QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Government Communications Security Bureau—Legislative Reform and Law Society
Comments
1. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) on behalf of Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: Does he agree with the New Zealand Law Society when it describes outcomes in the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill as “unacceptable and inconsistent with the rule of law”; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for the GCSB): No, because the bill clarifies the longstanding practices of the Government Communications Security Bureau to assist other agencies, as it has under successive Governments for over a decade. The bill also significantly strengthens the oversight regime for our intelligence agencies. As I have said several times before, this is not a debate about whether a particular New Zealander will have intelligence gathered about them and their activities. That will happen with the appropriate safeguards and oversight. The debate is about which agency conducts that surveillance, which, of course, must be done under lawful authority.
Kevin Hague: Is he relaxed, then, that, as the New Zealand Law Society highlights, the bill will allow New Zealanders to be spied on more extensively and never be told, in a manner that is—and I quote—“unacceptable and inconsistent with the rule of law.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have just answered that question in my answer to the primary question. I do not agree with the Law Society.
Kevin Hague: Does he agree with the Law Society that the bill transforms the Government Communications Security Bureau from an agency focused on foreign threats to an agency focused on New Zealanders—and again I quote—“in a way not previously contemplated and that is inconsistent with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and with privacy interests recognised by New Zealand law.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. Other than actually strengthening the oversight regime and some work around support for private companies in relation to cyber-security, nothing actually changes from what the Government Communications Security Bureau has been doing under the Labour Government with the legislation introduced by Labour in 2003, supported by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen and half the travellers sitting on the other side of the House.
Kevin Hague: Does he stand, then, by his claim that this bill is simply a matter of clarification when, in fact, as the Law Society has spelt out, the bill completely transforms the Government Communications Security Bureau and gives it expanded powers and functions?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I completely stand by my statement. It is worth recalling, if we go back, let us say, to 2006, a period when Helen Clark was the Prime Minister. I am sure that if we looked
through the records it is eminently possible that the Government Communications Security Bureau provided assistance to either the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, the New Zealand Defence Force, or the Police. That will be the situation when the law is changed, and that is because there are currently difficulties of interpretation and we therefore ceased that assistance. I would also point out that that assistance is very important for New Zealanders, and it provides security and safety for New Zealanders. Members who do not want to provide that security and safety for New Zealanders should make that clear to the New Zealand public next time there is a problem.
Kevin Hague: Is it the Government’s intention, as is currently in the bill, to allow the Government Communications Security Bureau—and again I quote the Law Society—to “under a cloak of co-operation with some other specified agency, perform any activities that it chooses.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That just shows you what is wrong with the Law Society. It is not under a cloak; it is under a warrant.
Kevin Hague: Is the Law Society incorrect when it says that safeguards provided in the bill are—again I quote—“entirely inadequate” to protect New Zealanders’ freedom of expression and freedom from invasive search?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I believe they are incorrect. I think it is also worth pointing out that if we look at the legislation, these are the sorts of things that it is doing in terms of enhancing oversight of the intelligence agencies. We are changing and removing the requirement that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security be a retired High Court judge. This will increase the pool of people who can do the job. Secondly, we are making the Inspector-General’s office more proactive by increasing the requirements on the office and moving it a step forward from existing review-focused work programmes. Thirdly, we will be increasing the resourcing and staffing of the Inspector- General’s office, including creating a new role of Deputy Inspector-General—
Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we have all read the explanatory note. I do not think we need—
Mr SPEAKER: If the member is satisfied with the answer, then has he further supplementary questions?
Kevin Hague: Does the Minister have a genuinely open mind when it comes to the submission from the Law Society, and will he ensure that the bill is amended so that it complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and international human rights standards?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Of course we will be listening to submissions as they are presented to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but, of course, if the majority of Parliament does not agree with them, then no amendments will be made on the back of their recommendations.
Economic Programme—Progress
2. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in building a more competitive and productive economy and how is this helping New Zealand families?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): I am pleased to report we are making very good progress in building a more productive and competitive economy. For example, last week Statistics New Zealand reported gross domestic product for the March quarter. Despite the impact of the drought earlier this year, the data confirmed that the economy grew 0.3 percent in the 3 months to March and 2.4 percent in the 12 months to March. It shows that the New Zealand economy is on the right track, in line with Budget forecasts of economic growth, more jobs, rising wages, and a return to fiscal surplus in 2014-15. It is good news for New Zealand families, providing them with more security in a world that still faces a number of economic difficulties.
Chris Auchinvole: How is the New Zealand economy performing compared with other developed countries?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Very well, in fact. The 2.4 percent increase in GDP in the year to March compares favourably with many other developed countries. In the same period the US grew
by 1.8 percent, Canada by 1.4 percent, Japan by 0.2 percent, and the UK by 0.6 percent, and the euro area’s economic activity contracted by 1.1 percent.
Dr David Clark: Worst economic record in 50 years.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Do not be a parrot, Clark. New Zealand’s economic growth was comparable to Australia’s 2.5 percent in the year to March. Although the drought did affect growth in the March quarter, forecasters expect momentum to continue this year, supported by rising consumer and business confidence and a lift in construction activity.
