New Zealands Open Government Partnership Action Plan is open for consultation until the end of day on this Friday 26 August. If you care about transparency, accountability participation and better use of technology in the way our government is run then …Last Days to Contribute to NZ Open Government Action Plan

New Zealand’s ‘Open Government Partnership’ Action Plan is open for consultation until the end of day on this Friday 26 August. If you care about transparency, accountability participation and better use of technology in the way our government is run then you should make a submission here. If you are in Wellington there is also a final full day co-creation workshop on this Friday where you can get involved at a deeper level. See the Press release published on Scoop yesterday here for further details.

Our position as a leader in this space is at threat

New Zealand has had very good fiscal and government accountability and transparency reputation, however recent developments such as the Panama Papers and increasingly poor public consultation processes are threatening this reputation. As Susanne Snively, chair of Transparency International New Zealand said at yesterday’s Open Source Open Society Conference in Wellington, our position as a leader in this space is slipping due to complacency and lack of ambition to look towards transparency and accountability in a modern society as other nations are doing.

A thorough Open Government Partnership commissioned independent review of New Zealand’s previous Action Plan by Privacy Lawyer Steven Price noted widespread criticism of the lack of ambition and poor engagement in this process. It appears that this has been a wakeup call for the State Services Commission and they have finally determined to create something more ambitious and incorporate more public input into the process.

Why does Open Government matter?

Open Government may not sound particularly exciting or important but it has huge impacts on our ability to participate in democracy and to engage better with government processes and services. Open government means making it easier for more people to tell government what sort of society they want and removing barriers preventing people from accessing important information, data or technology from government.

It means making information on government spending and decision making more visible to the public and giving them real opportunities to participate in such decisions. It means more open data to enable New Zealanders to make useful applications to add a human interface to data both in the commercial and democracy spaces. It also means making better use of both technology based and offline facilitation and outreach approaches to provide opportunities for both young and older people to participate in important decisions and have their voice heard by decision makers.

How to have your say this week?

You can submit to the OGP consultation process on what a more open government should look like here. Your 500 words will be combined by the State Services Commission into a Cabinet Paper that will be considered by Cabinet over the next months before a plan is finalised in September. You can also submit your opinions directly by email to martin@engage2.co.nz or by phone on 021 678 356.

What Next for Open Government in NZ?
Unfortunately, although it is a step in the right direction, due to the rushed timeframes it is probably highly unlikely that this plan will be ambitious enough to put New Zealand back in the position of being a leader in the open government space. However, we can also continue to engage with government on this issue to put pressure on them to incorporate more ambitious open government policies and actions over the next two years as this Action Plan is implemented. In addition we can continue to support civil society initiatives that seek to develop outside of government solutions to this problem of creating more opportunities to better engage with government.
Judging by the level of highly skilled and passionate people committed to solving this problem at OS//OS yesterday, New Zealand has the expertise and knowledge to once again be a leader in open government. We now just need the ambition and ironically the opportunities for citizens and industry to participate in the process in meaningful ways.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post Last Days to Contribute to NZ Open Government Action Plan appeared first on It's Our Future.

A panel discussion this morning shone a very bright light on a very familiar problem: the problem of journalism; knowing whats going on; keeping the bastards honest. Marianne Ellion (of Action Station) hosted the discussion with Mark Jennings (Mediaworks), …

A panel discussion this morning shone a very bright light on a very familiar problem: the problem of journalism; knowing what’s going on; keeping the bastards honest. Marianne Ellion (of Action Station) hosted the discussion with Mark Jennings (Mediaworks), Jan Rivers (Scoop) and Bernard Hickey (Hive News).

The problem is all too familiar. But here are some facts (hat tip to Bernard): 85% of America’s advertising business last year went to Google and Facebook. It hardly needs pointing out that neither of these organisations have ever produced a single news story or asked a single question, although they’ve enabled the regurgitation of other journalists’ work on an unprecedentedly massive scale.

The number of newspapers represented in New Zealand’s Parliamentary Press Gallery has reduced from six in 1990 to two in 2016. And those ones – NZME and Fairfax – are currently planning a merger. Reducing competition doesn’t offer much prospect of improving the overall standard of journalism.

The number of staff in the Press Gallery has reduced from 50 to 38 in the same time period. And as Scoop’s Alistair Thompson has just pointed out on Twitter, newsrooms over the same period showed a 70% staff reduction.

Scoop and Hive Media have both embraced the notion that advertising funded journalism’s days are numbered, if not exactly over. Scoop, Jan Rivers reminded us, went so far as to ditch its whole commercial model last year, reconstituting itself as a not-for-profit, funding itself through organisational subscriptions and individual donations. This model, she said, is tracking sufficiently well to make Scoop financially viable by year’s end.

Bernard Hickey’s Hive News has a similar funding model. And they do good things. The number of New Zealand journalists who write authoritatively about economics you could count on one hand, and Bernard is one of them.

For Scoop’s part, they open up opportunity for New Zealand news, and readers, that simply doesn’t exist anywhere. Investigative journalism accounts for about 15% of their content. The rest is open sourced press releases.

A great example of this is the story of the Trade in Services Agreement, aka TISA. This is perhaps the most under-reported story in New Zealand of the last 2 years. It’s a multi-lateral agreement spear headed by America, providing guaranteed minimum levels of government services to be outsourced to the private sector.

On the day that Wikileaks released one of their info-dumps, only two organisations in New Zealand had any reference to the story. One was embedded within an article in the Otago Daily Times, and there were no fewer than seven stories about on Scoop. If the TPPA is dead in the water, TISA is just starting to take its first breaths.

The point that both Scoop and Hive have to make is this. If you like it, you’ll do yourself a big favour if you pay for it. Think of it less as consumption (a repulsive phrase), and more as patronage.

If you vote, you should give some money to a news organisation. If you care enough about what’s going on to look up news stories on a regular basis, you should give some money to a news organisation. If you read news or clickbait that get dished up ad nauseum on social media, you should give some money to a news organisation.

And, because you knew this was coming, today Scoop Foundation Trustee Jan Rivers announced the launch of the new website for the Scoop foundation where you can become a member or donate.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post Patronage, Journalism and Open Society. appeared first on It's Our Future.

Minister for Economic Development 22 August 2016 Media Statement Joyce to promote education and science links in Japan and KoreaHon Steven Joyce

Minister for Economic Development
22 August 2016 Media Statement

Joyce to promote education and science links in Japan and Korea

Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce leaves for Japan and Korea today for a four-day trip to advance New Zealand’s business, innovation and education interests and promote New Zealand as an investment destination.

Mr Joyce will visit Tokyo, Seoul and Busan to meet with Japanese and Korean ministers, officials and business leaders.

“Japan and Korea are huge economies and important partners for New Zealand – both feature in our top six export destinations,” Mr Joyce says.

“With the Korea-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement recently entering into force and Japan being an important member of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, there are many opportunities to build on our existing trade relationships.

“Investment from both countries also makes a significant contribution to our economy – especially in regional New Zealand – and our exports. We need to grow those linkages further.”

In addition to trade and investment links, Mr Joyce will also focus on education and science.

“Japan and Korea are two of our largest origin countries for international students. I want to highlight that New Zealand is a safe, attractive, high-quality destination for Japanese and Korean students to come and study,” Mr Joyce says.

“There is also scope to boost science and technology relationships, with both countries recognised as being world-leaders in research and development and innovation.

“We want to strengthen links in sectors like robotics and functional food, and geothermal energy is a particular focus for us in Japan.”

Mr Joyce will visit Japan on 23-24 August and Korea on 25-26 August.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post Joyce to promote education, science links in Japan and Korea appeared first on It's Our Future.

From hot pools to hobbits and hotels, the finalists in the 2016 New Zealand Tourism Awards are a shining example of why this industry is enjoying record growth.Hot pools to hobbits – Tourism Awards finalists named
From hot pools to hobbits and hotels, the finalists in the 2016 New Zealand Tourism Awards are a shining example of why this industry is enjoying record growth.

The 28 finalists will compete for awards in two individual categories and eight business categories, says Chris Roberts, Chief Executive of Tourism Industry Aotearoa which runs the annual awards programme.

“New Zealand’s tourism industry is enjoying rampant growth – it’s the country’s most valuable export industry and in total generates $30 billion in annual visitor spend.

“These prestigious awards celebrate the industry’s success and recognise the individuals and businesses doing an outstanding job, generating economic wealth and supporting jobs in communities throughout the country.”

Mr Roberts says the finalists showcase the industry’s diversity.

“They come from Paihia to Queenstown, range from big corporates to small, locally-based businesses and cover the many sectors that make up this exciting industry – from ski fields to campervan rentals to a tour company specialising in Chinese independent travellers.

“We have several finalists who have been in business for decades and others who have established themselves as industry leaders in a matter of years.”

The Awards are closely aligned with the industry’s Tourism 2025 growth framework, which aims to increase total annual tourism revenue to $41 billion.

The winners will be announced at a black-tie dinner in Auckland on Thursday
29 September. The winner of the Air New Zealand Supreme Tourism Award will receive international air travel to any Air New Zealand destination valued at $10,000 (+GST) to help them grow their tourism business.

Awards finalists

Emerging Tourism Leader Award, supported by PATA New Zealand Trust

• Jared Adams – Rotorua TOP 10 Holiday Park, Rotorua

• Bradley Garnett – SKYCITY Entertainment Group, Auckland

Tourism Industry Champion Award, supported by Sudima Hotels & Resorts

• Graeme Abbot – Hanmer Springs Thermal Pools & Spa, Hanmer

• Olivier Lacoua – CQ Hotels Wellington, Wellington

• Lisa Li – China Travel Service (NZ) Ltd, Auckland

Business Excellence Award – annual turnover less than $6 million, supported by Westpac

• Auckland Seaplanes, Auckland

• Black Cat Cruises, Christchurch

• Takaro Trails Cycle Tours, Napier

Business Excellence Award – annual turnover more than $6 million, supported by JLT & AIG

• CQ Hotels Wellington, Wellington

• Hanmer Springs Thermal Pools & Spa, Hanmer

• Hobbiton Movie Set & Farm Tours, Matamata

• NZSki Ltd, Queenstown

Environmental Tourism Award, supported by Mercury Energy

• Rotorua Canopy Tours, Rotorua

• The Langham Auckland, Auckland

• thl – Tourism Holdings Ltd, Auckland

Industry Alignment Award, supported by the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment

• AA Traveller – The New Zealand Cycle Trail Guide, Auckland

• Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development Ltd, Auckland

• Destination Rotorua, Rotorua

Maori Cultural Tourism Award, supported by Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development

