeks ago that where a member calls another member’s word into question—and the Minister did say that the member was making it up—even though a document was public, it could be tabled under those circumstances in order to substantiate the member’s point.
Mr SPEAKER : Yes, and on occasions that would be useful for the House when the information is not freely available. In this case, the member asked a question with a political loading. The Minister is at liberty to dispute those figures, and that is exactly what the Minister did.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH : I seek leave to table a report that I have just received from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the number of building consents issued, showing—
Mr SPEAKER : Order! Can I just clarify. Is this a document and information that is freely available?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH : No, it is not. It has become available to me, as Minister, in only the last 2 days.
Mr SPEAKER : I will, therefore, put the leave for that information to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection. | maori_origin | 0.9 | The document contains substantive discussions related to Māori, specifically in the education section. It mentions programs proven successful for 'Māori and Pasifika', discusses educational achievement 'disaggregated by ethnicity, Māori', and refers to 'Māori-medium resources'. These are not mere mentions but discussions about policies and outcomes directly affecting Māori. | hansard_2013-12-04_body_section_2.json | /content/drive/MyDrive/NZ/University of Waikato/Māori Data Findability Project/downloaded/moved/hansard_2013-12-04_body_section_2.json | 58,112 | 9,855 | 0maori_origin | 12,255 | [
{
"content": "You are a specialist in classifying New Zealand Parliament Hansard records.\n\n TASK: Classify the document section below into EXACTLY ONE category.\n\n CATEGORIES:\n - maori_origin: Substantive discussion of Māori-related topics\n - non_maori_origin: Parliamentary content not primaril... |
Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill | Second Reading
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I present a legislative statement on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER : That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB : Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
It’s a pleasure to speak in support of the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill following its first reading on 26 July 2022. I’d like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their sterling work in the consideration of this bill. The committee tabled its report in November 2022, and it recommended that no amendments be made.
The bill is necessary to ensure that Government has the ongoing ability to issue loans to New Zealand citizens and permanent residents in accordance with the New Zealand consular functions. An unprecedented global pandemic and complex geopolitical events have highlighted how necessary it is for consular officials to have the ability to provide temporary financial assistance in the form of a consular loan. This doesn’t mean that it’s a free-for-all, but that specific criteria must be met before a consular loan can be considered—that includes that a person is in distress, exceptional circumstances exist, and lending money would provide short-term assistance consistent with New Zealand’s consular functions.
There are two key provisions of this bill. Firstly, the bill will create a permanent delegable statutory authority for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to issue consular loans to New Zealand citizens and their immediate family members—and, in rare cases, permanent residents who are overseas facing exceptional circumstances. Secondly, it will create retrospective statutory authority for all consular loans granted between July 2013—which saw a public finance amendment inadvertently remove the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s legal basis to issue consular loans—and June 2020, when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade received its current delegated authority from the Minister of Finance to lend money for this purpose. So the bill simply fixes an anomaly and reestablishes legislative authority for a longstanding practice. It does not seek to create a new policy to issue consular loans, but to create ongoing certainty around the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade ability to provide consular loans.
In summary, the bill does two things: it allows New Zealand’s consular officials to continue the longstanding practice of issuing consular loans and it corrects some unintended consequences for consular loans when the Public Finance Act was amended in 2013. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER : The question is that the motion be agreed to.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’m very happy to support this bill, the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill. Obviously, we’re only at the second reading at the moment. We have the committee stage and the third reading to go, but as we intimated on this side of the House during the first reading, we support the legislation.
This is a really good example of a practice which has been going for a long, long time. There were some statutory changes—and I might just highlight a little bit of that—which changed the legality of the process. So I think one of my first themes from this side of the House is to say that the idea of consular loans to support New Zealand citizens, and occasionally permanent residents—and I might elaborate on that slightly—is a positive thing. There is absolutely no dispute, I suspect, from any side of the House that New Zealanders overseas in distress are able to go to our consulates and embassies and get assistance, and consular loans are just one of the aspects that can be provided. The Minister who has just resumed his seat, Minister Webb, has pointed out that family members can be assisted as well.