Chris Auchinvole: How has the manufacturing sector contributed to the economy’s improving performance, particularly given the declining indicators for manufacturing 5 years ago?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The manufacturing sector is in much better heart than it was 5 years ago. Since the beginning of 2009 the manufacturing sector has grown 9.2 percent as measured by GDP, which means it has been growing faster than the economy as a whole. The BNZ – BusinessNZ Performance of Manufacturing Index is currently at 59.2, showing very strong expansion—in fact, one of the highest readings in the world today. This is in contrast to 2008, when manufacturing shrank in 1 year by 12 percent and the performance of manufacturing index reached as low as 35.8. You could even argue that the manufacturing sector was in crisis back in 2008 under the previous Labour Government.
Hon David Parker: Is it correct that manufacturing exports outside of the primary sector are down 17 percent since 2008 and 6 percent in the latest year for which there is a record?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is the constant attempt by Mr Parker to pare away at the manufacturing sector to try to find some bits that have not been successful. But in answer to him, I do not have those exact numbers here, but I can confirm to him that the construction sector did decline during the global financial crisis, but manufacturing overall has been growing under this Government, when it was shrinking under Labour.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He has finished now, but if Mr Joyce did not have the answer, that would have been completely sufficient. He should have had it, but he did not have it, so—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not the member’s job to now start designing the answers he wants from the Minister.
Chris Auchinvole: What do current improvements in the economy mean for New Zealand families?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am very pleased to report that the outlook for both the economy—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There seems to be a continuing trend from Government backbenchers to use both unnecessary points at the beginning of questions and, in that particular case, irony.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member Chris Auchinvole has every right to ask a supplementary question. He can ask his supplementary question again.
Chris Auchinvole: What do current improvements in the economy mean for New Zealand families?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Notwithstanding the Opposition’s disinterest, I am pleased to report that the outlook for both the economy and New Zealand families has improved considerably. For a start, the economy is now growing. In 2008 it was deep in a domestic recession that had started before the global financial crisis. There are around 50,000 more jobs in New Zealand than there were 2 years ago. The cost of living is low, increasing by around 1 percent annually. In 2008 inflation was more than 5 percent. Floating mortgage rates are at 50-year lows, and around half of what they were in 2008. The export sector and jobs in that sector are growing. Five years ago tradables—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a sufficiently long answer.
Hon David Parker: In light of his answer to my last supplementary—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, you can’t ask a question like that.
Hon David Parker: —question that he does not know—sorry?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Use the proper question language.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon David Parker: Is that a point of order?
Mr SPEAKER: It would be helpful—[Interruption] Order! It would be helpful if interjections were not continued from the front bench of the National Party.
Hon David Parker: Given that the Minister, in response to my last primary question, said that he did not know that manufacturing exports outside of the primary sector were down 17 percent, why is it that the Minister of Finance has not been advised by the Minister for Economic Development, who has been in that portfolio for a number of years, that manufactured exports outside of primary exports are down 17 percent in real terms since 2008, and 6 percent in the last year?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am reliably informed that the Minister for Economic Development has been in the role for about a year and a bit, but it may feel like some years to those in Opposition. But I can confirm for the member that the volume of non-food manufactured exports—which may or may not be the exact same definition as he has—actually did drop 5.8 percent in 2008. Since that time it has grown by 14.6 percent.
Prime Minister—Statements
3. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement on the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation that “I don’t actually agree it is expanding their powers”; if so, how does he explain section 8 in the bill, which allows him to authorise the bureau to use its powers in relation to any Government agency without consulting Parliament?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In relation to the first part of the question, yes.
David Shearer: How does he explain section 8 in the bill, which allows him to authorise the bureau to use its powers in relation to any Government agency without consulting Parliament, when he says that the bill does not expand its powers?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In my view, it does not expand powers. The Government Communications Security Bureau has always had the ability to provide agencies support, and that will continue, provided it is on a warranted basis.
David Shearer: How is he balancing New Zealand’s security and privacy with a bill that allows the Government Communications Security Bureau to access data held by any Government agency, including the Inland Revenue Department, the Ministry of Health, or any district health board, in the country?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not going to go through all of the records that the bureau might be able to access, but the reality is that it has to do that under a warranted basis. It does that providing assistance to another agency. If it was not doing it itself, that other agency would have to do that. I would point out to the member that that has been the longstanding practice as established under law by Helen Clark, and if that member was really taking his responsibilities seriously, he would be voting for the law.
David Shearer: Does section 15A in the bill, allowing him to grant interception warrants—“(5) This section applies despite anything in any other Act.”—mean that this legislation overrides, for example, the Crimes Act?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not going to offer a legal view, because that is not my responsibility. But what I can say is, yes, I do have the ability to sign a warrant and that is under that wellestablished practice, as any other Minister responsible for the GCSB has had.
David Shearer: Does he think consulting with a Minister of Foreign Affairs provides sufficient checks and balances to ensure that the extended powers in the bill are not improperly used?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is quite wrong. The powers are not expanded or extended. The oversight is extended. But what the legislation is attempting to do is to ensure that the very poorly drafted legislation that was brought in by a Labour Government in 2003, where it operated it, providing assistance right through that whole period of time, is actually now clarified. I say to that member, if he does not want to keep New Zealanders safe, if he does not want to ensure that we have bare information about the security of New Zealanders, well, keep going the way you are, son, but you will not become—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do not bring me into the debate. [Interruption] Order!