• TIME Unlimited Tours, Auckland

• Waitangi Treaty Grounds, Paihia

Tourism 2025 Enabler Award, supported by Auckland Airport

• Angus & Associates Ltd, Wellington

• FORWARD Insight & Strategy, Auckland

Tourism Marketing Campaign Award, supported by Spark Business

• Haka Tours Ltd, Auckland

• Hobbiton Movie Set & Farm Tours, Matamata

• The Department of Conservation & Air New Zealand

Visitor Experience Award, supported by ServiceIQ

• Haka Tours Ltd, Auckland

• Rainbow’s End Theme Park, Auckland

• Rotorua Canopy Tours, Rotorua
ends

Home Page | Business | Previous Story | Next Story

Copyright (c) Scoop Media

Please make sure that all appropriate subject categories are selected below
STATUS World
BusinessDesk Yahoo Only Foreign Affairs
Features and Columns Foreign Aid
Americas Cup News Global Financial Crisis News
Satire – More Humanitarianism
Eco-Economy International Law
Gordon Campbell NZ in World News
Hard News Trans Pacific Partnership
Jackie Little World – Australia
Jeremy Rose World – Africa
Jonathan Underhill World – Americas
Katya Rivas World – Asia
Keith Rankin World – Development and Aid
Stateside – Rosalea Barker World – Europe
Letter From Elsewhere World – Gaza
Lindsay Shelton World – Middle East
Lyndon Hood World – Pacific
Martin LeFevre World – Environment
Michael Collins World – Finance
Motornet World – Food Security
Scoop Review of Books World – Intelligence and Security
Satire World – ALL WORLD NEWS
Scoop Insights World – United States
Selwyn Manning World – War
Smellie Sniffs The Breeze General
Supercomputer Weather Activism
Suzan Mazur Americas Cup
The Real Deal – Catherine Fitts Animal Welfare
The Sludge Report Auckland
Transition Towns Christchurch
Business Markets Daily Ratings
ASX Disasters and Natural Events
All BusinessDesk Articles Environment and Conservation
Company Results Front Page Summaries
Currency Lifestyle
Data and Indices Media Freedom
Derivatives Military and Defence Issues
Finance and Banking News Flash
Forex Currencies Obituary
Gold Rugby World Cup
Interest Rates Bonds Sport
Market Close – BusinessDesk Strange and Bizarre
Morning Dollar Report – BusinessDesk Weather
NZX Wellington
Overnight Market Wrap – BusinessDesk Legal Issues
Sharemarket Civil Law
Stocks To Watch – BusinessDesk Justice System
Venture and Angel Capital Legal Issues
Primary Industries Police and Crime
Agriculture Prisons and Corrections
Aquaculture Search And Rescue
Ag. Dairy Social issues
Fisheries Asian Affairs
Forestry Charities
Horticulture Child and Youth Issues
Ag. Sheep and Beef Climate Change
Viticulture Gender Issues
Business Economy Housing Issues
Border Control Biosecurity Immigration
Budget (NZ) Maori
Business Confidence Mens Affairs
Commerce Pacific Island Affairs
Commodities Privacy
Economic Policy Race Relations
Economy Religion
Employment Retirement
Fiscal Policy Sexual Orientation
Industrial Relations Welfare
International Trade Womens Affairs
Monetary Policy Health
Regulatory Framework Disabilities
Reserve Bank Health Policy
Statistics Hospitals
Taxation Medical
Trade Agreements Mental Health
Treasury Primary Health
Industry Influenza
Advertising Education
Community NGO Sector Education Policy
Construction General Education
Defence Industry Post Primary Education
Education Industry Preschool Education
Electronic Media Primary Education
Employers Tertiary Education
Gambling Politics
Healthcare Industry Election Data Consortium
Housing Elections
Insurance General Election 2014
Liquor General Politics
Manufacturing Legislation
Media Local Body Elections NZ
Mining Local Government
Print Media NZ Election Reactor
Real Estate Parliament Today Audio
Retail Parliament Today News
Service Industries Questions Of the Day
State Owned Enterprises Questions and Answers (Hansard)
State Sector Select Committees
Telecommunications Art and Culture
Tourism Art
Transport Art and Entertainment
Unions Books
Energy Events
Alternative Energy Film
Coal Gaming
ETS Music
Electricity Performing Arts
Energy Policy Multimedia
Gas Audio
Industry Images
Network Video
Oil Science and Technology
Priority And Sensitivity Broadband Network
Informative (1-4) Computing and Internet
Newsworthy (3-4) Digitl Wire
SENSITIVE(adult, graphic, scary news – eg not 5 yr old friendly) Gadgets
Very Important (4-4) Innovation
Science
Scientific Ethics
Technology
sticK.co.nz Science Innovation Tech. Commerce
Categories checked but no matches found
Additional Keywords:

ends

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post Hot pools to hobbits – Tourism Awards finalists named appeared first on It's Our Future.

1. ALASTAIR SCOTT (NationalWairarapa) to the Minister of Finance : What international reports has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy?• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Economy—Reports

1. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What international reports has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Last week Fitch Ratings affirmed New Zealand’s AA rating, which indicates “very strong capacity” for [honouring] our financial commitments” and confirmed the outlook as stable. Fitch pointed to improved growth prospects, sound public finances, and highlighted New Zealand’s strong macroeconomic policy framework. The report is international recognition for New Zealand as a safe and stable place to do business.

Alastair Scott: What else does Fitch Ratings say about the New Zealand economic outlook?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Fitch has lifted its forecasts for economic growth in New Zealand to around 2.7 percent over the next 2 years—a bit lower than recent Reserve Bank forecasts—but they all show moderate growth of 2 to 3 percent over the next 3 to 4 years, which compares favourably with most economies and shows prospects for more jobs and higher incomes. Fitch says that the positive outlook for the New Zealand economy is supported by the lift in services exports—that is mainly tourism—construction activity, and stronger than expected net migration flows, which have offset weaker global demand and the fall in dairy production.

Alastair Scott: What risks are there to this economic outlook?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: All credit rating agencies refer, as Fitch does, to New Zealand’s external finances. In that respect, New Zealand is making slow but persistent progress. The current account deficit is currently at 3 percent, when agencies just a year or two ago were forecasting it would be 5 or 6 percent of GDP. Our net external debt is now down from 83 percent of GDP when the Government took office, to 56 percent of GDP. Fitch also points to house prices as a source of risk—something the Government is addressing, along with our local councils, through its comprehensive housing plan.

Alastair Scott: What recent reports has he seen broadly supporting employment growth, as reported in yesterday’s labour market statistics report prepared by Statistics New Zealand, which is of course statutorily independent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yesterday’s labour market statistics report, using a new method laid out in detail some months ago by the Government Statistician, showed that 105,000 jobs were added to the New Zealand economy in the last year. This has been greeted with some scepticism. Statistics New Zealand pointed to evidence broadly supporting employment growth. Today, the ANZ Job Ads lifted 1.4 percent in July, and they are now running 9.8 percent higher than a year ago. Job ads in the Auckland region are 12 percent up, year on year. Consistent with the reporting of low unemployment in Auckland, ANZ also reports strong regional growth in job advertising in Otago, Manawatū, Waikato, and Hawke’s Bay.

• Capital and Coast District Health Board—Performance

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What is the total amount of efficiencies that Capital and Coast District Health Board have made in 2015/16?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Acting Minister of Health): The theoretical savings for the 2016 year are estimated at around $40 million, or 3 to 4 percent. Of course, district health boards (DHBs) are always required to make efficiency savings, and it was no different under the previous Government. The context for this, of course, is that 8 years ago the deficit was $66 million within that district health board and it is now around $12 million. The important thing to note, though, is that the Capital and Coast District Health Board (CCDHB) at the same time has lifted its services across the board, including an increase in surgeries of over 50 percent, and hip and knee surgeries are up 76 percent.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table information from an Official Information Act request, which I received from the Capital and Coast District Health Board, dated 12 February 2016, which points out it is not a theoretical $40 million saving plan; it is $40 million.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Annette King: Is it acceptable, in order to meet $40 million in efficiencies, that he requires of Capital and Coast District Health Board that funding be cut from primary healthcare in the region, which the largest primary health organisation (PHO) has said is unmanageable?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I cannot confirm the figure that the member just stated, but what I can say is that the funding for the district health board has gone up $198 million over 8 years. That is 34 percent—well ahead of inflation.

Hon Annette King: How can mental health services be “right at the top” of his priority list when funding for primary mental health services provided by GPs and NGOs in Capital and Coast District Health Board are to be cut to make the savings that he is demanding?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I again query the figures that that member presents, because the figures that I have to hand show an increase in mental health expenditure in that district health board area by $17 million, or 21 percent, in the last 7 years.

Hon Annette King: How can his concern about mental health services be taken seriously when the following cuts have been made in funding: $118,500 from Compass Health, a PHO; $260,000 from Te Awakairangi Health Network, a PHO; and $150,000 from Newtown and Porirua services—both very low cost access services—and when cuts have been made to community health services in the region?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Well, again, I would dispute the relevance of that, given that we have increased mental health services, not just in the last year but across the board—

Hon Annette King: They’re cuts.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: They are not cuts. They are in proportion to the total funding that the district health board makes, and that has gone up $200 million in the last 8 years.

Hon Annette King: Will he rule out, in the House today, that there is absolutely no impact on mental health services in Capital and Coast Health District Health Board?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I refer to my previous answer, which states that mental health expenditure has gone up year on year, ahead of inflation, in the last 8 years.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked whether he would rule that there would be any cuts. I do not care what funding has gone in; will there be any cuts?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the member cannot demand a yes or no answer. I accept that she can be dissatisfied with that particular answer, and I will allow the member one additional supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did happen to have a fifth one here that I did not think I would ever get the chance to do.

Mr SPEAKER: We will move on, then.

Hon Annette King: Why would the chief executive of Lower Hutt district health board say publicly that he has had to cut funding for mental health services this financial year?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I cannot speak for the Lower Hutt district health board—in fact, there is no Lower Hutt district health board. There is Hutt Valley District Health Board, where the funding has actually gone up $415 million over the last 8 years, and that member knows that spending has gone up.

Kris Faafoi: Does he think it is acceptable that, to make his savings, the Capital and Coast District Health Board is considering closing the overnight GP service at Kenepuru Hospital, which could see some families in Kāpiti and Porirua travel 50 kilometres—much further than they do now—to see a GP in the small hours of the morning?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: What I can say about this district health board is that there are over 176 more doctors who are on the front line, and there are more than 387 more nurses on the front line, and that is better than anything that Labour Government did in its 9 years.

Kris Faafoi: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat the question. The Minister may not have heard it.

Kris Faafoi: Does he think it is acceptable that, to make his savings, Capital and Coast District Health Board is considering closing the overnight GP service at Kenepuru Hospital, which could see some families in Kāpiti and Porirua travel 50 kilometres—much further than they do now—to see a GP in the small hours of the morning; or is that an example of the CCDHB lifting services?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have said to that member, the spending has gone up on GPs and nurses in terms of primary healthcare. We know there are more front-line doctors and we know there are more nurses.

• Prime Minister—Statements

3. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Tracey Martin: How does he stand by his statement that “the bulk of the 71,000 net migration number is made up of New Zealanders returning …” when the quarterly labour market statistics show that eight out of 10 working-age migrant arrivals are not returning New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We would have to look in detail at the numbers the member is quoting, but I think you will find that the net flow of New Zealanders has changed significantly, from minus 39,000—that is, 4 years ago 39,000 New Zealanders net left New Zealand, and in the last year it was about plus 2,000. That is a reversal of over 40,000 Kiwis deciding to stay home or come home.

Tracey Martin: Does he stand by his statement made as Prime Minister to The Migrant Times: “If migrants want to see continuation of an open, diverse, accepting country, I think our Government is the only political party which voices that message. That is why it is important that when we have elections, migrants come out and vote for us.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and I think there is some clear evidence for that from the member’s party, which has traditionally always advocated an opposition to migration into New Zealand and against immigrants, and the Labour Party, which runs political campaigns based on people’s Chinese-sounding names. We have not done either of those things, and that is why migrant communities are increasing friendly and interested in our policy. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am not going to continue to ask for less interjection from a couple of people I have got my eye on, on the far right-hand side.

