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.

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.

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.

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.

These investor suits can be for unlimited cash damages and compound interest. If the proposals are accepted, this investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) would allow foreign investors to sue RCEP governments if they regulate in ways that disadvantages the foreign investor, eg by reducing its profits, including by introducing new laws/policies or changing their laws/policies, even if it is for public interest reasons.

Past ISDS cases have successfully challenged health, environmental, tax, financial regulation and many other laws and a losing government in one case had to pay an investor as much as US$40billion. This is difficult enough for any government to afford, but RCEP includes three least developed countries: Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar who would find it particularly burdensome to pay foreign investors this much.

There are 696 known ISDS cases against 107 countries and the number filed each year has been rapidly increasing (the most ever were filed in 2015). These cases which broadly interpret investors’ rights and restrict governments’ ability to regulate have caused many developed and developing country governments to rethink their support for these investment protection provisions (including ISDS) in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and free trade agreement (FTA) investment chapters. For example, in RCEP countries alone:

• India and Indonesia are withdrawing from their BITs,
• Singapore’s Attorney General and the Chief Justice of Australia’s highest court have expressed concerns about ISDS and
• The New Zealand Chief Justice noted that human rights based determinations of domestic courts may give rise to ISDS claims.

In countries outside RCEP, there is also opposition to ISDS including:

• Other countries such as South Africa and Ecuador are withdrawing from their BITs,
• Germany’s Economic Minister opposes ISDS in Europe’s FTA negotiations with the USA,
• the Dutch, French and Austrian Parliaments oppose ISDS in their FTA negotiations with Canada and the USA and
• All US state-level parliaments oppose ISDS in any treaty.

Various United Nations (UN) human rights bodies have also stated their serious concerns about ISDS including 10 UN Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts on human rights who said that the ISDS cases demonstrate ‘that the regulatory function of many States and their ability to legislate in the public interest have been put at risk’ and governments have been chilled from regulating. They recommended that in negotiations of FTAs like RCEP, the negotiating texts are published and the negotiations are conducted transparently with the participation of stakeholders including civil society.

RCEP trade ministers will meet in Laos on 5 August 2016 to try and resolve some of the issues that are stuck in the negotiations.

Given this, the 95 national and regional civil society organisations listed below which cover all RCEP countries (a number of persons requested additionally to sign on as individuals) strongly urge RCEP countries to reject ISDS in the agreement.

*The RCEP countries are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam, Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand

SIGNATORIES

The post Civil society groups say No to investors suing States in RCEP appeared first on It's Our Future.

No doubt, US Vice-President Joe Biden will be updating Prime Minister John Key on the chances of a TPP vote taking place in the ‘ lame duck’ session of Congress that’s held between the November’s election and the inauguration of a new President in January. Whether there will be a vote on the TPP isn’t the point, though. Key needs to be asking Biden about how – and why – the White House is busily circumventing the TPP deal signed in Auckland earlier this year.

Basically, the Obama White House is overturning two aspects of the TPP deal that every other TPP member country thought it had signed up to :

(a) the data localisation requirements whereby US financial services companies must retain on local servers the data they hold on citizens of a particular country. This commitment is an obvious data privacy safeguard. US firms now want it overturned.

(b) to placate the Republicans it needs to pass the TPP, the Obama White House appears intent on changing the patent period for the expensive new class of pharmaceuticals. During the TPP negotiations, the concessions made in other areas by New Zealand and Australia were grounded in the belief that they had tied the Americans down on biologics to a five year period of marketing exclusivity. Here’s what Aussie Trade Minister Andrew Robb said at the time last year:

Robb, who had described it as a red-line issue in negotiations, says: “The government has delivered on its promise not to change Australia’s existing five years of data protection for biologic medicines or any other part of our health system, including our pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Concerns that the price of medicines would increase have proven to be absolutely unfounded.”

Now, the US is unwinding those commitments. Out the window with them goes the claim by governments that the TPP deal won’t significantly increase the price of medicines.

How is the US doing this? The data localisation changes are being made outside of the TPP text itself. Via a separate deal called TISA – the Trade in Services Agreement – the US will (later this year) seek to nullify the commitment made under the TPP to tie US financial service multinationals down to retaining in-country the financial data it holds on the citizens of TPP member countries. . Good luck in future with locating where your data is held, much less being able to access it or prevent its misuse.

The Obama administration is close to presenting to congressional trade committees its proposal for shielding the financial services industry from data localization requirements under the Trans-Pacific Partnership….

Following that, the administration will vet the proposal with cleared advisers before trying to introduce it in ongoing trade negotiations like the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA). The next TISA negotiating round kicks off at the end of next week, but it is unclear if participants can strike a deal this year as the U.S. wants.

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, in a June 30 speech to the Cato Institute, signalled that the data fix issue is on the way to being resolved domestically. “I think where that is heading has basically been resolved in a positive way and we’re seeing that come to a close,”

Again, to be specific on what’s involved here:

The proposal as described by administration officials would prohibit U.S. and foreign regulators from imposing barriers to cross-border data flows and data localization requirements on financial services firms. Its text would allow for an exception if regulators can prove they cannot gain access to company data they need for legitimate regulatory and supervisory functions.

Four TPP member countries – Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei – are not part of TISA, so the US will have to carry out a data localisation “fix” with those four countries bilaterally.

Essentially though….a provision in the TPP financial services chapter that enabled citizens to have their data held locally ( as of right) has become a situation where in future, member governments will have to make a case that their regulatory requirements qualify them to access this data, but only as a last resort exception.

The biologics switcheroo

The conflict (over the marketing exclusivity period for biologics drugs) between the White House and the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch – a Republican – is proving far more difficult to resolve. A blatant rewrite of the TPP swill be required, rather than a circumvention of the TPP by other means. So far, Hatch has been insisting that a new and extended biologics term – he’s talking about twelve years, rather than the five years we thought we’d negotiated – will need to be attached as ‘side letters’ to the TPP document itself.

Of course, no one really expects our dim-bulb Trade Minister Todd McClay to remember if he knows anything about any of this. The Aussies have been far more alert to the danger. In early May, Australian ambassador Joe Hockey wrote to the US Trade Representative Michael Froman and to US business lobbyists about his concerns:

Renegotiation of the [TPP] agreement in any form or in some other form of additional commitment is not an option and would jeopardize approval [of the deal] by the other TPP countries,” Australian Ambassador Joe Hockey wrote in a May 5 letter to U.S. business groups, with a copy to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. He said he hopes the U.S. will “not seek to renege on the commitments it made when the TPP deal was struck in Atlanta in October 2015, and then signed in Auckland in February 2016.”

…..The ambassador’s message is at odds with demands being made by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who has publicly stated that “side agreements and other approaches” could resolve his complaints about the insufficient period of marketing exclusivity for biologic drugs. Hatch has demanded that biologics be protected with 12 years of marketing exclusivity, a length of time longer than what is required under TPP.

The White House and Hatch have not been able to reach a compromise, and some pro-TPP sources this week said it is hard to see how one would be reached. In addition, Australia has not been approached by USTR regarding implementation issues, including biologics, sources said.