David Shearer: Is he prepared to put the bill on hold pending a short, sharp, independent inquiry of our intelligence agencies that would secure broad parliamentary support?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I now see that the Leader of the Opposition, who realises he is on the wrong side of this debate, is trying to find a way out with what he is now calling a short, sharp inquiry. That is not the way he was describing it a wee while ago. The member knows we have had a thorough review of the Government Communications Security Bureau—absolutely thorough— [Interruption] Well, they have not been able to find one single point that they actually disagree with with the review—not one point. The member knows that, because we have had that discussion. It is the SIS that he has been asking about, and the Inspector-General has had a thorough review of that.
David Shearer: If he believes it is so urgent to put this bill through in its current form when the situation about illegal spying was known last August, why did he not just simply act sooner?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, firstly, the member is quite wrong. There is no proven fact of illegal spying, with the one exception of Kim Dotcom. What is correct is that the law has difficulties of interpretation. It is the law passed by Labour in 2003. It is the law administered by Labour in exactly the same way that I have since I have been Prime Minister. The member knows because he sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the member knows because he gets briefings from the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS, that, actually, the work that they do provides security to New Zealanders, and the reason he is not supporting it is that his little pal sitting next—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is quite a sufficient answer.
Better Public Services—Information and Communications Technology
4. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What are the Government’s plans for providing more services online?
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yesterday the Prime Minister and I launched the Government ICT Strategy and Action Plan to 2017. One of the key initiatives in this new plan aims for all new transactional services to be offered online by 2017. Online options are faster, easier, and cheaper to use and will be the default option into the future. This relates to our Better Public Services result 10, which aims for 70 percent of New Zealanders’ most common transactions with Government to be completed online by 2017. The services that will increasingly move online include passport renewals and tax payments, amongst a range of other initiatives.
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How will New Zealanders’ private information be protected as more services move online?
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: New Zealanders’ information will be better protected with oversight from the Government Chief Information Officer, who will report to Ministers on any security risks. The Government Chief Information Officer will also implement improved privacy and security standards and controls across the public sector. The Government Chief Information Officer has already reviewed all kiosk and internet-based information and communications technology systems, following issues with Ministry of Social Development kiosks last year. All Government
departments have been required to take action to tighten up their services and ensure that New Zealanders’ information is being protected.
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What evidence has he seen that New Zealanders are demanding online services?
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: We are seeing a huge demand for online services already, with 68 percent of people applying for financial assistance from the Ministry of Social Development now doing that online, which is up from 48 percent when the targets were set last year. About 35 percent of adult passport renewals were being done online within 6 months of this service launching. It is clear that there are huge demands for these services, and this plan, the Government ICT Strategy and Action Plan to 2017, takes this country forward.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he have confidence in his Government Chief Information Officer, given his performance in relation to the oversight of Novopay, where he chose not to look at the problems because no one asked him to?
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: I have total confidence in the Government Chief Information Officer. He did not have a mandate at that particular point in time for the oversight of Novopay. He now has that mandate, and I am confident he will do a great job.
Prime Minister—Statements
5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was he aware, before the Government’s delayed licence fee deal with MediaWorks was approved, that MediaWorks had a substantial and escalating tax bill that was not being met?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he was told, as it is reported in Hansard of 27 September 2012, that the company was, as the market said, going belly up and tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money was going to be lost, what did he do about it?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not for me to wade into a publicly owned company and seek to restructure it. What the Government did do was, when there was the issue of licences that had to be paid for up front and it was obvious that MediaWorks, amongst a number of players at the time, might have had difficulty in actually meeting that cash flow, the Government looked to spread those payments over a period of time. It did so by ensuring there was security over those licences, and it did so also ensuring there was an above-market interest rate. That was actually done to protect—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That has got nothing to do with my question. I am talking about—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the point of order in silence.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am talking about a growing, then escalating, tax bill, which got to $22 million at the time of receivership. That is what I am talking about.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The supplementary question, as I remember, asked, when he was told such and such in the House at some time in September, what he did about it. The Prime Minister said that he did not do anything, but then he went through a number of things his Government did, and he was still answering that question when the member rose to his feet to interrupt him. The member has further supplementary questions if he wants to use them.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is MediaWorks being allowed to go into what has been described as a “ ‘technical’ receivership” to dodge its tax debt of $22 million when that is not available to other taxpayers in this country, be they a company or individuals, even though they may be mates of Mr Steven Joyce?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, it is very important to understand that there is a clear separation between the responsibilities held by the Inland Revenue Department and Ministers of the Crown.
The member knows, as a very longstanding member of Parliament, that it would be quite wrong of me to engage myself as Prime Minister in the tax affairs of MediaWorks, and if I did so, the member would be on his feet in this House saying things. The second point I would make is that it is not for me, either, to understand fully the financial circumstances that the receivers face at MediaWorks. But I can say this one general point—and it may well apply; I have not looked deeply into MediaWorks—and it is this: it is highly likely that this particular case, when it comes to this particular tax liability, is an unsecured creditor. It is also highly likely that the secured creditors that are the banks, which are owed a considerable amount of money and have now put the company into liquidation, even if they did not do this particular form, the unsecured creditors would not have their liability met. So, whatever way it happens, it is highly likely that, in fact, the tax bill would not be met by MediaWorks, because the company is fundamentally broke.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister acting on behalf of six foreign-owned banks behind MediaWorks by claiming that he cannot—
Hon Steven Joyce: Don’t be a clown. Silly old clown.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask this question without Steven Joyce—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It would certainly be helpful if there were no interjections from this side of the House. Would the member just ask his question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that when you were on your feet you were referred to as an old clown by the Minister for Economic Development.
Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear it, and it is not useful for the order of this House for the member to raise that as a point of order. Would the Rt Hon Winston Peters please continue with his supplementary question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: He meant a bald crown, talking about himself. But look—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants to ask his question—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am entitled to ask the question. Your job is to—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is entitled to ask his question, but he is not entitled to start it in the way he started that question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it the ruling of this House that you can actually get a question out without constant interruptions from the front bench of the National Party, or is that allowed—including insults, as well?
Mr SPEAKER: I am trying to assist the member. I have told the front bench of the National Party they are not to interject. The member then rose and started with a comment that was unnecessary to his question. I said that was out of order. I am trying to help the member to have the opportunity to ask his question if he wants to do so. [Interruption] Order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did you hear that interjection?
Mr SPEAKER: No, I did not. If the member wants to ask his question he should do so, otherwise we are moving to the next question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When Paula Bennett interjected, you looked at her and called her to order. You cannot say that you did not hear her.
Mr SPEAKER: It is a matter of which interjection he is referring to. [Interruption] Order! If the member—for the last time—wants to ask his question, he will rise to his feet and ask the question. There will be absolute silence from this side, otherwise a member will leave the Chamber. If the question is not asked, then we are moving to the next question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister and his Government not move to put this outfit into statutory receivership, thereby enabling the recovery of a tax bill of now $22 million, which was agreed by MediaWorks when it signed off with the Inland Revenue Department in the Alesco case—why is he allowing it to get out of this by using a technical receivership that is not available to the balance of New Zealand companies?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I do not have any technical advice—or any advice, I should say— about ultimately whether the company could have been put into statutory receivership. At no point
was I asked to do that. Secondly, there is nothing specific or unique, as I understand it, to the way that MediaWorks is acting in relation to its receivership. That is not specific to that company—any company could, technically, do that. Thirdly, like I said to the member earlier, it really depends on how much debt is owed, in terms of secured creditors, whether the Inland Revenue Department would have received anything.
Economic Programme—Policies and Reports
6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with ANZ regarding the New Zealand economy that “Our concern is that the domestic-centric mix of growth is not sustainable from the standpoint of New Zealand’s external imbalances”; if not, why not?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): I agree with a number of statements in the ANZ’s review of GDP in the first quarter, for example, when it says that lead indicators suggest solid growth in the second half of the year. I agree with it when it says that base momentum is lifting. And I agree with it when it notes a build-up in manufacturing inventories added to GDP. However, I do not agree with the particular passage the member quotes. Household savings are, in fact, up. The Government remains on track to surplus and to begin paying off debt, and forecasts have to be considered in view of the large one-off effect of the Canterbury rebuild on domestic activity. And on that basis, I disagree with its assertion.
Hon David Parker: Why does he expect the public to believe that the recovery is broad-based and the benefits are being shared by all when 40 percent of working New Zealanders did not get a pay rise at all in the last year, yet the cost of living—be it electricity prices, petrol taxes, health or education costs—keeps going up and up?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member makes an interesting point, but I am not sure that it squares with the facts, because the reality is that the cost of living is actually the lowest it has been in 9 years. It has gone up about 1 percent in the last year. Interest rates, which are, of course, one of the biggest household costs, are as low as they have been for 40-odd years—in fact, 50 years, I think. That means on balance that most households, although they would all like to be further ahead—and, of course, we all would—are, in fact, slightly better off in the last 12 months than they would have been the year before.
Hon David Parker: Does he understand that New Zealanders are feeling disappointed with his management of the economy, given that most of the modest economic gains have gone to the few percentage at the top while everyone else has stayed still or—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.
Hon David Parker: —it is—gone backwards?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I suppose the lie of that statement is probably the polling numbers that suggest that New Zealanders, in fact, are supporting the economic direction of this Government. The reality is that it has been tough the world over in terms of people getting ahead, but in the New Zealand context with low interest rates, low mortgage rates, a low cost of living increase, and a Government that is running the economy carefully and successfully, we are actually doing better than most parts of the world.
Paul Goldsmith: How does New Zealand’s external balances compare with what the Government inherited in 2008?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Statistics New Zealand last week announced that the current account deficit in the first quarter was 4.8 percent of GDP and was actually down a bit and compares with the current account deficit in the final quarter of 2008, where it peaked at 8.8 percent of GDP. That was the worst quarter in the last 25 years and came at the end of a 4-year period in which the current account deficit averaged over 8 percent. So what we are seeing is a steady rebalancing of the New Zealand economy, and that is reflected in our external balances.
Human Rights—Protection
7. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Attorney-General: Does he agree with the New Zealand Law Society that “The rule of law lies at the very foundation of a free and democratic society and is essential for the protection of human rights”; if not, why not?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Yes, although I would observe that it is the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers, and it is certainly not the rule of the mob, which is the Green Party’s preferred approach.
