Parliament Today April 8 2014

April 8th, 2014 at 1:42 pm by Jordan.M

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions for Ministers. 2.00PM-3.00PM

  1. MAGGIE BARRY to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government ensuring recent broad-based growth and good fiscal management is delivering higher incomes and more jobs for families?
  2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
  3. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister for ACC: What announcements has she recently made in respect of the ACC levies?
  4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
  5. RICHARD PROSSER to the Minister for Primary Industries:Does he believe that New Zealand’s biosecurity preparations, including Biosecurity NZ, are sufficiently and adequately resourced to protect New Zealand from biosecurity risks?
  6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: By what percentage will New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions increase in the next 10 years, according to the Ministry for the Environment annual report for the year ended June 2013?
  7. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Infometrics estimate that the 1974 Super Fund would have savings of $278 billion, if it had not been axed by the National Government, and does he agree wages would be higher in New Zealand if we had those higher savings?
  8. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Economic Development: What announcements has the Government made to further help New Zealand exporters succeed internationally?
  9. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister of Commerce: Does he stand by all his statements?
  10. Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about better supporting people with autism?
  11. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that the proposed creation of new Executive Principal and Expert Teacher positions has the support and confidence of school teachers and principals; if so, why?
  12. GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Is he satisfied safety in the petroleum industry is adequate given there have been two fires at installations, six uncontrolled releases of hydrocarbons, 15 events that saw emergency response plans activated, one well integrity issue and three incidents with the potential to cause a major accident, in just the past eight months?

Today Labour are asking whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements, whether the Prime Minister has confidence in all his ministers, performance of superannuation schemes, whether the Minister of Commerce stands by all his statements, and partnership schools. The Greens are asking about the safety of petroleum production. New Zealand First is asking about bio security.

Patsy Question of the day goes to Dr Jian Yang for Question 10: What recent announcements has the Government made about better supporting people with autism?

Government Legislation 3.00PM-6.00PM and 7.30PM-10.00PM.

1. Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

2. Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

3. Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

4. Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill – Committee Stage

The Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill  is being guided through the house by the Minister of Transport, Gerry Brownlee. This bill proposes amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Road User Charges Act 2012.

The  Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill  is being guided through the house by the Minister for Business, Innovation and Employment, Steven Joyce. This bill proposes amendments to the Industry Training Act 1992 and the Education Act 1989, and repeal of the Modern Apprenticeship Training Act 2000 to implement the findings of the industry training review undertaken by the Government in 2011 and 2012.

The Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by Chester Borrows, the Associate Minister of Social Development. This bill proposes amendments to the Social Security Act 1964 to make spouses and partners, as well as beneficiaries, accountable for fraud, and to enable the Ministry of Social Development to recover debt more effectively.

The Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss. This bill implements a new safeguards regime for New Zealand.

 

 

Tags: ,

10 Responses to “Parliament Today April 8 2014”

  1. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Infometrics estimate that the 1974 Super Fund would have savings of $278 billion, if it had not been axed by the National Government, and does he agree wages would be higher in New Zealand if we had those higher savings?

    Labour – trying to fight the 2014 campaign by re-litigating the decision of the 1975 election – where, incidentally, the majority of voters overwhelmingly decided to ditch Labour’s compulsory scheme in favour of Muldoon’s National Super. But then the voters are stupid, and are influenced by dancing cossacks on the TV. Also, btw, does the great business brain David Parker know the meaning of “opportunity costs”?

    No doubt their defense policy will reveal how General Haig should have fought the Battle of the Somme in 1916, and why the United Party (fore-runner of National) led by the Premier of the time, William Massey, should have intervened…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. David Garrett (7,270 comments) says:

    I will be very interested in the answer to Question 12…I would be astounded if Gareth Hughes had any reliable sources in the oil industry, and even more surprised if there had been the number of “incidents” he claims in the last eight months – or the last eight years for that matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Scott Chris (6,133 comments) says:

    But then the voters are stupid, and are influenced by dancing cossacks on the TV.

