edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
2. Question No. 2—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Fakaalofa lahi atu Mr Speaker. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Stats New Zealand today reported that the Consumers Price Index was 2.2 percent in the September quarter taking the annual inflation rate to 7.2 percent down from 7.3 percent in the previous quarter for an annual rate. This drop is not as much as economists had been predicting. High construction and housing costs and rates drove the annual figure while quarterly numbers were affected by spikes in food and the cost of international travel. As I've said previously in this House we recognise that this is a tough period for many households and businesses and that is why we have provided significant targeted support and will continue to provide that to help New Zealanders weather these conditions. Inflation continues to be a global challenge with the UK's inflation rate near 10 percent and projected to rise considerably higher the US at 8.2 percent and Australia projected to be at 7.75 percent by the end of the year. New Zealand is in fact the 10th lowest in the 38-nation OECD statistics. Supply constraints are easing including the approval of more than 60000 positions for overseas recruitment to help address workforce pressures.Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the state of the Government's books?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: For the year to the end of June the operating balance before gains and losses the OBEGAL deficit was $9.7 billion—around half of the $19 billion forecast in the Budget in 2022 in May. Net debt ended the year at 17.2 percent of GDP in line with Budget forecasts and this is one of the lowest levels in the OECD and well below the Government's debt ceiling of 30 percent ensuring we are well positioned to weather future economic shocks. New Zealand is in a strong fiscal position as we face a number of global challenges.Barbara Edmonds: What else did the report say on the impact of the economy on the Government's books?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economy performed well in the year to June 2022 due to the Government's strong health response to the Delta and Omicron outbreaks. Core Crown revenue was 4.1 percent ahead of forecast at $117.5 billion as the strong economic recovery boosted business results led to more people in work which contributed to that higher tax revenue. Core Crown expenses were 2.2 percent below forecast as our successful COVID response meant allocated pandemic-related spending was not required in full. Some of those expenses like ongoing investment in protections such as therapeutics and vaccines will shift into the current fiscal year.
Message from the Governor-General
EventMESSAGE FROM GOVERNOR-GENERALPlain Language BillSPEAKER: Members I have received a message from Her Excellency the Governor-General. It reads as follows:CINDY KIRO GOVERNOR-GENERALThe Governor-General on behalf of His Majesty consents to the passage of the Plain Language Bill to the extent that it affects the rights and prerogatives of the Crown.Wellington 3 October 2022.
Ngobi Terisa; O'Connor GregTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Fakaalofa lahi atu Mr Speaker. It's always great to be back in the Whare after recess. As always it's an honour and a privilege to take a short call in the Whare as the member of Parliament for the beautiful Ōtaki electorate on this the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill.This bill is about ensuring that our migrant workers are protected have good working conditions are offered competitive wages and are treated with dignity and respect. This bill is about doing the right thing. As we have heard there have been reports of modern day slavery where migrant workers have been forced into labour and treated really badly. These are crimes and it violates migrants' human rights. It traumatises these migrants who are already vulnerable. They've come over here knowing that Aotearoa is the place that will support them and then they get treated like that—not good.The actions that we're taking to tackle the exploitation of migrant workers—under the three pillars of prevention protection and enforcement action plan—look to raise awareness and provide training eliminate modern day slavery from supply chains provide effective and efficient support services to these victims strengthen policy and legislation to enhance enforcement and prosecution and work with others internationally to support effective prevention and enforcement.Part of the Immigration Rebalance and the accredited employer work visa—the work that we're doing on this side of the House—is to ensure that New Zealand can attract those high-skilled migrants offer competitive wages and have a process that ensures employers who do sign up to this are compliant and are looking after their workers. With regular and tight checks this process will reduce the chance of worker exploitation which we all agree in this House we don't want to see here in Aotearoa.New Zealanders want to know that the goods and services that they purchase in Aotearoa in New Zealand are ethical and do not contribute to the exploitation of migrant workers. That is what this bill ensures and for that reason it's a great piece of legislation and I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill — First Reading
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. I just wanted to make a point around what members on the other side of the House have talked about as low-level breaches. In my experience having worked with migrants who've been exploited I've got a few examples that I will just talk to briefly that would probably qualify as low-level breaches but that actually speak to a much greater amount of exploitation. Recently I had a local chef come into my office who had been duped into signing a sale and purchase agreement for the business that he was working for. He's a migrant. One of the challenges in that particular situation was that the documents that showed how much money he had earned during that time were not available so it is was very difficult for us to then work up a case because there weren't actually good employment records in place. I just note that keeping those types of employment records are required by law in terms of hours of work and how much is paid. We're not asking employers to go above and beyond what's currently required by law; what we're saying is that there's actually an expectation now that you can no longer stall that but you need to provide that within 10 working days. It's a very reasonable request in my view.Another example was around a worker who had complained again about hours of work and had gone to the labour inspectorate and he was subsequently assaulted. So sometimes what we see is that things that the Opposition may call low-level breaches actually lead to much more serious types of migrant exploitation. The most recent type of example that's come to my attention is in Marlborough in the viticulture sector where we're seeing a number of workers being exploited in terms of being required to pay for their own transport and their own equipment and again actually having records of that type of information will be important for the inspectorate. So it'll be good to have a discussion at select committee about improvements to the bill and I commend it to the House.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. We've heard a lot tonight about this very complex issue. As my colleague Camilla Belich pointed out it is great to hear that everybody is in agreement that we need to better protect our migrant workers—all workers. It's great to hear on the other side of the House that they support investing in our Public Service so they can do a better job at serving those vulnerable workers.We heard in select committee in the Education and Workforce Committee many submissions in our inquiry into migrant exploitation. It was clear the message was clear; the stories were distressing and graphic. This piece of legislation sits alongside a whole pile of tools that we are working to improve to ensure that workers and their employers are best able to make the most of having these fine people in their workplaces.So alongside the immigration rebalance with our improvements to Accredited Employer Work Visa and the Migrant Exploitation Protection Work Visa we are hearing about these other tools. We will be exploring these and making sure that they are as good as they can be when it comes to select committee.We heard tonight from the Minister talking about education. The Opposition did acknowledge that we have employers who don't know what their obligations are and that we need to support them to be the best employers that they can be. It is about protecting our migrant workers. It was great to hear ACT supporting legislation and again making it as good as it can be to protect them. It is also about having the best deterrents to make sure that everybody is doing the right thing.Employers have rights and responsibilities and so does all of New Zealand: to look after our migrants; to look after all of our workers. They contribute to their communities and our economy. We need to work together to make sure that they and all of New Zealand can reach their potential as we grow and prosper. I really look forward to this bill coming to select committee. I commend it to the House.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this excellent bill the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill and I wanted to start with perhaps a little bit more of a conciliatory note. It's great to hear that the National Party will be supporting this bill to the select committee. It's great to hear that on both sides of the House we condemn exploitation and I think we can be confident to say that the House in its entirety is opposed to these practices that we know can be so corrosive and so damaging when new migrants come into New Zealand. So I think that's a good place to start.Just in terms of a few of the other comments made by members on the other side of the House there are a few concerns around the reasonableness—or whether there is a basis I think—for putting requests to employers for information together. I think that's a fair point to raise. One point that I would offer as a counter perhaps to that proposal is the changes that are made to the Employment Relations Act—as this is an omnibus bill—obviously will go into the existing Act and the existing Act has very robust and well-understood duties of good faith meaning that all of the actions undertaken by any of the parties that are taking action under that piece of legislation would have to do so under good faith and that's in section 4. So—Erica Stanford: But not in the Immigration Act.CAMILLA BELICH: —that would apply yes for the Employment Relations Act as I said. But I think that is a good point for us to look at specifically in select committee and so I thank members from the other side for raising that point and it is something that I look forward to examining more closely at select committee.Some other things that were brought up were the right to strike—this is a fundamental human right. Obviously we want to be able to protect that no matter what Government is in power so I don't think criticisms of that nature help the debate go forward.On the whole I think this bill is a brave bill. It addresses an issue that we raised as part of our Labour Party Manifesto to address the exploitation of temporary migrants in New Zealand and I think this bill does an excellent job of providing additional powers to allow those types of investigations to go ahead. I look forward to considering it at select committee and I commend it to the House.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a privilege to take a call in the first reading debate of the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. Listening to Erica Stanford the previous speaker you could be forgiven for thinking that National are the great defender of workers' rights and never mind that the changes they brought in during their nine years in Government eroded workers' rights severely. When they talk about things like flexibility they talk about taking away workers' meal and rest breaks. But anyway we have already put that right and we are putting more things right like we are with this bill.This is a very important piece of legislation that aims to improve compliance and enforcement legislation to deter employers from exploiting migrant workers. There are gaps obviously in the enforcement regime that exist to ensure employers of migrant workers are complying with their obligations and we are putting that right.The previous speaker also had quite a few of the facts wrong. I know that my colleagues will speak about that a little bit more in depth but for example the resource that the previous speaker mentioned is not all desk-based so that is wrong. Also what we all know is that the labour inspectorate at this stage is still severely under-resourced thanks to the previous Government's stopping of investment in things. We have been working on increasing that resource ever since we have been in Government and thanks to that investment of our Government that labour inspectorate resource will be doubled by the end of the year.So thank you to the Hon Minister Priyanca Radhakrishnan—I can say her name properly with Minister" in front of it. We have this bill in front of us which will be dealing with a system that has been operating with a proper lack of oversight which has allowed exploitation to flourish. So this bill again addresses a very important Labour 2020 manifesto commitment which is that Labour will continue our work to stamp out migrant exploitation with a focus on exploring the implementation of modern slavery legislation in New Zealand to eliminate exploitation in supply chains. I look forward to chairing the Education and Workforce Committee which will be considering this bill and we will then report it back to the House and have another kōrero. I commend it to the House. Thank you."
Salesa Jenny; McAnulty KieranASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.Bill referred to the Environment Committee.Instruction to Environment CommitteeHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management) on behalf of the Minister of Climate Change: I move That the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 11 November 2022 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Speaker. Happy to take a brief call for a bill that has an extremely long title so I won't refer to it. But what I will say is that this bill seeks to simply extend the time frame within which those forestry participants who have a low volume of emissions must transition for the purposes of penalty in line with New Zealand's emissions trading scheme.I have full confidence that the good folk on the Environment Committee will be able to deal with this bill. It is a discreet bill it is a short bill but nonetheless I know that the members on the Environment Committee will give it its full attention—Hon Member: Hard-working.TANGI UTIKERE: —hard-working indeed and I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and take a short call on this bill—not going to repeat the name.A couple of things that I feel haven't been mentioned tonight that I'll just cover. So as we know the penalty came in place—three times the price of carbon per unit is the penalty—and one of the difficulties was that the regulator had no discretion to waiver or reduce those penalties that apply on top of the original liability. This is the crux of it really; it has affected our small forestry holders.A small forestry holder for this House and for those around is defined as having a net liability of less than 25000 units per year which roughly equates to around 60 hectares of post-1989 Pinus radiata being deforested. So it's likely to result in the unit surrender of an obligation of around 25000 units.When I checked today's carbon price it sat at $81. Deforesting 60 hectares at 25000 units would create a surrender cost of over just about $2 million. If the forester failed to surrender those units by 1 January 2023 currently they would be required to pay three times the cost of those penalties so that's $6 million plus repay the original $2 million. So unless you're Ian McKelvie that's a lot of money.The reality is that this piece of legislation very small very sharp—it extends the differential arrangements until the end of 2024 to avoid this. It creates more time to enable a new surrender or repayment penalty regime and is to be finalised for small forestry owners or participants and it mitigates that risk to them. I think it's an important little bill. It gives us some time. I commend it to the House.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Madam Speaker Fakaalofa lahi atu. I rise to make a contribution to the first reading of this bill in my short call the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill. The Government is taking action on climate change and has a goal of getting to net-zero emissions by 2050. However we recognise that there is much to do. The purpose of this bill focuses on being the vehicle for implementing the new surrender and repayment penalty framework for small foresters. As stated by many of my colleagues who have already spoken we cannot ignore the effects of climate change. I do want to acknowledge our communities and the participants who continue the work for low-volume emissions.The other purpose of the bill is to extend the transition period provided for New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS) participants with low-volume emissions liabilities. The bill is a climate change response in the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act 2020 introduced in conjunction with the zero carbon Act in 2019 and the legislation put in place is the architecture tool and framework to support our transition to a low-emissions economy. What we do know is that businesses that are responsible for greenhouse gases that cause climate change face a price for those emissions. And so to promote the reduction of the emissions they are to plant trees to take that carbon out of the atmosphere and those businesses will receive a financial reward.In my previous working life on the Auckland Council we voted in 2019 unanimously recognising the climate emergency and in the following year passed the Auckland climate plan in line with the Government's key priorities in the big budget of over $2 billion. In order for the Government to achieve its targets of cutting climate pollution it is about listening to the concerns of our communities and the sectors involved. The Government is also considering independent expert advice provided by the Climate Change Commission. The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act also introduced a revised penalties and compliance regime that came into force for most New Zealand ETS participants on 1 January 2021. This bill will allow an extension of time for small forestry participants to be educated and informed of the changes before the implementation of a new penalty that is intended to be effective on 1 January 2025.There are also other initiatives that Government is working on in the forestry and agriculture sectors on managing exotic-forest incentives so work needs to be progressed to make this bill effective. I commend this bill to the House.