Jan Logie: Does he also, then, agree with the Law Society’s view that “a number of recent legislative measures are fundamentally in conflict with the rule of law”?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, I do not.
Jan Logie: Does he stand by that response, given that the Law Society identified that this Government has passed five laws that remove the courts’ constitutional role of judicial review, three laws that the give the executive—i.e. his Cabinet—unjustified powers, three laws that have serious human rights concerns, and five laws that he himself gave negative New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reports to?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, I do not agree with the Law Society. Moreover, I say, for example, in relation to section 7 reports that I provide those reports as the law officer of the Crown, and then they are made available to Parliament so that it can debate the issues. The Law Society has got the wrong end of the stick when it goes on about section 7 reports, because it does not understand the procedure set out and adopted by this Parliament for many years.
Jan Logie: How was his last performance appraisal with the Prime Minister, given that the first role of the Attorney-General in the Cabinet Manual is “maintaining the rule of law”, and the Law Society has identified he is not doing that, and is therefore clearly failing to protect New Zealanders’ human rights?
Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Chris Finlayson, in so far as he sees a ministerial responsibility.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, I have my priorities meeting with the Prime Minister tonight, and I expect that my report card will be what it was last time—outstanding? Outstanding.
Migrant Workers—Protection
8. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Immigration: How is the Government planning to further combat the exploitation of migrant workers?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): This week I announced plans to introduce tough new changes to the Immigration Act in order to make it clear that unlawful and exploitative behaviour will not be tolerated in New Zealand. The new offence will see exploitive employers of temporary migrants face up to 7 years in jail and fines of $100,000, and be liable for deportation. By breaking the law unscrupulous employers not only prey on vulnerable staff but also gain an unfair competitive advantage over the majority of good, law-abiding employers. The Government is taking the issue very seriously.
Dr Jian Yang: What needs to happen to encourage exploited migrant workers to speak out and come forward?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Migrants need to be able to speak out against exploitative employers without fear that they themselves will be penalised or even deported. That is why I have issued new instructions to officials asking them to shift the focus on to employers and away from the employee who comes forward with a complaint. I have asked that those who come forward be able to reapply for a new visa, should they need it, without the fact that they may have been in breach of their previous visa conditions counting against them. It is important that this message gets out in our migrant communities. That is why I have also asked officials to work closely with our migrant organisations and community leaders to build a communications plan through various channels to get that message across.
Dr Jian Yang: How will Government agencies be following up on allegations from migrants who come forward?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Immigration New Zealand agents and the labour inspectorate will work together to investigate and take action as necessary. As we begin to lift the lid on exploitation and get a clearer picture of the size of the problem, we will distribute resources as necessary.
Sue Moroney: Answer his question. You’re actually avoiding his question. He wants to know how it’s going to happen.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, if the member would be quiet I will answer the question. We will distribute resources as necessary to ensure that these new initiatives are properly supported. I am working closely with my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges, who is in charge of the labour side of things. From an immigration perspective—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister please finish his answer.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —I am exploring future funding options around Immigration New Zealand’s enforcement capability.
Darien Fenton: Does he expect Immigration New Zealand to do more with less when it comes to investigating and prosecuting cases of migrant worker exploitation, as he told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee a couple of weeks ago, given there is no increase in the 2013-14 and out-years Budget for inspection and enforcement?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will clarify what I said to the select committee, and it was this: “The last thing I would say is about resources. I make no apology, as the Government doesn’t, for asking our public servants to do more with the same.” I then went on to discuss the fact that with those same resources we have managed to reduce the overstayer rate by about a third from what it was under Labour, and increase the number of voluntary departures from New Zealand by illegal overstayers by 50 percent. I think that is a very good outcome by our compliance team. I expect the same in the area of exploitation.
Solid Energy—Minister’s Statements
9. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by all his statements regarding Solid Energy?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): Yes, within the context that they were given. I also stand by my statement that praise was heaped on Don Elder and Mr Palmer not long ago. Actually, it was in April last year: “You are performing well.”—a statement by one Hon Clayton Cosgrove at a select committee.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he stand by his statement that “I wouldn’t expect to see it happen again.” regarding Solid Energy’s spending of $48,000 on communication consultants Saunders Unsworth?
Hon TONY RYALL: Yes.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has he made it clear to Solid Energy that it should cease hiring consultants who are specifically contracted to come up with strategies to evade and undermine parliamentary scrutiny and public oversight of company activities?
Hon TONY RYALL: I have made clear to the chairman of Solid Energy that I thought the spending of $48,000 for the purposes described in respect of Saunders Unsworth was really a responsibility that he would have to take, but I did not expect to see such expenditure again.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can he confirm that he and his ministerial staff were fully aware of the activities of Solid Energy senior management and Saunders Unsworth in their attempts and efforts to evade and obstruct media and parliamentary scrutiny of the State-owned enterprise’s activities?
Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, of course my office was copied in on a number of emails—a small number of emails. But I have got to say that my office is copied in to a lot of things, including—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He has answered the question. I seek leave to table—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: First of all, I want to deal with whether the member is saying that he is happy with the answer, and does not need any further information—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Ecstatic. Ecstatic.
Mr SPEAKER: Then he is now seeking leave to table what?