The context to this is that it’s something that has happened for a long time. Consular loans have been a pretty standard activity. I think it was back in 1989 that there was some legislation—part of the Public Finance Act—which authorised this, but Parliament made changes in 2013 to that Act, and it was unknown at the time that the change to that Act meant that, actually, legally speaking—not morally or ethically, but legally speaking—the giving of consular loans was no longer legal. So, again, for listeners at home, it’s not to stress that anything wrong was happening; it’s just that all of a sudden it became illegal and, in effect, the new Public Finance Act 2013, or rather the new expression of it, said a very specific delegation must be given.
So this is a bill which is, in effect, doing two things. One is making it absolutely abundantly clear in a new piece of legislation, this Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill, that a permanent delegation is given to the chief executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to exercise that authority to give consular loans, and it’s also retrospective to make it clear in respect of the loans that have been given in the past.
I just want to make one very brief comment. The Minister touched a few times on the exceptional nature of assisting New Zealand permanent residents. I don’t want to give particular examples here. People are welcome to go and read the New Zealand Herald. There are occasions when New Zealand permanent residents do need more assistance than we currently give, and I want to acknowledge through the Speaker that this is not precisely within the bill, but it’s an encouragement to the Government and future Governments to perhaps look at how our consulates and embassies not only help New Zealand citizens but New Zealand permanent residents as well to get further and fuller assistance. I really want to make that clear. Some assistance is given, but I feel that, in many ways, our permanent residents have pretty much all the rights of a citizen, and certainly those overseas require that as well. But with that, I would like to commend the bill to the House.
IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, it’s a pleasure to rise to take a call on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill. This bill provides express statutory authority for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to continue the practice of issuing consular loans in exceptional circumstances to New Zealand citizens, and permanent residents in distress overseas, as the last resort. This is a practice that’s been going on for the last 25 years. The Minister has been assisting New Zealanders overseas. The need of this was highlighted during the pandemic where about 300-plus New Zealanders were assisted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, so amending this legislation is timely.
I’d like to thank the two submitters who submitted to the committee. One of them was asking for permanent residence to be included in this legislation, and the second one simply expressing his gratitude and saying that this bill provides him with comfort. So it’s a good bill; I commend it to the House.
CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also welcome the opportunity to speak to the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t part of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee when it was considering this bill, so you may be wondering why I’m speaking on it. I was just wondering that myself, but we’ll do our best for at least a short contribution.
In the matter of making loans from consulates overseas to New Zealanders—by which, we mean not only New Zealand citizens but also permanent residents, as my friend and colleague Simon O’Connor has astutely pointed out—this is a longstanding practice, I understand. So, to some extent, it’s merely providing authority for that which has already been taking place, not only on the basis of that going forward but also to validate retrospectively or retroactively that which has already been taking place. I think that’s a worthwhile endeavour for our Parliament.
I’m reminded, of course, of the famous Shakespearean maxim “Neither a borrower nor a lender be.” I think the reticence of the select committee to broaden the eligibility of lending reflects that we should rightly be reasonably tight in the circumstances in which the State would lend money to those who need help, only because we need to demonstrate clearly that they do need help. And, of course, that quote is from the famous Hamlet play. And for fans of Hamlet, they might have noticed there’s a new section 2AA. So, at some point, the drafters have a decision whether to insert a clause 2B or not to insert a clause 2B!
But anyway, with probably more on Hamlet and less on the bill, I think I’m perhaps the wrong “Bill”, actually—for those fans of the Bard. I think I should probably leave my contribution at around about that, and only add that we commend the bill to the House.
DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take this call on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill. It’s necessary to ensure that the Government has ongoing ability to issue loans to New Zealand citizens and permanent residents in accordance with New Zealand’s consular functions. But, essentially, it just tidies up the legislation to make it fit for purpose. So it’s for that reason that I commend the bill to the House.
Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise in support—it appears, with the rest of the House—of the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill on behalf of my colleague Golriz Ghahraman. This is a short and technical bill, which we thank the Minister and the officials who worked on it for bringing here for us today.
We mihi also to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and your officials. We understand that there were just two submissions—and one of them just to say thanks. So that must have been a great day at the office—but the main point, of course, being that no changes were made to the bill from that process.
