edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a short call in this second reading on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill. Other speakers have commented that the cross-party discussions sort of served as a de facto select committee. That would not be the Green Party's view. We have noted our appreciation for the Acting Minister of Civil Defence actually engaging in those cross-party discussions on two occasions but it is actually the submissions from members of the public that always contribute to improving legislation and we obviously have not had the opportunity for those on this bill.One of the reasons that the Green Party has been prepared to support the urgency is that on the principal Act which we were discussing very recently there were only 12 submissions to the select committee. There was general acknowledgment of the appropriateness of the transition powers that the principal Act provided for the controller and recovery managers in that transition period. Those powers and the safeguards around them—the fact that they must be exercised in the public interest—are carried over here as we understand it. If they are not we would be grateful in the Committee stage for the Minister's explanation of why not but as we understand it the safeguards that apply in the principal Act to the exercise of these powers also apply to this new power to direct that an assessment be done.I think we have all focused on earthquakes but my understanding is that the bill will also apply in terms of other events such as the big flooding that we had in Whanganui last year and the ability for the controller or constable or other person with those powers under the civil defence legislation to require an assessment of buildings there. If that is not the case we would welcome an explanation of that.I think I would just conclude by endorsing the comments made by my colleague Jan Logie about preparedness. Individuals have a responsibility to be prepared. This bill is valuable in ensuring that we as a Parliament do what we can to maximise public safety and reduce the risk to individuals in buildings that have been affected by quakes. But individuals also have that responsibility to look after themselves recognising that authorities may not be able to assist them in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. But as a society we also have to get more prepared by investing more in resilience. With more intense storm events not just the natural hazards of earthquakes we need to make our stormwater infrastructure more resilient. We need to look at how and where we build. We need to ensure that there are natural wetlands in other areas which can soak up that run-off. We need to look at the capacity of our stormwater systems. We need to think much more clearly about natural hazards and how we retrofit some of our urban areas perhaps with councils buying properties that are subject to frequent flooding so that there is less impact on individual households and communities after these events and that we are planning and preparing as individual households but also as communities. Thank you.
Hudson Brett; Borrows ChesterBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill in its second reading. I would also like to talk about the powers to require building assessments. In the ideal world after a significant magnitude earthquake—particularly such as the one that was felt on 14 November of this year but also actually back in 2013 here in Wellington—we would like to believe that building owners would take appropriate steps to ensure the safety of their tenants and their tenants' employees by undertaking proper assessments. I do believe as Mr Robertson also said earlier this evening that that is probably done in most cases.Unfortunately it is not necessarily done in every case. In Wellington after this latest quake we have already seen a number of buildings that were reoccupied within 24 or 48 hours of the earthquake that have since been cleared. Once such example not too far from here is Asteron House down on the corner of Bunny Street and Featherston Street where the Inland Revenue Department amongst other businesses is housed and which was back at work for some period after the earthquake before being evacuated quite frankly last Thursday afternoon because of concerns about the structural integrity of the stairwell—not on a day-by-day basis but were another significant incident to occur in the next wee while.When you look at that it is not unreasonable that employees—or tenants if it is a residential apartment area—might believe that they have some right to and the building owner should have some obligation to be able to give them evidence that the building that they are reoccupying is safe either for habitation or for their work environment. I think it is an extremely good idea that we are permitting the authorities to require such assessments to be taking place by suitably qualified assessors—so that it is more perhaps than just the building owner having a quick recce themself and declaring everything to be just fine. Not only does that give us all some sense of confidence that the buildings are safe to occupy not only now but after potential further aftershocks but more importantly in the immediate sense it gives those inhabitants—those workers or those residents—confidence to return to and remain in those buildings for work or for their inhabitancy. I think it is a very worthy addition to the bill. Living on the edge of a built-up city I think it is something that is extremely important for the environment we are in. I think it adds a great deal of power and usefulness to this amendment bill and I commend it to the House.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Eugenie Sage.