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table an email from Vicki Blyth, Communications Manager at Solid Energy, of 11 March 2013, which is copied in to the Minister’s office, to one Mark Unsworth, illustrating the point made in my question.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that email. Is there any objection? There is none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has the Minister been advised that Saunders Unsworth has briefed companies and stakeholders about him as Minister, claiming that in relation to his handling of the Solid Energy debacle he has been “incompetent”?
Hon TONY RYALL: I would not want to comment on any hypothetical allegations from that member, but I would—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Minister.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am satisfied with the answer.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not even think that the answer has been fully given. We are going to get to the stage when—[Interruption] Order! We are going to get into difficulty here if a member asks a question and then does not like the answer, and so immediately stands up and says that they are satisfied. But on this occasion, if the member is satisfied with the answer, I intend to move forward. [Interruption] Order! No, we are moving forward.
Genetically Modified Organisms, Release—Local Government Policies
10. STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Will she be changing the law to restrict councils’ ability to regulate the release of genetically modified organisms in their regions; if so, what are the proposed changes?
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): The regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms is and has for more than 15 years been regulated at a national level by the Environmental Protection Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I am concerned at indications that some councils are seeking to rewrite what is a nationally set regulatory framework, and, accordingly, it is my intention to progress an amendment to the Resource Management Act to clarify the respective functions and roles of the Environmental Protection Authority and local government in this regard. Communities can be confident that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act provides a robust system of controls and a very high bar for the entry of GMOs into New Zealand.
Steffan Browning: Why has the Government’s position changed since Nick Smith wrote to the councils in 2010, saying that it would not change the law to put in place protections, but that “this does not preclude a council from restricting or preventing the use of GMOs in their region,”? Why has it changed?
Hon AMY ADAMS: Actually, the position of the Government and the ministry has been consistent in this regard for some years, and I would refer the member to Crown Law advice that the ministry has put on its website from 2003 and 2004, repeating its consistent position that it is not a good idea for councils to be regulating GMOs under their plans and that there are serious legal uncertainties as to how well that would work—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Steffan Browning: I seek leave to table a letter from Nick Smith to the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options. It is dated 5 August 2010, and it shows—
Mr SPEAKER: That is enough information. Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Steffan Browning: Given that the Northland and Auckland councils’ decisions to put in place protections are based on 10 years of investigation and evaluation about how to protect their ratepayers, how can she justify threatening to swoop in and override their rights and responsibilities just because it suits the GE agenda of this Government?
Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, I can assure that member that local councils are local councils. They operate under the national framework. There has never been the ability for them to rewrite national rules that they do not like. If councils have concerns about the way the GM regulation in New Zealand works, they should raise those with the Environmental Protection Authority and attempt to address the regulation on a national basis. They should not set up their own independent states where they write their own rules and ignore the national framework.
Roading, Auckland—Pūhoi to Wellsford Route
11. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Minister of Transport: How is the Government working with the Auckland Council to progress the Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): The Auckland Council has recommended that the road progress through a fast-tracked consenting process, and that the Government’s Environmental Protection Authority hold hearings through a board of inquiry and issue a decision within 9 months of notifying applications. I commend the Auckland Council’s regional development and operations committee for its foresight and look forward to improving this vital traffic and economic link to the north.
Mike Sabin: What has been the response to the decision to fast track the Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have seen numerous reports praising the decision to fast track the consenting process. One referred to the Pūhoi to Warkworth and on to Wellsford road of national significance as the umbilical cord to the north. Another said the project “cannot come soon enough”, and that the critics of this essential piece of roading infrastructure are doing no more than engaging in rhetoric. I note the spokesmen for both the Greens and Labour have been silent on this matter.
Mike Sabin: When does the Government expect to begin the Environmental Protection Authority process?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The New Zealand Transport Agency advised me that it expects to lodge applications for the Pūhoi to Warkworth section of this project with the Environmental Protection Authority in August of this year. It will go through a 9 month hearing process. We aim to be construction ready by mid-2014.
Prime Minister—Statements Made on His Behalf
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): My question is to the Prime Minister: does he stand by all the answers given—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we have heard enough of that question now.
Mr SPEAKER: That is not the least bit helpful to the order of this House.
12. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the answers given on his behalf to Oral Question No 3 on 13 June 2013?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.
Grant Robertson: Why, then, did he say on 30 May about Mr Dunne “I accept him absolutely at his word … I’ve got no reason to doubt that.”, when he had been told on 29 May by his chief of staff that Mr Dunne was not complying with the Henry inquiry?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I believed that in the fullness of time he would comply.
Grant Robertson: Why did he tell the media on 30 May that he did not need to seek further assurances from Mr Dunne about the leaking of the report when he had been informed the day before that Mr Dunne was not complying with the inquiry?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is important to understand that I was not running the inquiry. As I said the whole way through, I would wait for the report. I was advised on 29 May that there was email correspondence between Mr Dunne and Andrea Vance. I was also told that he was not fully compliant with the inquiry but parties were hopeful that he would.
Grant Robertson: Why did he tell Radio Live on 4 June about the Henry report “I’m as much in the dark as anybody else. I haven’t seen a draft of the report. I haven’t had any updates on it.”, when in fact he had had updates on it and that Peter Dunne was not complying, and when he had regular updates on it between 29 May and 5 June?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because that is absolutely correct. I did not get a draft copy of the report. I did not have an update on the report.