Tracey Martin: Can he confirm that part of his Government’s strategic plan for election 2017 is to import its voters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, but New Zealand First should try it. It might get its vote up a bit.

• Tertiary Education—Enrolment in Engineering and ICT Degrees

4. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What reports has he received on the growth in the number of tertiary students enrolling in engineering and ICT degrees?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Recently I received a report called What are they doing? The field of study of domestic students/learners 2008-2015, which analyses the fields of study of domestic students in the tertiary system over the last 8 years. It shows that last year, students enrolled in engineering and related technologies at Bachelor’s level or higher reached an all-time high of over 11,500—an increase of more than 3,500 or 44 percent from 2008. The number of students enrolled in information technology at Bachelor’s level or higher last year also grew by 33 percent since 2008 to reach just under 11,500. It is very good to see so many students engaged in areas where they are likely to head into a solid, well-paying career where demand is high and likely to continue to grow.

STUART SMITH: How is the Government encouraging more students to study STEM subjects, including engineering and ICT?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Ensuring industries have the skills that they need is a key priority of the tertiary education strategy, and this has included a strong focus on boosting the number of students studying STEM subjects. Initiatives under way include: rebalancing tuition subsidies to more accurately reflect the cost of provision, which has encouraged universities to invest in growing places in some of these more expensive areas—also providing better and more accurate careers information is encouraging young people to choose these subjects; introducing the new ICT graduate schools, which will boost the number of ICT graduates; and introducing the ‘Make the World’ Engineering to Employment campaign to encourage more young people into a career in engineering.

Stuart Smith: Why is it important to grow the number of students studying STEM subjects such as engineering and ICT?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Graduates in STEM subjects like engineering and ICT are crucial for building a growing and high-tech 21st century economy. In particular, New Zealand’s ICT sector is thriving, with the most recent ICT sector report showing that our services in the software industry are growing rapidly with the number of employed in the sector up around 3,000 a year and exports from the sector having grown from less than half a billion dollars in 2008 to nearly a billion dollars in 2014, which is a compound annual growth rate of 14 percent. The sector needs skilled staff to maintain this growth, and this growth in enrolments we are seeing at our universities will help meet this need.

• Housing, Auckland—Homelessness and Access to Housing

5. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she think there is sufficient accommodation for the homeless in Auckland given that there are now people advertising for “driveway and shower” rentals?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): on behalf of the Minister for Social Housing: There is certainly a need for more accommodation in Auckland of all types—that is, affordable family accommodation, social housing, and emergency accommodation. That is why it is so positive that the Auckland Council has signed off a unitary plan that will allow for twice as many houses to be built. In respect of emergency accommodation, the Government announced $41 million in the Budget to pay for more emergency housing places and new, non-recoverable special needs grants to pay for emergency accommodation. This is the first time any Government has directly funded emergency housing, and there is intensive work that has been going on for 18 months with social agencies to improve the availability and sustainability of emergency housing.

Phil Twyford: Is this the brighter future that John Key promised, when a 25-year-old construction worker on the minimum wage cannot find affordable rental housing, and is advertising to sleep in his car in someone’s garden while paying rent to use the kitchen and bathroom facilities? After 8 years in Government, is he really going to blame that on Auckland Council?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The construction worker has shown up to the biggest construction boom, the biggest house building programme, that New Zealand has ever seen, and, at the age of 25, he might be one of the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation’s 10,000 apprentices. Yes, he may find it a bit tough finding accommodation in Auckland, but he will stick with it because the opportunity for him is enormous.

Phil Twyford: Is it ambitious for New Zealand that property speculators got tax breaks of $650 million last year, while more than 42,000 people are homeless on his watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a large number of people investing in new houses in Auckland. That is why Auckland is building more houses than ever, and will for the next few years. Of course, what the member did not point out is that the Government abolishing depreciation in the 2010 tax package meant that it was an increase in revenue of about a billion dollars that came from that measure.

Phil Twyford: When an independent study by Otago University found that more than 4,000 people are living in cars, on the street, or in improvised dwellings, does she think her funding of 800 places is anywhere near enough emergency housing to deal with the problem?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member knows, if the Government put a billion dollars into emergency housing it cannot create houses just by writing out a cheque. The houses are being built rapidly now, and, actually, it is the responsibility of the council to ensure enough houses are built. That is what the Auckland Unitary Plan was all about, and it is unfortunate for that member that the council’s decision on the unitary plan showed he had been misleading the public that somehow the Government decided how many houses are being built. Actually, it is the council, and we support the decisions they have made, because they are now enabling the biggest construction boom Auckland and the country have ever seen.

Phil Twyford: Will he confirm that the independent hearings panel estimates that a shortfall of dwellings in Auckland of 42,000 has accumulated since his Government has been in office, and that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials project that the shortfall in building will not be eliminated until 2030?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm the first number, and, just for the member’s benefit, officials’ projections about what would happen in Christchurch proved to be wrong—very wrong. They had a very negative view about what was possible, and how long it would take. Due to the enormous efforts of my colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee and thousands of construction workers in Christchurch, Christchurch house prices are now flat to falling, because of an extraordinary effort to build houses. I suspect that things will unfold more rapidly in Auckland than MBIE officials believe is the case.

Phil Twyford: That’s right—everybody else is wrong.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, just you.

• KiwiSaver—Fund Providers and Investment

6. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: How many default KiwiSaver fund providers currently invest in companies that manufacture cluster bombs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Ministers are not directly responsible for the investment decisions of these independent fund providers, but I have seen media reports about five default KiwiSaver fund providers who may have investments in the areas described by the member. I am unable to verify that figure because Ministers are not directly responsible for these investment decisions.

Julie Anne Genter: Why are Ministers not directly responsible, given that it is the Government-directed savings of half a million New Zealanders that may be going into companies that produce illegal weapons of war?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It is because New Zealanders with KiwiSaver accounts have a choice about which scheme to join, and can find out what that scheme invests in.

Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept that it is far simpler and easier for his Government to verify whether funds are legally and ethically compliant, rather than leaving it to half a million New Zealanders who may not have that information available and it is not that easy to get from the KiwiSaver fund providers?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In so far as there are specific legal requirements, our expectations are that KiwiSaver providers will obey the law; but in so far as there are moral judgments to require, then we believe individual investors are best placed to make those judgments. The KiwiSaver (Periodic Disclosure) Regulations require providers to disclose the investments that they have made, and the system has worked effectively in this case so that those investments have been outlined in public, and providers will have to make a decision about how they respond.

Julie Anne Genter: So is he saying that his Government thinks it is up for debate whether or not it is ethical for companies to produce weapons like landmines that kill 15,000 to 20,000 people every year—most of them children, women, and the elderly—and severely maim many more?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I am not saying that; I am saying that in so far as there are specific legal requirements, we expect KiwiSaver providers to obey the law. But where there are moral judgments to be made, we believe that individual investors are best placed to make those moral judgments.

Julie Anne Genter: What advice has he received or requested on the legality of New Zealand companies investing directly or indirectly in companies that produce cluster bombs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: If there is a legal requirement, then it is up for the appropriate enforcement agencies to enforce the law.

Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat the question. It may not have been understood.

Julie Anne Genter: Sure. Thank you, Mr Speaker. What advice has he received or requested on the legality of New Zealand companies investing directly or indirectly in companies that produce cluster bombs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I have asked for advice on that, and there is some indication that the law relating to the Cluster Munitions Prohibition Act may apply—but that is up to the appropriate enforcement authority to decide whether or not there has been a breach of the law.

Julie Anne Genter: When did he receive the advice and who is the relevant enforcement authority?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions—the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: This morning.

Julie Anne Genter: Will he, at the very least, commit to bringing default KiwiSaver providers’ investments in line with the Superannuation Fund’s exclusion list in ensuring that they are legally and ethically invested?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In so far as there are moral judgments required, it is our belief that there are two choices: you can have the Government deciding those moral questions by banning particular things, or you can trust the New Zealand investors to make those moral judgments based on quality advice. The scheme that we have in place insists and expects that KiwiSaver providers disclose the investments that they make. Those are publicly available. They can be searched and analysed—as they have been—and made public. The KiwiSaver providers will need to make a judgment about how comfortable they are with their offerings, and individual KiwiSaver investors can make a decision.

Grant Robertson: As the Minister responsible for appointing default KiwiSaver providers under section 132 of the KiwiSaver Act, why has he not taken more action to assess whether the Cluster Munitions Prohibition Act 2009 makes it a criminal offence to invest in cluster munitions, with a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $500,000?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because if there has been any breach of the law, it is up to the appropriate enforcement authorities to investigate.

• Trade—Relationship with China

7. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister of Trade: What advice has he received on the current status of New Zealand’s trade relationship with China?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Trade): I regularly receive advice on our trade relationships with a range of countries, including China, which shows that New Zealand exports to China have quadrupled since the New Zealand – China free-trade agreement entered into force. It has been an incredible success story. But although China is an important market for New Zealand, I would note that less than 20 percent of our goods exports go to China. The Government continues to actively work on a diverse trade agenda, which includes the recently signed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; the ASEAN Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership negotiation, which is currently under way; the Trade in Services Agreement; the Environmental Goods Agreement; an agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council; an agreement with India; and PACER-Plus. We are also on track to begin negotiations with the EU, a market that is worth $20.6 billion in two-way trade in goods and services.

Richard Prosser: Can he give New Zealand exporters an assurance that the latest example of China moving the goalposts and requiring a new registration system, in spite of our free-trade agreement, will not disadvantage our honey and wine producers, as happened to exporters of infant milk formula 2 years ago?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes, I do not think there is reason for concern here. China has signalled these plans, which will apply to imports from all countries, for some time. We have navigated such requirements for other export sectors in the past. I have every confidence that the New Zealand and Chinese officials will work constructively again to do so for wine and honey, and work alongside New Zealand industry.

Richard Prosser: Is he concerned that the upcoming and overdue European Union audit of New Zealand’s honey exports might be influenced by New Zealand failing China’s latest audit, or is he satisfied that our failing of the Chinese honey audit is merely another example of bullying trade tactics on the part of the Chinese?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No, I have great confidence in the New Zealand honey industry. It is actually a stand-out industry. It increases exports and delivers important jobs to many of our regions. So far as audits are concerned, that is an issue for the Ministry for Primary Industries, but the New Zealand Government takes its obligations extremely seriously in this area.

Richard Prosser: Given China’s stated concerns regarding fake and counterfeited wine and honey being sold in China, will he be raising the subject of China taking responsibility for Chinese counterfeiting with his Chinese counterpart; if not, why not?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Our trading relationship with China is worth around $20 billion. It is clear that issues will come up from time to time in such a significant relationship. We have a very strong and constructive relationship with the Chinese Government. I sought assurances from it on a number of occasions, as far as that trading relationship is concerned, and received them. Where there are industry-specific concerns, we have pathways to continue to seek those assurances.

• Rural Veterinary Bonding Scheme—Reports

8. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he received on Government support encouraging veterinary graduates to work in rural practices?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The voluntary bonding scheme for veterinarians was launched in 2009 to encourage new vet graduates to work in hard-to-staff rural practices. The scheme provides a taxable payment of $11,000 each year for 3 to 5 years for 30 eligible vet graduates a year. A recent report shows the Government has invested a total of $11.4 million in the scheme to date. This has seen a total of 226 graduates move to work in the regions over the last 7 years.

