edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Prosser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 22 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5193. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Is he still sceptical about how effective a register of foreign property buyers would be; if so why?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes I am sceptical because a real-time full register of who owns all the property in New Zealand would be an expensive and high-compliance method for getting sufficient data on which to make policy decisions. We think it is reasonable that we collect more information that is useful but not onerous in property transactions. That is why from 1 October all buyers of property other than the main home will have to have an IRD number and non-residents will have to have a New Zealand bank account and provide their country’s tax ID number. We believe that this is a lower compliance way of collecting data that we would actually use.Richard Prosser: Given that answer is he aware that a number of other jurisdictions have implemented such registers without apparent difficulty?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the jurisdictions where it sounds like they have got a register it is not evident that it is actually having any impact. For instance in Australia despite nominally having a register—or having a list of foreign buyers at least which is a different thing—there seems to have been mass non-compliance with the related policy. It simply proves that a register on its own makes no impact on who buys what; but it is a very expensive way of knowing who has already bought something.Richard Prosser: Will he instruct Landcorp which is currently managing the former Crafar farms on behalf of Shanghai Pengxin to tender for the acquisition of those farms in order to bring them back into New Zealand ownership; if not why not?Mr SPEAKER: It is a long way from the original question but I will allow it.Hon BILL ENGLISH: No it is not obvious that that would be an advantage either to Landcorp or to the New Zealand economy.Richard Prosser: Does he agree that New Zealand farmland is better in the ownership of New Zealand - resident local farmers rather than foreign corporations; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Fortunately politicians do not get to decide exactly who owns whatin an open-market economy. But I would point out to the member that there has been a cycle over the past 30 or 40 years of both foreign ownership and corporate ownership of farmland being at times popular and then becoming unpopular. In the long run the New Zealand owner-operated model—those who live it and love it—tends to be the only one that can make money out of New Zealand farmland.
Parmar Parmjeet: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParmar Parmjeet: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 22 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5189. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What are the costs and benefits of the recently announced changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that will require homes to be insulated and to have smoke alarms?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): The new requirements will see 180000 homes insulated at an estimated cost of $600 million. The benefits are reduced hospitalisations from both circulatory and respiratory illnesses and reduced pharmaceutical costs as well as fewer days off school and work. There are also savings in power bills from insulation. I am advised that the benefits equate to $2.10 for each dollar of cost. The legal requirement for smoke alarms is a no-brainer. It will affect 120000 rental properties that currently do not have them at a cost of $7 million. The record of fire fatalities shows a greater proportion in rental properties and this measure is expected to save three lives per year. It is also expected to deliver benefits of $15.10 for each dollar of cost.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How do these changes to the Residential Tenancies Act build on previous initiatives to improve the insulation of homes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first priority of this Government was getting on and insulating all State houses. There were 30000 of them. The second step was in respect of Warm Up New Zealand where the Government provided subsidies for insulating homes and that is on schedule to deliver 290000 houses with retrofitting of insulation. This further initiative is 180000 homes. So through initiatives from this John Key - led Government that is insulating 500000 homes. That will provide 1.2 million New Zealanders with a warmer and healthier home.Phil Twyford: What about the heating in private rentals?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I make the comparison—for the member who interjects—that that is 500000 homes. The previous Government insulated fewer than 20000 homes in its 9 years.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why did the Government decide not to proceed with a comprehensive housing warrant of fitness?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Our work showed that it was neither cost-effective nor practical. The cost of inspections alone was estimated at $225 per property per year which would be added on to rents. We found that the really important standards—like a home being waterproof being free from damp and having safe electrical fittings—were already covered in the regulations and the issue was one of enforcement. We found on the lesser issues—the likes of safety stays and safety visibility strips on windows—that it would have been overkill to prohibit the renting of a house where those measures were not there and that a better tool was education. Our approach of focusing on insulation and on the issue of smoke alarms in our view delivers the best gains at the least cost.
Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 22 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5188. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): The member nearly needed to flag away his question. The answer is yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well if that is the case does he stand by his statement with regard to trade with the Russian Federation: “Free trade deals offer real benefits with jobs and economic growth in New Zealand”; if so why did he warn struggling New Zealand dairy exporters many going broke against trading with Russia?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was not “did he warn”; I said “why did he warn”.Mr SPEAKER: The member has been here a very long time. There were two parts to that supplementary question. The Prime Minister chose to answer the first part. That addressed the question. Further supplementary questions?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement “Russia offers a wealth of opportunities for New Zealand exporters. Its food imports exceeded US$30 billion in 2008 making Russia the world’s fifth-largest food import market.”; if so how can he stand by that statement when his Government has done worse than nothing to ensure that the Russian market is open to struggling New Zealand dairy exporters?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that quote with me. It sounds like it is fairly historic but in answer to the first part of the question: if that is the case—and I will take the member’s word for it—yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that his Government does not have any trade sanctions against Russia does he not think that in the interests of struggling Kiwi farmers his Government should prioritise access to the Russian market and now—and it should have done it months ago—and in the Security Council a resolution to the Ukrainian crisis?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question no. I actually think that New Zealand should show solidarity with other countries that have applied sanctions on Russia because of the actions that it has undertaken. The reason that we do not have bilateral sanctions on Russia is to do with the fact that actually this Parliament will not give the Government the authority to do that because it is blocked by the Labour Party.
Yang Jian: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYang Jian: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 22 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5185. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the performance of the New Zealand economy and the Government’s management of its finances?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I recently saw the report of international credit-rating agency Fitch Ratings. This assessment affirmed New Zealand’s long-term foreign and New Zealand dollar Issuer Default Ratings at AA and AA+ respectively and the outlook on both is positive. This rating reflects the resilience of the New Zealand economy. Kiwi households have been saving rather than over-borrowing for 5 consecutive years now. Our net international investment position which measures our international indebtedness has strengthened from 85 percent of GDP in 2009 to 64 percent of GDP today. The Reserve Bank has alsostrengthened crucially the resilience requirements on our banking system.Dr Jian Yang: What are some of the factors that Fitch Ratings identified when making its assessment?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There were a number but I will mention just one or two. It pointed out that the Government’s annual operating deficits have continued to narrow and it pointed out that the New Zealand public sector has relatively low debt which stood at—according to its methods—35.7 percent of GDP in 2014 compared with a median of 72 percent of GDP across OECD developed countries. The Government is getting on top of the deficit and we will begin to reduce debt as we achieve surpluses.Dr Jian Yang: What is Fitch Ratings’ view on the outlook for the Government’s finances and for New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In terms of the outlook for New Zealand Fitch Ratings noted that our growth was 3.3 percent in 2014 ahead of other AA category countries. It noted lower agricultural production due to drought earlier this year and weaker demand following the fall in dairy prices and it expects that the pace of economic growth in New Zealand will ease to around 2.8 percent in 2015. That is not surprising but it does show that we are on track for sustainable moderate growth.Dr Jian Yang: Does that mean that there are no risks to New Zealand arising from recent international developments such as those negotiations occurring between the Greek Government and other eurozone Governments?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The rating agency assesses essentially the capacity of New Zealand to be resilient in the face of those kinds of risks eventuating. And it is good news for the economy that Fitch Ratings believes the New Zealand economy is resilient partly because of its relatively low debt levels and partly because of the flexible microeconomic policies that this Government is pursuing.
Vote: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4920. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of the Hon Bill English to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4911. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 46New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4881. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4881. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4881. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to add new clause 19 be agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4881. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 16 be agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4880. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 14 be agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4880. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clauses 12 13 and 18 be agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4880. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Eugenie Sage to Part 2 be agreed to:insert the following new clause:11AGreenhouse gas reportThe Environmental Protection Authority must produce and publish a report no later than 6 months after the commencement of this Act and annually thereafter listing the 100 largest emitters of greenhouse gas in New Zealand.The Environmental Protection Authority must present the report required by subsection (1) to the House of Representatives as soon as practicable after it is published.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4880. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 10 be agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 58 Noes 63.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 92 in the name of Su’a William Sio to Part 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 7 be agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4920. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just while the Clerk is adding these up there can be no discussion no noise whatsoever when votes are being taken. I will ask you to respect that.
Hayes Joanne: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes Joanne: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4920. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.
Scott Alastair: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4915. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Part 2 of this bill clarifies a few issues around the tax status of the fund investment vehicles but I would also like to comment on the comments made by the previous speaker David Clark regarding a guy—well he is talking about a guy I know indirectly. His name is Harry—“Harry Hindsight”. He is the most famous trader on the planet. He is a guy who was around when I was trading on the markets and we always thought he was such a great guy because he just got it right every time.Unfortunately “Harry Hindsight” does not exist and I ask the member: “How would you have reacted? In hindsight would you have sold the Shanghai Stock Exchange Index in the last 10 days?”. Well yes you would have because it has dropped 22 percent in the last couple of weeks. In hindsight I would not have bought that Shanghai Stock Exchange Index and this is the issue—the rose-tinted spectacles that the Opposition members see through.Borrowing and investing is what is known as leveraging your position and that increases the risk for the investor to something that could wipe you out—completely wipe you out. So imagine if you have got a 20 percent deposit on something and you buy it. You are up you have leveraged 80 percent and you have a movement that we saw in the last week on the Shanghai Stock Exchange and you are out of business. That is why—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you Mr Chair. That is why you do not borrow for investing in something that is a risky asset and that is why we have not borrowed to continue the Cullen fund through times when the funds were simply not available.
