edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
3. Household Savings and Debt—Monthly Economic Indicators Report and OECD ComparisonsANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of FinanceHousehold Savings and Debt—Monthly Economic Indicators Report and OECD Comparisons3. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on household debt?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The latest Monthly Economic Indicators report from Treasury shows that average household debt as a proportion of household disposable income is now at 165 percent—slightly higher than the level between 2007 and 2010. However Treasury notes that somewhat surprisingly household bank deposits have been growing at around the same rate or slightly higher than the accumulation of debt. This is in contrast to the experience prior to 2009 when debt accumulation increased faster than household savings growth. Overall Treasury concludes that the household debt levels remain manageable.Andrew Bayly: What are some of the factors that Treasury points to as mitigating risk from rising household debt?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it is pretty much common sense that households that are borrowing very large amounts of money against uncertain incomes and assuming that interest rates will stay where they are are taking a risk. Treasury has set out four reasons why for many householders the debt would be less of a concern—that is currently low interest rates mean that debt servicing rates which is the proportion of household incomes spent on interest are well below the peak reached in 2008. So in 2008 households spent 14 percent of their incomes paying interest. Today they spend just under 9 percent. It also points out that household net wealth has been increasing and debt to asset ratios have fallen to their lowest level since 1998.Andrew Bayly: How does New Zealand's household debt compare with household debt in other OECD countries?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It depends a bit on which measure you use. Under a definition of debt that excludes borrowing for rental properties—that is including debt where people are borrowing just for their own home—New Zealand's ratio of household debt to income is in the middle of the OECD. If you include rental loans that puts New Zealand into the top third. So our ratio is 165 percent. Others such as Australia are at 199 percent Norway is at 211 percent and Denmark is at 266 percent.Andrew Bayly: How are higher household incomes and savings helping to offset risk associated with household debt?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Probably an unusual feature of this cycle of increase in debt has been a marked change in household savings behaviour since the global financial crisis. Between 2010 and 2014 household saving was positive following negative savings rates over the previous decade. Savings turned slightly negative in 2015 reflecting a fall in farm incomes but it is possible that savings will again become positive as farm incomes rise. And as I pointed out earlier one indication of a change in household behaviour is that bank deposits have been rising just as fast as household debt.
Smith Stuart; Mallard TrevorSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): The Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill is a really important bill and takes a great step forward for the wine industry and I welcome it into the second reading. I would like to start by acknowledging the Primary Production Committee chair Ian McKelvie who has graciously allowed me to bat a little bit further up the order—so I thank him very much for that.I would like to set the scene a little because the wine industry has really blossomed in New Zealand as the Minister and the previous speaker pointed out with sales growing to $1.6 billion. It started at a very low level and I think the real step forward for the wine industry was when Ernie Hunter entered his sauvignon blanc in the Sunday Times wine show in London which had two sections: one that was judged by professional judges and one that was judged by popular choice. Ernie was never backward at coming forward when it came to marketing so he organised it so that when the public were going through the wine show they could taste his wine and taste Bluff oysters that had been flown especially to London on the Concorde. Those people who paid a bit of attention will know that the Concorde has never been to New Zealand and the oysters were not Bluff oysters in fact. But it did not matter. Not only did he win the popular vote but he also won the actual professional judges' vote—and that is really what launched Marlborough sauvignon blanc on the world stage.Its unique flavours really speak to the terroir which is what was mentioned by the previous speaker and that is what people are really looking for when they go along the shelf in their supermarket or in their wine store looking for a wine. They are looking for an assurance of a taste and a quality that they like and identify with and that really comes down to the geographical indicator. We know that wine and the flavours that wine produces are closely related to where they are grown. I am not exactly sure what that is about. Is it the soil? Is the climate? It is probably an amalgam of all of those things as well as the people who are involved with it and that is actually what the literal translation of terroir" is. It is a really important part for the wine industry to step forward. The industry is really anticipating this and has already put a lot of work into where the boundaries of those geographical indicators are. In New Zealand that is pretty easy in a lot of cases because they are bound by geography. In the case of Marlborough it is bound by the sea by hills on either side and by frost if you go far enough inland. So it is quite a confined area really for that geographical indicator. The wine style is absolutely consigned to that and I think the select committee really enjoyed seeing all of those people come before it to speak and give their evidence. You are going to stop me now.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting the member. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): It is a pleasure to rise to take a short call on this Land Transfer Bill. As members have previously mentioned this bill is the Government's response to the recommendations from the Law Commission's 2010 report A New Land Transfer Act. The recommendations were aimed at modernising simplifying and consolidating the land transfer legislation for enhanced clarity and accessibility.As I was listening to Mr David Parker I appreciated his explanation in regard to the indefeasibility of title. I found it really really interesting because it triggered a memory from childhood an old story that my elders used to tell about the fraud that happens with land transfer. The story basically to cut a long story short is about a shyster who sells the Han River during winter pretending that it was land and when the frozen river actually thawed there was no land to own. So I remember my elders telling me to always check the title always make sure there is actually land under that ice before you purchase.Land is the principal source of wealth and wealth generation in New Zealand and the land transfer system is critical to the ongoing functioning of the economy. It is really important for New Zealanders to have security. I commend this bill.Bill read a second time.
Land Transfer Bill — Second Reading
Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I will take a very brief call on this the second reading of the Land Transfer Bill. It is definitely time that the legislation was updated. The Land Transfer Act itself of course is over 60 years old and it contains some provisions that are actually over 100 years old so it was definitely time to update it. I just want to address one important point in the bill that took a fair bit of the Government Administration Committee's time. There was a lot of debate. We sought significant advice on it and in the end the committee came to a unanimous decision that it was going to be better to remove clauses 54 and 55—delete both those clauses. Of course clause 54 requires mortgagees to verify the identity of mortgagors and clause 55 makes related changes to the title obtained by a transferee of a mortgage. Ultimately we felt that really it was a solution looking for a problem and we were very concerned that all it was going to generate was more compliance costs. Of course when people are looking to get into especially their first home or property the last thing that we should be doing is adding something into a bill that was going to create additional cost and compliance costs for them. So on the committee we felt unanimously that it was a very good decision for us to delete clauses 54 and 55. I am very happy to have taken a call. Thank you.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this the Land Transfer Bill in its second reading. I think there is no disagreement at all across the House that the Government holds an incredibly important role in dealing with land transfers—Denis O'Rourke: How does he know?BRETT HUDSON: —and ensuring New Zealanders can have confidence in their property rights. Mr O'Rourke might have something to say in a few minutes' time and it will be well informed given that neither he nor any of his colleagues actually sat on the Government Administration Committee! But New Zealand First opinions are like belly buttons; everyone has got one.I do not think there is any debate at all that this current land title registration system is somewhat outdated. The principal Act dates back some 60 years. The principles behind it as sound as they might be and the legislation that it fed from dates back perhaps 100 years or more earlier than that. Much of the language is archaic complex and quite frankly difficult to understand which some people might ascribe to many speeches that are actually delivered in this Chamber from time to time. However now is the right time to do something about it.We look at what was placed in front of the committee to consider. One of the most simple yet perhaps not quite so easy things to execute was how we deal with a system that is based on processes that date back at least 60 if not 100 years and how we make them relevant to the way that business is transacted in so many spheres today. The key to that was: how do we deal with electronic documents and electronic transfers? It is a pleasure to be able to report back to you and to the House that the bill as it was written up and as the committee has assessed it will now support the ability to conduct business if not quite in the latest part of the 21st century then at least in something akin to it.Along the way of course the committee heard submissions from a number of parties. There was not 100 percent agreement on all facets of that and it has been noted that the Bankers' Association had a few things to say. It is with great pleasure I stand alongside my colleagues and note that we did agree to remove clauses 54 and 55 a unanimous decision. There is no need to layer more compliance effort and costs on New Zealanders as they transact property changes.There is not much more to say other than that this is a bill that is long overdue. It is one that I hope will sail through the House through the next couple of stages and will make it through to enactment in a very short period of time. I commend this bill to the House.
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua mauri ora. In following on from the learned member David Cunliffe who has resumed his seat I want to thank him for outlining the Labour Opposition's support for this bill. It is not however as the member described a small" piece of legislation—running to 220 pages—that we have in front of us. The Government Administration Committee gave this bill full consideration and as my learned and distinguished colleague the Attorney-General pointed out the original Act that we are amending dates back to 1952. But actually the history of the system of landholding and tenure that we have in New Zealand goes back a little bit further than that and is quite interesting.The Torrens system to which New Zealand subscribes is widely used throughout the Commonwealth. It is a system that allows title by registry rather than the registry of title. So in this bill we have kept that at the very core of our system of land registry. Denis O'Rourke: He's got the wrong speech.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: And this is an important point to note Mr O'Rourke because when there is an administrative error in the land registry particularly one committed by the State it is very important that landholders have surety that they will be compensated for that mistake and this bill does provide for that. The Torrens system originated in our part of the world. It was actually developed by Sir Robert Torrens who was the third Premier of the state of South Australia when he introduced the Real Property Act 1858 there. And it has been developed to the point that in New Zealand we have a very high degree of surety around landholding because we have a digital record now—we have abandoned the system of deeds and bound folios and we have a very high-tech registry—that gives us great assurance that mortgages and landholdings are genuine.So in listening to submissions that we heard from the Bankers' Association but also the Law Society the select committee has suggested some alterations to the original text of the bill that are designed both to guarantee the surety of landholding and ensure that people who are transacting land transfers—people buying their first home for instance or people selling a property—do not face additional checks and identity checks that have already been completed by the banks because of the anti - money-laundering legislation that this Government has already passed; that unnecessary doubling up of having lawyers checking the work of other lawyers. That is what we in the select committee heard might happen with this bill as originally drafted. The amendments that are proposed are sensible. It is a very good bill and I commend it to the House."
Goodhew JoHon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): I thought I would just answer the member's queries straight away. It says very clearly in the bill under what circumstances the director-general will be required to share that information. The most important protection here is a commercial protection and it is a commercial protection that encourages these particular compounds and medicines to come to New Zealand while the data is protected. The director-general would be taking due note of whether there was a health—so let us say that one of the Government departments that he might be required to share information with was the Ministry of Health. New Zealanders would understand that but equally they would not expect the Ministry of Health to go and take an advertisement out so that the data protection was broken and paraded in front of other commercial companies. The director-general I can speak with absolute knowledge takes his responsibilities very very seriously and should there be a female director-general in the future so too will she. It is written quite clearly in the bill. I wonder whether we are simply going over the same territory perhaps unnecessarily or maybe that is unnecessary for me to say. But this is in the bill the data will be protected and it is commercially sensitive. Government departments take that very seriously and I want to give you my assurance that it looks pretty good to me.
Martin TraceyTRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora. I will take a short call on behalf of my colleague Richard Prosser who is a member of the Primary Production Committee and who spoke on this bill at the first reading and the second reading. It was interesting with the previous speaker Damien O'Connor—the talk about balance. It certainly has been the topic for the New Zealand First caucus with this particular piece of legislation—around balance. One of the things that has been pointed out is the balance between what the public should be able to know—what is inside what is being sprayed upon their food—and the protection for an innovator for a company to develop a product and have the protection for a certain period of time around the chemical make-up inside the product. The balance of protection of New Zealand's reputation to make sure that what is being sprayed upon food products or agricultural products or being used with regard to veterinary medicines is not going to negatively impact when at the end of 8 years the ingredients inside these innovative products become known—Todd Barclay: 10 years.TRACEY MARTIN: —so therein lies the tension. Well that is interesting: the phrase 10 years". If I look at the bill it says "enable the period to be extended to a maximum of 8 years". I think you might be thinking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement which again is an interesting conversation about balance and perhaps that is a conversation that we can have at a later date. With regard to this particular piece of legislation it has been that conversation of balance: the protection of the rights of an innovator over the rights of people to know what they have got on their food what is being sprayed and so on and so forth. New Zealand First is actually—we do not think this bill is perfect by any stretch of the imagination but we will be supporting it because Mr Prosser has assured the caucus that in his view the tension has been played out and the balance is there. At this stage the New Zealand First caucus will continue to support the bill as we have done up to this point. However I wanted to mark the concerns of some members of the caucus. It was interesting—Mr O'Connor said that possibly there is not enough interest out in the general public around the technicalities of this bill and some of the science and so on and so forth that has been placed forward with submissions. I think he might find that there is more interest than he might want to believe with regard to what is going to happen next. But as I say at this stage from the New Zealand First perspective although the bill is not perfect we think that on measure the balance has been struck so we will be supporting the bill at this moment. Kia ora."
Ross Jami-Lee; Borrows ChesterAGRICULTURAL COMPOUNDS AND VETERINARY MEDICINES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave that all debates on this bill be taken as one question and voted on separately.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Māori Purposes Bill — In Committee (continued)
Flavell Te UruroaMĀORI PURPOSES BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendments to Māori Purposes (Wi Pere Trust) Act 1991 (continued)Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): I move That the Committee report progress and move to consider the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.Progress to be reported presently.
Macindoe TimMĀORI PURPOSES BILLIn CommitteeTIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): Pursuant to a discussion in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the provisions of the Māori Purposes Bill to be considered in one debate with the votes to be taken separately. The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
Speaker's Rulings — Māori Purposes Bill—Scope of Supplementary Order Papers
SpeechSPEAKER'S RULINGSCommittee of the Whole House—Amendments Māori Purposes BillMr SPEAKER: Shortly before the House went into Committee today Chris Hipkins raised a point of order about three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on the Māori Purposes Bill which had just been released. I have had time now to study the issue. The point of order queried the relevance to the bill as introduced of amendments set out in the Supplementary Order Papers. It also asked whether the statement on page 320 of McGee In the case of a bill introduced as an omnibus bill substantive amendments to it are confined to those Acts already proposed to be amended by it substantively …" still applies. The general rule around the scope of amendments is that they must be relevant to the subject matter of the bill and consistent with its principles and objects. This applies to general omnibus bills. However a Māori Purposes Bill is a special kind of omnibus bill that makes tidy-up amendments to legislation relating to Māori affairs and I refer members to page 323 of McGee. Its scope is a little different in that it allows a broader range of amendments than those permitted for most other types of omnibus bills provided they relate to Māori affairs. The three SOPs released by the Minister for Māori Development (1) amend Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 in relation to reporting requirements for Māori incorporations (2) amend Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act 2015 in relation to post-settlement governance and (3) amend the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act 2003 in relation to redundant provisions covering output agreements. These amendments may not be in the scope of a general omnibus bill but they do fit within the scope of a Māori Purposes Bill. I would remind Ministers that it is good practice to release SOPs early particularly where they propose to insert new parts into a bill. In answer to the second question the rule described on page 320 of McGee no longer applies. The 2011 Standing Orders Committee recommended the removal of the rule and the House adopted that recommendation so it is now permissible in the case of an omnibus bill to make amendments to Acts not amended in the bill as introduced. I refer members to page 47 of the Standing Orders Committee report 2011. The new edition of McGee due to be published by the Clerk early next year will reflect that change. I thank members and return the House to Committee."
Ross Jami-Lee; Mallard TrevorJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Everyone who is going for the call has already had a call and it is some time since we have had a new argument.Motion agreed to.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I would like to continue from where Ron Mark left off and clarify a few points about what the police are doing. First of all the police are providing safety to the citizens of New Zealand. That is the paramount duty of the police and we agree. Vetting is a totally different thing. Where vetting is provided it is to make sure that people who are dealing with children—who are dealing with schoolgirls—or taxi drivers who are dealing with the public every day are properly vetted so that we can ensure the safety of everyone. I remember that there was a case when somebody changed his name a few times and was working in a school and he was a sex offender. We want to make sure that these people are not in schools or in childcare centres. We want to ensure that and $7 or $8 is not too much for us to be asking for.Kris Faafoi: Oh for you it might not be.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: It is for 2 years—the vetting is valid for 2 years and if you have to pay $8 or $7 for 2 years I do not think that is too much. If you are applying for a job it is a reasonable cost. If you compare it with some of the Australian jurisdictions they are charging $30 or $50. We are charging just $7 which makes a lot of difference. It is very reasonable and I think the police will be doing a great job in doing this. It is very important that we should ensure that the budget that is given to the Police is utilised for what it is supposed to do. It is not for funding someone who is looking for a job or going for some business. They have to pay $7 or $8 and we are funding that from the Police budget—that is not appropriate. I think Minister Collins it is very appropriate that you mentioned that these are the provisions. The police are funding almost $4.2 million every year for vetting at present which is not the right thing. I think that money should be utilised by the police to resource their own things so that they can maintain better law and order. I think that this is a very good idea and that we should support it.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I will just take a short call to answer the questions raised by Mr Faafoi. The first is what the most up-to-date figure is because of course I was using the figures from a few years back. With the fact that we are now proposing that police have waivers and exemptions for all organisations with 20 or fewer requests for vetting and also for all registered charities the fee is going to be $8.50. It is still less than two commercially purchased cups of coffee for the entire vetting.