So where are now at on the biologics issue? Looking at twelve years. Not the five years that we – and the Australians – hailed as one of our major TPP victories. Here’s Orrin Hatch, as of July 14.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on July 12 said negotiations with the Obama administration over market exclusivity for biologic drugs in the Trans-Pacific Partnership are at a standstill, but added that President Obama in a closed-door meeting floated the possibility that he would be willing to give in to Hatch’s demands.

“I did meet with [Obama] and he indicated some ‘give’ down in the White House,” Hatch told Inside U.S. Trade….”It’s kind of at a standstill,” Hatch said. “They need to go to 12 years. He knows that we have to solve the problem.” When asked about the chances for his demands to be met, Hatch said he believes 12 years are on the table….

The senator’s push for 12 years of market exclusivity stands in contrast to provisions in the TPP, which would require participants to comply with one of two options, the first of which is to provide at least eight years of exclusivity. The second option is to provide five years of exclusivity and undertake additional regulatory measures that U.S. officials say should effectively extend that protection to eight years. Hatch last month rejected a proposal floated by the Obama administration that sought to assure members of Congress that TPP provides eight “real” years of data exclusivity, which Hatch said he could not live with.

These blatant, alarming changes to the meaning of the TPP are what Key needs to be raising with Biden. Some questions for Key himself….does he think financial services companies should have to comply with the data localisation requirements set out in the TPP text, or not ? Does Key believe the marketing term for biologics under the TPP is five years, eight years or twelve years ? Have the Americans informed him that they’re engaged in changing the marketing exclusivity period for biologics to 12 years ? What extra costs to Pharmac does Key think a 12 year term for biologics would entail ?

Key and his then Trade-Minister Tim Groser assured us that the TPP would be a high quality trade deal for the 21st century. It now seems that it will be superseded even before it comes into effect. That’s assuming these desperate back-end scramblings by the Obama White House do manage to get the TPP passed in Decvember, by legislators who will not be around to live with its consequences. Some deal, some mandate. Apparently, it requires a lame duck to pass a turkey.

Refugees

Some information renders any further comment unnecessary.

The six wealthiest countries in the world, which between them account for almost 60% of the global economy, host less than 9% of the world’s refugees, while poorer countries shoulder most of the burden, Oxfam has said. According to a report released by the charity on Monday, the US, China, Japan, Germany, France and the UK, which together make up 56.6% of global GDP, between them host just 2.1 million refugees: 8.9% of the world’s total.

Of these 2.1 million people, roughly a third are hosted by Germany (736,740), while the remaining 1.4 million are split between the other five countries…. In contrast, more than half of the world’s refugees – almost 12 million people – live in Jordan, Turkey, Palestine, Pakistan, Lebanon and South Africa, despite the fact these places make up less than 2% of the world’s economy.

Pylon, Remembered

Athens, Georgia has produced a lot of great music over the past 30 years – REM, the B 52s, Neutral Milk Hotel, Jim White, Vic Chesnutt etc etc – but Pylon holds a special place in Athens’ musical mythology. For a brief period in the early 1980s they were the top band in town, and their electronic dance pop influenced plenty of alt-rock musicians who came after them. Gyrate and Chomp are the two essential albums. This month, a live album of one of their early 1980s gigs has just been released.

Plenty of great tracks in the Pylon repertoire to choose from, but their “Crazy” single has always been a personal favourite, with a great vocal by Vanessa Briscoe Hay. Pylon’s guitarist Randall Bewley (who died of a heart attack in 2009) was the band’s other major talent.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post Gordon Campbell on what John Key should be asking Joe Biden appeared first on It's Our Future.

Position Statement of Te Uru O Te Whetu Frederick Whata opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, Trade in Services Agreement and Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill.Position Statement of Te Uru O Te Whetu Frederick Whata opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, Trade in Services Agreement and Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill.
I, Te Uru O Te Whetu Frederick Whata swear:
Ko Rangiatea toku kororia, toku rangatiratanga
Ko Papatuanuku toku piringa, toku turangawaewae
Pou ki te whenua
No reira ahau
My dominion my authority from Rangiatea
My embrace my standing place upon Papatuanuku
Intimately connected within the whenua
Is who I am

I am Te Uru O Te Whetu Frederick Whata of Ngati Pikiao of the Te Arawa waka. I am the Great Grandson of Hakarangi Wahanui and Ngahuka Reimana Te Poihipi. The Grandson of Whata Karaka Hakarangi and Irimako Te Hake Haimona. The Son of Akapita Peter Whata and Keti Warena Haimona

I stand upon my Turangawaewae with authority and power in the truth from knowing, I have absolute Sovereignty.

In my individual capacity as a sovereign, I state that the Trans- Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) has no bearing on me or my Turangawaewae.

I hereby oppose the TPPA and state that no outside sources or bodies can undermine or usurp my individual sovereignty.

I object to the ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership by this false Government, therefore, I also object to Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill. The domestic approval process will align Te Ture Whenua Maori Bill with the Trans-Pacific Partnership which is required before enactment.

It is only through the support, the supply and confidence arrangement that the Maori Party have with the National Government that has allowed them to negotiate a trade deal and allow Maori land to be more accessible through the TPPA.

I also oppose the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) which is even more secretive than the TPPA was and still is. To my knowledge TiSA hasn’t yet been mentioned in mainstream media here in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Both these agreements are being led by America on behalf of many multinationals.

I am Te Uru O Te Whetu Frederick Whata.

I am sovereign.

ENDS

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post Fred Whata’s position statement opposing the TPPA appeared first on It's Our Future.

The thirteenth round of consultations were held in Auckland from the 12-18 June. Parallel meetings were held by the Working Groups on Trade in Goods and Trade in Services including their respective Sub-Working Groups, as well as the Working Groups on Investment, Economic and Technical Cooperation, Intellectual Property, Competition, e-Commerce, and Legal and Institutional Issues.

Expert consultations on Trade Remedies and Government Procurement continued. On Tuesday 14 June a ‘stakeholder’ event was held which enabled public registration and attendance. The details were organised very late, which made it difficult for people to assess whether it was worthwhile attending.

Stakeholder ‘presentations’ to chief negotiators 3-5pm Tuesday 14 June

This session provided a space for very short presentations by registered stakeholders to the chief negotiators of the RCEP countries. There were representatives from virtually all the negotiating countries.

First, the TNC Chair from Indonesia spoke. Then New Zealand chief negotiator Mark Trainor spoke,signalling ambitions for RCEP as a ‘stepping stone’ to the Trans Pacific Partnership towards APEC’s vision of ‘a free trade area of the Asia Pacific’.

The Philippines chief negotiator and Singapore chief negotiator then made brief presentations on their ambitions in RCEP.

Stakeholder attendees were then given 2 minutes each to highlight their main concerns and interests to the chief negotiators, which was strictly held to time. Civil society went first and included representatives from TPP free Wellington, Barry Coates from ‘It’s our future’, Professor Jane Kelsey University of Auckland, Sanya Reid Smith Third World Network, Shailly Gutpa Médecins Sans Frontières, Belinda Townsend Public Health Association of Australia, and Carmen Chan New Zealand Medical Students Association.

Business groups followed; including NZ Dairy, Dairy Australia, Export Council of Australia and Food and Beverage Association, Australia industry group, Asia trade centre, and the India/New Zealand Business Council.

Civil society pointed out their frustration with such a short time frame to present their views andanalysis and made key points on the investment and intellectual property chapters among others. Business groups went next and many echoed support for ISDS and the negotiations in general. Several remarked on the uncertainty around the TPPA, presumably to emphasise the importance of the RCEP negotiations.

There was then a short overview of services and trade. The NZ services lead spoke, followed by two representatives of NZ private education services and another opportunity for stakeholders to make 2-minute comments.

Live streamed Q&A with NZ trade Minister and chief negotiator.

This session was live streamed and is now available online at:
https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/agreements-under-negotiation/rcep/
They indicated that the format was experimental and might take a different form in the future –
however, that may have been directed as NZ consultations rather than RCEP.

The NZ Chief negotiator Mark Trainor gave a brief summary of where the negotiators were at. Six sub working groups were meeting in New Zealand, including discussions on rules of origin and sanitary/phytosanitary, with more than 500 delegates. All countries have submitted offers for trade in goods and services, and there are initial reservation lists for investment. Trade access negotiations continue and investment liberalisation has commenced with a negative list structure. NZ Trade Minister Todd McClay was also answering questions with Mr Trainor.

Stakeholder attendees were then given 1 minute to present their views and ask questions of the New Zealand Chief negotiator and NZ Minister for Trade. Again, civil society groups expressed their frustration with the brief amount of time for engagement. Questions asked included whether the NZ government would make the negotiating text available and seek public support, as well as more technical detail regarding the text, whether NZ would go beyond TRIPS on IP and the status of the protection for Maori.

The NZ hosts agreed to circulate documents to delegations.

Consultations with industry on NTBs

The industry stakeholders had an additional session the next day at the request of the RCEP negotiators to identify the non-tariff barriers they wanted removed. There were objections to this special treatment.

Civil society hosted lunch and panel on intellectual property and health  on Friday 17th June

Professor Kelsey and Sanya Reid Smith (TWN) organised and funded a lunchtime panel on intellectual property and health and invited IP negotiators to attend. Panel participants included Shailly Gupta Médecins Sans Frontières, Sanya Reid Smith Third World Network, Belinda Townsend Public Health Association of Australia, and George Laking Doctors for Healthy Trade New Zealand. This was a fantastic opportunity for civil society to present our concerns regarding access to medicines to the IP negotiators (those that attended).

Invitations were distributed to the IP group by the chair of that group, which was facilitated by the NZ RCEP organisers and the NZ IP lead. 22 negotiators came. Packs were made containing various publications and material for the negotiators, including those who didn’t attend. Business groups (possibly Internet NZ) apparently held a similar lunch the day before for IP negotiators, organised at the last minute, and the impression was that the business groups had not been very attuned to their audience.

Public forum Friday Night 17th June

On the Friday night a public forum on RCEP was held at a church nearby the negotiations linking the TPPA and RCEP (TPPA + RCEP = Double Trouble). Presenters included prominent Malaysian economist Dr Jomo Sundaram who had co-authored a study critiquing the economic modelling for TPPA, Jane Kelsey, Sanya Reid Smith, Dr Joshua Freeman from Drs for Health Trade, Moana Maniapoto a Maori musician, chaired by Barry Coates from Itsourfuture.

Civil society hostel lunch and panel Saturday 18th June

A similar lunch was organised on the Saturday for the investment negotiators. Auckland law professor Amokura Kawharu presented on lessons from the TPPA text and Jane Kelsey linked innovations in Brazil and South Arica to issues in the RCEP investment negotiations.

Sadly this was not well attended because ASEAN had a caucus at the same time. It may also not have been as strongly supported by the chair of the group. As with the IP lunch, those who attended were very positive.

Media

Several media pieces came out in NZ during the negotiations. Notably, conservative journalists were also highly critical of the lack of engagement offered to stakeholders.

Asian-focused trade talks underway in Auckland

Jane Kelsey: China-led trade agreement shrouded in deeper secrecy

Regional trade talks out in open

Economic benefits of ‘Asian TPP’ questioned

Free-trade sceptics give ‘Asian TPP’ the thumbs down

Fran O’Sullivan: Sceptics unmoved by spirit of glasnost

The post Report on RCEP negotiations appeared first on It's Our Future.

D riving round Dunedin South yesterday was an interesting place to be hearing the news of Labours new housing policy launch. In Corstorphine and Kew came street after street of state housing built in a previous era by an effective government …

Gordon Campbell on Labour’s housing policy, and TPP rewrites

Driving round Dunedin South yesterday was an interesting place to be hearing the news of Labour’s new housing policy launch. In Corstorphine and Kew came street after street of state housing built in a previous era by an effective government response to housing need, yet all of it now is plainly in urgent need of renewal. It was a useful reminder that state provision of affordable housing was the crowning achievement of the first Labour government. Much the same job now has to be done all over again – and within a wider economic framework where communities like Dunedin South aren’t gutted of jobs, and left behind to fester. (Affordable housing has to be within the context of good jobs, and reasonable incomes.)

Apparently, Dunedin South would be a major focus of the affordable homes part of Labour’s housing package.

The rejuvenation of South Dunedin will be a priority for an incoming Labour government, working alongside local government to develop a master plan for urban renewal.

Private enterprise and iwi could also play a part in the redevelopment and rejuvenation of South Dunedin and other parts of the country…..The Affordable Housing Authority would be directed to focus on South Dunedin as part of its plans.The authority would have an initial cash injection of about $100 million to be spread across its activities nationwide. It would be expected to finance itself from its own activities from then on.

This proposed Affordable Housing Authority would work closely with local councils and developers in buying land and ensuring the necessary infratsructure (transport etc) is provided. It would have fast track planning powers and could take the initiative in developing major projects. In a revamp of Labour’s Kiwibuild policy launched in 2013, the package pledged a $2 billion fund to deliver 100,000 affordable homes over ten years and this time, half of those builds would occur in Auckland. Each home would range in price, up to a maximum of $600,000.

The other main component of the Labour policy package involves a tax change to deter speculation. Instead of two years, a property would have to be retained for five years to avoid incurring a tax on the capital gain made when it was on-sold. For now at least, Labour has postponed dealing with negative gearing – the practice whereby investors/speculators can write off mortgage costs against other income. Clearly, Andrew Little has no intention of going into the next election saddled with an IRD attack upon “Mum and Dad” investors looking for a modest income boost from a rental property or two. The Jesuitical problem of making a legal distinction between an investor (good) and a speculator (bad) has been left to another day.

But again, Dunedin South is a sobering reminder that the provision of affordable housing – major problem though it is – cannot (in isolation) solve the problems of entire communities left behind by the econimic policies in vogue for the past 30 years:

House purchase costs and rents were relatively low but house running costs were often very high. Low-lying uninsulated houses were expensive to heat and hard to keep warm and dry.The main retail area of King Edward St was less vibrant than it once was…Manufacturing enterprises had largely disappeared.

This package won’t solve the housing crisis in New Zealand overnight, or even in ten years. It tackles some of the supply problems and demand issues. However, there is still no measure known to anyone – be it the Reserve Bank, the Key government or Labour – that seems capable of popping the housing price bubble, and ensuring a soft landing for those most at risk from it. But this package will –at least – enable Labour to go into the election next year on the front foot, and offering solutions to needs consistent with its history. For one of the few times in recent years, the Labour Party looks as if it has a genuine reason to exist.