David Bennett: What impact has the scheme had on our primary industries, such as those in the Waikato?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. Around $22 billion of our exports are derived from animals per year. Vets, therefore, play a crucial role in the success of our primary industries and the wider New Zealand economy by maintaining and improving animal health and well-being. A total of 52 graduates have been staffed in practices in the Waikato region since this scheme began. A recent meeting with industry organisations confirmed strong appreciation and ongoing support for the scheme in our regions.

• Corrections, Department—Child Sex Offender Management

9. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Corrections: Is she satisfied with her department’s system of contracting providers and approving residences for offenders with a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending against children, who the High Court has found are a high risk of further sexual offending?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Yes, I have full confidence in the Department of Corrections to undertake its duties under the law.

Su’a William Sio: What process and criteria were used by her department to determine that it was OK for a child sex offender to be placed near a school like Jean Batten School in Māngere, despite her department being aware that the offender had raped a 13-year-old girl and is at high risk of reoffending?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, given that section 7(3) of the Corrections Act means that I am not able to “give directions about the exercise of powers and functions in relation to a particular person.”, it does make it a bit difficult to deal with that particular question, but I am happy to help the member by advising the House of the criteria that the department looks at when it approves residences for placements, and I hope that that will help him with his answer. The public’s safety is obviously the primary priority for the Department of Corrections. It considers proximity to schools and preschools. It notes that, as a guide, a child sex offender should not live within 1 kilometre of such facilities, but in cities, 500 metres may be more realistic. It looks at proximity to playgrounds, parks, reserves, public swimming pools, churches, thoroughfares or residences with young families, other places frequented by children, shared driveways or facilities; proximity to victims; proximity to counselling and support services and availability of transport to these; any evidence of children under 16 residing at the address; and suitability of other occupants and neighbours and whether they have children and are aware of the offending. Community Corrections also checks with the other involved professionals, such as mental health teams, Child, Youth and Family, and police, to determine whether they approve of the proposed address.

Su’a William Sio: Is it correct that under an extended supervision order there can be intensive monitoring for only 12 months, and that this monitoring cannot be renewed; if so, is she satisfied that electronic bracelets alone will protect young women or children from these sexual predators, who are at high risk of reoffending?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions. The Hon Judith Collins can answer one.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I understand that the member may be misinformed on that. I understand that there is a particular person who has been on intensive monitoring for 10 years and has still got intensive monitoring now, so quite clearly people do, in fact, have monitoring that is extended.

Mahesh Bindra: If this Government claims to protect New Zealanders from disgusting sexual predators, how on earth does a sexual offender end up on a bracelet and not locked up, as they should be?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I would have thought it was obvious—they have finished their sentence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is a property just over 500 metres from a school, with 31 children living in the immediate vicinity, a suitable place to house Robert John McCorkindale, who has three sets of convictions dating back to 1987 for sexual offences on girls as young as 4—including abduction with the intent to have sexual intercourse—and whom the High Court found in April this year is at high risk of further serious sexual offending?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It would be outside of the Corrections Act and of the law for me to comment about a particular matter and whether or not the placement was suitable. I would, however, note that the Department of Corrections always reviews these sorts of placements, particularly where there is concern expressed by the public.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she agree with the corrections regional director that the 1-kilometre or 500-metre distance from schools special condition should be measured by a circuitous route around roads, when this paedophile can jump the back fence at his place of detention and be in the local school’s new-entrants’ playground in less than 3 minutes?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am concerned that the member obviously has not heard that I am not able to make comment about particular placements, given the Corrections Act, but I am, however, happy to say to him, and the concern that he has—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This is a very serious matter. I do not want interjection.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The person he has named, I understand, has already spent 10 years in the community under intensive supervision, and I am assured that in that time he has not reoffended. I think it would also be helpful to the member if he knew that intensive supervision—or intensive monitoring, rather, in this case—means that someone is with him 24 hours, 7 days a week, as well as GPS monitoring, and that, as I have just said, he has been in the community for 10 years without offending.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister agree with advice given by corrections to the neighbouring parents of 5- and 6-year-old girls, who for years have had a paddling pool on their deck—now overlooked on by this paedophile—that they should modify their parenting and have their girls play on the other side of their house?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: If that report is accurate, then that would seem to be an inappropriate comment.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the corrections’ system of approving residences robust when this paedophile has a shower in a room with clear windows overlooking the street, and what does she say to the parents of passing preschool girls, who will be the stimulation for his masturbation?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions there; the Hon Judith Collins can choose to answer either one.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have a great deal of sympathy for members of the public and parents, who know that, unfortunately, there are, in fact, many sex offenders living in our communities. In this particular case, we know where he is. He is under 24-hour, 7-day-a-week individual monitoring—he has someone with him all that time—and I am sure that this matter, as I have been advised by the Department of Corrections, is being reviewed, as are all of its placements when there are any concerns raised by members of the public.

• Community Leadership—Announcements

10. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcements has she made regarding community leadership organisations?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Last week I announced the results of the inaugural funding round for the Community Leadership Fund – Hapori Whakatipu. I am pleased to report to the House that the $500,000 fund has been fully committed in its first year, with six diverse applicants to receive grants. The successful applicants are: Ara Taiohi Incorporated, Hui E! Community Aotearoa, Ākina Foundation, the Inspiring Communities trust, the Volunteer Army Foundation, and Volunteering New Zealand.

Maureen Pugh: What contribution will the fund make to social enterprises in New Zealand?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The Ākina Foundation has been granted $85,000 to continue its work as the lead organisation for the social enterprise sector. The Ākina Foundation will be able to enhance its support for emerging social enterprises throughout New Zealand, enabling people with good ideas across the country to be supported in their efforts to bring about social or environmental goals through the successful running of a self-sustaining business. The first round of the community leadership fund has shown us that there is an exciting range of ways in which organisations are working to build the leadership and capability of a huge range of different groups and enterprises throughout New Zealand.

• Māori Development—Safe Sleep Programme

11. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister of Health: Ka kī taurangi a ia, ka noho te rautaki Māori whāia e kōkirihia ana e āna āpiha, tae atu ki te whakamahinga o te wahakura harakeke, hai mahi tuatahi i roto i te Hōtaka Safe Sleep o te motu?

[Will he guarantee that a targeted Māori strategy, including the use of flax wahakura, is prioritised in the national safe sleep programme that his officials are working on?]

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Acting Minister of Health): I can confirm that the safe sleep programme is being developed by the Ministry of Health and will include strategies for Māori in the use of safe sleeping devices such as wahakura.

Marama Davidson: Kei te mōhio tātau, neke atu i te 60 ōrau o ngā pēpi i mate i te Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI) hē Māori nā reira, he aha te rahi o te pūtea taunaki mā ngā rautaki Māori whāia pērā i te wahakura harakeke?

[We know that more than 60 percent of Māori babies die as a result of Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI); how much funding will she commit for targeted Māori strategies like flax wahakura?]

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Details of how this will be run and the exact funding streams are still to be worked out, but what is important is that we need to ensure that there are strong and clear guidelines in place for services to assess vulnerability across the board and to ensure that any family offered a safe sleep space is also supported to use it consistently and safely.

Marama Davidson: Ka kī taurangi a ia ki te tuku pūtea, rauemi hoki mā ngā rautaki Māori nā te tokomaha o te iwi Māori, te tokomaha rānei o ngā pēpi Māori i mate i te SUDI?

[Will he commit funding and resources as well to Māori strategies because of the vast number of Māori people, or the vast number of Māori babies, dying as a consequence of SUDI?]

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have already answered, the ministry is working alongside experts such as Professor Mitchell to devise a national safe sleep programme where these wahakura will be assessed as to whether they are appropriate. I am advised that the ministry is also working alongside other Māori, in particular Whakawhetū, a Māori organisation connected to the University of Auckland that will provide advice.

Marama Davidson: Menā ka haumarutia ngā pēpi piripoho, ka taurangihia e Te Minita me noho ngā wahakura hei kōwhiringa mā ia whānau o ngā pēpi piripoho puta noa i Aotearoa nei?

[If newborn babies are given the best possible start in life, will the Minister guarantee that wahakura will remain an option for each family of newborn babies throughout New Zealand?]

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have said, the programme is being worked through with experts and with the sector. It will be developed and include strategies for Māori, given the high risk for young Māori infants, as well as the use of such devices as wahakura.

• Captioning—Summer Olympics 2016

12. POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Did she or her office contact the Minister of Broadcasting or her office to correct their joint press release of 9 August 2016, regarding captioning of televised coverage of the Olympics, as requested by the National Foundation for the Deaf; if not, why not?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues): Last week’s joint press release was about recognising and celebrating the fact that captioning on parliamentary television will mean that more New Zealanders can access democracy. Minister Adams and I reviewed the press release and agreed that it was factually correct. We reject that there is any suggestion that the Government is taking credit for the foundation’s work. I am very happy to acknowledge that the National Foundation for the Deaf has underwritten captioning for the Rio Olympics for $200,000.

Poto Williams: How much funding did her Government give to fund captioning at the Olympics?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: The Olympics funding is going to be done by the National Foundation for the Deaf. Attitude Pictures is doing captioning for the Paralympics.

Poto Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The best way forward is if the member could just repeat that question.

Poto Williams: How much funding did her Government give to fund captioning at the Olympics?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: As I have already said, it will be covered by private organisations, but New Zealand On Air funds captioning services of up to $2.8 billion a year. That is 265 hours each week, and 35 hours of audio description. One hundred percent of prime time content on Television New Zealand channels is now captioned, and the addition of captioning of Prime Television in November 2015 shows that more captioning is available for all New Zealanders.

Poto Williams: Can she confirm that the National Foundation for the Deaf paid $200,000 to provide captioning for the Olympics?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes. I appreciate what it has done, and I salute it.

Poto Williams: Did the National Foundation for the Deaf ask her to correct her claim about Government funding of captioning at the Olympics?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Yes, but I stand by my original statement that the press release is factually correct. We reject the suggestion that the Government is taking credit for the foundation’s work. We are always pleased to support more captioning options.

Poto Williams: Will she now apologise to the National Foundation for the Deaf, after being caught taking credit for its funding?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I stand by my original statement that the press release is factually correct. It is unfortunate that the quote by Minister Adams has been misinterpreted. We are very supportive of all efforts to enhance captioning accessibility. That is why we put the press release out last week to congratulate the Office of the Clerk on increasing captioning.

• URGENT QUESTIONS

Drinking-water Contamination—Havelock North

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Will he now declare a drinking-water emergency, under the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2007, in light of reports that E. coli has been discovered in a water tanker from a Hastings water supply, parked at a school in Havelock North?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Acting Minister of Health): No. I am advised that the local council is taking action, and that the water supplies for Hastings and Flaxmere are now being chlorinated. The daily tests for those supplies have been clear. I can also advise that the Minister Jonathan Coleman has confirmed there will be a Government-initiated independent inquiry into the Havelock North water contamination issue. This will be a wide-ranging inquiry to ensure that all New Zealanders can feel confident about the quality of drinking-water supplies.

Hon Annette King: So what would it take for the Minister of Health to declare a drinking-water emergency, given that over 3,200 people have now been affected by gastric illness and that the Mayor Lawrence Yule is saying that this latest result “is a significant development we cannot explain.”?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I continue to be disgusted by the attitude of that member, who is playing politics with this issue—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I need to deal with a point of order.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was a straight question. The Minister started his answer by being disgusted by the fact that I have raised this issue in this House, when he did not.

Mr SPEAKER: We will now allow the Minister to complete his answer.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I am still disgusted, because this member plays politics when what is at issue here is the health and safety of those people in Havelock North and Hawke’s Bay. I visited Hawke’s Bay yesterday, and what the local people told me was that they wanted their health services provided and they wanted accountability. That is what this Government is offering through this inquiry and the support that we are giving the local district council.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post Questions & Answers – 18 August 2016 appeared first on It's Our Future.

Aug. 18 (BusinessDesk) – New Zealand is unlikely to gain traction in its bid to upgrade its bilateral free-trade agreement with China while Asias largest economy is focused on developing its broader One Belt One Road initiative, a leading academic says.Thursday 18 August 2016 02:38 PM

China’s One Belt One Road may offer best avenue for NZ trade talks, academic says

By Tina Morrison

Aug. 18 (BusinessDesk) – New Zealand is unlikely to gain traction in its bid to upgrade its bilateral free-trade agreement with China while Asia’s largest economy is focused on developing its broader One Belt One Road initiative, a leading academic says.

Prime Minister John Key, Trade Minister Todd McClay and Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy visited China in April to push for a renegotiation of the country’s 2008 FTA after long-time trade rival Australia was seen as gaining an edge with our largest trading partner from its recently inked agreement.

However New Zealand is unlikely to make much progress in the talks while China is focused on its OBOR strategy to develop economic cooperation with countries along the historic land Silk Road from eastern China to western Europe, and the maritime Silk Road via the sea, according to Professor Siah Hwee Ang, Victoria University of Wellington’s Bank of New Zealand chair in Business in Asia.

“What New Zealand wants is a comprehensive free-trade agreement but what China wants is more like a relationship that allows infrastructure to flourish,” he said. “It’s not their priority basically to spend more time just trying to negotiate a comprehensive free-trade agreement with a very small trading partner.”

The Chinese government turned its focus to OBOR after the policy was announced by President Xi Jinping in 2013. That’s moved China’s focus towards infrastructure development as a way to bolster trade. Asia alone is estimated to need US$8.2 trillion of infrastructure investment over the decade to 2020, Professor Ang says.

“There is limited proof to prove that free-trade agreements always increase trade,” he says. “If China continues signing free-trade agreements and yet their imports and exports are down, that doesn’t make any sense. That only makes sense because something else is actually not right, and that is not free-trade agreements.”

He says the policy is much larger than a free-trade agreement. While the much-touted but now stalled Trans-Pacific Partnership involved 12 countries, 38 percent of global GDP, 40 percent of global trade and 11 percent of the world’s population, OBOR includes at least 65 countries, 38 percent of global GDP and 64 percent of the world’s population.

“The spread of love is actually much bigger in OBOR’s case,” he said. Major construction projects to build ports in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan, Cambodia and Indonesia are already underway, as well as railway constructions linking China to Laos, Thailand, Myanmar and Tajikistan.

Professor Ang says New Zealand should actively seek to join OBOR by gaining recognition for projects involving Chinese infrastructure investment, and seeking to become a trade hub for the Pacific route of OBOR.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade says China’s belt and road initiative is a significant, ambitious project that will have major economic, commercial and financial implications for China and the countries within its scope.

“A more open and efficient international trading environment is certainly in New Zealand’s interests,” an MFAT spokesman said.

Professor Ang says New Zealand companies need to be aware of the changes afoot which could have a ripple effect on our trade flows, noting eight of New Zealand’s top 20 export markets are located along the OBOR and 10 of our top 20 export markets have signed up for OBOR projects.

Improved infrastructure is likely to mean goods will be delivered to market quicker and cheaper, which could improve New Zealand’s geographic remoteness, however it could also result in some trade displacement as competition increases with countries along the OBOR route.

New Zealand will be best placed to progress its trade ambitions if it aligns itself with China’s aims, he says, noting that Australia gained its trade agreement at about the same time it signed up to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, of which New Zealand is also a member.

“There’s a lot of ‘I give you something, you give me something,” he notes. “If we want to have what we want, we also need to make sure we know what they want.”

For China, the approach is more along eastern lines of collaboration and networking to achieve mutual benefits over time, compared with a more western approach of explicit formal agreements and contracts, he said.

(BusinessDesk)

ends

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post China’s One Belt One Road may offer best avenue appeared first on It's Our Future.

The Government should scrap the TPPA legislation and withdraw from the agreement, Democrats for Social Credit Deputy Leader and Finance Spokesperson, Chris Leitch told the select committee hearing submissions on the TPPA Amendment bill.
18 August 2016

Committee Urged To Scrap TPPA

The Government should scrap the TPPA legislation and withdraw from the agreement, Democrats for Social Credit Deputy Leader and Finance Spokesperson, Chris Leitch told the select committee hearing submissions on the TPPA Amendment bill.

Addressing the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee today, Mr Leitch said the TPPA was masquerading as at trade agreement, but would result in a loss of sovereignty for New Zealand.

That is exactly what drove the recent Brexit vote in Britain where people became alarmed at the loss of sovereignty over their own decision-making.

The National government are proceeding with indecent haste in implementing changes to NZ’s laws when the TPPA has yet to be ratified by any of the major participants.

In the USA in particular, ratification is questionable given the opposition to the TPPA by the two major presidential contenders.

The Investor State Disputes Settlement process in the TPPA would effectively close the door to the ability of the government to use the central bank (Reserve Bank) to fund major investment in infrastructure projects and therefore boost jobs – a solution that was implemented by the NZ government following the 1930s depression.

If that course of action was implemented as recommended by 35 economists in a letter to the Britain’s Guardian newspaper last week, the four Aussie owned banks that have a stranglehold on New Zealand’s banking sector could sue taxpayers for billions in lost profits because of the reduction in their ability to create money out of thin air when they make loans.

The country is ignoring a growing body of international advice that infrastructure funding should come from the central bank (Reserve Bank) at no cost, so that ratepayers are not forced to carry the additional interest burden.

The International Monetary Fund, former head of Britain’s Financial Services Authority Lord Adair Turner, Times financial commentator Martin Wolf, and former British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn have all advocated the use of central bank funding for such investment.

The government already pays 4.5 billion dollars in interest annually – $12 million per day, seven days per week, in a direct line of corporate welfare to banks and financial institutions that create the money it borrows out of thin air.

Ends

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post Committee Urged To Scrap TPPA appeared first on It's Our Future.

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (LeaderNZ First) to the Prime Minister : Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Prime Minister—Statements

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, with one clarification: when I said yesterday that the numbers of people who come to New Zealand and claim refugee status or asylum are significantly fewer under this Government than when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was a Minister, I should have said that the proportion who claim was less.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I did not hear the last sentence from the Prime Minister. Could he repeat that? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If we could have a little less interjection, then it is easier for all members to hear the answer. Would the Prime Minister mind repeating the latter part of his answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The last sentence was: I should have said that the proportion who claim was less.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a process for Ministers to correct answers they gave—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt. This is a point of order; it will be heard in silence.

Chris Hipkins: —if they subsequently realise that they are incorrect. Waiting until question time has already started is not the appropriate way to do it. They are supposed to do that at the first available opportunity.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: This was not a correction to an answer; it was a clarification of an answer—quite a different matter. It is quite a different matter.

Mr SPEAKER: I think there is some relevance to both the points that have been raised by Chris Hipkins and the Hon Gerry Brownlee. If it is a correction to an answer, then the expectation is—in fact, the Speakers’ rulings are very clear—that the member or Minister, upon becoming aware that he has inaccurately answered a question, must come to the House as quickly as possible. If it is a matter of minor correction—in other words, it could be interpreted as a clarification—I think, in this case, it is acceptable for it to be done in the way that it has been done.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement yesterday in relation to approved visas for applicants seeking refugee or protection status that: “what I do know, on the advice of the Minister of Immigration, is that the numbers are considerably less under this Government than when the member was a Minister.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said in my answer to the primary question, I stand by the view that that is correct when it is taken with the word “proportion”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he reconcile that statement with his Minister of Immigration saying that he was “advised that information before 2009 is not captured in a reportable format and would require substantial manual collation and research.”, which he was not prepared to authorise? How does he stand by his statement against what the Minister has told me?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You will have to take up the written question with the Minister’s office. I cannot answer that, and I have not actually even seen that parliamentary question, but in the information provided to my office—I can give the member an example, if he wants. If you go back and have a look, for instance, at the 2005-06 period, the number of people who temporarily came to New Zealand was 498,009, on the advice I had. The number of people who claimed for asylum was 317. The proportion was 0.063653468. In the 2015-16 equivalent, the number was 925,365, the number of people who made claims was 339, and the proportion was 0.036634193.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House that the Minister of Immigration advised him that the number that had come was considerably less, when in fact the Minister of Immigration, in an answer to a written parliamentary question, said—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Different question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it was not a different question. You are not going to switch the grounds now—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just read the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Minister of Immigration said that no such information had been collected pre-2009, how could the Prime Minister tell the House that yesterday he had already been advised otherwise by the Minister of Immigration?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the Minister of Immigration advised me that the proportion is less, and the proportion is less.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he said he was advised by his Minister of Immigration yesterday, was that statement true or false, or did the Minister of Immigration misinform me and the House in a written answer to a written question?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot make any comment on the written question, because I have not seen it, but that was the advice that the Minister gave me and it is correct.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Prime Minister, that yesterday not once but twice he misled the House intentionally, and he seeks now to sneak away from his statement yesterday?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. If anyone was misleading the House yesterday it was the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he was taking the opportunity to make a quote about the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) programme, where he used the words I had used about the UNHCR programme deliberately misleadingly, actually, in his supplementary questions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister digging a hole for himself by making that statement, when in yesterday’s answer he specifically said that it was not UN refugees we were talking about, but other categories, which was the subject of my question, upon which he then told the House something demonstrably false twice?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member needs to go and look at his own Hansard and my quote that he used in his supplementary questions to me. As I said, I should have used the word “proportion”. Other than that, the answer was quite correct, and I stand by it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the answer yesterday when he pointed to the fact that it was not UN refugees he was talking about, how could he have gone on from that—and Hansard is very clear—and made a statement about numbers that he did not at that time have? That information about not having the numbers was confirmed in a written answer from the Minister of Immigration. Which one of these two Ministers—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Questions need to be—[Interruption] The Rt Hon Prime Minister—the first part. I did not hear the last.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Neither of the Ministers. The member, if he wants a very detailed answer on something completely different from his supplementary questions, should ask the Minister of Immigration, but the Minister of Immigration advised me—because the member was asking a question—about proportions, and I gave the member the answer.

• Economy—Reports

2. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I am advised today that today was the first release by Statistics New Zealand of labour market statistics data using an updated survey method that is technology-neutral and improves international comparability. The decision to change the survey method was made by the Government Statistician, who is statutorily independent. The decision was not made by the Government. Today’s release shows unemployment fell by 0.1 percent to 5.1 percent, with particularly large reductions in Auckland—down 1.2 percentage points, to where unemployment in Auckland is now measured at 4.7 percent. Unemployment among women has dropped 0.8 percent to 5.4 percent. The survey also points to strong job growth during the quarter.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am about to call Maureen Pugh, but I do not want a continuation of the conversation between Mr Joyce and Mr Little.