Carter DavidMr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments. What I intend to do is seek further advice on the matter. I intend to put the House into Committee. There is other legislation that can be considered first and I can seek some advice. I am not aware of the detail of the Supplementary Order Papers but I know they will have been checked by the Clerk's Office. The member is saying they are inconsistent with the original Act. I need time to consider that. It may require me coming back to the House before we actually move to the Committee stage of that particular bill.
Points of Order — Māori Purposes Bill—Scope of Supplementary Order Papers
Hipkins ChrisPOINTS OF ORDERCommittee of the Whole House—Amendments Māori Purposes BillCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the bills that you will shortly declare the House in Committee on is the Māori Purposes Bill. I want to draw your attention to a number of Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled today in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell the Minister in charge of the bill—Supplementary Order Papers Nos 231 232 and 233. I want to talk particularly to the first two of those amendments.The first two Supplementary Order Papers I have just mentioned insert new parts into the Māori Purposes Bill that amend Acts that have not previously been part of the Māori Purposes Bill and are not consistent with the purpose of that bill. The purpose of that bill as specified is relatively narrow. Although it is an omnibus bill the purpose as specified in the bill on the Table is that it is an omnibus bill that seeks to amend the Māori Purposes Act 1991 to improve the governance and operational capability of the Wī Pere Trust and to correct a minor technical error in the Māori Trust Boards (Transitional Provisions) Order 2012." That is the purpose of the bill as currently tabled and as it has been through the select committee.The Supplementary Order Papers as presented by the Minister make amendments to the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act. That has no connection whatsoever to the omnibus bill already before the House or to the provisions of it. Another one makes amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Again that has no connection whatsoever. I want to draw your attention to McGee on page 320: "In the case of a bill introduced as an omnibus bill substantive amendments to it are confined to those Acts already proposed to be amended by it …". I seek your clear ruling that that still continues to be the case and that those amendments as tabled by the Minister are out of order."
Mark RonRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): In response to a comment that was just made by the last speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just have the point of order please?RON MARK: Can I seek leave to table a table that I have just put together showing political party leaders in the New Zealand Parliament since 1996 which shows National has had five Labour has had five and New Zealand First has had—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I am not prepared to put the leave. It is a matter of some authenticity to the document. It is not about tabling a document to make a political point. Does the member wish to take a call?
Thursday 20 October 2016 - Volume 717
Education Legislation Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education Legislation Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a third time.
Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 45New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Bill read a third time.
11. Partnership Schools—Funding Recovery Following ClosuresTRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of EducationPartnership Schools—Funding Recovery Following Closures11. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes in the context in which they were given.Tracey Martin: Does she stand by her statement from 24 February 2015: If a partnership school closes before the end of its contract the Ministry would seek to recover any unused funding or available asset through a commercial negotiation process."?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.Tracey Martin: At what stage are the commercial negotiations for the return of the land and assets at Whangaruru that were purchased with 4.8 million taxpayer dollars to establish a now-failed partnership school?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Proceeding.Tracey Martin: Can she reassure the House that all subsequent partnership school sponsor trust contracts since the first tranche now include a clause that requires all assets purchased with taxpayers' money to be returned to the Crown when or if a partnership school ceases to trade—for example when a future New Zealand First - led Government closes such a school?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Ha ha! I was going to take that seriously for a minute. Um I cannot confirm that."