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): This bill does a number of things that I think will help our businesses that have been affected particularly here in Wellington. I did note with interest a couple of quotes in the media from business owners including one from Greig Wilson who manages bars down in the central Wellington entertainment capital of New Zealand down on Courtenay Place. He said that he had been advancing loans so that staff were able to meet their rent and food costs—their basic living costs. Obviously the business package that the Government has brought in is useful for maintaining this.In the longer term it is important that we move from the emergency response to the recovery and restoration phase. This bill does a number of things that will allow those cordons to come down and those businesses such as Mr Wilson's to resume functioning so that their staff can start getting their proper pay cheques in before Christmas and so that people are not going into that holiday season in the sort of bleak situation that might be there if this bill did not allow us the flexibility to embark on recovery and allow some of the powers that are required in order to make sure that that recovery happens.I think that for those reasons this is a very very sensible timely bill. Obviously the basic legislation that it amends was passed by this House only recently but we had no appreciation that such a major disaster was about to befall our country so soon after its timely passage. It is very important that this bill is enacted as soon as possible so that those recovery actions can be taken and so I am not going to take up any further time in the House other than to commend it. Thank you.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I would like to start by actually acknowledging the Minister Nikki Kaye and the work that she has done on the Act—that was the bill of course before it came the Act. Unfortunately she is not able to be here on this particular bill and the little bit of a tidy up. Providing a power to require a building assessment I think is a really important part of this bill. I know from being on the ground that the interests of the person in the building and the interests of the person who owns the building are sometimes a bit clouded in the aftermath of an event and they certainly need the rigour of having a very clear requirement that the building has an assessment for the safety of everybody concerned. So I applaud that part of this bill. I am not going to take any more House time up on that and I would just like to commend this bill once again to the House. Thank you.
Brownlee GerrySecond ReadingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I move That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill be now read a second time. During the course of the first reading it became clear that there was one small matter that the cross-party group when doing its considerations over the past 2 weeks had probably not considered as well as it should have. It is a minor matter but I am grateful to the Hon David Parker for the work with officials to sort that out and it will be an amendment that comes in at the Committee stage immediately following the second reading. I will not go into the details of that. I am sure that other speakers will want to cover that off. This bill brings into force powers that can help communities in affected areas as has been discussed over the previous few minutes. It has been the experience of this House that when it comes to emergency legislation we do work together and I again commend people for doing that. It is what our communities expect of us and although we do not always get it exactly right this is a very very strong indication that this Parliament will move to make things as easy as possible for people in badly affected areas. As I said earlier the bill brings forward proposals that have already been unanimously agreed to by the Parliament and it would be I think somewhat of a waste of time to go over all of those again. I simply want to say that I think the contributions in the Parliament so far have indicated as I keep saying the positive nature of things. I do want to mention Minister Nikki Kaye who is the Minister of Civil Defence. I am acting on her behalf at the moment. I know that this legislation is something that she is keeping an eye on and is watching and she is beginning to think about how the future of the portfolio may shape up as well. There have been a lot of good contributions that indicate a positive way of achieving some of the results that people would expect to be automatically in place at a time like this. I commend the bill to the House.
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill and I think that every New Zealander would be encouraged to see the speed of the response from this Government—from Minister Brownlee and the Prime Minister—and this Parliament to their situation of need. And it gives great encouragement to this country to see a Government so responsive. This legislation is going through a process of urgency and that is because we want to enable our Government to respond adequately to this time of need. So I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.
Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill — First Reading
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill a bill that has unanimous support in the House. There are many things that have been learnt from disasters such as the Christchurch quake and indeed the smaller incidents such as the Whanganui floods. One of those is that there is a need for greater provisions rights and authorities as we move from a response and transition towards full recovery mode. The Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 which passed with unanimous support in this House just a couple of weeks ago was scheduled to come into force some months away in 2017. I think it is highly appropriate as I believe all members here do that we bring forward those commencement dates so that we can make use of the authority and provisions of that amendment Act in the recovery from this event around Kaikōura and Hurunui and indeed in Wellington City. We will have the opportunity in subsequent readings to talk about the provision for assessment of buildings which I think is a very worthy provision. But at this stage I would just like to commend this bill to the House.
Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a short call in support of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill. Like the Hon David Parker I was a little surprised that there is this gap in the law given that the principal Act which was before Parliament only recently allows a huge range of powers during the transition period to carry out works to clear roads to evacuate premises and places to close roads and public places to give directions to stop any activity or take any action and to limit the consequences of the emergency yet it did not have this power to direct an owner of a building to carry out a building assessment to ensure that the building was safe after an emergency or if things changed after the emergency such as there was another aftershock.So it is a very sensible change to the principal Act because at the moment the only obligations really are under the health and safety legislation for owners of buildings that are places of work to have to identify and manage hazards in a place of work and under the Residential Tenancies Act so that landlords must check the premises that they own after an earthquake to ensure that it is safe for tenants to remain. The building owners may not be aware of the detail and the type of the assessment that is needed and there is no centralised register that gives authorities an understanding of whether buildings have been assessed or not. So this bill has a major advantage in allowing the controller during the transition period such as a council to actually require these assessments to be done and then to collate this information. That is quite critical because the council may be very aware of certain types of buildings like buildings of a similar design to the CTV Building in Christchurch that are quite vulnerable and more prone to collapse. The bill will enable councils particularly here in Wellington to actually require that these more detailed assessments are done if they are aware that there may be systemic issues in certain types of buildings that make them liable to partially or fully collapse in an earthquake. In terms of property owners they may see this as a slight encroachment on their rights but no one wants on their conscience owning or managing a building that causes death or injury in an earthquake. So Parliament is acting collectively to ensure that we fill this gap in the law and that we do everything that we can to protect ourselves all citizens in the event of continued earthquakes and other natural hazards. The Green Party supports this bill and as my colleague Jan Logie explained although we do not normally support bills going through under urgency the continued sequence of aftershocks after the Kaikōura earthquake means that there is an urgency—a real urgency—in filling this gap in our law.
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I am delighted that there is broad cross-party support for this Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill—it is quite a mouthful—because as the previous speaker Megan Woods referred to it received Royal assent only a couple of weeks ago.It is a very simple piece of legislation. It does two things. First it brings forward the commencement of some of those provisions—which though they received assent from the Governor-General a couple of weeks ago were not due to come into place until later down the track or even next year—so that we can apply them urgently to the situation that is unfolding in Kaikōura but also here in the capital in Wellington.The second main provision of this bill is the power to require building assessments. This is not a power that is given lightly because we do not want to for instance put building owners in a position of being required to do something that is impossible. For instance after an emergency if you were to require every building owner to go and do this obviously with the shortage of engineers and qualified people it could be some months before they were in a position to get that expertise. So this bill very carefully provides that a controller or constable under a state of emergency or a recovery manager under transition notice may require the owner of a structure—particularly apartment buildings as has been referred to—to arrange for a suitable assessment of the effect of that emergency on the building.We have seen around Wellington some instances of buildings where certainly there were people where there should not have been. The building I live in is an 80-year-old apartment block and it is reassuring to know that our apartment block manager has actually gone in and had that assessment done. I think everyone has that right to know that the building that they are staying in is safe to live in. So this is a very sensible and pragmatic provision. I commend it fully to the House.