The Daily Blog Open Mic – Wednesday 15th November 2017

1. David parker is seen to be spinning this as big changes he made in ISDS but it appears now this may be untrue?

   According to the minuted Hansard notes here from yesterday’s Question for oral answer in parliament yesterday.

   I add four ***** worded sections one from National Todd Barclay and one from David Parker.

   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1711/S00082/questions-and-answers-nov-14.htm

   • Trade Negotiations—Protection of the Rights of New Zealanders
   12. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: How has the Government protected the rights of New Zealanders in international trade negotiations?
   Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, which member made that noise? Which member made that noise? It was sort of a guffaw-type noise. Well, a member on my left made it.
   Hon Dr Nick Smith: I might have made a noise.
   Mr SPEAKER: Right, well that’s another—
   Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.
   Mr SPEAKER: Sorry?
   Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order
   Mr SPEAKER: Well, let me rule first, and then you might want to take your point of order. That is another question from the National Party, and I must say, given the time that was taken for the member to own up, I was tempted to make it a more serious punishment. Is there a further point of order?
   Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suppose the issue is, Mr Speaker, that one man’s “guffaw” may simply be an “ahem”, and it’s very difficult to know who had caused that. We do know—
   Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. I’ve pleaded guilty to being slightly deaf in my left ear, and if it was a quiet “ahem” I wouldn’t have heard it.
   Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the time delay, because of that point of order, for listeners, it would be helpful, I suggest, for the question to be asked again.
   Mr SPEAKER: Oh, I think people can stay with it. I am sure the member could include it in his answer. He is nimble enough to get the facts in.
   Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): The new Government believes that if you’ve got the right to live in New Zealand, you’ve got the right to buy a home here. Overseas wealthy people should not be able to outbid New Zealanders for our homes. The new Government will be bringing legislation before this House to ban foreign buyers of existing New Zealand homes. If done swiftly, our ban on foreign house buyers is fully compatible with the Korean free-trade agreement, the China free-trade agreement, and the renegotiated—
   Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you’ve rightly pulled people up on the length of their answers today—and some of the questions, in fact. This is turning into a speech, I would suggest.
   Mr SPEAKER: I think it’s an enthusiastic reply, but I think the Minister might just have, at long last, got to answering the question.
   Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If done swiftly, our ban on foreign buyers is fully compatible with the Korean free-trade agreement, the China free-trade agreement, and the renegotiated Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). New Zealanders were at risk of losing that right to ban foreign buyers, under the process that the last Government had set forth.
   Willow-Jean Prime: What gains has he made for New Zealanders on the CPTPP?
   Hon DAVID PARKER: The new Government has worked hard to improve the agreement whilst protecting access to several important markets, including the third-largest economy in the world, Japan. Although we didn’t get everything we want, we have not just protected the land issue; we have also made gains on investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses and the protection of Pharmac from increased costs of medicines, and it shows what a good Government can do in just three weeks if they work hard.
   Willow-Jean Prime: Has he seen any reports that it is not possible to ban the sale of existing homes to foreigners because of existing free-trade agreements?
   Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I have. I have seen, for example, the report that says a ban on foreign buyers would rip up trade deals and cost thousands of jobs that New Zealand relies upon, would cut across a range of existing free-trade agreements like those with Australia and Korea, and would cause difficulty with China. This has proven to be wholly incorrect. Of course, those comments came from the National Party, and were wrong.
   Hon Todd McClay: Can the Minister tell the House, when the Prime Minister has claimed to have made significant changes over just three weeks to a 5,000-page agreement—the TPP—with just two pages of amendments, how many of these changes were discussed or agreed by officials or Ministers in the six TPP meetings held in Chile, Australia, Japan, Canada, and Vietnam since March of this year?
   Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister—sorry, the member and former Minister—is wrong that there are just two pages of amendments. It is true that some of the amendments to the CPTPP were negotiated by officials and Ministers, including that Minister, before the recent round. It is also true that it is the efforts of this Government that have further narrowed the effect of ISDS clauses, including further bilateral agreements with other countries, the total effect of which is that of the foreign direct investment coming into New Zealand from Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 countries, more than 80 percent of that foreign direct investment is no longer covered by ISDS clauses.
   Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I am granting the National Party a further supplementary question because of an interjection from Tracey Martin during the last one.
   ****Hon Todd McClay: Did the Minister inform the Prime Minister, when she claimed that the rebranded Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement was better because 80 percent of foreign direct investment into New Zealand was now not covered by ISDS because of a side letter agreed last week with Australia, that, in fact, we already have a side letter with Australia signed in 2016, which exempts all Australian investment from ISDS under TPP?
   ****Hon DAVID PARKER: The member is referring to the side letter in respect of the former TPP agreement, not the current one. I am advised that a new side agreement was required because this is a new and better agreement. Secondly, other side letters have been sought with a range of other countries, and they are in play, and it is something that the gormless former Government didn’t even try to achieve.
   Hon Todd McClay: I seek leave to table copies of the side letters exchanged between New Zealand and Australia signed in Auckland on 4 February 2016, exempting ISDS under TPP between our two countries—in case the Minister needs to copy them for the rebranded agreement.

   Mr SPEAKER: That concludes—

   © Scoop Media

2. Commmunications degrees are for those who want press conferences handled routinely in there absence.

   • yes read the werst deputy leaders speech ever here, she was like a wild dog saying it all.

     https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20171115_20171115_08
     Address in Reply

     . Parliamentary Business

     . Hansard (Debates)

     Read Hansard Reports
     MetadataGet notifications
     This page displays your selected transcript. You may view the recorded PTV video using the “Video” tab. Please note that the video tab displays all available video for the sitting day of the transcript. A filter will be available to find the specific debate / speech you wish to view.
     Hansard (Debates)
     • Read Hansard Reports
     • Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Madam Deputy Speaker, I did hear you referred to consistently there as “Mr Speaker”, but I am delighted to see a woman Deputy Speaker in the House. I know Trevor Mallard’s not here, but can I please acknowledge his standing.
     Ladies and gentlemen, what you just heard there was a man who has not transitioned to Minister of Finance. What we heard then was an angry student politician, ultimately. He didn’t actually have the gumption to get in there and sound like a new Minister of Finance, a man that’s proud of his new role, that’s grown into it, that feels the gravitas, actually, of such an important role. What we still heard was the kind of angry, bitter, Labour politician that wants to blame everyone else instead of standing up. Look, we heard consistently from Ms Ardern, from the Prime Minister, that what she wanted to see was positivity for New Zealand. She wanted those smiles. I just say, simply, to Grant Robertson: turn that frown upside down. You have made it to the Government benches; congratulations to you all, revel in the moment, but at least try to grow into the jobs, instead of still standing like you did three months ago, quite frankly, when you were standing on this side of the House.
     So here we are in the 52nd Parliament, and it is a great honour to be here. Can I congratulate, particularly, all the new members that got sworn in. I see them from all sides of the House. It’s a buzz, yeah? I do remember that buzz, and it genuinely has been really interesting listening to maiden speeches, hearing you put your hearts on the line. For your families, actually, it’s something that’s really significant, and I know it is for you yourselves, so I do sincerely want to congratulate everyone. Make the most of it. John Key always used to say that there’s people that sort of talk about getting here, and perhaps have a wish that they might get here; you guys have, so be it, and be in it, and all the best to everyone, and that kind of thing. Obviously, I would rather be in Government. That’s the truth of it. You don’t campaign like we did. You don’t do what you do to actually go into Opposition, so I make no bones about it. But there’s a key thing here: we were not going to be in Government at any cost, and New Zealand First know that. Mr Peters, there’s a price that one pays, and we weren’t willing to pay that, so that’s kind of how things go.
     As they say, it’s not whether or not throws you curve balls; it’s whether or not you’ve got the gumption to pick that ball up and throw it back, and this is going to be an incredibly strong Opposition. This is one that has convictions in what they stand for. This is 56 MPs who are here to make a difference, and we shall do that in Opposition as we did in Government. We look forward to the next few years as we play our role on behalf of the Queen in the role of being Her Majesty’s very faithful Opposition, and it’s something that we will take seriously.
     So there’ve been many, many, many, many, many promises. We have heard the promises, and they have been rolling out—just heard another one. There they went again—they’ve said it before: eradicating homelessness. So let’s hold them to that on behalf of those people. We will remember, of course, that they had homeless people in motels back in the 2000s. That’s when women actually find themselves in violent circumstances need to leave, can’t find a house that day, and the State, in sticking up for them and looking after them, would at times put them into motels.
     Well, we were told that was dreadful. It was OK when it was the previous Labour Government, absolutely dreadful when we did it, but now we’ve heard from Mr Twyford that it’s OK again because they’re in Government. So he’s going to keep using motels, by the way, and that’s OK. They won’t quite be eradicating, they’ll just be trying to make it better, but don’t actually hold them to too much account on it, because they’re not sure how they’re going to do it. They don’t actually have a target; it’s all just another wish list.
     We’re going to have rail everywhere, we’re going to have zero emissions. Good on Dr Clark, he’s personally going to reduce suicide—which might be admirable, but, actually, I think it’s a slant on how complex the issue is. It takes more than one person, and it’s going to take something that is genuinely across a whole lot of people.
     We’ve had a lot of rhetoric, we’ve had a lot of what it all sounds like, now we want to see real targets—we want to see what that looks like in practice. I think the smile might fade as good intentions hit the wall of reality. The smiles will start fading pretty damn quickly.