Parker David: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4911. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I just want to respond to the points that Mr Bayly made and the point that the prior speaker—I am sorry I have just got memory loss—Andrew Bayly: Mr Scott.Hon DAVID PARKER:—Mr Scott made in respect of controlling interests. I agree that the effect of clause 6 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill which adds to section 59 the new subclause (5) says that at the first level if you have got a fund investment vehicle that is wholly owned by the guardians then that in itself is allowed despite the fact that it is a controlling interest in the fund investment vehicle. But then it says—you look through that—it does not allow the guardians to have a controlling interest in respect of the underlying investment that is made by the fund investment vehicle. I know that; I understand that. But the point that we are making on this side is that through these vehicles you are getting closer to the point where you are going to turn the fund manager from a passive investor into an active investor. It might not have a controlling interest but it is getting closer in these new vehicles that are being allowed to actually moving from being a passive investor to an active investor.Across both sides of the House that was why the amendment was proposed by the Finance and Expenditure Committee—to reinforce that although we are going to allow these fund investment vehicles we were not going to encourage the guardians to move from a passive investment role to an active investment role. So we said therefore in respect of the power being exercised by the guardians ministerial approval would be given or withheld in respect of some of those classes of investment. That was the reason and so we are still waiting to have a contribution from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Education as to whether the Minister thinks that the select committee was wrong to say that this was actually moving along the continuum allowing more active investment than has been the case to date. That is a different issue from controlling interests. We still have not heard from members from the other side as to why it was wrong to actually have that greater level of control exercised in respect of investments that are not passive.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 89 in the name of the Hon Bill English to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4908. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. I have often heard members talking about drive time when listeners are driving home in traffic in places like Auckland. I have never heard that that is out of order. It is certainly not a ruling that I have made in the past and I am not going to uphold it.
Foster-Bell Paul: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4908. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the member Clayton Mitchell while he was speaking. The member referred to viewers at home. I am still a relatively new member but I believe that that is out of order and I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Borrows Chester: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4899. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call the much-awaited Chris Bishop.
Foster-Bell Paul: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Faafoi Kris: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4888. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is always a pleasure to go after Paul Foster-Bell. I am sure the technicians are very thankful to him for saving them some time in doing their annual check on the speaker system here in Parliament.There have been a number of alternative titles put up for this bill and I would like to again go for a simple alternative. We should change the name of this bill to the “Environmental Responsibility Reporting Bill.” I am a big fan of acronyms for bills and that would change this bill to the “ERR Bill”—or err as in mistake—because that is exactly what this piece of legislation is.This Government has erred in this piece of legislation. It has taken away a large degree of independence in the reporting that needs to go on here in New Zealand. We need to make sure that the current state of affairs with the monitoring of our environment is independent and that we are looking at the things that need to get looked at. This Government has erred in that because in this piece of legislation it is giving some of that responsibility to the Minister and that leaves that process open to political interference whereby things that should be looked at might not get looked at. In my opinion and in the opinion of this party and the Opposition the Government has erred with the “ERR Bill” as I would like to see it called. There needs to be independence when we are dealing with the reporting and the monitoring of the environment.Another instance where this piece of legislation has erred is in the fact that the Government did not take up the opportunity to support Supplementary Order Paper 92 which was in the name of my colleague Su’a William Sio. That would have inserted a clause to include consideration for New Zealand’s economic and environmental activities and how they impact of the Pacific region’s climate ecosystems and its people. That is a huge error.I do not see anything hugely controversial about that because we do not live in isolation at the bottom of the Pacific. What we do here in New Zealand and what the Australians do in Australia affects all those small nations in the Pacific. The likes of Tokelau—which my parents came from—with only 1500 people living on three atolls very much relies on the activities of other nations for its future. The highest point above sea level there is something like 50 to 75 centimetres. So I think we do have a responsibility to those Pacific nations to make sure that we include them in the monitoring of how what we do that affects them. I think especially with regard to some of those that we do have an official relationship with that we should be doing more to make sure that we are monitoring what is happening to us as well as what is happening to them. That is an error or an “ERR” on behalf of this piece of legislation.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Foster-Bell Paul: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4888. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on clauses 1 and 2 in this debate on this very important piece of legislation the Environmental Reporting Bill. This is a very aptly and appropriately named piece of legislation. In the style of the National Government it is named simply clearly and efficiently and it does what it says on the box. If we were less gracious as some of the members of the Opposition are we could give it a less suitable title. We might call it the “Correcting 9 Long Years of Labour Woeful Mismanagement Bill”. We might call it “A Bill to Fix Up 9 Years of an Impotent Green Party Propping Up a Labour Party that Did Nothing for the Environment in this Country” but luckily we are not a petty and small-minded Government. We are a Government that is focused on the issues that are important to New Zealand unlike the members opposite. The commencement clause clause 2 tells us that this bill comes into effect in 9 months’ time—not 9 long years. For 9 long years New Zealand sat in that very small minority of countries that did not have an effective environmental reporting bill in place but we are bringing this in in only 9 months and I think that is a very very positive thing.Some of the contributions from the members opposite show how little they actually care about the environment. The Hon Ruth Dyson just wants to have a go at me for not being a scientist—and I freely concede I am not a scientist. I have been educated at the very fine institution of the University of Otago in the noble art of archaeology. So although I may not know about nitrous oxide levels or other scientific matters I am well versed in the excavation of old fossils and that is why I understand the members opposite.I will wrap up by saying that this is an appropriately named piece of legislation. It will make a big difference to our environment in New Zealand. It will report on matters to do with the atmosphere the water the ground and environmental ecosystems in this country. It will bring us into line with the rest of the OECD and it is another very good piece of legislation from this excellent Government. I commend it to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4885. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought to correct the votes. So what would those votes be please?Joanne Hayes: The votes are for Supplementary Order Paper 87 all clauses—two votes in favour—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just one moment. Leave is sought to correct the Māori Party vote on all the votes that were taken on Part 2. Is that correct?Joanne Hayes: Correct—it is just the Supplementary Order Papers.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well there are a number of Supplementary Order Papers. There is No. 92 and there is No. 87 and there is an amendment to insert clause 11A as well.Joanne Hayes: No just the Supplementary Order Papers 87 and 92.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Supplementary Order Papers 87 and 92. Right leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Therefore the votes on those amendments as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 and Supplementary Order Paper 92 will be Ayes 60 Noes 61. The amendments are still lost.
Hayes Joanne: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes Joanne: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4885. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I seek leave to correct the votes on behalf of the Māori Party on Supplementary Order Paper 87—all clauses—and Supplementary Order Paper 92—two votes in favour for each.
Tisch Lindsay: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4884. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to call the Hon Ruth Dyson.
Vote: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Harmful Digital Communications Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4870. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Harmful Digital Communications Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 116New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 10 (Clendon Delahunty Graham Hague Logie Mathers Roche Sage Shaw Turei); New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Noes 5Green Party 4 (Browning Genter Hughes Norman); ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.
Korako Nuk: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKorako Nuk: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NUK KORAKO (National): I move That the question be now put.
Tisch Lindsay: Environmental Reporting Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Environmental Reporting Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4876. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): If you want to take a call you must ask for the call at the time. Ruth Dyson went for the call.
Mitchell Mark: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Mark: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4848. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Customs: What effect is the lower tobacco duty-free limit having on the amount of cigarettes and tobacco being brought into New Zealand at the border?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): In the first 6 months since the tobacco duty-free limit was lowered on 1 November last year a staggering 2.5 tonnes of tobacco—that is a small truckload—has been abandoned by passengers at the border. But the message is getting through: the amount of tobacco abandoned at airports has dropped considerably from about 100 kilograms a week to 30 to 40 kilograms a week. This drop in the duty-free limit works hand-in-hand with the great work that the Minister of Health Jonathan Coleman and Associate Minister of Health Sam Lotu-Iiga are doing to reduce harm caused by cigarettes.Mark Mitchell: How has the Customs Service ensured that passengers are aware of the lower limit for tobacco?Hon NICKY WAGNER: The change was well signalled in advance and a public awareness campaign informed travellers of the reduction of the duty-free limit leading up to the 1 November change. Passengers can also use the website or the What’s My Duty? app to calculate their tobacco concession. I am very pleased that this change in the duty-free limit is working to reduce the harm from smoking in New Zealand.