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Thank you. I think the speech by the previous National speaker Stuart Smith really highlighted why National needs to lose the next election because if National was in charge of climate policy we would be going backwards. We heard from that speaker about how We have had problems with this for quite some time. We want to stick to what's in the ETS." but no commitment by the National Party to fixing the emissions trading scheme (ETS). We have heard from National that they completely support what farmers want with He Waka Eke Noa. They were quite happy for the agricultural sector to set its own levy rather than have that done independently and I think that speaker just highlighted how deficient National is in its thinking about climate particularly when he was gaslighting a young woman who was standing up for the future for her generation and for more action on climate protection. So the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill is certainly a long title but it reflects what has been part of this Government: to fix the ETS so that it actually works so that it is a critical tool in helping reduce emissions. It's been part of the major work programme that James Shaw has led as Minister over the last two terms from passing the zero carbon Act and establishing the Climate Change Commission to provide independent advice to changing the ETS so that we've seen that price on pollution double and then double again to establishing the Climate Emergency Response Fund; having $4.5 billion—the revenue from the ETS—ring-fenced so that it's invested in reducing emissions and protecting the climate being the first country in the world to have mandatory climate-risk reporting banning new fossil fuel exploration off the Taranaki Coast having a whole programme of change across the State sector to replace coal-fired boilers in our prisons and in our schools and making sure that we have clean vehicles in this country through the clean car discount which once again National opposed.So it's good that they are supporting this bill because the whole monitoring enforcement and compliance regime for the ETS needs to be robust so that the ETS has that integrity. As the Minister explained in his speech the transitional regime needs to be extended so that the policy can be worked on so that the penalties that apply to particularly those small foresters that have a liability of less than 25000 units annually aren't unduly penalising. It's a very small bill it's a very sensible bill and it does allow that time to make yet another action that will ensure that our ETS is robust and that it really does help drive down climate pollution and protect the climate for present and future generations including for people like Izzy and all the other School Strike 4 Climate activists who are concerned about their future and are providing us with the mandate to do much more. Kia ora."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Look this House grants privileges to members to say whatever they want really. I'm just saddened that Stuart Smith chose to use his privileges of this House to attack a 16-year-old girl. I think that's shameful and he should be thoroughly and heartily ashamed of himself.In respect of this bill it is a good bill. The emissions trading scheme (ETS) is a complex scheme and one of its challenges is that people with smaller holdings don't put the resources into necessarily knowing and understanding exactly what trees and forests are in the ETS and what aren't. As has been noted on the other side it is possible that they could cut down a forest without realising that in fact they are in the ETS scheme and the penalties are rightly significant if that isn't paid. So this bill does allow some breathing space whilst that particular problem is addressed in a more thorough-going way.It's good to see that it seems to be supported around the House. I absolutely commend it to the House as an extra step down our zero-carbon journey. Kia ora Madam Speaker.
Coffey TāmatiTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I actually agree with the previous speaker Ian McKelvie. There needs to be a lot more collective effort in this House to be able to work together on the big gnarly issues. Climate change is something that is affecting us all no matter where you live in the country and we can all be quite parochial about the places that we come from. But actually climate change is real it is an emergency—we have had our councils our Government declare climate emergencies; we have our children striking out in the street about it. The more that we can work together on these big issues the better off we're going to be.This is a very long title of a bill the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill. Whilst it is a long title it actually says what it is on the tin—it's one of those bills. One thing that I've learnt having been here now—this is my fifth year—is that there's plenty of legislation that's gone through this House where it's intended to do one thing then stuff happens and then there needs to be another revision another amendment. Maybe it had an unintended consequence or maybe something wasn't captured or maybe there was a delay in the timing. This is one of those bills and I'm sure that it will be great relief for those many small forestry owners that may indeed get caught up in an unintended consequence of the primary legislation and the primary goals that we've been trying to achieve.So I'm glad that the opposite side of the House supports it. On this side of the House we support it. I thank the Minister for bringing it forward. I support this bill to the House.
McAnulty KieranURGENCYHon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the first reading and referral to select committee of the Climate Change Response (Extension of Penalty Transition for Forestry Activities with Low Volume Emissions Liabilities) Amendment Bill.This bill was introduced on Tuesday 4 October and has therefore been available to members and the public for two weeks. However the Standing Orders that regulate the availability of bills for the first reading following introduction remain those of the pre-digital era and without the help of an urgency motion it would be delayed in going to select committee. I hope that the Standing Orders Committee remedies this anomaly as part of its tri-annual review. It is a short straightforward bill with four clauses. It extends deferral arrangements that would otherwise come into effect on 1 January 2023 so it is essential that it is enacted by the end of the year. Nevertheless the Government wishes it to go through the select committee process and the use of urgency enables that to occur.
Andersen Ginny; Salesa JennyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): For too long cleaners bus drivers supermarket workers and other people who are on the front line working day to day have lacked that bargaining power to seek better wages and better working conditions. We want to turn that around with this bill. We want to undo the damage that was done by the Employment Contracts Act 31 years ago.I sit here with sadness listening to the National Party scrounge around for ideas and reasons to pay Kiwis less. It makes me sad to think that you run lines and try and convince us that you mean it when you talk about concern for the cost of living when you can't even pay people a decent living wage. I have struggled to listen to the arguments of why New Zealand's wages struggle to keep with those in Australia when you can't agree to the same fair pay agreements that our brothers and sisters in Australia have implemented for years and years. So those cries I find are hollow cries. The cost of living as well as those to pay all they want to do in that sense is what I see is to pay working Kiwis less to fund tax cuts to the wealthy. I find that disgusting.Thirty-one years since the Employment Contracts Act was passed and I was one of those supermarket workers who sat with the 37 percent of part-time workers who took a pay cut in the first three years of that employment legislation coming into action. It removed sector-wide bargaining it drove down wages and it paved the way for a race to the bottom to who could pay workers the least and be more competitive with people's livelihoods and wages.I would like to say that I look forward to this legislation coming into force. I look forward to it improving the conditions for bus drivers in the Wellington region so that we can pay people a fair wage and we have a floor a bottom standard for conditions alongside wages that give good hard-working Kiwis enough money in their pockets each day that they can go home and feed their families.This is a critical piece of work that I know has had huge organisation from all of those that submitted from unions to organisations to workers. The large amount of submissions that came forward and said that New Zealand needs to move forward and be part of the future and pay people a fair wage is only the right thing to do for New Zealand.I look forward also for us having a good working relationship between workers and employers. It is only when we have that good working relationship that it works both ways and people want to stick around and do the extra work because it's fair and they want to do that. I'm proud of Michael Wood to be bringing forward such a great piece of legislation that I know will make a real difference in the lives of working families and I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The sitting will resume at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Urgent Debates—Health — Death of a patient at Middlemore Hospital
Rurawhe Adrian; Lee MelissaTUESDAY 18 OCTOBER 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: In celebration of Korean Language Week I have asked Melissa Lee to say the prayer in Korean.MELISSA LEE (National): 전지전능하신 하나님 저희들에게 내려주신 축복을 감사드 리옵니다. 저희들의 모든 사적이익을 뒤로하고 국왕님을 인지하며 저희 의원들이 일을 함에 있어 뉴질랜드의 평화와 번영을 위해 현명하고 정의롭고 자비로우며 겸손하게 행할 수 있도록 주님께서 인도하여 주시옵소서. 아멘.
Wednesday 28 September 2022 - Volume 763
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 64; Sharma.Noes 55New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Mark Cameron's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 186 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Andrew Bayly's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Andrew Bayly's amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Judith Collins' amendment inserting new clause 39A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 201 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 4 as amended be agreed to. Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Fisheries Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Fisheries Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House considering the Fisheries Amendment Bill that the committee may not consider Supplementary Order Paper 257.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Sharma.Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2; Sharma.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Charities Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 84New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.