    Crikey Kimbo, what happened to all your professed faith in the collective wisdom of the electorate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    The Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill turns on its head the notion that a citizen, not committing an offence themselves and not aware of another’s offending, cannot possibly be held liable for it.

    As originally drafted, the Bill made the quite reasonable proposal that it:

    …enables recovery from a beneficiary’s spouse or partner who knowingly benefitted from, or
    ought to have known he or she was benefitting from, payments, credits, or advances obtained by fraud
    by their spouse or partner

    So if you and your partner are on a benefit and he comes home with a brand new luxury car and takes you on an overseas holiday, you’re expected to reasonably assume that all is not as it should be in terms of your family income and the way it’s reported to WINZ. Fair enough; that’s effectively a charge of conspiracy to commit fraud.

    However the Bills Digest for this legislation shows it has been amended so that:

    this new offence is redrafted to specifically state that it applies to the amount or part of
    it even if the spouse or partner:

    did not benefit from it knowingly; and

    – did not know at all or exactly its value; and

    did not know, or (as the case requires) is not reckless about, the precise way in which it was obtained by the beneficiary by fraud

    So now we have a situation that if the partner committing fraud goes to elaborate lengths to hide it from their partner, to the extent that a reasonable person would have no idea what they were up to, the hapless partner is held to have committed an offence.

    I can think of no other area of law where one person, in complete ignorance as to the actions of another, is held culpable for those actions. This overturns centuries of jurisprudence and I’m astounded there hasn’t been an outcry from the legal profession. Is it because only beneficiaries are being targeted? What about the wives and partners of white collar fraudsters?

    This isn’t even “guilty till proved innocent” – a worryingly common trend these days – but rather “guilty even when proved innocent”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Kimbo (934 comments) says:

    Crikey Kimbo, what happened to all your professed faith in the collective wisdom of the electorate?

    I’m not sure if I am overlooking your sense of irony, or you have overlooked mine!

    Labour’s 1974 scheme was a dog, with unequal payments to those who were not in a position to save, e.g., elderly housewives, etc. The so-called “we missed an opportunity” analysis also overlooks that folks at the time ALREADY struggled to pay their bills and would do so for nearly the next 20 years in the face of rising petrol costs, high inflation, and economic restructuring that didn’t really right itself until about 1993. That is nearly 20 years.

    The money they retained in their pockets, especially the low-paid, went for good and necessary purposes keeping their heads above water, not being siphoned off to a giant government-controlled slush-fund.

    Also remind me how well governments go at “investing” and “stimulating the economy by creating business opportunities! Oh, yes – Kiwirail, with Kiwiinsurance, Kiwipower and Kiwitimber to follow…

    But EVEN if we were wrong in 1975, at least we now get to lie in the bed we made – and learn for the future. Far better than politicians taking spending decisions out of the hands of the electorate.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Haha, question 7 is going to bite Labour in the arse if they want to make it fair game to attack previous governments from that long ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    Honestly why do they bother asking “does the MP stand by all of his statements” etc. Its a sure fire sign that there is nothing more intelligent to contribute other than being acknowledge for chalking up another question in the house for the parliamentary stats.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. georgebolwing (844 comments) says:

    Wineoh: this is based on UK precedent, where it is traditional to begin PM’s question time by asking the PM to list his appointments for the day. The point is that after the prefucctory answer to the question on the notice paper, we get the real question, which is in the supplementaries that follow.

    By asking a minister if they stand by their statements, the questioner opens up all the minister previous statements for questioning. It is a very effective way of holding ministers to account for what they have said in the past, which is what question time is for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. OneTrack (3,088 comments) says:

    georgebolwing – So it is like a sort of political “trick” then. Why dont they just ask specifically about what may have been said in the past? It’s just stupid and puerile. Another thing that justifies the shady view the public has of politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. OneTrack (3,088 comments) says:

    rightnow – ”
    Haha, question 7 is going to bite Labour in the arse if they want to make it fair game to attack previous governments from that long ago.”

    Labour have to go back to 1975 to find something to bash the government about? Obvious question, why didnt Clark fix it during her 9 years in office?

    Pathetic just doesnt cover it.

    Labour. Have. Nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote