Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | Video | Questions Of the Day | Search

 


Questions for Oral Answer - June 25

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: Does he agree with the New Zealand Law Society when it describes outcomes in the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill as “unacceptable and inconsistent with the rule of law”; if not, why not?

2. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in building a more competitive and productive economy and how is this helping New Zealand families?

3. DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

4. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What are the Government’s plans for providing more services online?

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

6. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with ANZ regarding the New Zealand economy that “Our concern is that the domestic-centric mix of growth is not sustainable from the standpoint of New Zealand’s external imbalances”; if not, why not?

7. JAN LOGIE to the Attorney-General: Does he agree with the New Zealand Law Society that “The rule of law lies at the very foundation of a free and democratic society and is essential for the protection of human rights”; if not, why not?

8. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Immigration: How is the Government planning to further combat the exploitation of migrant workers?

9. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by all his statements regarding Solid Energy?

10. STEFFAN BROWNING to the Minister for the Environment: Will she be changing the law to restrict councils’ ability to regulate the release of genetically modified organisms in their regions; if so, what are the proposed changes?

11. MIKE SABIN to the Minister of Transport: How is the Government working with the Auckland Council to progress the Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance?

12. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the answers given on his behalf to Oral Question No 3 on 13 June 2013?

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS

1. Hon SHANE JONES to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: Is it his intention to proceed with the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill; if so, does he believe its effect will be a reduction in problem gambling?

2. Hon SHANE JONES to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: How can he proceed with the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill when the Problem Gambling Foundation says it will have little, if any, effect on problem gambling?

3. Hon SHANE JONES to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: Does his Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill as amended at select committee fulfil his original intentions of the bill he introduced?

4. Hon SHANE JONES to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: How can he proceed with the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, given that the Salvation Army says that the Government’s rewrite of his bill means that the aim of his original bill has been largely cancelled out?

5. Hon SHANE JONES to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: Why did he agree to continue with the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill when at select committee all of its main provisions were either removed or weakened?

6. Hon SHANE JONES to the Member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill: Why has he agreed to the Government’s amendments to his Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, when as the Salvation Army’s social policy spokesperson Major Campbell Roberts says, the Government’s latest proposals have nothing to do with minimising the damage done to communities by gambling?

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

PARLIAMENT TODAY:

Arming Police: Frontline Police To Routinely Carry Tasers

"In making the decision, the Police executive has considered almost five years worth of 'use of force' data… It consistently shows that the Taser is one of the least injury-causing tactical options available when compared with other options, with a subject injury rate of just over one per cent for all deployments." More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On D-Day For Dairy At The TPP

While New Zealand may feel flattered at being called “the Saudi Arabia of milk” it would be more accurate to regard us as the suicide bombers of free trade. More>>

ALSO:

Leaked Letter: Severe Restrictions on State Owned Enterprises

Even an SOE that exists to fulfil a public function neglected by the market or which is a natural monopoly would nevertheless be forced to act "on the basis of commercial considerations" and would be prohibited from discriminating in favour of local businesses in purchases and sales. Foreign companies would be given standing to sue SOEs in domestic courts for perceived departures from the strictures of the TPP... More>>

ALSO:

"Gutted" Safety Bill: Time To Listen To Workplace Victims’ Families

Labour has listened to the families of whose loved ones have been killed at work and calls on other political parties to back its proposals to make workplaces safer and prevent unnecessary deaths on the job. More>>

ALSO:

Regulators: Govt To ‘Crowd-Source’ Regulatory Advice

A wide-ranging set of reforms is to be implemented to shake up the way New Zealand government agencies develop, write and implement regulations. More>>

ALSO:

Board Appointments: Some Minister Appoint Less The 3 In 10 Women

“It’s 2015 not 1915: Ministers who appoint less than 3 in 10 women to their boards must do better, they have no excuse but to do better,” said Dr Blue. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The 1990s Retro Proposals For Our Health System

As we learned yesterday, the reviews propose that the democratically elected representation on DHBs should be reduced, such that community wishes will be able to be over-ridden by political appointees. In today’s revelations, the reviews also propose a return to the destructive competitive health model of the 1990s. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Parliament
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news