Charities Amendment Bill — First Reading
9. Question No. 9—Prime MinisterDr GAURAV SHARMA (MP—Hamilton West) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 9—Prime Minister9. Dr GAURAV SHARMA (MP—Hamilton West) to the Prime Minister: Talofa Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.Dr Gaurav Sharma: Who does the Prime Minister think deserves to get diplomatic protection and police security: politicians who are being threatened by disruptive crowds as mentioned by Acting Prime Minister Grant Robertson last week or should it be everyday New Zealanders who are seeing on average 10 ram raids a week in front of their eyes in broad daylight?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Decisions around security for politicians are operational. Dr Gaurav Sharma: What does the Prime Minister say to Hamilton-based small and medium businesses who have been ram-raided and are having to pay for repairs out of pocket or face increased insurance premiums due to the inability of the Government to bring crime under control and will the Prime Minister and her Government pay for the damages occurring on her watch?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We stand by the funding that's been provided to ensure that up to 500 businesses will be supported to protect and prevent the actions of those involved in ram raids. I welcome news overnight—as the police continue to ensure that those who are engaged are held to account—that there have been just for example 14 arrests just overnight relating to recent activity in Tāmaki-makau-rau and the Waikato. Dr Gaurav Sharma: Point of order Mr Speaker. That doesn't answer the question about—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order Dr Gaurav Sharma Dr Gaurav Sharma: —thank you sorry—that the arrest doesn't actually answer the question: will the Government be paying for businesses who have been affected by ram raids?DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question has been addressed.
7. Question No. 7—EnvironmentTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 7—Environment7. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: How has fast-track consenting supported the development of infrastructure in New Zealand and what reports if any has he seen on infrastructure consenting costs outside of the fast-track process?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): A recent Infrastructure Commission report on consenting infrastructure projects found the costs of consents for medium-sized infrastructure projects have increased 150 percent over the last 10 years. Costs are 250 percent of what they were a decade ago and infrastructure developers are collectively spending $1.29 billion annually on resource consent processes representing 5.5 percent of project costs. New Zealand is at the extreme end of approval costs with equivalent costs in the UK or the European Union being between 0.1 percent and 5 percent of project costs. The time taken to make decisions on consent applications has also increased in New Zealand by as much as 150 percent over 10 years. Fast-track consenting has cut the average time for consenting by 15 months and for larger infrastructure projects by 18 to 24 months.Tāmati Coffey: How many projects have gone through the fast-track consenting process and how many jobs will they create?Hon DAVID PARKER: Fifty-four projects have been referred for fast-track consenting and 30 projects have so far been consented. These consented projects are expected to provide up to 7700 annualised full-time equivalent jobs.Tāmati Coffey: What transport projects have been consented through the fast-track process?Hon DAVID PARKER: Major transport projects include the Queenstown bypass the Drury Central and Paerata stations the Ngauranga to Pētone shared path and the Picton ferry terminal redevelopment. These major projects all received consents far more quickly and at a lower cost than would have been the case through standard Resource Management Act (RMA) processes.Tāmati Coffey: How many houses have been consented through the fast-track process?Hon DAVID PARKER: A total of 10193 housing consents have so far been referred for fast tracking and 4142 have so far been consented. This has made a significant difference to increasing housing supply.Tāmati Coffey: And will fast-track consenting be included in the replacement for the RMA?Hon DAVID PARKER: As the Infrastructure Commission has confirmed consents for infrastructure projects in New Zealand generally take too long and cost too much. Therefore a form of fast-track consenting will continue in the Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA) and the Spatial Planning Act. This will work in concert with other crucial changes which will flow from Strategic Planning Act plans into NBA plans via improved designations. These changes collectively will save the country many hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
Salesa Jenny; Dean JacquiREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Fisheries Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also further considered the Plant Variety Rights Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening. The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): I move That the question be now put.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I feel we have traversed some of this but the definition that the member's reading out is not a requirement in the way that he specifies that it is. Secondly when a plant variety right is granted then anyone who has used it is required to pay the grant holder appropriately. So in the interim if someone is lodging grant applications all over the place willy-nilly and without merit it doesn't hold other people's rights out and I think the member knows that.