TPP Watch

As this column has mentioned before, the Obama White House is actively undermining the TPP by enacting legislation that will reverse some provisions that it signed up to during the TPP negotiations. This is happening in two main areas. One, the US is doing a 180 degree turn on the provision it signed in the TPP that required US financial services companies to locate the data servers that hold financial data on a country’s nationals, within the country concerned. Secondly, the US is now working to extend the data term it has agreed to in the TPP, on the biologics class of pharmaceuticals.

The financial services “fix” is being expected to be finalised this week, and will be channelled into effect through the TISA (Trade In Services Agreement) process later this year. This will effectively supersede the TPP provision on this same subject, but without being attached to the TPP text as an overt revision of its contents. The biologics fix is proving tougher to arrange.

Reportedly, the Republican senator Orrin Hatch of the House Ways and Means Committee is demanding the biologics term extension be quasi-formally attached to the TPP itself, rather than simply re-writing it in parallel, or at arms length.

Probably, Hatch will not be willing to block a TPP vote in Congress, on this one point. Yet it is a sign of the rank bad faith of the US attitude to the TPP. The US signed up for a multilateral deal that involved trade-offs, Now, other TPP countries are belatedly disovering that some of those trade-offs are being unilaterally rendered meaningless by White House –initiated legislative action. As always, the US writes its own rules. New Zealand, which thought it had negotiated in the TPP a five term for bioligics, will presumably just swallow hard, and accept the extension.

Our House

And in songs about affordable housing / homes …hard to beat this from the 1980s, by Madness.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post Gordon Campbell on Labour’s housing policy, and TPP rewrites appeared first on It's Our Future.

1. DAVID BENNETT (NationalHamilton East) to the Minister of Finance : What recent announcements has the Government made to accelerate the supply of new housing where it is needed the most?• ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Housing—Supply

1. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has the Government made to accelerate the supply of new housing where it is needed the most?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): On Sunday the Prime Minister announced a new $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund to help bring forward the new roads and water infrastructure needed for new housing where financing is a constraint. It is the next step in the Government’s comprehensive housing plan. The contestable fund will be open to applications in high-growth areas. It will be available only for substantial new infrastructure that supports new housing, not to replace existing infrastructure. To access the fund, local councils must outline how many new houses will be built, where they will be built, and when they will be available.

David Bennett: What current constraints to infrastructure provision will the fund help to overcome?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As part of its comprehensive plan, the Government recently proposed a national policy statement on urban development capacity that will require councils to ensure land supply for housing and business keeps ahead of growth. Feedback on the national policy statement has been positive. The councils have told us that the infrastructure and its financing is one of the key constraints where more supply is required. Some councils have strict debt limits, which means they lack headroom to invest in infrastructure. The fund will provide more infrastructure, sooner, by aligning the cost to councils with the timing of revenue from development contributions and rates of newly built houses.

Denis O’Rourke: Does the Minister agree with home builder Mike Greer on the new $1 billion housing infrastructure loan fund: “It will all be used in Auckland. There won’t be a dollar leaves Auckland, for sure.”; if not, will he give an assurance that other centres will get some?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The high-growth areas covered by the fund are Christchurch, Queenstown, Tauranga, Hamilton, and Auckland, but, of course, we would expect more houses will be built in Auckland where the highest demand is occurring.

David Seymour: What proportion or percentage of funds awarded to councils through this fund will need to be repaid in the long run?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the long run the councils will repay whatever assistance the Government offers.

David Bennett: What options is the Government considering for how the fund could be implemented?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The intent of the policy is to provide upfront cash flow to councils in a way that does not accrue as debt on their balance sheets. One option for achieving this is the Crown Fibre Holdings model, where the Government finances and owns the infrastructure upfront. There would then be an arrangement where the infrastructure is purchased from the Government as houses are built, in the same way that Crown Fibre Holdings repays the Government when new subscribers sign up to ultra-fast broadband. Another option is to use the financial assistance rate for councils in the National Land Transport Fund—a tool that has been used before. These options mean the Government would face some uptake risk if houses are not built, which is why the proposals from the councils need to be very clear about when and where new houses will be built.

Denis O’Rourke: Does the Minister agree with Mike Greer on what the Government funding is really needed for when he says: “Government has to pay for the land and provide the housing, otherwise it’s too hard to do it.”; if not, why not?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions there. The Minister, the Hon Bill English, can address one of them.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are many developers who would like the Government to pay for the land so they do not have to take any of that kind of development risk, but we are not going to do that. We are going to help councils with the timing of the revenue they need for core trunk infrastructure that will open up a new supply of new houses.

David Bennett: How is the fund expected to impact on the Government’s finances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Depending on the number and timing of applications, the fund will require the Government to temporarily borrow, up to, but not necessarily actually, $1 billion, increasing net debt until the infrastructure is sold. Because the infrastructure is expected to be sold or financed in the future, when councils can benefit from the greater revenue flows, it is not expected to impact on the Budget capital allowance—any impact on the surplus will depend on the nature of the infrastructure project itself.

Denis O’Rourke: What difference will a $1 billion loan fund really make when a new Waterview to Māngere sewer pipe alone will cost $950 million?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will make the difference that councils say it should make. Councils already have in their long-term plans significant investment in infrastructure. We have discussed in detail what the constraints are for further spending on top of the growth they have already anticipated, which in this case is over 10 percent—in the case of each of these cities—and this is the constraint that the council tells us can be dealt with.

David Bennett: What other constraints are there to getting more houses built, aside from infrastructure?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reason the Government has a comprehensive plan on housing is that there are a considerable number of constraints: for instance, the speed of the planning process, which is run by the councils; the consenting requirements—which consents are issued by the councils; the need to consult local communities, which is a job to be carried out by the councils. And now that the building industry is running so fast, it is becoming apparent that there are constraints in the building industry as to the availability of labour and building materials.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of that is true, why on earth has he not told the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee the facts, rather than having him get up here asking these innocent, stupid questions?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can you take that question as being a reasonable question for the House? The member asked “if any of that is true, why hasn’t he conveyed the facts?”. The two do not mix. It is one or the other.

Mr SPEAKER: I was going to allow the question to stand to give the Minister a fairly wide chance to answer it, but in this case there is no responsibility by the Minister for a member of Parliament who happens to chair a select committee.

• Housing—Supply

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding housing that “I don’t think it’s a crisis”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I am concerned about rising house prices. It is certainly one of our biggest challenges, and that is why the Government has a comprehensive plan to deal with it.

Andrew Little: Does he think the Auckland housing market is under control?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, that is a sort of subjective comment, but certainly there is a record amount of construction taking place in Auckland. I think the Auckland Council is working constructively with the Government, and the Auckland Council certainly looks to be very supportive of the announcements that the Government made on Sunday.