Graham Kennedy: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4847. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the Prime Minister has said he wants New Zealand to champion peace between Israel and Palestine will he condemn the Israeli boarding of the Freedom Flotilla yesterday with two New Zealanders on board?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I will encourage both Israel and Palestine to continue to try to find a peaceful resolution to the problems in Gaza.Dr Kennedy Graham: Will the Prime Minister condemn Israel’s actions last year on the basis of the recent UN report on war crimes in Gaza which criticises both sides—but especially Israel—for its excessive use of force in using “huge firepower of 6000 airstrikes and 50000 artillery shells”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think that it would be terribly conducive to the good relationship that New Zealand enjoys with Israel and Palestine to start throwing stones on either side in particular. I think the reportunderlines as I am sure the member knows yet again the inescapable reality that reaching a negotiated and lasting peace agreement is vital for the future well-being and prosperity of the people of that region.Dr Kennedy Graham: How can New Zealand even attempt to bring peace to the region as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has indicated it will when the Prime Minister is unwilling to condemn Israel’s war crimes and illegal blockade of Gaza—a clear indication that New Zealand has surrendered its impartiality?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is the opposite. I mean New Zealand enjoys a good relationship with both Israel and Palestine. We are one of a relatively small number of countries that do. We are not going to resort to megaphone diplomacy but we do encourage both sides to find a credible and constructive way through the issues and we do think a two-State solution is the right long-term answer to the issues between Israel and Palestine.
Kuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4846. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Revenue: What reports has he received about changes which will bolster the tax rules around residential property speculation?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of theMinister of Revenue: Yesterday the Minister welcomed the release of a consultation document on the proposed brightline test which will require income tax to be paid on any gains from the sale of most residential property bought and sold within 2 years. The brightline test will help clarify whether or not gains on the sale of residential property are taxable. Currently when assessing whether tax should be paid on a gain from a sale the Inland Revenue Department relies on a seller’s intent to either live in the property or sell it for a quick gain. The proposed new brightline test makes it clear that property buyers including overseas buyers who buy and sell a residential property within 2 years will be taxed on those gains.Barbara Kuriger: Will there be any exemptions from the brightline test?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Although most property bought and sold within 2 years will be subject to the test there are some exceptions. In particular property that is a person’s main home including a main home held in trust is exempt as are property that is transferred after a relationship breakdown and homes that are inherited.Barbara Kuriger: How can New Zealanders have a say on these proposed changes?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Public feedback is important and I would encourage everybody to have a look at the consultation document on the Inland Revenue Department website. We want to ensure that everybody pays their fair share of tax and New Zealanders can help by participating in the process. The consultation paper proposes new definitions of “residential land” and “main home”. It also clearly identifies the dates a property is deemed bought and sold so a seller and the department know whether a sale falls within the brightline test. The closing date for submissions is 24th of next month. Once enacted the brightline test will apply to residential properties bought on or after 1 October this year.
Shearer David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShearer David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 30 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4846. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Is he satisfied that New Zealanders are not paying too much for their milk; if so why?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): on behalf of theMinister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Yes; the Government does not set the price of milk in stores. Our job is to ensure there is sufficient competition in the dairy market. The Commerce Commission looked at this issue in 2011 and decided that no inquiry was needed. I would note that the price of milk has actually dropped over the past 12 months.David Shearer: Does he agree with the Ministry for Primary Industries or the then Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 2011 when it stated that “As an exporting nation New Zealand domestic milk prices are intrinsically linked to international prices which are trending upward.”; if so why are New Zealand prices not reducing now with the fall of global prices?Hon NATHAN GUY: I have seen that report. Yes there is some linkage but that is only part of the story. The retail price is affected by costs such as processing production and distribution and the member should be aware of that.David Shearer: Is the current price of milk too high for Kiwi families when families in Sydney and London can buy milk more cheaply there than they can here?Hon NATHAN GUY: You could drive a milk tanker right through the middle of that member’s argument. What he has not thought about is the different pricing mechanisms overseas. In particular GST is included here but it is not in the UK and there is a price war currently going on between those two countries. The member should keep up to speed with what is happening.Darroch Ball: Does the Minister not agree that attacks on farmers are unwarranted when this Government is creaming at least 42c in GST off a $3.19 2-litre bottle of milk while nothing is being done about the cosy supermarket duopoly?Hon NATHAN GUY: I would refute certainly the second part of that question and I would refer the member to the review of the Commerce Commission in 2011 to do with this issue.David Shearer: Given that the Prime Minister said yesterday “If the argument is solely one of price in New Zealand you could drink water out of a tap and that’s for free.” would he encourage Wellington mother of two Amanda Gardner who uses up to 5 litres of milk a week and can no longer afford to encourage her children to drink milk to drink water instead?Hon NATHAN GUY: I think when the Prime Minister was asked that question he was actually asked about Coke—nothing to do with water. And what I would say to that particular consumer is that there is a huge amount of competition in the New Zealand retail market and consumers should continue to shop around for good deals.