10. Local Government—Appointees to Kaipara District Council and Environment CanterburyJOANNE HAYES (National) to the Associate Minister of Local GovernmentLocal Government—Appointees to Kaipara District Council and Environment Canterbury10. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Associate Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has the Government made around supporting local democracy?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister of Local Government): It is important to support local councils after interventions have been in place and ensure that the gains achieved by commissioners are maintained. Last week we announced a Crown observer for the Kaipara District Council to support the new council in its duties. This complements the Crown manager appointed in July who will deal with historical legal actions. Additionally on Tuesday along with Minister Smith I announced the appointment of six members to Environment Canterbury. This ensures continuity and the retention of specialist skills needed to complete water plans for the region.Joanne Hayes: How will the Crown manager and Crown observer appointed to Kaipara District Council support the newly elected council?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The newly elected members will be able to focus on the future rather than being distracted by historical issues. The Crown manager will solely focus on the historical legal issues. The Crown observer will ensure that the newly elected members are well supported and successful in their new roles. These appointments provide the Kaipara community with a fresh start.Joanne Hayes: How will having six Government appointees on Environment Canterbury support local democracy?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is no secret that 6 years ago Environment Canterbury was not in good health. Over the past 6 years Environment Canterbury's organisational performance—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am now at the stage where I cannot hear the answer. The member has a seat in a very unfortunate neighbourhood in that she is very close to me so her interjections interrupt my ability to judge whether the question has been answered. Would the Minister please answer the question again.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is no secret that 6 years ago Environment Canterbury was not in good health. Over the past 6 years organisational performance by Environment Canterbury its relationship with stakeholders and management of fresh water have significantly improved. Having six appointed councillors for the coming term provides stability and complements the seven elected members. All of the councillors will be equal whether they have been elected or appointed. We want to ensure that the new Environment Canterbury achieves success and we have set the council up to continue to deliver for the community. I have the greatest confidence that they will make the most of this opportunity. The council has a big job ahead of it.
6. Roading—Waikato Expressway Motu Bridge Replacement and Queenstown Eastern Access RoadTIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of TransportRoading—Waikato Expressway Motu Bridge Replacement and Queenstown Eastern Access Road6. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Transport: What roading projects is the Government delivering to support and increase economic growth in Waikato?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): It was my pleasure to last week turn the sod on the seventh and final section of the Government's $2.1 billion Waikato Expressway. The $115 million Longswamp section involves widening and upgrading State Highway 1 between Hampton Downs and the Rangiriri interchange to four lanes as well as improving local road connections. This marks a major milestone for the Waikato Expressway with all the remaining sections now under construction. When the 102-kilometre expressway is completed in 2020 it will reduce congestion and unlock economic potential by providing stronger and safer links between the business and primary production centres of Auckland Waikato and the Bay of Plenty.Todd Muller: What roading projects is the Government delivering to support and increase economic growth in the East Coast?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Recently the local member for East Coast the Hon Anne Tolley and I turned the first sod to mark the start of the Motu Bridge replacement project near Gisborne. The road between Gisborne and Ōpōtiki is relied on heavily for the movement of freight tourism and for locals between the East Coast and the Bay of Plenty. This new two-lane bridge will strengthen the East Coast primary link with the Bay of Plenty and boost economic growth and productivity by providing a safer road that is more reliable and provides more predictable travel times between the two regions.Todd Barclay: What roading projects is the Government delivering to support an increased economic growth in Otago?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh as the member well knows visitor numbers in the Queenstown area are booming and new developments associated with a strong economy are putting increasing pressure on the local transport system. That is why I was pleased to announce recently that funding has been approved between the Government and Queenstown Lakes District Council for the construction of Queenstown's $22 million eastern access road. The road will be a critical link in Queenstown's transport network and relieve congestion through the Frankton Flats area. Of course the Government is also replacing the Kawarau Falls Bridge improving the roundabout at the busy junction of State Highway 6 and 6A and working on plans to add a lane in each direction to the road linking the roundabout with the new Kawarau Falls Bridge. Can I just acknowledge the local member's strong advocacy regarding transport.