Maureen Pugh: What is the outlook for jobs and wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The outlook will be fairly positive if the current momentum is maintained. Statistics New Zealand calculates that 105,000 extra jobs were created in the last year, and 251,000 over the last 3 years. It advises that recorded jobs growth is supported by other labour market indicators. It reports that annual average wages have increased 24.9 percent to more than $58,000 since the end of 2008, more than double 12 percent inflation over the same period. There are more jobs, and people are being better paid.

Grant Robertson: Was ANZ correct when it said today “Due to methodological changes, many of today’s figures need to be taken with a grain of salt (particularly the surge in employment). Statistics NZ have cautioned against quarterly comparisons. In fact, in many ways they look meaningless.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: ANZ has every right to have an opinion about the numbers, as does the Government. However, it refrains from attacking the impartiality of the Government Statistician.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Again, this is a point of order, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Grant Robertson: My question asked the Minister of Finance whether ANZ was correct in that statement. I did not get an answer to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion—[Interruption] Order! On this occasion, I think the question has been addressed. The Minister immediately said that that was ANZ’s opinion.

Maureen Pugh: What else do labour market statistics tell us about the job market?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government Statistician has introduced a new measure of underutilisation, which has not been measured before. It measures the number of people who could work more if given the opportunity. The published underutilisation rate is 12.8 percent. This compares with the OECD average of around 14.1 percent, and, somewhat surprisingly, compares with Australia’s underutilisation rate of 21.8 percent, which is not much short of double the New Zealand rate.

Maureen Pugh: What other reports has he seen about the household labour force survey (HLFS)?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a range of reports about the economic importance of the data, including some people who have questioned, for instance, quarterly comparisons, because the HLFS data does move around from quarter to quarter. Others, however, have made comments around the impartiality of the Government Statistician, including that the Government “actively manipulates official data”, which is absolutely wrong—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no need for that answer to continue any longer. I consider it is an answer that will be in breach of Speaker’s ruling 197/5.

Grant Robertson: Why is the Government taking credit for a quarterly increase in employment that is 70 percent higher than ever recorded before, which ANZ has said should be taken with a grain of salt and that Statistics New Zealand cautioned against making—exactly the quarterly comparison that Steven Joyce did in his media release today?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is not taking credit; it is simply stating the numbers as published—it is simply stating the numbers as published—because we accept that the Government Statistician is statutorily independent. If the numbers go up, it is because the numbers have gone up, not because the Government Statistician is manipulating the numbers, as that member has claimed. And he should know, since he represents more public servants than anyone else in the Parliament. It is a disgrace.

Grant Robertson: Does the Minister consider it a disgrace that the Minister of Finance stood in this House and said that Statistics New Zealand’s statement that inequality in New Zealand had grown under his watch was statistically invalid; is that a disgrace as well?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly did not accuse the Government Statistician of being manipulated by the Government, and certainly would not do that. We have our own arguments with how numbers are put together, but, in the end, that is why they are independent. With respect to those conclusions, I passed on the advice I was given, which, I understand, was legitimate statistical analysis that the conclusions they had drawn were not statistically valid. Since then, I have had further advice that, on balance, they probably were.

• Prime Minister, Statements—Housing Affordability

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): My question—

Hon Steven Joyce: Apologise.

ANDREW LITTLE: When Mr Joyce is ready, my question is to the Prime Minister. Does—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have asked Mr Joyce to cease once. I do not want to have to do it again.

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding housing that “we take responsibility, we need to do a better job of it”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which went on to say “But just think of the things we have done over the last 2 years alone”. To say we have done nothing is absolutely not true. We have done a lot. So let me remind the House about the Government’s comprehensive housing plan. It includes a new $1 billion dollar Housing Infrastructure Fund, over 210 special housing areas for 70,000 new homes, an expanded HomeStart scheme to first-home buyers, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, Resource Management Act reform, a raft of extra tax measures, the new Auckland Unitary Plan, more tools for the Reserve Bank, the independent urban development authority’s finding some areas of high housing need, and getting the Auckland Unitary Plan under way. By any measure, this is a comprehensive plan.

Andrew Little: Does he take responsibility and need to do a better job when only one in five Auckland houses are now affordable for families on the average income, according to the Government’s own figures?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Of course there will be a range of incomes and a range of properties. One thing I do know is that wage growth under this Government has been in the better part of 25 percent in the 8 years that we have been in Government. Interest rates have plummeted to where they were under the previous Labour Government. If we look at the number of properties sold for under $650,000 in Auckland for the previous year, it was 37 percent of properties—at 11,842. And—out of interest—if one was to take a cursory look at TradeMe, as I did just before, around Auckland houses, apartments, townhouses, and units listed for sale at $600,000 and below, it lists 1,433 listings.

Andrew Little: Does he take responsibility and need to do a better job when, under his flagship special housing area policy, 84 percent of those areas have not had a single house built on them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Everyone appreciates that special housing areas (SHAs) are a fast-track process and a fast-track zoning process, so of course it takes some time for those properties ultimately to have the horizontal infrastructure, and the like. But, for the record, the advice that my office has received is that as of 30 June 2016, when it comes to Auckland’s SHAs, 1,300 homes have been completed, 2,200 building consents have been issued, 2,458 new sections have been created, and 7,170 new sections have been granted resource consent. Of the 154 SHAs in Auckland, 26 have been built on, with the capacity of 29,800; 15 have earthworks under way, with the capacity of 5,300; and 88 are in some stage of the planning process. Only 25 SHAs have no consents—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —of which 16 were declared SHAs in February to May of this year.

Andrew Little: Does he take responsibility and need to do a better job, when developers appear to be using the special housing areas for land banking, rather than building affordable housing and helping first-home buyers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As you can see from the data I just read out to the House—and I will not repeat it, in the interests of time—there is no evidence, I think, to support that there is land banking.

Andrew Little: Does he take responsibility and need to do a better job, when homeownership is at its lowest level in 65 years and young families all over the country are giving up on the Kiwi Dream of owning their own home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If one looks at the household labour force survey out today, at 5.1 percent, at the jobs that have been created in the 8 years under this Government, at the level of interest rates in New Zealand now, and at the wage growth that has taken place—again under this Government, at 25 percent, and in real terms about 13 percent—I do not think it is true to say that people have given up. But certainly the Government has a number of responses, and one of those to help those first-home buyers is the KiwiSaver HomeStart programme, and I think that has been very successful.

Andrew Little: What is his response to Hunter Wright and Sandi Langridge, a Nelson couple, who say “We consider ourselves pretty average New Zealanders. We don’t earn great money, but we still want the Kiwi Dream.”, and who say that under his Government the dream has become “unreachable”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Obviously I do not know the couple whom the member talks of, and I do not know their income and their circumstances. What I do know is that with interest rates at the levels that they are, with the job growth we are seeing, and, actually, with the prospects for New Zealand, I think there are a lot of young couples who would argue pretty strongly that they are out there, buying houses. There is one particular story, I think in the New Zealand Herald, about that, just today.

Andrew Little: After 8 years’ failure and half-baked policies, is it not time to swallow his pride and adopt Labour’s genuine comprehensive housing plan, because every day that he mucks around families are missing out on getting their first home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The only thing comprehensive was the way he abused Nick Leggett last week and the way Grant Robertson abused Liz MacPherson.

• Prime Minister—Government Policies

4. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o āna kaupapa here Kāwanatanga katoa, nē?

[Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?]

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. I have the privilege of leading a Government that is ambitious for New Zealand’s future, and our policies reflect that ambition.

Metiria Turei: Does he stand by his special housing areas (SHAs) policy in Auckland, now it has proven to be an abject failure?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The failure really was the metropolitan urban limit in Auckland that choked off land supply, which I am sure was one of the real lefty ideas that the Greens were promoting.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with Nick Smith that special housing areas are about “helping Kiwi families to realise the dream of owning their own home.”; if so, how many Kiwi families are realising that dream in the 97 Auckland SHAs with no home building going on in them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and if the member wants me to, I am more than happy to read out the statistics.

Metiria Turei: And the 97?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: OK, so the member does want me to. All right. As of 30 June 2016 in Auckland, the advice my office has is that 1,300 homes have been completed, 2,200 building consents have been issued, 2,458 sections have been created, and 7,170 sections have been granted resource consent. Of the 154 special housing areas in Auckland, 26 have been built on, 15 have earthworks, and 88 are in some stage of planning process. Only 25 have no consent or plan change lodged, but 16 of those were declared between February and May of this year. I think most people would acknowledge that a special housing area is a way of fast-tracking the development of these properties, but they still need to have Resource Management Act consent, they still have to have horizontal infrastructure, they still need to—

Grant Robertson: You’ve been there for 8 years.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, we did not have them 8 years ago, Phil. What we had was the metropolitan urban limit, which we inherited from your lefty mates.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister defending the special housing areas policy, where 97 of those areas have no homebuilding on them to date, because it was always his intention that this policy was designed to support the property speculators and the land-bankers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is quite incorrect, and in fact the data I have given to the House is correct. But what I do not support is the hard-working young couple who go out and buy a house, who borrow money against the equity that they have put down, only to see that house price halve. That member has launched a war on the poor. She is saying to the poorest New Zealanders who are borrowing money against their property that she wants to see them owing the bank more than their house is worth. I think there is a reason why the Greens’ numbers are tumbling, and that is because people can see that. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am just waiting for a little more silence from my left.

Metiria Turei: When the Prime Minister said in April last year that the special housing area land-bankers would be getting a terse letter from Nick Smith, does he think they were suitably chastised?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Given that only a very small proportion either do not have planning under way, earthworks under way, or building on them, I would say that special housing areas have been highly effective, actually, as a way of releasing land. There will be one or two that do not go ahead—it was never guaranteed that they would, but what was guaranteed was that they would allow process to happen more rapidly, and that is exactly what is happening. What the member is trying to tell New Zealanders is that at the moment that the Minister of Housing designates an area a special housing area—

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It simply is not for the Prime Minister to tell the public what I am saying in answer to my question. He has answered my question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] Order! I think the point is that the question was relatively short and the answer addressed the question almost immediately. There is no need to continue with a lengthy answer.

Metiria Turei: So now that the housing areas have failed—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the question, please.

Metiria Turei: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. So—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Less interjection. I am inviting now the question to be asked.

Metiria Turei: So now that the special housing areas policy in Auckland has failed, is sending terse letters to land-bankers and property speculators going to be the new centrepiece of his comprehensive housing plan?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, firstly, I think we can see that special housing areas are a success, because houses are being built and development is taking place. But I will give the member a clue of what a terse letter would look like: “Dear Mr and Mrs Bloggs of Auckland. I know you borrowed $450,000 from the ANZ against your $100,000 worth of equity—or $150,000—in your $600,000 property. But now Metiria Turei has managed to turn that into a $300,000 property, and therefore could you sell your property with no equity left.” That is what a 50 percent reduction in house prices would look like. It is a war—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —on the poor.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would invite you to reflect on Standing Order 380(1), which asks that questions do not needlessly include facts and do not include inferences or arguments beyond what is necessary to make the question intelligible. That is a Standing Order that this member has been violating all through question time.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is strictly correct. I am relatively liberal when I interpret that when allowing questions, but when a question starts, as the last one did, with “Now that that the particular policy has failed”, I give a very wide licence in the answer that may then be given by the Prime Minister or a Minister.