ANDREW LITTLE: Given that only 9,400 new houses have been consented in Auckland this year and that Bill English says that only 5 percent of new builds are affordable, does this mean that fewer than 500 affordable houses will be built in Auckland this year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Andrew Little: How does he reconcile his claim that there are plenty of houses in the pipeline with Statistics New Zealand’s statement that “The trend for the number of new dwellings consented in Auckland has tailed off since late 2015.”; or is that just another inconvenient fact for his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Consenting for new houses in Auckland is at the highest for a decade. The Government can see, in the great number of special housing areas in Auckland, how many have infrastructure works on them. All of the feedback, both official and otherwise, that we get from Auckland Council is that it is continuing to process those consents at a very fast rate, and I have no doubt that both the national policy statement, potentially the implementation of urban development authorities, and the billion-dollar fund announced on the weekend—all part of the Government’s comprehensive plan—will see more houses built.

Andrew Little: Does he agree with the New Zealand Herald that his piecemeal efforts have failed to resolve the housing crisis and that lending money to councils will be no different?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Twyford—Order! A little less interjection.

Tim Macindoe: What steps is the Government taking as part of its comprehensive plan to deal with housing—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Tim Macindoe: —and—

Mr SPEAKER: No. I am getting email from members of the public who are now getting quite fed up with the fact that they cannot hear a question and often they cannot hear an answer because some members to my left either do not like the question or do not like the answer. Mr Macindoe has a right to ask a question. I can deal with it more severely if I need to. I do not want to. I am just seeking some cooperation from members to my left.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Disorder is encouraged when questions are not in order. The Standing Orders make it clear that questions are not allowed to include assertions. The idea that the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.

Hon David Parker: The idea that the Government can load up a question by saying that its response is comprehensive, as an assertion, is what caused the disorder.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, I do not need any assistance—[Interruption] Order! No, I do not need your assistance, but I do thank you for offering it. I will determine whether a question is in order or not. There will be some questions asked that members do not like the tone of, and that applies to both sides. Some Opposition questions members on my right-hand do not like, and the other way round. I will be the sole determinant, but I thank Mr Parker for his assistance.

Tim Macindoe: What steps is the Government taking as part of its comprehensive plan to deal with housing and housing affordability issues?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are many parts to the Government’s comprehensive housing plan. They include our social housing bill, our emergency housing programme, special housing areas, the expanded HomeStart scheme for first-home buyers, freeing up surplus Crown land, the national policy statement, Resource Management Act reforms, and the extra tax measures we took last year. On Sunday I announced a new $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund to support infrastructure needed for new housing in high-growth areas, and we are considering independent urban development authorities for areas of high housing need. By any definition, this is a very comprehensive housing plan.

Denis O’Rourke: If it costs $1 billion to fix a housing challenge in Auckland, how much will it cost to fix the housing crisis in all of New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The $1 billion is actually only a small part of the infrastructure that is required to build all of the houses around New Zealand, but the Government is, I think, making an important step to allow those councils to bring forward housing that would otherwise be waiting. But, by any definition, the Government’s response is wide ranging, and we can see that by the fact that we are in the biggest housing boom and construction boom we have seen for a very long time.

Andrew Little: In light of the fact that councils can already borrow at 3 percent a year, meaning his new loan facility really just amounts to a $30 million-a-year saving for councils, is that seriously the best and most comprehensive response he can come up with for a shortfall of 40,000 houses?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The issue is not the interest rates that councils might be able to borrow at; the issue is whether the councils run into their debt ceilings. The advantage of the fund is that it does not go on to the balance sheet of the councils until they are at a point of actually having the cash up front. The fact that the member does not understand the way that the balance sheets of a council are made up would come as no surprise to members on this side of the House, but he really should learn some basic economics.

Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Prime Minister seen in support of the Government’s new $1 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund, which he announced at the weekend?

Hon Annette King: What did the New Zealand Herald say?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, the New Zealand Herald thought your leader was a loser, so if you want to quote the , fine, you can go for it. []

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a good example of the way an interjection from my left to my right causes some disorder. If the Prime Minister would now address the question.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen many reports providing strong support—

Hon Member: He’s a bit sensitive.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yeah, that is true. That is why Grant was promoting the article. The Property Institute of New Zealand said these measures are great. Local Government New Zealand said that the new fund is an example of local and central government working together. The Queenstown Lakes mayor said that it would certainly be right that looking for these projects would be an excellent idea. And the Auckland mayor said that it is a significantly sized fund. There has been widespread support for the new Housing Infrastructure Fund.

Andrew Little: How many more housing announcements that were not in the Budget is he planning to make to tackle a crisis he says does not exist, or is the Budget not comprehensive any more?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is right that it is a comprehensive plan and has many parts to it. There are always other parts of it, potentially. That is really the point, is it not, with the challenge of housing, not just in Auckland but anywhere else around the world where we are seeing this. There is no one single thing that will resolve it. What we do know is that this Government is tackling each and every part of it, and that is in quite significant contrast to the last time New Zealand saw these issues, under the previous Labour Government, when there were no parts to any plan [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have told this side off a number of times for its interjections. They are just about as insistent from one member to my right, and they will cease.

Andrew Little: Is it not time for him to admit what every New Zealander can see: that his Government has no comprehensive plan and that what we need is a Government-led programme to restore the Kiwi dream of homeownership by building thousands of affordable homes for Kiwis to buy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member was to be believed, then we would not have the highest level of building activity in Auckland for a decade. If the member was to be believed, we would not have 24,000 extra people working in the construction sector in Auckland alone. If the member was to be believed, the special housing areas that have been released in Auckland by the Government would not be being built. If the member was to be believed, the Auckland Council would be rejecting the $1 billion infrastructure fund that the Government announced in the weekend; in fact, it is quite the opposite. If the member was to be believed, then the tax changes that we announced last year would not have had any impact on the market. If the member was to be believed, then the Crown land that we released would not be about to be built on. The facts of life are that the housing market is a lagging indicator, but it is certainly ramping up supply.

• Housing—Supply

3. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i tāna i whakapūrongotia, “suggesting the Government needed to build more houses was a ‘misplaced’ idea”?

[Does he stand by his reported statement that, “suggesting the Government needed to build more houses was a ‘misplaced’ idea”?]

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which was: “I think if you ask the Minister of Finance, the first thing he will tell you is that by far the biggest asset that the Crown owns is Government housing. I think there’s $20 billion sitting in there, broadly, within Housing New Zealand. Secondly, I think the issue of the claim that the Government should start building houses itself I think would be a misplaced one. The Ministry of Works used to be the provider of roads and schools and houses in New Zealand. It wasn’t a very successful model. It’s been much better, actually, for us to go out there and to contract those services.”

James Shaw: Why does he keep saying the Government should not build houses, when previous Governments have successfully built thousands of affordable houses for New Zealand families, like the one he grew up in?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the private sector is well and truly equipped to build the houses. What it ultimately needs, though, is planning laws that support that, council plans that support that, and infrastructure that can support those builds. All of those things are happening under this Government. I really seriously think if the member is telling us the answer to resolving the challenges in Auckland’s housing—or indeed housing issues around the country—is to get people employed by the Government as chippies building those houses, I think we would be better to leave it to the private sector.