     I’m suggesting they get organised. Cabinet committees are actually there for a reason, and they’re a damn good idea because it means you test things against them to make sure that you’ve got no unintended consequences—for example, like paid parental leave, where you could take an idea that actually is fair for families, instead of ramming down their throats what you believe should actually be raised—sorry, not you, of course, Madam Speaker, but those on the other side that are telling us that they know best how a family should work. So they know best that in that first couple of years where we hear from new mums and dads that they want to be with their partner and spend in the bonding time and see that—why shouldn’t we actually support them to decide how to split paid parental leave?
     Jami-Lee Ross: How does Sue Moroney feel?
     Hon PAULA BENNETT: It’s a good idea that’s come up. Yeah, Sue Moroney, who was a member that pushed this for many, many years actually supports the idea that partners should be able to take some of that leave so that they can decide how it works for their families. But don’t worry, Labour knows best on how it works! They will dictate exactly how that happens.
     If they’d actually had a select committee process, which we were lectured about repeatedly from that side of the House—about how important it was, and that due process for even a week would count, we were told repeatedly. Well, if they meant that, send it to select committee. Let’s toss this around. Let’s really work out what’s best for those women, for those children, for those dads, for those same-sex partners—what really matters the most to their family unit.
     I only hope they take some advice, because they’ve been taking a little bit. We see that Mr Hipkins has taken some now on national standards—not such a bad idea now. They’re OK, so that’s good—that’s good. Now we’re hoping they take some advice on partnership schools. I will not have that Prime Minister stand up and lecture us on vulnerable children and what needs to be done without looking after some of our most vulnerable young people that are actually learning in an environment that works for them. Can I commend even some members of this House who are part of the partnership schools and how they work recognising individuals—the different way that those kids learn, and how important that is for them. Instead of being ideological and dissing a good idea, I hope they take some advice and listen to what needs to be done.
     Can I just say how disappointing it was, not so much on day one, that the Government made a mistake—they didn’t know their numbers, it’s as clear as that. They did not know if they had the numbers. We all make mistakes and it was their day one, and I get that. What was a real shame, after lecturing us repeatedly on how much better and more principled this Government was going to be, that the first thing they did was spin it. The first thing they did was actually walk out of here and not tell the utter truth. If they’d done that, Mr Hipkins, and simply stood there and said “We made a bit of a mistake. We’ll never make it again.”, I reckon the public would have given them a bit of kudos for it. But instead, they proved themselves to be absolutely as flawed as the rest of us. Welcome to the real world, but you should have had the guts to actually stand up and prove it and say it, is what I say to it.
     Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I don’t like to interrupt, but the member knows well that that is not Parliamentary.
     Hon PAULA BENNETT: I didn’t mean to offend, but got a bit carried away there.
     Can I say as well that we are going to be holding this Government to account for all of those promises. We want to see those targets really in place. Let’s put some real numbers on it. Let’s see intergenerational welfare, families in it for decades, not just the last three, four, five, even nine years, but actually decades; families that have been falling into traps of poverty and traps of welfare dependence—let’s see you get into the heart of what the real issues are instead of spreading money around and merely hoping that you throw it to the right person that does the right thing with it. It has hard, complex work. There are systems in place. I hope you take advice. I hope you take a breath. I hope you look at the things that are working and not throw them out just because you ideologically believe that you know so much better than anybody else.
     So I end on wishing this 52nd Parliament that it be robust; that we have a contest of ideas; that we don’t ever lose sight that it is about New Zealanders and not just everyone passionately being right but doing it well. Thank you.
     • Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I waited until the deputy leader of the National Party had finished her speech, but I noticed that when you interrupted her in order to take her to task for inappropriate language, the clock on the wall didn’t stop counting down. Can you just clarify: is it expected that that would happen?
     Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is at the Speaker’s direction.

     • Government Ministers require sufficient vocabulary in order to routinely hold press conferences.

Comments are closed.