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister for his response. I find that quite horrific that response because I think it shows a degree of naivety that I find crippling and I imagine anyone who is growing new plants in New Zealand and developing new plant varieties in New Zealand will be appalled at that statement.But I just want to remind the Minister—and this is why it was so important I had this call and I'm very grateful to Madam Chair for granting it to me. In the commentary to the bill which is the bit at the beginning it states that The bill would also give effect to New Zealand's international treaty obligations. New Zealand is party to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). The 1978 revision of that agreement is reflected in the 1987 PVR Act. However under the CPTPP which New Zealand signed in 2018 the Government agreed to implement law to either 'accede' … or 'give effect' to the 1991 revision of UPOV (UPOV-91)." All glorious stuff.So that is why I find the Minister's response actually factually wrong because the provisions that the Hon Judith Collins is seeking to introduce on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 201 were already enshrined in the original Act that this bill was going to amend. It was already there and the further reason that it's been put forward and why people like Zespri which is not an insignificant New Zealand player believe that it is important and fundamentally important probably to make sure that we include this SOP provision is—and I quote—"Further retaining the provision in the current Plant Varieties Rights Act 1987 allows New Zealand to give effect to Article 13 of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (1991)"—UPOV-91 which I've just referred to at the very start of this bill—"as it is required under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Article 13 provides: 'Each Contracting Party shall provide measures designed to safeguard the interests of the breeder during the period between the filing or the publication of the application for the grant of a breeder's right and the grant of that right.' "—that's what we're talking about; we're talking about that time delay—" 'Such measures shall have the effect that the holder of the breeder's right shall at least be … equitable remuneration from any person who during the said period has carried out acts which once the right is granted requires the breeder's authorization as provided in Article 14' ". Minister I've got to say to you that I think your advice is poor. You are factually incorrect. You talked about New Zealand growers and it is absolutely essential that New Zealand growers who spend a fortune not only in money but in time—because it takes years often to develop these plant varieties—have a remedy if someone goes and nicks their stuff or misappropriates it as we have seen from time to time unfortunately. It is wrong. This provision needs to be included in the bill. I'm looking at the Minister and I'm hoping he's going to give us a proper answer."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'll just speak to the member Judith Collins' Supplementary Order Paper 201 there. What is being proposed would be completely out of whack with all of the jurisdictions we like to compare ourselves to and it would put us in a position where if a plant variety right were never granted but we enforced essentially a provisional status that simply wouldn't be fair on people who were being sued—for example the growers. It would introduce an injustice that none of our comparable jurisdictions have considered worth introducing.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to hear from the Minister why he didn't take the advice from the actual experts in this area because quite clearly the people who have the most experience in the plant varieties rights area are our horticultural giants like Zespri and like Turners & Growers. They are people who have been working in this area for a very long time and who have though their ingenuity their commitment the research that they've done and the way in which they have conducted themselves been able to build an industry which is of benefit to all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—because we're an exporting nation. It seems odd to me that the Minister has not taken their advice and I realise that there could be some who thought that perhaps kiwifruit farmers and others are making great profits and that that means they're paying great taxes. I understand that there might be a bit of a snitch on the other side of the House to think that people who have bought land or leased land and who have taken risks should make a profit but that's how we get paid basically. It's called taxes which they pay. So I'd like to ask why that is and why it is that we haven't heard from the Minister yet on the issues that I've already raised with him today as well as this particular issue that Andrew Bayly has referred to and which is contained in my Supplementary Order Paper which is that it's really important that we need to make sure that we are not just in competition with Australia or our near neighbours. We are in competition with the world and with regard to our produce such as say kiwifruit people like Zespri and Turners & Growers need to be able export the plant stock as well to other parts of the world so that they don't lose the currency—basically lose shelf space—in supermarkets all over the world. So they need to be able to do this and they can't do this effectively if they are not going to have the level of protection that they need for the incredible investment that goes on in producing and keeping up to date with trends that the buying public want to have. Just to give an example of how important this is we all remember the Psa disaster that came through and wiped out so much of the gold kiwifruit. It should in most people's minds have been a situation where that industry was just completely gone for years but it wasn't gone for years because there had already been so much work done on the SunGold that there was grafting going on and in fact a new variety was able to be brought to market that didn't have the Psa issue. So this is the sort of work that goes on. Even if we don't see it with our own eyes it's still going on and these New Zealand businesses that are so important to our country and our economy and our prosperity and our ability to pay for nurses' wages and our ability to pay for police officers' wages and our ability to get children to school—why is it that the Minister has not taken their advice?