James Shaw: What has changed between last month, when his Minister for Building and Housing told a Local Government New Zealand delegation that it would be wrong for central government to help out with infrastructure costs, and this month, when he announced a billion dollar fund to help out with infrastructure costs?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As is always the case with quotes, and as I demonstrated with the one from the member before, they are often taken out of context. But the Government, and in fact the Minister, has been talking to Local Government New Zealand for over a year. These issues of infrastructure have been raised for quite some time, not only by mayors and councils but by others. I would have thought the member would be applauding the fact that the Government is making it easier for the councils to connect up the main infrastructure, to allow affordable and other homes to be built.

James Shaw: Will the Government prevent landbanking and make sure houses actually get built in areas developed with the infrastructure fund, or will it look the other way while speculators make a quick buck, like they did in the special housing areas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is important to understand that the infrastructure fund is used for infrastructure that connects these subdivisions—ultimately it is the core infrastructure. Developers still have responsibility for the infrastructure on the land that they develop. Interestingly enough, if the member wants to ask the Minister for Building and Housing I am sure he can give you the exact information. But I think of the 200-odd special housing areas, over 130 of them now have works on them. Landbanking is always an issue if there are, potentially, blockages in the system, but ultimately people hold on to land for longer than they otherwise probably should do only if it is such a long way out that they are taking an incredibly long-term view or, more likely than not, that the price rise in land is faster than the cost of capital. By releasing a lot of land on to the market, as we did in Christchurch, you can demonstrate quite clearly that it actually resolved that issue.

James Shaw: Are the Government’s musings about using a Public Works Act to take private land for housing a confession that he has let this crisis get totally out of control?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. The Minister for Building and Housing was simply making the point that under an urban development authority (UDA), the powers of a UDA could be quite broad. It is always possible that within an area defined as part of an urban development authority there could be one particular piece of land—or block of land—that might need to be acquired to allow the overall block to be developed; or there may need to be changes in designations like reserves, which could then be replaced somewhere else. That is not really the preference of the Government—to be riding roughshod over property rights—our preference is always to negotiate with parties. But, ultimately, the member himself is admitting that this is a significant challenge and we do need to release more land, faster.

James Shaw: When he said, over the weekend, that there is no room for Government complacency, is there a different word to describe a Government that has stood by while the average Auckland house price shot towards $1 million and the number of people who are homeless increased to record levels?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think it would be a fair criticism to say that the Government has stood back. We have a record level of activity taking place. We have significant parts of the plan—that, actually, the member’s own party has resisted. I think it is worth remembering that if you go back and have a look at the first 3 or 4 years when I was Prime Minister, the issue of housing was not a significant issue. What has turned round in that time is that New Zealand has become a much more attractive destination, interest rates are lower, optimism in the economy is very strong, and the Government’s policies are working—which is actually driving much greater demand in the New Zealand economy. So we have responded to that—that is why there are so many more houses being built in Auckland. Do we need to build some more? Yes, but we are working on that.

James Shaw: Amongst all of the announcements that this Government is making about housing, why is it that the one thing it consistently refuses to do is to actually build more houses?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I thank the member for confirming that the Government has a comprehensive plan for housing, because it does. The very point about building a house is not who employs the builder. It does not matter whether the builder is employed by a ministry in the Government or Fletcher Challenge; they will still face the same issues about the length of time that it takes to put in infrastructure, the length of time that it takes at council to issue the plans, the amount of land that is ultimately available, and the infrastructure that is required to support that. The member seems to miraculously think that, just because the cheque for the wages of a carpenter would come from a Government department and not a private sector company, somehow it would make things go faster—it will not. If the member wants to go faster, then come and support the Government in its Resource Management Act reforms.

• Tertiary Education and Skills Training—Asia-Pacific Region

4. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How is the Government ensuring New Zealanders have the skills to strengthen our connections across the Asia-Pacific region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Last month I announced $34.5 million in funding in Budget 2016 for a new programme to develop new Centres of Asia-Pacific Excellence (CAPEs) in New Zealand universities as part of the Innovative New Zealand package. These centres will be cross-institutional centres of excellence in the language, culture, politics, and economics of countries or groups of countries within the Asia-Pacific region. New Zealand’s prosperity is increasingly tied in with our region and we must secure our future by investing more in preparing young people to understand the languages, culture, and economics of this diverse range of countries.

Sarah Dowie: How will CAPEs operate?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The funding will be available to support up to three Centres of Asia-Pacific Excellence, which will be modelled on the successful Centres of Research Excellence programme. We intend to set up the initial CAPEs in universities around the country, specialising in countries or groups of countries in North-east Asia, South-east Asia, and Latin America. Each CAPE will develop strong linkages with its region of speciality, run student and faculty exchanges, and become a focal point for New Zealand’s relationship with that part of the world. I anticipate that CAPEs will train language-capable graduates for New Zealand exporters, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and other Government agencies.

Sarah Dowie: Why do we need to strengthen our connections across the Asia-Pacific region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As a small country we succeed only if we are outward looking and linked into the global world. Our future economic success is increasingly connected to the Asia-Pacific region, which accounts for 71 percent of our total trade and now includes 11 of our top 20 trading partners. Expanding our partnerships with countries in South-east Asia and Latin America will only see this increase further. Once operational, CAPEs will significantly boost—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s enough.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —our ability to successfully engage, understand—which would help you, Winston—and partner with our—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —trading nations in the region, which will pay future dividends for our economy and our society. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already told that Minister on more than one occasion that I will not allow the interchange, particularly then referring to members by their Christian name. That is an informality that is just a step too far for this House.

• Housing—Supply

5. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister responsible for HNZC: How many houses, if any, will Housing New Zealand complete building in the next 2 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister responsible for HNZC): Housing New Zealand advises it will have built 801 houses this financial year just ended and 1,279 houses in 2017-18. This includes redevelopment of existing Housing New Zealand properties.

Grant Robertson: Oh, so they’re not new ones.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, redevelopment is new houses; that is a total of 2,080 dwellings over 2 years. In addition, Housing New Zealand advises it will buy and lease or re-sign a further 720 dwellings over that 2-year period. The member should also understand that other agencies will be producing houses for the market and for social housing: Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, Hobsonville Land Co., the Auckland Crown land programme, and “CHiPs”—that is community housing providers—which are contracted to the Ministry of Social Development. So the houses that Housing New Zealand builds are some, but not all, of the new housing supply for social housing.

Phil Twyford: How many families are living in the under-construction houses that he has been counting as meeting his goal of “building 2,000 new homes by December 2015 and 1,500 per year thereafter.”, given that the actual number completed is around half that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The figures the member is pointing to show the benefit of the special housing areas, which are now allowing Housing New Zealand to build up the pipeline. Housing New Zealand has to deal with the same constraints as everyone else, with the additional complexity that it must negotiate with each tenant to relocate them before it can do any redevelopment of its brownfield sites. It is pretty clear that it did not meet the target set at the beginning of 2013. It has now geared up considerably to build, as we said, 2,000 houses over the next year or two, and other Government agencies will also be contributing to what is going to become a large volume of new housing off Crown land.