Grant Robertson: You did.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was aware initially that there was non-compliance. I was also told later on that he was going to be fully complying with the inquiry. That proved to be incorrect as well.
Grant Robertson: In light of that answer and the amended answer given on his behalf that he had “several conversations” with his chief of staff about the Henry report between 29 May and 5 June, did those conversations include an update on whether Mr Dunne was cooperating with the inquiry?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. On 29 May my chief of staff advised me that there had been email correspondence between Mr Dunne and Andrea Vance and that Mr Dunne’s office had advised my chief of staff that he was not fully complying with the inquiry. On 30 May I was advised that progress was being made and it was likely that he would be complying, and on 4 June I was advised that although some compliance had taken place, not all of it had taken place.
Grant Robertson: Why has the Prime Minister misled the New Zealand public about what he knew about Peter Dunne’s compliance, and why does he continue to bend the truth on occasion after occasion?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I know the member is desperate to put his hand up for the leadership bid that is going on in the Labour Party, but I have not misled anybody.
QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS
Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill—Projected Effect on Problem
Gambling
1. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling
Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: Is it his intention to proceed with the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill; if so, does he believe its effect will be a reduction in problem gambling?
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm
Reduction) Amendment Bill): Tēnā koe. Hei awhi i a koe, he paku wāhanga ka whakawhiti i Te Reo Māori, reo Pākehā. Ki te Minita, ka mihi ki a ia mō te āhuatanga o te pātai. Hei whakautu i tana pātai, āe, ko tōna tikanga ka heri haerehia tēnei o ngā kaupapa i runga i tōna huarahi. I hangaia e te Pāti Māori hei kōkiri i ngā take huhua, pānui nei ki te āta titiro ki te hōhonutanga o ngā
mamaetanga, ngā uauatanga kua tae mai ki runga i te iwi Māori, ka mutu, ki te hunga e noho nei te rawakore. Nā reira, ka kite mai ai pea te hua ā ngā tau kai mua i te aroaro. Nō reira, he paku wāhanga o te titiro whānui tonu ki ngā mahi hei karo i te āhuatanga o te ngau o te petipeti ki ngā hunga rawakore. [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Hon Shane Jones: Does he expect gambling will be reduced or increased when operators are allowed to shift their machines to more lucrative venues without restriction?
Mr SPEAKER: I am just concerned whether that question has anything to do with this particular bill. The supplementary question must be very tight. It must be related to the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sat on the select committee and this bill certainly does address the transfer of machines from one venue to another and it changes the rules.
Mr SPEAKER: On the assurance from the Hon Trevor Mallard I will certainly allow the question.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a question about the content of the bill, not the process of the select committee, nor is it about the intention of the mover of the bill. The rules around questions to members are quite tight.
Mr SPEAKER: On the basis of the point of order I have heard from Trevor Mallard I have determined that the question can be asked. If it is helpful to the member he can re-ask his supplementary question.
Hon Shane Jones: Does he expect gambling will be reduced or increased when operators are allowed to shift their machines to more lucrative venues without restriction?
TE URUROA FLAVELL: Kāre au i te tino mōhio, kei runga i te āhuatanga o te pire, o ngā mahi kai mua i te aroaro. I tēnei wā, he kōrero noa ake tērā. Ko wai ka mōhio. Ēngari me pēnei rawa te kōrero, tērā pea i roto i ngā whiriwhiringa i waenganui i a māua ko te Minita Tremain te tikanga ia, ka kōkirihia tērā take ā ngā tau kai mua i te aroaro. [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill—Problem Gambling Foundation
Comments
2. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling
Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: How can he proceed with the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill when the Problem Gambling Foundation says it will have little, if any, effect on problem gambling?
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm
Reduction) Amendment Bill): Kai te aroha atu ki te rōpū nei ki te Problem Gambling Foundation, kei te kaha nei rātau ki te kōkiri, ki te whakatikatika i ngā raruraru kua pā mai ki te hunga e rongo nei i te ngau o tēnei o ngā mamae. Ēhara i te mea kei te whakaae atu ki tā rātau e kī nei, i te mea mēnā ka whakakotahi nei i tōku pire i tērā o te Minita, ā, ka tae mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata ā ngā marama kei mua i te aroaro. Ko tāku e kī nei, āe, ka eke ki te taumata e pīrangitia ana ēngari, me titiro whānui tōnu. Koina te pai o te noho o tōku pire ki te taha o tērā o te Minita, ka kite mai ai i ngā hua. [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Hon Shane Jones: Has the member considered an amendment to alter the bill’s title to the “Consumption of Dead Rodents (Harm Reduction) Bill”?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a satisfactory supplementary question.
Hon Shane Jones: I’m prepared to say it in Māori.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can move to question No. 3 if he so desires.
Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill—Amendments
3. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling
Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: Does his Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill as amended at select committee fulfil his original intentions of the bill he introduced?