• Climate Change—Paris Agreement

5. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What announcements has she made about the Government’s commitment to the Paris Climate Change Agreement?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Today I am delighted that I have announced that the Government intends to ratify the Paris Agreement by the end of this year, which is significantly earlier than originally planned. Beginning ratification confirms our commitment towards our ambitious target of reducing emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. It also supports the strong international momentum that there is to ratify the agreement this year. Because New Zealand is such a small emitter in global terms, we must be part of a robust international agreement to get results on climate change. Ratification this year means we are playing our part in achieving that.

Scott Simpson: What is the Government already doing to take action on climate change?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: New Zealand already has a climate change record to be proud of. We were one of the first countries to have a comprehensive emissions trading scheme, which we strengthened this year, and more than 80 percent of our electricity is already renewable. We are also world leaders when it comes to agricultural research. We helped establish—and we invested $65 million in—the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, but to meet our new target we will have to make further changes.

David Seymour: Will the ratification of this agreement erode the sovereignty of this Parliament more or less than opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership claimed that agreement eroded it?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: None of the above.

Scott Simpson: What are the next steps required to come up with a plan to meet the Paris target?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Ratification of the Paris Agreement, although very important, is merely words that go down on paper. What now matter, of course, are the actions that we take, so we now are very clearly focused on developing that long-term plan to start reducing emissions while still growing the economy and supporting job creation. This will involve working across Government departments, with the business community, with consumers, and, in some areas, I hope there will be cross-party work as well. As part of that, today I also announced the establishment of a technical advisory group to look at how best we adapt to the impacts of climate change, and my colleagues the Hon Nathan Guy and Jo Goodhew have also announced two new groups to look at how we encourage the planting of more forests and how we reduce emissions from livestock.

• Child Poverty—Publicity

6. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent publicity does she think led to the Guardian writing an article titled “New Zealand’s most shameful secret: we have normalised child poverty”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I have no responsibility for articles published in the Guardian, a left-wing English newspaper that supports Jeremy Corbyn. To say that a third of New Zealand children can only dream of education and employment is sensationalist rubbish, and I do not think that the measure used in the article is an accurate reflection of poverty in New Zealand at all. Using their definition, the single biggest thing this Government could do to reduce poverty would be to lower the median wage, which I suspect is what would happen if Labour-Greens got into power. This Government is absolutely committed to helping families on the lowest incomes, and that is why Budget 2015 included a $790 million package of measures aimed at reducing hardship amongst children living in some of New Zealand’s poorest families. This Government has increased childcare support for low-income families to help their parents be in work, education, or training. We have increased benefit rates for families with children by $25—the first time in more than 40 years. We have increased Working for Families for low-income working families, and we have introduced free doctors visits and prescriptions for children under 13. We have extended paid parental leave, we have extended parental tax credits, and we fund 125,000 breakfasts for schoolchildren every week—none of which, I note, were mentioned in the article in the Guardian.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she accept that its definition of poverty, which she just called “sensationalised”, is the definition used by Unicef, by the OECD, and by the Conservative UK Government from which this article was published and written?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We have had this discussion in the House on many, many occasions. Measurements of poverty are complex and varied. You can measure them on income, you can measure them on hardship, and a variety of groups use either, depending on which political point they are trying to make at the time.

Jacinda Ardern: Will her new Ministry for Vulnerable Children be required to develop a plan to address child poverty in New Zealand?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member jumps the gun—there is no such ministry.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she plan to introduce a Ministry for Vulnerable Children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Government will make that decision in its own time.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. We are currently debating at the select committee legislation that will be operationalised by the Ministry for Vulnerable Children. To not be able to ask a question about something the Minister has announced will be operating from April seems farcical.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The questions were never out of order. The questions were asked; the Minister then chose to answer them as she saw fit.

Jacinda Ardern: Has the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) or the State Services Commission (SSC) actively recruited a new chief executive officer for her yet-to-be-named children’s ministry who has experience working with significant issues like deprivation and poverty or, at the very least, experience working with children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have to say, in answer to the member, I do not see any mention of any of that in the article in the Guardian. However, the SSC has responsibility for employment issues, and I have no responsibility for the process.

Jacinda Ardern: If the claim that we have 305,000 children living in poverty in New Zealand is sensationalised, what is the accurate figure?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said earlier, we have had this discussion on many occasions. It depends. There are a number of ways of measuring. Whether you use income or whether you use hardship factors, all of those involve judgmental decisions, and it is complex. I refer to the member to the very excellent report that is published annually by MSD, which Bryan Perry produces. It is all there, comprehensively, for the member’s edification.

• Regional Economic Development—Manawat-Whanganui Economic Action Plan

7. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made about economic development in the Manawatū-Whanganui region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Last week, alongside the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy, and Māori development Minister, Te Ururoa Flavell, I launched a detailed action plan developed with regional leaders to boost the Manawatū-Whanganui regional economy. Part of the Government’s regional growth programme, the plan will build on the region’s existing strengths in primary production and food innovation, while taking advantage of opportunities in fields such as tourism, aged care, and business process outsourcing. This plan was developed locally, actually, by the local people, as a partnership between local government, business, iwi, and central government. It contains a set of concrete actions in these areas, underpinned by strategies to encourage businesses to grow, improved transport, digital connectivity, and skills training. The Opposition is welcome to bag it.

Ian McKelvie: How will the action plan contribute to the growth of the Manawatū and Whanganui?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the major initiatives identified in the action plan is the productivity of the primary sector. The region, of course, has the largest number of sheep and beef cattle of any region in New Zealand and excellent soils. So there is great potential to lift productivity and on-farm profitability. The Ministry for Primary Industries is leading a programme to share knowledge and information amongst farmers to lift productivity and fund a range of other initiatives. Thirty-nine million dollars will also be invested in building New Zealand’s largest agrifood research centre in the FoodHQ precinct on the Massey University campus. A joint venture between the university and AgResearch, research conducted at the centre will span the agricultural sector from farm to consumer, with a focus on dairy and red meat research.

Ian McKelvie: What other investment is the Government making in the region as part of the economic action plan?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: On Friday I announced the Government will invest half a million dollars in partnership with the Whanganui District Council to develop a comprehensive plan to revitalise the Whanganui Port precinct. This is a blueprint for a new marine services centre, an expansion of the boat building industry and visitor services and a recreational area. I was also pleased to announce, with the Minister of Transport, Simon Bridges, the next stage in the ring road for Palmerston North. Palmerston North, of course, is a major freight and logistics hub for the lower North Island, and it is crucial it is able to move around efficiently and safely. Finally, I visited Ōhākune in recognition of the Prime Minister’s announcement on the same day of an extension to the Mountains to Sea cycle trail from Tūroa to Ōhākune. It is an excellent addition to the New Zealand cycle trail, and, again, was warmly welcomed by the people of Ōhākune, whom, I have assumed, the Opposition has no interest in seeking the support of.

• Education Funding Review—Rates

8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to oral question No. 12 yesterday?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes; in the context that my proposal is not to flatten out the current funding rates across different year levels. The proposal is aimed at establishing a per-child funding rate that reflects the teaching and learning challenge at the different levels of the curricula. The publicly available Cabinet paper that I quoted from in my response yesterday acknowledges, in paragraph 33, that an effect of this proposal may be to even out the current variance of funding levels. As previously stated, these are all proposals, and I look forward to receiving the advisory group’s report.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in my primary question, I asked the Minister about her proposal to flatten out funding rates. That question was authenticated by your office using the Cabinet paper that the Minister has just referred to. I used four supplementary questions yesterday and another primary question today to get the Minister to answer what was, in effect, the primary question yesterday that was, actually, authenticated by your office. So I ask you to give some consideration to what remedies the Opposition has when a Minister stands up and denies something that is authenticated in a primary question, and then forces the Opposition to waste multiple questions in order to extract that information from her.

Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly have another look at the Hansard. I had a very careful look at it yesterday. In this case the primary question today was immediately answered by the Minister. I will have a look at it and may come back to the House—I will certainly come back to the member. But if a member is suspicious that there has been a case of misleading the House deliberately, then there is a quite appropriate path for the member to follow, if he thinks this incident warrants it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am sure that at the same time you will analyse the questions that were asked by the member so that the answers given are relative to the question answered.

Mr SPEAKER: I can assure the member that I will analyse the questions as much as I analyse the answers.

Chris Hipkins: So why did she state yesterday “the proposal is not to flatten out the levels of funding.”, given the Cabinet paper she just referred to stated “the likely effect of the shift to a standard per-child funding amount, aligned to the expected attainment at each level of the curricula, will be to flatten and even out the current variance in funding between year levels.”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member seems to be suffering from a misunderstanding between a proposal and the effect of a proposal. I am happy to table the full Cabinet paper, which makes it clear that the proposal is for three components of a student-based rate, where the first component is linked to the learning level of the curriculum. The second component is linked to the level of risk against the child not being successful, and the third proposal is a component for isolated, small schools. Each of those proposals will have different effects, and depending on what is finally arrived at, we will know the actual effect. But the proposal is not to flatten; it is to provide a student-based approach.

Chris Hipkins: Does she think, in a consultation exercise, that the public who wish to express a view on that are going to be interested in the effects of a proposal rather than, necessarily, the proposal in a completely abstract form, as the Minister has just suggested?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Of course the public is going to be interested in all of that, and that is why these papers have been up on the public website for over 3 months. We have not only shared what the direction of travel is, what the purpose of it is, and what the actual proposal is; we have also explicated what some of the likely effects might be so that there will be informed comment. That is precisely the intent.

Chris Hipkins: Did her Cabinet paper further state “there is evidence the distribution of funding could better reflect the per-child investment required to achieve the … level of attainment and progress and each level of the curricula.”; if so, how does she propose calculating the per-child investment required at each level?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Econometrically.

Hon Member: Ha!

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, that is exactly how. We want to work out what the complexities are. In the current system, for instance, we have higher funding rates at the beginning of the system than at the end. We have the lowest for years 4, 5, and 6—where we are seeing some of the biggest achievement challenges occurring. Surely, the member and the House are interested in us assuring that we are investing to grow achievement for every young New Zealander.

• Queen’s Birthday—Queen Elizabeth II Pukeahu Education Centre

9. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What announcements has she made about the Government’s gift on the occasion of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s 90th birthday?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Today at Wellington’s Pukeahu National War Memorial Park, along with the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, and Minister Brownlee, I opened the new Queen Elizabeth II Pukeahu Education Centre, named in honour of Her Majesty as a 90th birthday present from New Zealand. The category 1 building, which is fully restored to the highest heritage values, is now fit for modern purpose and activities for students in its classroom space, as well as online research in the specialist research rooms.

Paul Foster-Bell: What function will the new education centre serve?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: There have been more than 13,000 students who have gone through the education programme in the last year, and this new building will vastly increase that number, as a place to learn of our experiences of military conflict, peacekeeping, and commemoration. Today junior students from the neighbouring Mt Cook School are designing their own coats of arms. Auckland’s Baradene College of the Sacred Heart students, along with French students, are exhibiting their countries’ shared World War I experiences of military discipline and the treatment of conscientious objectors. Senior Wellington College students are now able to research the stories of further pupils involved in conflicts.

Paul Foster-Bell: What other progress has been made on the development of Pukeahu National War Memorial Park?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The Pukeahu National War Memorial Park has been embraced as our premier place for commemoration, remembrance, and nationhood, thanks to the great work of my predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson. The Government has invited several countries to place memorials within the park. Currently, the United Kingdom, France, the US, and Turkey have designed their memorials, and Belgium and Canada will be next, to ensure that their nations’ sacrifices are commemorated at Pukeahu. This Government wants to ensure that Pukeahu provides the best possible visitor experience, providing a meaningful place of reflection for all visitors, all year round.