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill. It seems somewhat ironic that we are amending an Act that has only really just come in but it is also good to acknowledge that things are missing and to sort them out quickly. Certainly seeing civil defence organisations operating both in Kaikōura and in Marlborough itself and seeing how those people organise themselves and operate it is fantastic—the people who are on the ground and the dedication they have to that job. But I think we have to acknowledge that in the first instance in any emergency what will reign is confusion. It may not reign in the headquarters but it certainly does out on the ground and it takes some time to get things in order and get them under way. Having a real clarity around how the Act that they operate under is to be implemented will be welcomed by all of those people I am sure. I think what has been highlighted in these recent events—to me anyway—is that the civil defence campaign urging everyone to plan to get through an emergency is something that I am quite sure most people are not taking enough notice of. I would take this opportunity to remind people that you could be cut off for 5 days and if you are in a rural environment it could be for weeks. What I have noted is that the people in the rural environment are more than capable most often of getting through for 5 days at least because that is just the nature of how they go about their daily lives. If every one of us sat down for a moment today and imagined how we would be able to get through for 5 days with what we have in our houses and without electricity I think a few people would be in for a shock. This bill is making things crystal clear for those people operating in this area and I think that will be very welcomed by them. I know certainly in the Marlborough area they relooked at their whole system after the Boxing Day fires in 2000 because that was not handled very well and they have ended up with a system now that runs fantastically well. It stood the test through this earthquake period although the significant challenge was really in Kaikōura itself where people were cut off in lots of ways and they have managed to deal with that very well. I think that although they have managed well they do need some more clarity in this area. It is really with great pleasure that I commend this much-needed piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.
Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill — First Reading
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Civil Defence): I move That the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill be reported to the House by 1 December 2016 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Order 194(1)(b) and (c).Motion agreed to.
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua tēnā koe. In speaking on the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill I want to first begin by congratulating and thanking the Minister of Defence and Acting Minister of Civil Defence the Hon Gerry Brownlee who along with Stuart Smith the local MP for the Kaikōura electorate has been making absolutely herculean efforts to make sure that the emergency is responded to quickly and appropriately and that people are given every possible assistance that they can receive.This bill forms part of the response to this disaster and as others have canvassed it temporarily increases the time frames for emergency works that are permitted under the Resource Management Act (RMA). It allows permitted activity for certain emergency farming practices that might be otherwise not acceptable but in the case of this situation should be allowed and it aims to restore Kaikōura harbour to operation.There is a little piece of it that has not really been touched on too extensively and that is the ability for an Order in Council to be passed to specify additional local authorities under the purposes of this bill. I was here in Wellington when the quake struck and the building I live in shook. It was a very scary experience and we have suffered considerable damage here and so it is heartening to know that here in the capital where we have sustained some damage as well as in those areas most affected in Mr Smith's electorate there is a Government that is willing to look to increase the support and emergency provisions as required to enable us to recover from this disaster. It is a very good bill and I commend it fully to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a short call on this bill. I want to add my thanks and tributes to Stuart Smith our member of Parliament in the Kaikōura area. Stuart has done an amazing job since the night of the earthquake something that is terrifying and I think that what he did from the time the earthquake struck—going out to see what he could do—right through to today and beyond is a tribute to him. Well done Stuart. I also want to put my thoughts and thanks to the people of the Kaikōura and Hurunui districts for your resilience. As they said that is the key word in the House today; it is resilience—staying in your areas and slowly but surely working through the repairs that are going to be required. I want to thank our Minister of Defence. He has done an amazing job—the Hon Gerry Brownlee who is also the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission—in mobilising the Defence Force as quickly as he did. Thank you to the air force for the air transport and air evacuation and surveillance and to the army for getting the supplies into Kaikōura as soon as those roads were open—and thanks to the road workers for making that happen and keeping an eye on those roads because I have seen photos of what could be a potential big slip happening along that road so I want to thank them as well. Thank you to the navy the HMNZS Canterbury and Wellington for transporting the people the tourists and the people who wanted to leave Kaikōura on their ships down into Lyttelton. I want to thank countries—the US Australia Canada and Japan—for offering their naval support in our time of need and I want to thank especially the USS Sampson the HMAS Darwin and the HMCS Vancouver for coming to our assistance as well. Finally I want to thank the whānau of Takahanga Marae for the thousands of meals that they supplied throughout this whole time right up until Sunday and for the shelter that they offered to the many who required it in Kaikōura. Thank you to Sir Mark Solomon for actioning Ngāti Kuri into and being part of that whole support system. Many think that marae are there for Māori to do Māori things in but this particular event showed that they are not. They are there for the community for community to use. I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.