So we note these loans have been going on for a long, long time, and it is the worst thing to be stuck overseas. I am thankful—I am very, very thankful—that we have a mechanism whereby our people can get hold of our consulate or our embassy and make their way home. We saw it with COVID, people trying to get back here. You just never know what might happen around the world that gets you stuck.
I see that we need to do this. We have to have the explicit authorisation for the changes to the Public Finance Act, and that seems all good with us, so we commend this bill to the House.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT on this happy occasion to say that we too support the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill.
I wanted to take the opportunity to recount actually seeking help from our embassy in Washington, DC. One day, I actually needed to get something signed by a New Zealander and, being in Washington, not knowing any other New Zealanders having just arrived, I went to the embassy. It was a very interesting experience, because, first of all, there were all these Kiwis who only talked to each other. I actually had forgotten how bad we sound, having been in the States for a while. So we heard all of these flat vowels.
They also had a fountain and lots of ferns, so it was almost like entering the New Zealand bush—this wee oasis in the middle of a city of madness: Washington, DC. I needed to get something signed and they did it. This woman who worked at the embassy said that she was certain that she was supposed to charge me a fee for the service, but she couldn’t find the piece of paper that said how much the fee was—so she said she’d just do it as a freebie.
I think that’s probably a good summary of how New Zealand consular staff and embassies around the world have sought to help Kiwis far from home for a long time, and we should be very grateful for the work that our diplomatic corps do—with the possible exception of the recent arrival in Dublin. However, for the most part, they’ve done a wonderful job and made New Zealanders proud and welcome around the world.
But, of course, while it’s nice to be friendly, as Stuart Nash has recently discovered it’s also very important to follow the rules—even when you’re trying to help people. That’s something that this bill helps to put back in place, in the sense of consular loans. If an embassy overseas is to give some money to a stranded Kiwi, the thing is that money spent from the taxpayer can only be spent if there’s a proper appropriation made by this Parliament. It’s an old principle: no taxation without representation.
So it’s important that if that money is going to be taken from taxpayers and applied to a purpose, then there’s actually a proper procedure under the Public Finance Act to allow that to be done. I’ve got to commend the Government for making sure that these few hundreds or thousands—maybe a few tens of thousands—of dollars of small and formal consular loans are done by the book.
But what about the $55 billion allocated to COVID? As I read in the Herald earlier this week, the Treasury can now say that of the estimated $55 billion allocated to COVIDspecific appropriations, $36 billion had been spent. They actually don’t know what a large portion of that $55 billion was spent on. In fact, this Government has a terrible history of taking money that Parliament appropriates for one purpose and then spending it on something completely different.
A good example would be the $30 million that was used to buy the land at Ihumātao. Totally outside appropriation, as the Auditor-General found. So while it’s extremely important—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa) : The member is speaking totally outside of this particular bill. So if you can come back to this, please.
DAVID SEYMOUR : Well, Madam Speaker, it’s a theme, isn’t it? While it’s very important that we are for a few tens of thousands of dollars doing the right thing, what would be good to see is if this Government—from Labour—could actually come to the House and start being a bit more fastidious about the way that they spend taxpayers’ money more generally.
But that doesn’t take anything away from this particular bill, which is a very good start. And long may “no taxation without representation” be honoured by Governments of New Zealand—starting with this one, who have a bit of retrospective work to do. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa) : The Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill.