• Minister’s Statements—Labour Market

10. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the labour market that “if wages aren’t rising then there isn’t a shortage”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context of which a fairly particular question was asked about the construction industry. I pointed out that employment increased by over 6 percent, to 125,000 in the last year, and average weekly earnings in construction increased by nearly 6 percent, compared with inflation of just 0.4 percent. I think the question had put to me the assertion that there had been no wage inflation in the construction sector. That was incorrect; there has actually been a 6 percent increase in average weekly earnings in the construction sector.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Could the reason there was nil real wage growth in the last quarter be that the Government has issued so many work visas that the labour market is flooded, just as the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) warned when it wrote that filling labour shortages through migration can result in wage suppression?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that if the member looks at the advice, he will find that a number of agencies made statements about what they thought could be the case. The piece of work that was actually done in 2013 by MBIE showed that that effect was not occurring. I understand that piece of work is currently being updated so that we can refresh our view of what is actually happening in the market, rather than relying on assertions by officials.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why did the immigration Minister claim that there is a shortage of workers in Te Ānau and Queenstown, when average earnings are falling in those regions, which he says indicates that there are plenty of workers already available; could it be that issuing 209,000 work visas has supressed wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are many questions rolled into that one. But, I must say, in Queenstown, if the member goes there, he will find that it is growing very fast. There is a question of whether enough people can turn up for the jobs there, but it is also pretty evident that a significant majority of the workforce there are non – New Zealanders, and New Zealanders do not appear to be travelling to Queenstown to take up those jobs in great numbers.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I seek leave to table a data set from the New Zealand household economic survey that indicates that earnings in the Otago and Southland regions have fallen by—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That information is available on the website of Statistics New Zealand.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does the fact that average wages for sales workers fell by 6.7 percent in 2015 indicate that there is no shortage of sales workers; if so, why did the Government issue 2,700 work visas for sales workers when there are 23,000 people in New Zealand looking for sales work?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not rely on the member trying to use his own numbers to create some kind of cause and effect. The fact is, a number of the visa categories are labour-market tested, and, I think, as the Minister has pointed out, in recent years the immigration officials have dropped something like 50 occupations off the list and put only about three or four on the list. The member should also remember that all of this is happening against the background of one of the faster-growing developed economies, where there is a high rate of job creation, where incomes are rising, and where there are good prospects for people looking for work.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Is the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment wrong, is Treasury wrong, is the Reserve Bank wrong, is the BNZ wrong, is the Auckland Chamber of Commerce wrong, and is he right when he says that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am inviting the member to ask one supplementary question. I will give him a chance to rephrase it, but in that time I think he had asked five, and he was still going strongly.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Is everyone else wrong and is he right when he says immigration is more permissive because New Zealanders are “pretty damned hopeless”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I did not say that, but I could give the member this advice: Winston Peters is much better at this stuff.

• Minister’s Statements—Sale of Housing Stock

11. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that “the Government is very proud of the fact that it has sold hundreds of houses to State house tenants. We have seen people in their 50s and 60s enjoy, for the first time in their lives, the benefit of homeownership”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. The tenant homeownership programme offers State house tenants the opportunity to buy the house they live in. As at 30 June 2016, over 250 State houses had been sold to tenants. Of the 134 State houses sold in the last 3 financial years, 50 percent went to people aged over 40. In fact, according to the data I have been presented, one 88-year-old New Zealander has bought their State house in the last 3 years.

Denis O’Rourke: Were any of the tenants of the 1,124 social houses in Tauranga being sold to Accessible Properties offered first to the tenants; if so, how many were sold to people in their 50s and 60s?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: All the tenants would have had the opportunity to take up the offer. I must say, though, that it is difficult for them to achieve ownership in the higher-value markets. We are finding that this scheme is working better in the lower-value, provincial markets, so it is unlikely in Tauranga that even if a tenant had attempted this, they would have been able to achieve it.

• Climate Change Policy—Carbon Credits

12. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will she cancel carbon credits held by the Government to compensate for using what she calls “dubious” carbon credits in order to meet New Zealand’s climate commitments; if so, when?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): It is not my intention to cancel any units at this point, but there is no doubt lessons can be learnt from the Kyoto Protocol. That is why I was so pleased to announce today that the Government intends to ratify the Paris Agreement this year. Developing high-quality international carbon markets will be an important part of reaching those targets.

James Shaw: Does she accept that over a quarter of the reduction in climate emissions that her Government claims took place between 2008 and 2012 did not actually happen?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I accept that 26 percent of the units that were used by the Government were of dubious quality.

James Shaw: Does she accept that the only reason that New Zealand has a stockpile of carbon credits now is that her Government previously traded in cheap credits that did not result in any reduction in pollution and were linked to criminal activity in the Ukraine and Russia?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not agree with all of that, but I do accept that we have an excess of units. What we are waiting to look at is what we need for 2020—what that cost will be—and then further decisions will happen via the Paris negotiations after ratification as to some of those rules on carry-over. The Government will be making those decisions in due course.

James Shaw: Why should the other signatories to the Paris Agreement believe that this National Government is going to take the Paris Agreement seriously when it has falsely claimed to reduce pollution in the past and now refuses to set the record straight?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because that is not true. What we did, we did under the rules that were there for the Kyoto agreement. Other countries, like Germany, Spain, and Italy, also used those emergency response units to meet their Kyoto targets. We have a new set of rules, which are going to be set under this Paris Agreement. We cancelled the use of international units in 2015, and actually cancelled the use of those dodgy units earlier than that—in 2012, from memory. We make an absolute commitment that we will be part of making sure that any international trading is using carbon units that are of a high integrity.

James Shaw: Given that the past 10 months in a row have all set temperature records and that July was the hottest month on record ever, would not today’s announcement of the ratification of the Paris Agreement be the perfect time for her Government to restore New Zealand’s integrity and credibility by paying back those fraudulent credits?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have said, going forward from here we are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is an international market, as there could be, and that the integrity of those is such. I think that New Zealand does have a strong reputation as far as its commitment to climate change is concerned, and that it will continue doing the great work that it is doing.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post Questions & Answers – 17 August 2016 appeared first on It's Our Future.

Being savaged by Donald J. Trump on one side of the electoral aisle, and modestly beaten by the Democratic presumptive candidate, Hillary Clinton, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is lying somewhere between near death and miraculous survival. …

The Flagging Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement: The US Election and Free Trade Politics

Being savaged by Donald J. Trump on one side of the electoral aisle, and modestly beaten by the Democratic presumptive candidate, Hillary Clinton, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is lying somewhere between near death and miraculous survival. Those breathing life into that unfortunate beast remain politicians who embraced the mythology of free trade while never questioning what was free.

The scurrying taking place in the White House over rushing the TPP through the relevant channels is evident as the Obama presidency enters its final stages. Stutters, delays, and reluctance has meant that much work, perhaps too much, has to be done to push the agreement onto the statute books.

This has made Washington’s negotiation partners nervous. They, after all, were willing to drag along their states into a bargain that was essentially driven by what were meant to be US corporate interests. The not so elaborate con seemed to work, a triumph to cultic neo-liberal faith over pragmatic consequence.

Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was one such individual to make the journey to the country that insisted most on such a deal. In the Straits Times of Singapore, Obama suggested that “the politics around trade can be very difficult, especially in an election year.” He seemed bubbly in enthusiasm, citing the close ties between the countries and his prowess in getting the TPP through before the new president’s inauguration.

As such events take place, the Trump campaign has been withering about the agreement. His language is eschatological in its doom. “Trump win,” trumpets the running line, “is the only way to stop TPP catastrophe.” One of the latest press releases on the subject emphasises efforts on the part of Obama and the Singaporean Prime Minister to “launch a final public campaign for the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, a point to be poured scorn over.

A large swathe of Democrats, and the Hillary Clinton campaign, have also insisted on noisy scepticism of the deal, though her case remains heavily qualified by a previous enthusiasm for the arrangements as Obama’s secretary of state. Mistrust, as she has attracted over the years, remains, not least because it is seen as a ploy to snare supporters of the now dead Sanders campaign.

On Thursday, Clinton made another push to capitalise on an increasingly protectionist climate while insisting that a Clinton administration would be friendly to infrastructure projects on a vast scale. That aspect is as much a nod towards the Trump campaign as anything else, cognisant of the Republican nominee’s promise to undertake massive government borrowing to that end.

What the Democrat nominee was promising was the language of the a new, accelerated “economic plan”, one packed with more taxes, filling federal coffers with a minimum tax at the highest end of the scale, to debt-free tuition and social security padding.

It was, however, the prickly language on free trade that caught the ear. “My message to every worker across America is this: I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Just to be sure the audience understood her stance she reiterated that she “opposed it now, I’ll oppose it after the election and I’ll oppose it as president.”

This is all rum stuff, given that Clinton’s voting record on the subject of free trade is sketchy. While voting against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, she has expressed considerable support for the concept of bilateral free trade deals. Among them were the Australia Free Trade Agreement (2004), Singapore and Chile (2003).

As First Lady, she paraded the merits of the North American Free Trade Agreement, though insisting on private opposition to it. (We are genuinely none the wiser on that one.) It was then candidate Barack Obama who pointed out in February 2008 that “she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president.”

Any basic understanding on the TPP shows its fundamentally Clintonian shape: the manacling, if not exclusion, of government from the regulatory sphere of global corporate behaviour; the privileging of profit motives over public goods; and the false idea that corporations are engine rooms for the commonweal.

Adam Green, a founder of the Progressive Change Committee seemed to swallow her change of heart with gullible enthusiasm. Clinton, in his mind, had become an ardent progressive. “Today’s speech shows that getting some Republicans to say Donald Trump is unfit for president is not mutually exclusive with Clinton running on bold progressive ideas like debt-free college, expanding Social Security Benefits, Wall Street reform, and a public health insurance option.”

The point generally to be made here is that the chances for the TPP passing are slim at best, withering as time passes in the vortex of US electoral politics. The window between November 8 and January 20 is a small one indeed, though still open.

Heartening here is that much of the sabotage is coming from within Washington itself, an entirely apt state of affairs, given that the very concept began there. But if Clinton does win, a change of opportunistic heart may well be in the offing.

***

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post The Flagging TPPA: The US Election and Free Trade Politics appeared first on It's Our Future.

The Governments pet economic project, the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), is dead in the water, says New Zealand First.

New Zealand First Leader

Member of Parliament for Northland
12 AUGUST 2016
National: Backing a Loser with TPPA

The Government’s pet economic project, the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), is dead in the water, says New Zealand First.

“Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s strong reaffirmation overnight she will oppose it after the election and if she becomes president means both presidential candidates don’t want it,” says New Zealand First Leader and Northland Member of Parliament Rt Hon Winston Peters.

“Republican candidate Donald Trump has never supported the TPPA and now it looks almost certain the curtain will fall on the whole thing.

“So much for John Key who saw the TPPA as being the great hope for New Zealand’s economy with exaggerated claims that it would yield the country $5 billion and provide financial relief for hard hit dairy farmers,” Mr Peters says.

“Mr Key has constantly boasted of his presidential and prime ministerial connections – it is clear none of those connections count for anything whether they are British, Australian or American.”

ENDS

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post National: Backing a Loser with TPPA appeared first on It's Our Future.