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm
Reduction) Amendment Bill): Pēnei i ētahi o ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata, mēnā ka noho i tērā taha o te taiapa, he uaua kia eke ngā pire katoa ki runga i te taumata e tika ana. Mā te kōrero, mā te wānanga, mā te tō mai i tētahi wāhanga, mā te whakatakoto mai i tētahi wāhanga, ka ea. I tēnei wā kāre i tino eke ēngari, kei reira tonu tētahi painga. Mēnā ko te painga ka puta ki ngā hapori Māori, ki ngā mea e noho nei i te wā rawakore, koinā te mutunga mai o te pai. [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Hon Shane Jones: Given the hopeless nature of the current bill, what support is he expecting, and will he receive anything supportive from Dr Sharples?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question does not relate to the primary question.
Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill—Salvation Army Comments
4. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling
Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: How can he proceed with the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, given that the Salvation Army says that the Government’s rewrite of his bill means that the aim of his original bill has been largely cancelled out?
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm
Reduction) Amendment Bill): Kua oti kē ia i te whakamārama i te āhuatanga o taku whakautu ki tērā pātai. Ēngari, me pēnei pea te kōrero. Mēnā e aro nui nei tērā mema, ka mutu te Pāti Reipa ki tēnei mea o te whakakore i te petipeti, kaua e whārangi te Skycity ki te mātakitaki i te whutupaoro. [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 5, the Hon Shane Jones.
Hon Shane Jones: Supplementary question.
Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon Shane Jones.
Hon Shane Jones: [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Mr SPEAKER: If the member wishes to answer—yes.
TE URUROA FLAVELL: Kāre au i te tino mōhio mēnā e tika ana te whakamārama o te kaiwhakapākehā ēngari, kai te pai, waiho tērā ki reira. I roto i ngā whiriwhiringa mō tēnei pire i kitea mai ētahi hua o roto i ngā kōrero. Tuatahi, ko te hunga e rāwekeweke nei, e tikihanga nei i roto i te tukunga o te moni ki tēnā, ki tēnā, kua katia tērā āhuatanga. Mō te āhuatanga o ngā mīhini e karo nei i te ngote mai o te moni, kei reira tonu tētahi whiriwhiringa. Ēhara i te mea, pēnei i tōku ake pire ēngari, o roto i ngā whiriwhiringa e kī ana te reo Pākehā ko ngā regulations, kei tonu te painga. [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 5, the Hon Shane Jones.
Hon Shane Jones: Not a supplementary question?
Mr SPEAKER: The member has had a supplementary question.
Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill—Amendments
5. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling
Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: Why did he agree to continue with the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill when at select committee all of its main provisions were either removed or weakened?
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm
Reduction) Amendment Bill): Ko taua pātai anō. Kātahi anō ia ka pātai ia ka pātai i Te Reo Māori. He aha te take kei te whakatuarua i te pātai? [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Hon Shane Jones: Supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon Shane Jones.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is saying that a member is just repeating a question again when it is a primary question actually an answer?
Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion it is. I think the member could have taken quite a lot of time to repeat earlier answers, but that would adequately have covered it. I have called a supplementary question if the honourable member wants to deliver it.
Hon Shane Jones: Given the member’s pride in being at the table, how does this bill show Māori there is value at being at the table?
TE URUROA FLAVELL: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would the Hon Tau Henare please quieten down so I can hear the answer to his question before I forget the question.
TE URUROA FLAVELL: He member’s bill tāku pīre. I tērā wiki, e ai ki ngā kōrero, e 74 ngā members’ bills i tae mai ki roto i tēnei Whare, ko te tikanga i roto i te Whare o te Clerk. Ka mutu, i roto i ngā whiriwhiringa ka tīmata mai ai i roto i ngā kōrero mō ngā wild animals, tae atu ki ngā wheel clamping. Koinei ngā kaupapa i roto i tērā o ngā komiti. Nō reira, kāore au i rongo i tētahi pire e pā ana ki tēnei mate e ngau nei i te wā ao Māori me te kī a tērā mema, mēnā kei te ngākau nui tērā mema me tana rōpū ki tēnei mea e ngau nei i te momo pōhara, he aha te take kāore tētahi paku pire i runga i te rārangi kōrero e hāngai ana ki tēnei kaupapa. [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill—Salvation Army Comments
6. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling
Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: Why has he agreed to the Government’s amendments to his Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, when as the Salvation Army’s social policy spokesperson Major Campbell Roberts says, the Government’s latest proposals have nothing to do with minimising the damage done to communities by gambling?
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm
Reduction) Amendment Bill): Mēnā ka āta titiro koe ki te pātai, ēhara tērā i te pātai, ēhara tērā i te pātai—ā, ka pai. Kai reira te pātai. [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Hon Tau Henare: Turned over a new leaf.
TE URUROA FLAVELL: Āe. Turned over a new leaf. Kai te pēnei taku pātai ki te mema i mua, kei te aroha atu ki te Salvation Army, kaha nei rātau ki te mahi, ki te karo i ēnei āhuatanga. Ēngari, kia kaua tātau e pōhēhē ka mutu mai i roto i tōku pire. Mēnā ka ngākau nui mai tērā mema, tāpirihia atu ētahi kōrero ā te wā ka eke mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata. Kātahi ka kitea mai ai, mēnā e ōrite ana te hiahia, kia whakamāmā i te āhuatanga o te ngau o te petipeti ki Te Ao Māori, ki te hunga rawakore.
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Hon Shane Jones: Is this bill, in either Māori or English, a bitter pill or a dead rat?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a question that is in any way related to the primary question.
ENDS
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url