Phil Twyford: How does he expect the public to have any confidence at all in his building targets when he keeps counting bare land with earthworks under way as a built house?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong. The member does need to understand that when he and his colleagues run little campaigns in their own suburbs with the communities to make sure all the questions are answered, that is fair enough, but it does add time to the pipeline of building Housing New Zealand houses. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Phil Twyford: Who does he blame the most for the Government’s failure to meet its own modest target for building State houses: the council; Housing New Zealand; State house tenants; local campaigns; or his own lack of political will, given that he said 2 years ago that if we want less stock, there is not much point in building State houses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member, I think, does have an understanding of the constraints, particularly on larger-scale redevelopment. All of those factors that the member has mentioned mean that it takes a number of years to build up the pipeline, and the member can be reassured that the pipeline is building up, contributed to by Housing New Zealand, the Crown land programme, Hobsonville Land Co., and Tāmaki redevelopment. The member is welcome to go and look at each of those to see just how the progress is coming along on completed houses.

Phil Twyford: Does he find it any wonder that there are so many families and children living in cars and on the streets, when the amount of State housing declines every year under his watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is incorrect about that. The number of State houses and social houses in Auckland is growing quite rapidly. I look forward to the member supporting the Government’s effort to make sure that the Auckland Unitary Plan, which is going to be delivered in a month or so, will enable sufficient supply of houses. Twenty years of misdirected planning in Auckland has had the biggest impact on low- and middle-income households, who find themselves excluded from a market where the council spent 20 years trying to stop the city growing. We are working with them to change that.

• Housing—Supply

6. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What response has he received from local government leaders and the housing sector to the Prime Minister’s announcement of a billion dollar Housing Infrastructure Fund to assist councils in high-growth areas bring forward new development?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The new fund has been widely welcomed as the next logical step in the Government’s wide-ranging housing plan by Local Government New Zealand, by mayors, by the Property Institute of New Zealand, by the Employers and Manufacturers Association, and by major players in the building industry. It builds on our work to fast track planning and consenting requirements, in that in some areas councils are struggling to provide the required pipes, roads, and other infrastructure to keep up with the record pace of house building. The four councils that have publicly stated that they will be seeking support from the new fund are Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, and Queenstown. Other areas may become eligible depending on the growth projections for the next 10 years, to be updated by Statistics New Zealand later this year.

Simon O’Connor: How will the new housing infrastructure fund fit alongside other parts of the Government’s comprehensive housing plan, particularly the national policy statement on urban development?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Housing Infrastructure Fund fits very neatly alongside the new requirements for councils to free up more land. The best way to avoid land banking is to create genuine competition in section supply. This is why that national policy statement requires a 20 percent oversupply. This, however, puts pressure on councils to provide sufficient infrastructure, particularly for those fast-growing councils that are approaching debt limits. This is a practical response that is part of our ongoing plan to increase housing supply.

Simon O’Connor: How does the current pace of building construction compare historically; and what steps is the Government taking to grow the capacity of the sector to build the additional $1 billion of infrastructure?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Building activity is at an all-time high of $18 billion per year. This is 50 percent higher than at the last peak, back in the mid-2000s, and 28 percent higher in real terms. In Auckland, residential building activity has trebled from $1.4 billion to $4.3 billion per year, and over the last year, it has grown by another 26 percent. The sector is meeting capacity limits and growth pressures. The Government announced further funding in the Budget of $14 million for apprenticeship training. We now have a record 42,000 people training in the apprenticeship sector.

Phil Twyford: Does the Minister agree with the New Zealand Herald that the Government’s infrastructure announcement is just tinkering on the supply side of the housing market to feed an insatiable demand by speculators, and that the Labour Party’s policy would have been a much better option?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is interesting to note that the pace of new building that we are achieving is about double what Labour said in 2008 was achievable in this term of Parliament. I sometimes disagree with the New Zealand Herald, like when it assumed that those people with Chinese-sounding names were the problem in the housing sector.

• Prime Minister—Statements

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by my statements that the National-led Government is doing a lot to assist senior citizens—in particular, when I said that there has been a 31 percent increase in the married rate of New Zealand Superannuation since 2008, that $41 million has now been allocated in Budget 2016 to support the SuperGold card scheme, providing more certainty for more than 670,000 card holders across New Zealand, that there have been 50,000 more—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —elective surgical operations taken.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When Prime Minister Turnbull was comfortably ahead in the Australian election campaign, why did he go public in supporting Mr Turnbull and cause his support to nosedive?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the furthest apart we ever saw it was 51:49, but I am thrilled that the member thinks that I can impact so many voters in Australia.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why, with his record of endorsements in the Northland by-election, the flag referendum, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, Brexit, the Panama Papers, the housing crisis, and now the Australian election, will he not stop being a scatological Midas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I will—I will. But I just need to inform him that the last thing I said before I came into the House was: “Winston Peters is going to do well in 2017.” Ha, ha!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: To put my sense of panic at rest now, is it not a fact that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have called him, pleading that he not back their campaigns?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, neither of them has rung, but if they do, I will be more than happy to have a chat with them about international events, and when I am away next week, you never know whom you might run into.

• Housing—Homeownership among Pacific Communities

8. Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Does he stand by his statement in Estimates Hearings for Vote Pacific Peoples that Pacific home ownership levels have increased?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister for Pacific Peoples): E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. I do stand behind my statement in the Estimates hearing that the Statistics New Zealand report published in June shows that nearly 2,000 more Pacific people own their home in 2013 than in 2006. Compare that with the last time Labour was in power, between 2001 and 2006: the number of Pacific people owning homes over that time decreased by 7,000 people.

Su’a William Sio: Is the household net worth statistics report incorrect that Pacific peoples’ average net worth is $12,000, a ninth of the European population’s $114,000, and that that is largely because Pacific homeownership rates have fallen?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No, that is not correct; it is not because of that at all. What we do know is that Pacific homeownership rates will go up with higher education, and we can point to the statistics around early childhood education, which is now at 91 percent whereas it was 84 percent under Labour. We can now point to the number of Pasifika students gaining tertiary qualifications, which rose by 75 percent between 2008 and 2014.

Su’a William Sio: So is Statistics New Zealand wrong when it says Pacific people have had the greatest homeownership rate falls, having fallen 34.8 percent to just 18.5 percent?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I say again that the rates that I referred to in that Estimates hearing were on absolute numbers, and they have gone up under National.

Su’a William Sio: Is his Project Tatupu investigation aiming to increase Pacific homeownership, or is it just a way to make Pacific people homeless and unemployed in the regions instead of homeless and unemployed in Auckland?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No, it is not. It is about taking opportunities in the regions where there are jobs, and where there will be opportunities for Pacific people. We are making an investigation because we believe that Pacific people deserve the right to work and to gain meaningful employment.

Su’a William Sio: Why does he continue to deny the fall of Pacific homeownership when under his Government we now have a growing number of Pacific families in homeless situations, living in cars, garages, boarding homes, and living in emergency and overcrowded housing that they do not own?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Again I refer to that member’s party’s record in Government in 2001 to 2006, and it was pretty poor.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I just need some cooperation from the Minister. The question was, effectively: “Why does the Minister continue to deny … ?”. I am going to invite Su’a William Sio to repeat the question, but you need to address that question rather than just flicking straight back to a previous administration.

Su’a William Sio: Why does he continue to deny the fall of Pacific homeownership when under his Government we now have a growing number of Pacific families in homeless situations, living in cars, garages, boarding homes, and in overcrowded and emergency housing that they do not own?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: We know that homeownership rates have come down across the board, but what I will say is that the Government is focused on building more social housing and more emergency housing. We have implemented special housing areas and expanded the HomeStart scheme for first-home buyers, and those are things that benefit Pacific people.