Dowie Sarah; Borrows ChesterSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise in support of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill in this first reading. Given that it is my first time speaking since the dreaded earthquake my thoughts and prayers go out to the people who have endured it to those who have lost loved ones in the earthquake and to those who are now dealing with the consequences—living with the consequences—of the earthquake day in and day out. As part of that I would like to pay tribute to my colleague and friend Stuart Smith MP for Kaikōura. He has done a stellar job in representing his people. He was there on the ground right from the word go. He has been listening and he has been advocating fiercely on behalf of his community. It is a tribute to him that this Government has come in and sprung in behind him. It has the experience since Christchurch to come in behind Stuart Smith and assist the people of northern Canterbury through this dreadful period.I actually want to touch on the fact that there is solidarity throughout New Zealand in support of north Cantabrians and I actually want to pay tribute to the Invercargill City Council which has sent building inspectors up to North Canterbury to help and assist with the inspections of buildings. There is also just the general public. Murihiku Marae for example swung in behind the efforts and had a bit of a bake off to bake cookies to send up to the people of Kaikōura to keep them in good spirits given that they are dealing with some significant challenges given that access has been cut off and is creating significant havoc in respect of their businesses and daily lives.This is a pragmatic bill. This is a good bill. It is one springing off the efforts of Canterbury. We know what needs to be done and as part of that there will be emergency work that needs to be carried out to make life a little bit more normal as we move forward. It is not about overriding the Resource Management Act carte blanche but it is about practical solutions moving forward to make sure the work occurs to stabilise land to protect livestock for example or to help with animal welfare—whatever it is to make life a little bit easier to make things come back on to mainstream more quickly and efficiently.So the bill is one that as I said before is pragmatic and I am very pleased that it is well supported throughout the House. Again I pay tribute to Mr Stuart Smith. He has been on the ground. He has been advocating. This is a Government that has swung in behind the efforts. We have the experience. We are in a good fiscal position to be able to manage our way through this earthquake. I wish the people of northern Canterbury all the best.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Steffan Browning.
Urgent Debates Declined — Speaker's Announcement—Construction of New Building for Parliament
Brownlee GerryURGENCYHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the introduction first reading and referral to select committee of the Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill and the introduction and passing through all stages of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 Amendment Bill. These are two bills in a sequence of three that the House will deal with this week. The House deals with these bills in response to the earthquake events which are well known to everyone in this Chamber and outside.I think this would be an appropriate time for me to acknowledge the considerable work that has been done by officials over the past 2 weeks working very long hours in many cases to ensure that these bills have got to a point where they can be further discussed. I want to also acknowledge the efforts of all parties in Parliament which have come together on two occasions to consider a number of matters that are in these bills and to try to shape them into pieces of law that will do the job that we all want to see done but also show due respect for appropriate legal processes.The Hurunui/Kaikōura Earthquakes Emergency Relief Bill can be described first as a bill that will make legal some of the things that particularly the rural communities have had to do to get themselves out of their farm properties or perhaps to put water back on for their stock or to re-erect sheds or any of the other things that are necessary to keep a farming operation going—all generally with the welfare of the animals concerned to the fore. We will talk further about the details of that bill. Can I say that there have been appropriate concerns expressed as the bill was developed and as a consequence after the first reading it will go to a select committee—for just 1 day but that day will give the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee a chance not only to further test the bill's meaning with officials but also to consider any other matters that might arise out of that discussion.The Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 was passed just 4 days before this earthquake event. It had in it a commencement date of 14 May 2017 for what are called transitional powers and authorities. What this bill does is amend the Act further to bring that date forward but it does not put the same obligation on councils that do not need it at this point.Grant Robertson: Is this your first reading speech Gerry?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This is far from a first reading speech; that will be a more scintillating offering to the House and I know that Mr Grant Robertson will probably want to record it for those hours of the evening when he is suffering from insomnia and needs a little bit of help to drift off.For those reasons the Government with the support of other parties in the House considers that urgency is appropriate on this occasion.Motion agreed to.