In Committee
Clause 1 Title
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean) : Members, the House is in Committee for the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to clause 1. This is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 Commencement
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean) : Members, we come now to clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 Principal Act
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean) : We come now to clause 3, and this is the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 New section 2AA inserted (Transitional, savings, and related provisions)
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean) : Members, we come now to clause 4. This is the debate on the new section 2AA to be inserted into the Foreign Affairs Act 1988, “(Transitional, savings, and related provisions)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 New section 12A inserted (Consular loans)
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean) : This is the debate on the new section 12A to be inserted into the Foreign Affairs Act 1988, “(Consular Loans)”. The question is that clause 5 stand part.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wondered if I could ask the Minister a couple of questions that I’m sure people might be interested to know. Can the Minister give us a sense of the quantum of money and the number of loans that have been made in recent years, perhaps in the last two or three years, just to give people a sense of how many Kiwis seek help from embassies and consulates overseas and what sort of amounts they borrow?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes, yes, I’m happy to provide that information. Most loans are for under $5,000 with a repayment schedule of up to 12 months. In exceptional circumstances, a loan can be issued up to $20,000. To retain some flexibility the legislative authority is greater than that. In respect of how many loans have been made in recent months, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, around $2.5 million of loans were made. That was mainly to support assisted departure flights back to New Zealand and, in some situations, some small loans to allow people to shelter in place. And, of that, over 70 percent has already been repaid. I think, from memory, I also saw somewhere else that in the period from 2014 to 2020, there were generally less than 10 consular loans per year and the average loan was just over $1,000.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 New Schedule 1 inserted
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa) : This is the debate on the new Schedule 1 to be inserted into the Foreign Affairs Act 1988—clause 6. The question is that clause 6 stand part.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order. I seek leave for the remaining clauses to be taken as one debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa) : Is there any objection to the motion. No objections.
Clauses 6 to 8, and the Schedule
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa) : The question is that clauses 6, 7, and 8, and the Schedule stand part.
Clauses 6 to 8 and the Schedule agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa) : Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean) : The Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Third Reading
Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): I move, That the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
As those who have been following this debate will now know, this is an uncontentious piece of legislation that fixes a mistake that was made some years ago which removed the legislative authority for consular loans. The bill therefore allows the Minister of Foreign Affairs to continue the longstanding practice of providing temporary financial assistance to New Zealand citizens and permanent residents overseas who find themselves in distress in exceptional circumstances or when their immediate health and safety is at risk and they are without other means of immediate assistance.
Just in respect of the anecdote that we heard from the member David Seymour for the ACT Party about his Washington, DC trip, I’m sure he would join with me in recalling what a beautiful building it is that Sir Miles Warren designed at the Washington, DC Chancery.
With that aside, I’m not going to say much extra. As others have said, the bill does two things: firstly, it retrospectively creates an authority for the consular loans that were granted in good faith between July 2013 and June 2020, and, secondly, it creates a permanent delegable statutory authority for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to issue consular loans rather than relying on the delegated authority from the Minister of Finance that was put in place once this issue was discovered in June 2020. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa) : The question is that the motion be agreed to.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs has resumed his seat, this does remain an uncontroversial bill—just happy to report that to the House and put everyone at ease.
Look, again, in some ways we are repeating—well, sorry, not we; I—I am repeating what was said at first reading, second reading—not at committee stage; it was very prudent to get through that. This is not controversial. It’s actually a good example of how the Parliament works to—it is to fix a legislative oversight, but I’m hesitating as I say that, because I actually don’t think there’s any particular reason that the error happened beyond that a rather complex bill, that being the Public Finance Act, was changed. People carried on the practices that they were familiar with, and it was only until more recent times that eagle-eyed officials went, “Hold on a moment. The legislative power granted to us to allow these consular loans has ended.” And, as I noted in previous speeches, the original Public Finance Act, I think in 1989, provided that that power, that statutory or legislative power—because, as people at home will understand, you just don’t give out money, and so there needs to be an authority to do that.
When—I think it was in 2013—changes were made to the Public Finance Act, it was overlooked at the time that, actually, that statutory or legislative authority to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) had ended. Consequently, loans were being given out, rightly, as I said earlier—morally, ethically, or whatever words you want to use—just, unfortunately, not legally correct. And as the Minister pointed out, not only is this legislation now making sure that future loans will be legal but retrospective as well—and it’s probably important to say that we don’t use retrospectivity all that often, but this is an excellent case of where it makes sense.
It was useful, actually, in the committee stage, to briefly hear some of the numbers from the Minister. These are not used often, these loans, but in a growingly—growingly? Yeah, growingly—troubled world, New Zealanders do find themselves in difficult positions. And consular loans, I’d better stress, are just one way that our embassies and consulates help people.
So, as I move to wrap up, I’d just make a couple of quick observations. Firstly, it is actually with grateful thanks to our consulates and the Minister and our embassies. The Minister is right: our facilities in DC are amazing and always worth a visit. But to our MFAT people who look after those consulates and embassies, we are grateful for the work they lead on behalf of the Realm. And can I just acknowledge the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its work. Vanushi Walters—no, apologies. Apologies. I’m mixing up my select committees; it’s because Jenny Salesa is the chair of that. But also to acknowledge the officials within MFAT—I think that’s probably the overarching theme I want to end with. We are grateful to our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, each and every one who represents the Realm of New Zealand overseas, in many, many different ways but, in particular, in reference to this bill, is making sure that New Zealanders get the assistance they need. And once this bill passes and receives Royal assent, they’ll be doing so legally.
IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, it’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill, third reading. It’s good to see—it’s a good night in the House when the whole House comes together to debate a bill that might look insignificant, but it’s actually very important to a lot of people who travel overseas.
The bill does a few things, but one of the things that it does is it seeks to re-establish legislative authority for longstanding practice. This is not to seek to create a new policy approach. Rather, the intention is for the power to make loans provided for in legislation to be applied in the same way as reflected in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (MFAT) consular loans policy. It also retrospectively validates the loans issued between 2017 and 2020. In early 2020, MFAT became aware of the lack of authority under the Public Finance Act so, as it manages a significant increase in the number of consular loans due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I too wanted to add my voice, thanking and appreciating our diplomats all over the world who look after us.
Last October, I was in Addis Ababa, and the embassy staff and Ambassador Michael Upton looked after me very, very well, and I’m sure that they do this throughout the world for Kiwis that travel overseas. I want to acknowledge the hard-working select committee that’s chaired by yourself, for the good work that they have done scrutinising this bill. I’d like to thank the submitters, the Clerk’s staff, and everyone who contributed in this bill, and also everyone who spoke in favour of this bill tonight across this House.
It’s heart-warming to see that once we can disagree on things, but when it comes to things that affect Kiwis, we come together and we get the job done and that’s exactly what happened in this House tonight. This is a good bill; I commend it to the House.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak briefly on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill on its third reading. This is a relatively simple bill, but an important one that will re-establish legislative authority for a longstanding practice. For over a quarter of a century, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided financial assistance to assist New Zealand citizens and permanent residents when their immediate health or safety is at risk.
And certainly over the last few years, we’ve seen a real challenge, where a large number of New Zealanders were stuck overseas for quite some period of time and found themselves in very difficult situations. Our great consular services did assist them. This bill will ensure that those loans are retrospectively approved where necessary and ensure that the right legislation is in place to ensure this is legal going forward. So it’s a simple but important bill, and one that, hopefully, we won’t be needing to the same degree that we have over the last few years for a very long time to come. But with that, I commend this bill to the House.
DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to speak on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill. At this stage, at the third reading, I think it’s fitting to acknowledge New Zealand’s network of 60 embassies and consulates and their 863 offshore staff who play a vital role in representing New Zealand abroad and protecting Kiwis when they’re facing difficult situations overseas.
One of the tools available to them is to assist New Zealanders in distress with the consular loan. This financial assistance is a last resort provided in exceptional circumstances when the health or safety of the person is at stake. So I commend this bill to the House.
Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I am very pleased to rise in support of the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill in this, its final reading. Thank you again to the Minister, the officials, the select committee—everybody that’s helped move it through so we can gracefully send it on its path tonight.
I too wanted to add my thanks to the embassies and the consulates around the world. Last year, some of us who are part of the European Union Parliamentary Friendship Group did a trip to Europe. We visited six countries in two weeks. It was a whirlwind, but we had ambassadors and people from our embassies around the world looking after us every step of the way. I know we’re fortunate, as MPs, as members of Parliament, as Ministers, that we have certain privileges, but the rest of our people who head out there in excitement to see family and experience different things, they don’t always have that back-up when something happens. But this is the back-up. We’re pleased that we can take care of the technical issues. It means that this can continue.
I also thank the Minister for giving us that outline of what kind of money we’re actually talking about here. It’s not a fortune, but when there’s an emergency and someone’s health or safety is threatened somewhere else in the rest of the world, it’s the lifeline that they need, and I’m really thankful that we can make sure that it continues. We commend this bill to the House.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the third reading of this Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill.