4. Childhood Obesity—Childhood Obesity Plan ProgressMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of HealthChildhood Obesity—Childhood Obesity Plan Progress4. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Health: What steps has the Government taken to reduce childhood obesity since the launch of the Childhood Obesity Plan one year ago?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Tackling the issue of obesity is a key priority for the Government. This week marks 1 year since the launch of the Childhood Obesity Plan. This plan consists of 22 initiatives across the Government the private sector communities schools and families aimed at increasing physical activity and making healthy food choices. At the core of the plan we have implemented a new health target for 95 percent of obese children identified in the B4 School Check programme to be offered further medical advice and guidance. We have also had 219 low-decile schools sign up to the Health Promoting Schools programme 34 schools are piloting Sport New Zealand's Play.sport initiative and over 2000 products now carry the Health Star Rating. Melissa Lee: What role does the food industry play in supporting the Childhood Obesity Plan?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The plan also signalled our intention to work with industry in addressing the issue of childhood obesity. Today at a food sector forum industry participants are signing up to a pledge that will see consideration given to reformulation advertising and labelling changes. Just this afternoon as part of the Government's plan the Advertising Standards Authority has announced new restrictions on advertising to children. The Children's Code for Advertising Food will now include 14- to 18-year-olds and will prohibit advertising of occasional food and beverages in any media or setting where over 25 percent of the expected audience are children.
Third Readings
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a short call on the legislation arising from the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. It is the third reading. We have enjoyed going through this process as a Health Committee. It is going to be really good legislation which is going to help us to deliver better faster and more convenient healthcare to patients. We actually heard before about rural New Zealand where we can effectively use the skills of the workforce. We do have a lot of nurses out there who are well and truly capable of taking on further roles and further work but at this point in time before enactment of this piece of legislation the law is not in a position to enable them to do that. The legislation is going to help not only our rural communities but all other communities tremendously. Changing to health practitioners rather than having everything being done by medical practitioners is going to give us a lot more scope and a lot more ability to do things in our communities. We are working really hard to fulfil National's election promise to encourage younger nurses to stay in the country after graduation through the voluntary bonding scheme which pays off student loans for nurses medical and midwifery graduates who agree to work in hard-to-staff communities and specialise for 3 to 5 years. I think this is going to be a really good process for that in terms of enabling them to do what they are fully capable of doing. As our healthcare changes the way we deliver health services changes as well. I have spent a bit of time since I have been a member of Parliament on the mobile surgical buses looking at the specialist services on some of those mobile buses—which we had in Parliament while we were discussing this bill as a Health Committee. They play a greater role in terms of bringing health services to us and it just means that those nurses in our communities are able to specialise further and help provide more services for our communities. I also want to commend the work that has been done by the Health Committee under our more than capable chair Simon O'Connor. We are a very good committee. We actually work extremely well together. We are focused on what is going to provide better things for our future in our communities and it is my great pleasure this afternoon to have the opportunity to commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): This is an excellent bill contrary to what that member over there David Cunliffe says. I do not know why he has got a Trump fetish but he has. I am proud to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I also would like to begin my speech by acknowledging the contribution that the Hon Hekia Parata has made to the education portfolio in particular. I think that was best demonstrated for me when I witnessed her speaking to hundreds of teachers in Blenheim and the thoughtful challenging speech she gave covering a lot of the things that are within this bill. To see how warmly that was received by those teachers was I think something that many in the House should have been able to witness.I turn to the bill. When hearing the contributions from those opposing the bill there is a theme running through them. I think it really reminds me of a quote from a Charles Holland Duell who in 1898 was appointed Commissioner of the US Patent Office. He was attributed a quote saying that everything that could be invented had been invented. I think what we are hearing in the opposition to this bill is that nothing new could be invented in education—there is no need to change anything no need to give any flexibility—because it has all been invented. Well that is absolute nonsense. The parties that are involved claim to be progressive parties—they are conservative and they cannot deal with change and it is such a shame to see that.Turning to the actual details in the bill—for example Teach First NZ which was referred to earlier by one of the previous speakers. One thing that she failed to touch on was that the evidence is that those Teach First NZ teachers have dramatically improved the performance of the classes they are teaching. It is absolutely irrefutable evidence. Now I realise—wearing your tinfoil hat—it might be hard to deal with but it is a fact. It is a fact—and I think that that flexibility is just another thing that will bring great innovation into schools. Having principals being able to be a principal of more than one school—again providing flexibility. Having flexibility will drive innovation innovation drives performance and that is what parents will decide on. All of these decisions particularly around principals being responsible for more than one school will be made by the school community. They will not agree to it if they do not want it. So it is with great pleasure that I commend this wonderful piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.
Dowie Sarah; Borrows ChesterSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to rise and take a very short call—unfortunately a short call. I would relish longer but the dutiful whip would give me the evil eye so I am taking this short call. I think that I should start too with accolades to our Minister of Education Hekia Parata. She has been incredibly inspiring she is passionate about education and her leadership has been second to none. Her leadership is all about the evolution of education. It is an acknowledgment that education is advancing that teaching methods are advancing that teachers are innovative and that through collaboration they can come up with better and better methods to teach our children and help them succeed. This bill is no different and the Government of course is behind it. Education has featured so strongly in all of our policies to raise achievement. If you look at some of our statistics 97 percent of children are engaged in early child education 83.3 percent of 18-year-olds are achieving NCEA level 2 across New Zealand—up about 38000 kids since 2008—and tertiary qualifications are spiking with people moving on to get those higher skills to help them achieve what they want to achieve in life. This bill the Education Legislation Bill is no different. It is about advancing education and it is about giving schools the flexibility to teach in a modern world. I want to pay tribute to the Lower Mataura Valley community of learning and that is a collaboration of schools that are working together to cultivate a community of 21st century confident connected and engaged learners. I want to pick up on what Ms Delahunty raised in respect of choice—and this is important. I acknowledge that people in different communities have different challenges but this is what this bill does. People in Porirua may have a unique set of challenges that they have to deal with but so do these people in the Lower Mataura Valley. They are mainly farmers and they work various different hours and so it may well be that in respect of their children's learning they want to collaborate and bring about different hours to facilitate that. That should be their choice. If they want to collaborate and think independently—by God! My goodness independent thinking—should we be cultivating that? Well I say yes. If those communities want to get together and create a different system that works for them and their families so be it. Therefore because of that I support this bill.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Gareth Hughes.
Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. He mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. As the final speaker on the Government side I stand in support of this bill the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. I also would just like to summarise the major points of this bill. There are a number of measures in this bill that explicitly strengthen pool safety. Retailers themselves will now be required to inform people who buy spas or portable pools of the pool safety rules to help people understand how to use these pools legally and also safely. Councils will now be able to require inspection of swimming pools every 3 years. Also talking about councils they will have a more effective range of enforcement tools. Warning notices will be the preferred tool for compliance with infringement notices and court prosecutions when warnings are ignored. So that is the first part of the major changes around safety but there are other measures in this bill that reduce the burden of compliance where that can be sensibly done without impacting on safety. Spa pools and hot tubs with safety covers will no longer be required to be fenced and this is just common sense. We know that children are not at risk from a tub that has a safety cover on it and to require a fence as well is regulation for no purpose.The other part is that we are simplifying the rules in this bill by making pool safety provisions part of the Building Act and that is a major change. We are removing non-residential pools from these requirements since they are already covered by health and safety regulations themselves. Also the bill clarifies that garden pools and other water hazards where the risk of drowning is much lower than in swimming pools will not need to meet the swimming pool fencing requirements. Another part is that there is also recognition that barriers such as a cliff face or a high retaining wall would do the same job as a fence in terms of preventing unsupervised children from getting into the pool itself. Finally I just want to acknowledge the great work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is very much a committee like the Māori Affairs Committee. It is very pragmatic and principled ki ahau ki te tautoko o te pire otirā tēnei pire e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa kia ora [towards me in support of the bill but this one in particular and so I acknowledge you all].