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDParliamentary Precinct—Construction of New BuildingMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Ron Mark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the announcement made by the Speaker yesterday on the construction of a new building for Parliament. The urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. The Speaker is not part of the Government and is not able to take part in the debate as a Minister can. I do note that in September 1997 the Speaker granted a similar application for an urgent debate. However on that occasion it was in respect of an announcement made by the Government and not by the Speaker. The application is therefore declined.
Thursday 16 March 2017 - Volume 720
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 272 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to schedule 3 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
VotePart 8 Repeals and amendmentsThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to Part 8 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 207 be agreed to.Ayes 13Green Party 13.Noes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 8 as amended agreed to.Schedules 1 to 4The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to schedules 1 2 3 and 4 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedules 1 to 4 as amended agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 2 be agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 in the name of Andrew Little to clauses 156(1)(b) (4) and (4)(a) be agreed to.Ayes 44New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13.Noes 75New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.Part 6 as amended agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to Part 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 106New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14Green Party 14.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran to clause 101A be agreed to: In clause 101A(3) insert after (b):(c)the Privacy Commissioner.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 5 as amended agreed to.
9. Regional Economic Growth—ReportsTODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and EmploymentRegional Economic Growth—Reports9. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What reports has he received that detail the economic growth in the regions as a result of international education?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): Earlier this week I was pleased to see the publication of eight regional economic impact reports that provide an in-depth look into the economic benefits of international education for regions across New Zealand outside of Auckland Waikato Wellington and Canterbury. These new findings give us a more complete picture of how international education is strengthening our regions. For example we can see that across these eight regions industries supplying goods and services to international students generate a value-add of $270 million supporting 2358 Kiwi jobs. This report also goes into the living costs tuition fees and average spend per student. It is worth reminding the House that international education is now our fourth-largest export industry worth around $4.28 billion to the New Zealand economy. These reports will go some way to help our providers and regional agencies make more informed decisions around international education to ensure a long-term benefit to our country's regions. Todd Barclay: How else are local businesses and communities in the Otago region benefiting from international education?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: That is a very good question. Out of all the reports produced the mighty Otago region had some noteworthy statistics. International students living in the Otago region spend on average $33053 per year of which $23000 is spent on living costs alone like rent food petrol and power. The highest contribution to regional economic growth across all reports was in Dunedin hitting $117 million for the 2015-16 year. Although the financial benefits are important there are undoubtedly social benefits for Kiwi students and businesses and our communities strengthening our links to the world.