• Roading, Taranaki—State Highway 3

9. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Transport: What recent improvements has the Government made to State Highway 3 in New Plymouth?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Alongside the hard-working MP for New Plymouth it was my pleasure to recently open New Plymouth’s $24 million Vickers to City road upgrade project. This stretch of road to the north of the city was starting to see a growing number of problems and was near capacity, causing delays and frustrations for motorists and freight transporters alike. The Government has now upgraded the road to include two lanes in each direction and has put in place safer and more efficient intersections as well as better facilities for walking and cycling for the people of New Plymouth as well as the wider region.

JONATHAN YOUNG: In what ways will the improved Vickers to City road benefit the people and the businesses of New Plymouth?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Now that the improvements have been made, local traffic is moving much more freely to the north of New Plymouth. Freight is also moving more easily though the area, benefiting both the port and industries to the north of the city. Businesses are also benefiting as it is now much easier to move goods and services around the city and region. So it is clear that the improvements to the Vickers to City road have been an important development for New Plymouth that will support the future economic growth of that great city.

• Climate Change—Commentary

10. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Ka whakaae a ia ki tā Te Kaikōmihana Pāremata mō Te Taiao, e kī nei, “climate change is by far the most serious environmental issue we face”?

[Does she agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that “climate change is by far the most serious environmental issue we face“?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I do agree in many respects that I think climate change is a very serious issue, and one that New Zealand and the world face.

Eugenie Sage: If the Minister says that climate change is a serious issue, how can she say that when the Ministry for the Environment has only 1.4 full-time staff who are responding to the effects of climate change and providing advice on that?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly within the Ministry for the Environment there are more people than that who are giving me advice as the Minister for Climate Change Issues, but the work that is going on across agencies is also important. Whether it is through the transport portfolio, and those working on public transport initiatives and electric vehicles; or there is work going on within science and research that is extensive as well, on the urban cycleways, to name some; and through AgResearch, and others. There are a number of officials who are working on climate change – related issues across Government.

Eugenie Sage: How can she say she is taking transport issues seriously in relation to climate change when her Government has done no substantive analysis in the past 2 years on the risks of sea-level rise to 2,000 kilometres of low-lying roads in New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I can say it quite simply because actually we are investing a record amount in public transport because of the investment that we are putting into cycleways and other ways of transport around this great country of ours. Although the analysis to the detail the member might want may not have been done, certainly the forward planning and the future planning within transport has been looked at.

Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request of 24 May this year from the New Zealand Transport Agency showing it has done no substantive analysis in the past 2 years on the impact of sea-level rise other than a high-level—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none; it can be tabled.

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

Eugenie Sage: How can the Minister say she is taking climate change seriously when her Government has more than halved the funding for the very people in her ministry who are tasked with finding solutions to New Zealand’s rising climate pollution?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Quite simply because we have an ambitious programme of work that is going on around climate change issues. Whether it is the changes we recently announced to the emissions trading scheme (ETS), where submitters will have to pay the full costs of their emissions by 2019; the second phase that is going on in the ETS review; the work that is going on within forestry, with AgResearch, and with sustainable farming, which is actually better than anywhere else in the world; the work that is now going on as far as ratification of the Paris Agreement, which will then mean that we have that momentum globally; or the assistance that we give internationally on emissions trading schemes and also on forestry and agriculture—I think this country takes it seriously and I think we have got a very ambitious work programme.

Eugenie Sage: I seek leave to table an analysis prepared by the Parliamentary Library on 21 June that shows that between 2011 and 2016 the Government slashed funding for Ministry for the Environment officials working on domestic climate change policy.

Mr SPEAKER: No. That information is freely available to all members if they want to go and analyse Budget documents.

• Community Development—Announcements

11. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: What recent announcements has she made in terms of support for community-led development projects?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): E te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. The recent launch of the Community-led Development Programme marks a step change for the long-term support of community projects, and will have a significant positive impact for successful applicants and their communities. The programme will allow communities to identify community aspirations, then partner with both central and local government, private funders, businesses, and local iwi to achieve their goals. Once fully implemented in 2019-20, the total value of investments per year will be up to $3.56 million.

Joanne Hayes: How is the new programme different from previous investment schemes?

Hon JO GOODHEW: The 5-year community-led development pilot programme wrapped up on 30 June this year. The new programme takes the best elements of the former community development scheme and community-led development and modernises them, including paid community development workers, a partnership approach with relevant agencies, intensive advisory support from Internal Affairs, and flexible funding. The Community-led Development Programme is about local people finding local solutions to their problems. It will be open to communities, hapū, and iwi. A contestable expression-of-interest process will open in September this year.

• Mori Development, Minister—Te Puea Marae

12. MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by his statement about Te Puea Marae’s manaakitanga and work with the homeless that “there’s a hell of a lot of work that the State should be doing over and above just waiting for a crisis to happen and then go to it”; if so, what more does he think the Government should have done in advance?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development):

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Meka Whaitiri: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question was around a statement the Minister made, and what more he thought he could have done in advance. I do not believe the Minister answered the question.

Mr SPEAKER: My difficulty is that at the time the Minister spoke, and spoke in Te Reo, my interpretation was not coming through loudly enough so I did not hear the answer. Can I ask the Minister to address the question again? I will listen and then rule whether the question has been addressed.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL:

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Meka Whaitiri: Did he, as Minister for Māori Development, make that statement before or after he voted for the sale of State houses?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL:

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to the question and to the answer, and that answer in no way addressed the question that the member asked. She asked whether he made the statement before or after he voted in a particular way, and the answer did not address that question. It was a straight question.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure when that particular vote was. That is my difficulty in ruling whether it can be answered.

Marama Fox:

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL:

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Meka Whaitiri: Does he, as Minister for Māori Development, think it is a good idea to sell State houses while whānau live in cars and garages?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL:

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Marama Fox:

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL:

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Meka Whaitiri: Does he, as Minister for Māori Development, agree with Nick Smith that plummeting Māori homeownership is because Māori are not educated enough?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL:

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Meka Whaitiri: Does he, as Minister for Māori Development, feel proud about propping up a Government that blames whānau for homelessness, blames whānau for living in cars, and blames whānau for low homeownership rates? Does that make him proud?

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL:

[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister cannot open his answer with a direct attack on the member asking the question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member—[Interruption] Order! Iain Lees-Galloway, resume your seat. When I consider the tone of the question, I do not consider that there is anything out of order in the way the Minister started the question.

Point of Order—Simultaneous Interpretation, Headsets

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): It is actually just a point of order of logistics. This being Māori Language Week I am sure members who are able to will be using Te Reo Māori. I notice that around the House a number of headsets that assist those of us who are not fluent Te Reo Māori speakers are missing, and therefore we have not been able to follow the debate. I wonder whether that can be addressed before the next time we have question time so that we can all follow along if we are not fluent Te Reo Māori speakers.

Mr SPEAKER: I will guarantee to the member that I will have that addressed before question time tomorrow. I apologise that it has been inadequate because of that.

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url

The post Questions & Answers – 5 July 2016 appeared first on It's Our Future.