I stand feeling obliged to make a speech without having a huge amount more to say. I imagine this is what it’s like every day being a Labour backbencher, in fact. I just want to say a couple of things about this bill. We all enjoy the camaraderie with Kiwis overseas; that this bill represents the idea that even when you are far from home, help is possible.
I think it’s wonderful that the Government has decided to pass this legislation so that money that’s taken from taxpayers and spent on a purpose—in this case loans to people in trouble abroad—is actually done legally, within the law. That’s a very good thing.
I think it’s great that this bill was introduced to the House last June, debated for the first time in July, and went off to a select committee to be considered for four months, even though it is only two pages in substance, of actual content—only two pages. Yet this law is about spending money within the law, legally, and it was properly considered.
Now, you contrast that with the cacophony of rushed lawmaking and illegal expenditure that characterises this Government, and I think this may be my favourite thing Labour’s done. One of the best things that they’ve ever done. Spending money legally and properly considering making a law. Now, if only the Labour Party could apply the principles it’s applied to this bill, then I think that they would be in a much better place to govern this country.
Now, it would be churlish of me not to congratulate Duncan Webb. I saw Duncan Webb introducing the second reading of this bill tonight. I was reminded when I was listening to that guy from Helensville—I think Chris Penk—he was quoting Shakespeare, he was quoting Hamlet. And that made me think of Twelfth Night and Malvolio. Malvolio said, “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” But there’s a fourth option in the case of Duncan Webb: none of the above. And it just made me think of him when I saw him speaking earlier today.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb : I can answer that! Will you yield? Will you yield?
DAVID SEYMOUR : Nevertheless, without too much more to do, I think I’ve almost done my Labour backbencher’s two minutes. Duncan Webb’s now trying to heckle, but he’s also got his mouth full. And that’s actually a breach of the Standing Orders because he shouldn’t be in the Chamber, and he also shouldn’t be talking with his mouth full. But you know, Duncan Webb says he’s a lawyer—although some people from Christchurch say that’s a bit questionable. But nevertheless, he’s breaking at least two rules at once: one of manners, and the other of the Standing Orders.
Thank you very much for extending my speech beyond the requisite Labour backbencher one minute, but there really is not too much further to say about this Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill.
Therefore, finally—and this may be the final speech unless Duncan Webb gets up to give one, and that would be fantastic. Let’s see if he’s got something to say; he’s certainly got the time and the opportunity. But ACT, for one party, commends this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Come on, Duncan.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa) : I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Civil Aviation Bill. | non_maori_origin | 0.95 | The document is a parliamentary debate on the Foreign Affairs (Consular Loans) Amendment Bill. This bill concerns providing financial assistance to New Zealand citizens and permanent residents overseas, which is a general government function and legislation not primarily focused on Māori matters. While there are brief Māori greetings and an off-topic mention of Ihumātao (which was immediately ruled out of order), these do not constitute substantive discussion of Māori-related topics as per the classification rules. | hansard_2023-03-28_body_section_25.json | /content/drive/MyDrive/NZ/University of Waikato/Māori Data Findability Project/downloaded/moved/hansard_2023-03-28_body_section_25.json | 32,383 | 5,528 | 1non_maori_origin | 7,174 | [
{
"content": "You are a specialist in classifying New Zealand Parliament Hansard records.\n\n TASK: Classify the document section below into EXACTLY ONE category.\n\n CATEGORIES:\n - maori_origin: Substantive discussion of Māori-related topics\n - non_maori_origin: Parliamentary content not primaril... |
Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill | "Second Reading\n\nDebate resumed.\n\nSIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Assist(...TRUNCATED) | non_maori_origin | 0.95 | "The document contains a substantive parliamentary debate on the Second Reading of the 'Brokering (W(...TRUNCATED) | hansard_2018-05-01_body_section_11.json | "/content/drive/MyDrive/NZ/University of Waikato/Māori Data Findability Project/downloaded/moved/h(...TRUNCATED) | 62,077 | 10,703 | 1non_maori_origin | 13,422 | [{"content":"You are a specialist in classifying New Zealand Parliament Hansard records.\n\n TASK(...TRUNCATED) |
Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill | "Third Reading\n\nHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the(...TRUNCATED) | maori_origin | 0.9 | "The document substantively discusses Māori-related topics. It explicitly mentions 'tamariki Māori(...TRUNCATED) | hansard_2023-05-17_body_section_11.json | "/content/drive/MyDrive/NZ/University of Waikato/Māori Data Findability Project/downloaded/moved/h(...TRUNCATED) | 38,298 | 6,510 | 0maori_origin | 7,994 | [{"content":"You are a specialist in classifying New Zealand Parliament Hansard records.\n\n TASK(...TRUNCATED) |
Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill | "First Reading\n\nHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education (School Dona(...TRUNCATED) | non_maori_origin | 1 | "The document contains a parliamentary debate on the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill. Th(...TRUNCATED) | hansard_2019-05-30_body_section_13.json | "/content/drive/MyDrive/NZ/University of Waikato/Māori Data Findability Project/downloaded/moved/h(...TRUNCATED) | 41,763 | 7,292 | 1non_maori_origin | 9,140 | [{"content":"You are a specialist in classifying New Zealand Parliament Hansard records.\n\n TASK(...TRUNCATED) |
Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill | "In Committee\n\nParts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3\n\nCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa) :(...TRUNCATED) | non_maori_origin | 0.95 | "The document is a parliamentary debate on the Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Trans(...TRUNCATED) | hansard_2023-08-22_body_section_22.json | "/content/drive/MyDrive/NZ/University of Waikato/Māori Data Findability Project/downloaded/moved/h(...TRUNCATED) | 76,892 | 12,921 | 1non_maori_origin | 16,291 | [{"content":"You are a specialist in classifying New Zealand Parliament Hansard records.\n\n TASK(...TRUNCATED) |
Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Filing, and Remedial Matters) Bill | "In Committee\n\nDebate resumed from 26 September.\n\nPart 5 Amendments to other Acts and regulatio(...TRUNCATED) | non_maori_origin | 1 | "The document contains a substantive parliamentary debate on the Taxation (Annual Rates, Returns Fil(...TRUNCATED) | hansard_2012-10-16_body_section_9.json | "/content/drive/MyDrive/NZ/University of Waikato/Māori Data Findability Project/downloaded/moved/h(...TRUNCATED) | 22,832 | 4,037 | 1non_maori_origin | 4,923 | [{"content":"You are a specialist in classifying New Zealand Parliament Hansard records.\n\n TASK(...TRUNCATED) |
Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill | "In Committee\n\nDebate resumed from 4 March.\n\nPart 1 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002 (continue(...TRUNCATED) | maori_origin | 0.95 | "The document contains extensive and substantive discussion about Māori-related topics, particularl(...TRUNCATED) | hansard_2025-03-25_body_section_12.json | "/content/drive/MyDrive/NZ/University of Waikato/Māori Data Findability Project/downloaded/moved/h(...TRUNCATED) | 89,822 | 15,341 | 0maori_origin | 19,756 | [{"content":"You are a specialist in classifying New Zealand Parliament Hansard records.\n\n TASK(...TRUNCATED) |
Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill | "Third Reading\n\nHon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I present a legislative statement (...TRUNCATED) | maori_origin | 0.9 | "The document contains substantive discussion of Māori-related topics. Specifically, Dr Elizabeth K(...TRUNCATED) | hansard_2021-12-09_body_section_6.json | "/content/drive/MyDrive/NZ/University of Waikato/Māori Data Findability Project/downloaded/moved/h(...TRUNCATED) | 59,168 | 10,264 | 0maori_origin | 12,722 | [{"content":"You are a specialist in classifying New Zealand Parliament Hansard records.\n\n TASK(...TRUNCATED) |
Nelson—Bushfires | "Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I wish to make a ministerial statement on the Nelson bushfi(...TRUNCATED) | non_maori_origin | 0.9 | "The document primarily discusses the Nelson bushfires, emergency response, and recovery efforts. Wh(...TRUNCATED) | hansard_2019-02-12_body_section_6.json | "/content/drive/MyDrive/NZ/University of Waikato/Māori Data Findability Project/downloaded/moved/h(...TRUNCATED) | 7,986 | 1,305 | 1non_maori_origin | 1,576 | [{"content":"You are a specialist in classifying New Zealand Parliament Hansard records.\n\n TASK(...TRUNCATED) |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 11