6. Wireless Mobile Coverage—4G TargetSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for CommunicationsWireless Mobile Coverage—4G Target6. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for Communications: What update can he give on the Government's 4G cellular mobile target?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Communications): This morning I was pleased to announce that 90 percent of New Zealanders now have access to 4G cellular mobile services 2 years earlier than anticipated.Hon Member: All his own work.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It is the Government's work. In 2013 the Government set an objective that 90 percent of the population would have access to 4G cellular mobile services by 2019. Thanks to the work of Spark and Vodafone we have reached our target well ahead of schedule. This is a fantastic achievement that will help meet growing consumer demand for mobile data and is essential to improving connectivity right across New Zealand.Simon O'Connor: How will greater 4G coverage support economic development in the rural communities?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: This Government is committed to delivering greater mobile coverage and network capacity and we are doing just that. 4G cellular mobile services are capable of speeds more than 10 times faster than 3G mobile data networks. This means that households and businesses have faster access to services such as videoconferencing online banking and the sharing of more content. Currently more than 95 percent of the New Zealand population has access to 3G. 4G is a better service and our 90 percent requirement ensures better coverage and capacity for rural communities.Simon O'Connor: What recent reports has he received on New Zealand broadband speeds?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Earlier this month Akamai released its State of the Internet report which shows that average connection speeds in New Zealand have increased by 38 percent since 2015 and that the average connection speed had increased to 12.9 megabits per second a significant leap from the previous year. These figures demonstrate that Kiwis are increasingly reaping the benefits of faster better internet stimulated by the Government's ultra-fast broadband program and the Rural Broadband Initiative. Improved broadband access and faster internet delivers huge opportunities for homes schools and businesses right across New Zealand.
4. Benefits—ReportsJONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentBenefits—Reports4. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent reports has she received regarding the proportion of people on working-age benefits?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I have received a report that showed that the proportion of the population now receiving a working-age main benefit is at 10.3 percent the lowest it has been since before the global financial crisis. What is more in December 2016 the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update forecast that this is expected to decrease to just 8.6 percent of the working-age population by June 2021 and that would be the lowest level since benefit numbers were computerised in the mid-1990s. These numbers are a validation of this Government's commitment to and focus on helping people into sustainable employment so that they can lead successful and independent lives.Jono Naylor: What recent reports has she seen on the number of teen mums receiving a main benefit?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Great news Mr Speaker. Compared with 2009 at the end of 2016 there were 57 percent fewer teen mums on a benefit down from 4263 to just 1836. This is absolutely fantastic news for these young women because the evidence shows that supporting those young mums to become independent and break the cycle of welfare dependency will lead to better life outcomes for them but also for their children. It also reduces the long-term costs to the taxpayer.Jono Naylor: What do these reductions in benefit numbers mean for the future liability of the welfare system?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The impact of welfare reforms and the hard work of Work and Income staff over the past 4 years have led to a reduction in the welfare system's future lifetime cost for the taxpayer of $13.7 billion. So it is clear that this Government's welfare reforms have had a significant impact in helping more people into work as well as providing substantial savings for the taxpayer.
EventMEMBERS SWORNMr Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to Raymond Huo who then took his seat in the House.
Macindoe Tim; Borrows ChesterSITTINGS OF THE HOUSETIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): The Committee has worked very cooperatively and intelligently all afternoon and in recognition of the spirit of that work I seek leave for the House to rise early.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.The House adjourned at 5.49 p.m.
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members I take responsibility for going too fast through the schedules and seek leave now to return to schedule 3 to move the amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English which is the one relating to the deliberative vote. It is one that has been around for some time. I seek leave to return to schedule 3. Is there any objection to that? Right. I will return to it.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 272 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to schedule 3 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Davis Kelvin; Parker DavidKELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Mr Chair—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Does the member want a call?KELVIN DAVIS: Sorry Mr Chair. I was being distracted there by my colleague Stuart Nash. He is terrible like that. Talking to Part 6—Tim Macindoe: We're on Part 7.KELVIN DAVIS: Sorry Mr Chair. I stuffed up then did I not? Sorry about that.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): All right I think the bus has gone. The question now is that the Minister's amendments to Part 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye of the contrary opinion will say No. The Ayes have it.Amendments agreed to.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought Kennedy Graham had not—Denis O'Rourke: That's Part 8.Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh it is Part 8. Oh OK.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It is Part 8. All right? The question is that Part 7 as amended stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye of the contrary opinion will say No. The Ayes have it.Part 7 as amended agreed to.
Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): We come to the last of the Green Party's amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 268 and it pertains to clause 207. We simply suggest that we delete clause 207. Our proposed amendment would ensure that someone with knowledge of serious breaches in the conduct of intelligence agencies provided the public with crucial information—in that event they would not be subject to excessive punishment. I am not going to elaborate on that I just put it forward for the consideration of the Committee.
Parker DavidPart 7 Miscellaneous provisionsHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I will take a brief call. The main change here made at the select committee which I support was to increase the list of ministerial policy statements that are required to be prepared which are now listed at clause 165 of the bill. They include things like having a ministerial policy statement when you acquire use or maintain an assumed identity and when you conduct surveillance in a public place. There are various others that are listed there. It was one of the original recommendations of the Cullen-Reddy report and the select committee thought that that should be reinserted into the bill and has done so. With those comments the Labour Party supports Part 7.
Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Thank you Mr Chairman. The answer I think would be yes on the ironic assumption that we are not obliged to vote for it because if it goes through on the grounds of a majority then that would be my personal fate which I would relish.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No there is no obligation. Can I just check that other members understand that is the process we are going to use? Can we move to the vote on this part now?Hon Members: Yes.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK. The question is that Dr Kennedy Graham's tabled amendment which becomes an amendment to the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 264 be agreed to.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is the amendment to clause 156(5)?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is the one. Yes. The question is that that amendment be agreed to. It seemed to have vaguely familiar writing.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 156(5) be agreed to: In clause 156(5) after security requirements" insert "and the proportional representation of political parties in the House of Representatives"Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 264 in the name of the Rt Hon Bill English to Part 6 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Dr Kennedy Graham to clause 155 and clause 156 be agreed to.Amendments not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We now come to Andrew Little's amendments to clause 156 set out on SOP 270—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would take it then—are these going to be put separately? Clause 156(5) would now be inconsistent with an earlier resolution of the Committee. Are you able to put clauses 156(1) to 156(4) as separate questions?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I get advice from the member. Which is the one that is inconsistent?Hon David Parker: Clause 156(5) has already been passed.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes.Hon David Parker: Therefore that is a redundant question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): My suggestion is that by leave I strike out the last subclause. Is there any objection to that? The question is that the amendments in Andrew Little's name to clauses 156(1)(b) 156(4) and 156(4)(a) be agreed to. A party vote is called for."
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call a member I do want to check with the Committee on a matter of process because we have got ourselves into a little bit of an issue as to the structure. What I want to ask first of all is whether Dr Graham would permit his amendment to the bill to be phrased as an amendment to the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper 264 in order to get it in front of that and therefore for it not to be ruled out later on. Can I have the member's consent for that?
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I have great respect for what Mr Cunliffe said. It is a finely balanced judgment. I would not compare the Intelligence and Security Committee that we have here to the United States' intelligence committee where there are literally hundreds of staffers. I do not know who chairs it now; it used to be Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and she and her staffers could summon the director-general of the Central Intelligence Agency or James Clapper who was then the director of national security. They could summon them down to the Senate every day of the week.The Intelligence and Security Committee is not that kind of committee because many of those functions are actually undertaken by the inspector-general here but the point Mr Cunliffe makes—and I think it is a good point—is that this is an evolving committee and who knows what it will be like in 5 years' time. There is a very legitimate question for example about whether the Minister in charge of the agency should be on the committee because that Minister may need to be a witness from time to time. There are those sorts of considerations so this is an evolving area and I respect what he has to say.The judgment call that has been made is that in the circumstances given what the Cullen-Reddy review said given the fact that we are moving from five members to seven and given that there is going to be a mandatory review of all the legislation in the next little period—when I am sure this issue is going to arise—a move from five to seven is about right. It does not mean that smaller parties for the reasons I said will be locked out. I just disagree with the formulation that it is first-past-the-post politics because it could well be that the leader of a small party by virtue of expertise and integrity and so on is exactly the right person to be on the committee or even chair it and that is at least provided for in the legislation. It is a movable feast and that is the call that has been made.