edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The Minister who's just resumed his seat Phil Twyford has I think captured the essence of this amendment bill. It is a small technical bill that is required to correct a drafting error that was made to the Resource Legislation Amendment Act legislation that took place during the last Parliament. There was a very large and complicated piece of legislation—ran to some 700 individual clauses and about 250 pages of legislation—and as a result of a drafting error the intent that was meant from Cabinet to actually enable the Environmental Protection Authority and the Minister to recover costs associated with the board of inquiry application relating to a marine consent was omitted. So this piece of legislation corrects that. It means that the obligations to fund are apportioned correctly and appropriately to the seeker of the consent rather than to the Crown and that was always the intent.The Opposition doesn't oppose this. We understand the rationale and accept the way in which it has gone forward. The Environment Committee operated a very truncated process which was befitting the narrowness of this amendment and the time frames that were required to meet pending applications that might soon come to pass.I think that with the exception of the contribution from the Law Society we would have been able to probably pass this in a very very quick way but the Law Society came to select committee funnily enough after the select committee had reported back to the House with a written submission that was then taken into account by the Minister for the Environment by way of a separate Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister who's just spoken has referred to. That is appropriate and right as well.So I want to acknowledge and thank the Law Society for their contribution to this bill. Their diligent and careful analysis of it has meant that we've actually I think arrived at a better bill. This is the kind of drafting error that occurs from time to time and it would be very unfair to apportion blame to the hard-working and diligent officers of the Parliamentary Counsel Office who do the drafting and who have to make these things work. It's a complicated process and I think that they almost always do a good job. It's not every day that a situation arises where this has occurred; normally it doesn't.I've heard Government members in earlier contributions on this bill take quite a sanctimonious approach trying to apportion blame somehow to the previous Government for some kind of deliberate oversight. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Cabinet minutes make it very clear that this was always the intent of the legislation that it was always meant to be and to apportion that kind of blame is actually to unfairly in my view criticise the hard-working and diligent folk who make up the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I think that that would be terribly unfair of Government members if they were to pursue that line of debate in this third reading.Her Majesty's loyal and hard-working Opposition support this bill.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: I move That the America's Cup Road Stopping Bill be reported to the House by Monday 3 September 2018 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 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).Motion agreed to.
America's Cup Road Stopping Bill — First Reading
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you so much Mr Assistant Speaker. It's fantastic to stand and take this call to support the passage of this bill the America's Cup Road Stopping Bill and to be able to add to prior speakers' comments around what a fantastic event this will be and how we can get in behind what this will do to Brand New Zealand" and to once again take back the cup which we so deservedly have taken on and have won. I'm a proud Aucklander. Auckland has a very proud sailing heritage. It's been called the City of Sails for a long time apart from the time when Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development tried something a little bit dubious and looked at a different logo and perhaps a different byline that didn't go over well for the five minutes that it lasted. The City of Sails is what we've always been known as and this will absolutely activate and underscore that adage that we know and we love so well. This event will also unlock a new generation of yachties. We love to be on the water and we love to be in Auckland and I'm sure every one of my colleagues would agree with that. Wynyard Point in the context for which this road stoppage will take place is a fantastic area that will be unlocked. When you sail into—no pun intended—events like this it provides leverage for you to do much more than just the event itself. So the council and councillors will be incredibly proud to not only undergird and be part of this event but they will have going forward facilities that will serve Aucklanders long term and not just in the short term. There are other leveraged events and business connections that can come out of this event so for us to do our bit here and to mechanically do something so small as to unlock 0.322 hectares and take it from being owned by Auckland Council and managed by Auckland Transport. and put it into the hands of the America's Cup team I guess you could say is something that we support and it is the right thing to do. There are also tangible and non-tangible benefits. Under "tangible" will be that as a result of this bill you'll be able to cross the road and experience the syndicates and the base's connections to the water and of course the "non-tangible" is the spirit of the event—the joy that Aucklanders and the rest of the country will receive from seeing the transformation down at Wynyard Point in wonderful sunny Auckland. I'm going to finish by saying I wish Team New Zealand well—we all do of course. It was a real privilege from the National Government's perspective to commit $5 million instantly when the Bermuda win took place. We knew that that $5 million was needed to secure staffing to make sure that our fantastic men and women in Team New Zealand didn't go anywhere and stayed with New Zealand because we want another win again. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. We're proud to support this.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Environment Committee."
Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a quick call in support of this bill and we support all the recommendations that the Minister has put forward. I just want to make a couple of quick points about the seemingly inconsequential bill itself. I suppose it is in regards to the amount of legislation that is changing but it is actually quite substantial in the effect that it will have in the planning facilitation and function of a very important and worthwhile sporting event that New Zealand will be hosting on the world stage.As has already been noted it's actually making quite a quick passage and will be making quite a quick passage through this House and that is important because it provides certainty with the time in preparation for the cup to be hosted especially the planning area. Although this seems like a small thing in regards to having to stop a road from being a road essentially—or a small part of it—on the waterfront it's essential for the planning of the cup itself and where all of the public and the different teams will be able to function.I think that some people in this country are questioning—it is a minority but it is questioning—the investment that New Zealand will be making into the hosting of this big sporting event. I'm not sure if the Minister mentioned it but the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment actually did a high-level economic assessment on the hosting of the cup and they noted some important things. There are some very very positive economic impacts not only in the short term when we'll be hosting the cup but over the medium and long term as well. And any of those costs that will be invested into the infrastructure especially and the running of the cup itself will far outweigh the costs. There's a list of things that are beneficial for this country as a whole both in the short term and the long term. I think one of the things that a lot of people underestimate is the exposure that we get in the international media as a country as a whole. I think that the potential value of Brand New Zealand" will have a huge boost because of the exposure that we have.Just lastly a point from I believe it was the last host which was Bermuda and a couple of the comments from the Minister that was in charge of hosting that event in Bermuda. They noted the importance of the infrastructure change that they made to host the event and they had a cost-benefit ratio in the vicinity of one to five. So if we put in just a small investment that will ensure that the cup is held successfully that it flows smoothly and that it has a lasting infrastructure—not just a small one or short-term one but a long-term one—I think that New Zealand and the public of New Zealand and the international community will be better off for it. We support this bill. Thank you."
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Thank you very much. The National Party will be supporting the America's Cup Road Stopping Bill. We also will not be opposing the shortened report-back period for the Environment Committee.It's clear that it's very unusual for the Parliament to pass legislation which overrides local government processes and overrides the Public Works Act but where there are important issues and circumstances that require the Parliament to do that we should be willing to do so and certainly New Zealand hosting the America's Cup in several years' time is one of those important issues. The issue we have before us is simply whether a road should be stopped. It's about whether this can be done in a faster manner than what the normal processes would allow and we think it's fairly sensible for a piece of legislation to be used for that purpose.The America's Cup is going to be a huge economic benefit for New Zealanders. I think it's also going to be quite a social and cultural benefit for New Zealanders as well as we showcase our country to the rest of the world. And certainly the America's Cup is an issue and an event of national significance for New Zealand. It's quite appropriate that where an event of national significance is to occur we consider ways in which we can enable the Auckland Council and other authorities to progress matters to do with the arrangements for hosting the event. That's essentially what this bill does.We know from the previous instances where New Zealand has hosted the America's Cup that the infrastructure that's been created around that regatta is infrastructure that Aucklanders and I think New Zealanders are quite proud of. It's my hope that after the America's Cup is complete—and of course we will be successful again in future regattas—that we'll be able to see infrastructure constructed around Wynyard Quarter that will benefit us for many years to come.To ensure that we enable these processes to be done smoothly and expeditiously we support this bill so that can happen. Aucklanders are going to be proud of hosting the regatta. New Zealanders are going to be proud to see our country on the world stage and getting Auckland up and running and ready for the event is important. I support this bill and we will not be opposing it.
Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker and it's a pleasure to take a call on this Treaty settlement bill this afternoon here in the House. I'd firstly like to just acknowledge all the representatives from Ngāti Tamaoho who have come to Wellington here today to witness the third reading and the passing of this legislation which is important in their history. I'd especially like to acknowledge the chair Dennis Kirkwood who I've had the pleasure of working with in the past—and I acknowledge your presence here as well.The third reading of this piece of legislation is an opportunity where Parliament formally acknowledges the wrong which was done in New Zealand's history and apologises for what was done. Reading through the legislation and the history and the agreed statement of facts of what has happened is truly an opportunity for us as Parliament to apologise for the wrongs which were done by the Crown and to provide redress.So it is good to see that this bill does include a number of aspects to the redress. There is the agreed historical account the Crown acknowledgments and apology the cultural redress with sites to be vested with joint management of the Hūnua Ranges and the financial and commercial redress as well which will go a long way to supporting Ngāti Tamaoho with their aspirations for their future and for their young people and for the future of their relationship not only with the Crown but also with the community in which they live.So I just want to acknowledge everything which has been said today and to acknowledge Ngāti Tamaoho to congratulate them on the settlement and to wish them all the very best for their future from this day. So thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker.
Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh; Rurawhe AdrianKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to stand in support of the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. This is my absolute privilege and truly honour—to participate in this settlement bill—and this is the first time I am participating in the debate of any settlement bill.I feel that there is a special connection with Ngāti Tamaoho and the Indians. Indians when they got to New Zealand—after working in Waikato they moved to Pukekohe and we know that there is a special connection over there. Before I go any further I would like to say to ngā whānau o te iwi o Ngāti Tamaoho [the families of the tribe of Ngāti Tamaoho] tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.I know my pronunciation might not be very good but you can understand my feeling—what I feel like today. And on behalf of all the Indians I would like to thank you for your open arms in having Indians in your patch and giving them the opportunity to settle down over there.Some of the names I would like to mention here of the Indians who have been part of Pukekohe—my good friend Mohanpal Singh Bhatt and his father-in-law Jawala Singh. One of the streets has been named in Pukekohe with his name. He came to Pukekohe in 1920 and has been there ever since. Now he has passed away but his family is still over there. A good friend of mine Ganges Singh whom many of you might know was also from that same patch. The Bhaanas and Masters they own a lot of land over there and they are part of that fraternity which grows a lot of vegetables in Pukekohe. So I feel like today this settlement addresses a lot of the humiliation that was seen by our forebears over there. I have been told it is similar to the kind of humiliation the Indians felt in the 1920s when the White New Zealand League used to isolate Indians from the mainstream.So it is very important. I know it has taken a very long time to come to this settlement and I won't take any more time. I want this bill to be read completely so that it can go to the next process. I will stop my contribution over here and I commend this bill to the House.Tamati Coffey: E Te Māngai o tēnei Whare?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call—Hon Members: Tamati Coffey!ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Tamati Coffey—five minutes.
Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I'll just take a very brief call to endorse what the Minister has said. Parliamentary Counsel have done an excellent job on this legislation as they do on all Treaty legislation and we can be really proud of the work they do. And these corrections are very minor. The second point for the benefit of the gallery is this: he referred to the National Party as his very good friends". One can go too far sometimes!The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 3 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted."
Parker DavidQuestion No. 2 to Minister—Amended AnswerHon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): In my answer to the primary question I said that the submission from Te Ārai to the Finance and Expenditure Committee was received on 15 March—it was 15 February.SPEAKER: The Minister might also like to say that the select committee sought submissions not the Government.Hon DAVID PARKER: Fine.
Ross Jami-LeeQuestion No. 6 to Minister 4 JulyJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hope you can indulge me for a moment Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Well the member's going to get to a point of order really quickly.JAMI-LEE ROSS: Yesterday we had an exchange where I sought leave for a document I was successfully able to table to be published under the authority of the House. I wish to bring to your attention the Parliamentary Privilege Act namely section 10(2)(d) which does enable a document that's communicated under the House's authority to be a proceeding in Parliament. I therefore wish to seek leave for the document I tabled yesterday entitled Salary and Allowance Validation to be published under the authority of the House.SPEAKER: OK. Now I just want to check: this is the same document that was tabled yesterday which is headed Salary and Allowance Validation: Confidential Legally Privileged. Is that the same document?JAMI-LEE ROSS: Yes.SPEAKER: Whose document is it?JAMI-LEE ROSS: It was a document that was prepared for the Counties Manukau District Health Board.SPEAKER: The question is: is there any objection to this document being published? There is objection.
Hipkins ChrisTHURSDAY 5 JULY 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The House will next sit on Tuesday 24 July. The 11-hour Estimates debate will be the main business of the week. On the morning of Wednesday 25 July there will be an extended sitting for the committee stages of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill and the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill and the second readings of the Courts Matters Bill and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). On Thursday 26 July the second reading of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill will take place.
Tuesday 26 June 2018 - Volume 730
Overseas Investment Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a second time.
Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party votewas called for on the question That the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.
12. Mental Health Services—Pay EquityANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthMental Health Services—Pay Equity12. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made regarding pay equity for mental health and addiction support workers?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Last week I was delighted to announce that the Government has reached an agreement with unions and employers to extend the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act to include mental health and addiction support workers. Members of this House will remember that these workers were excluded from the settlement negotiations by the previous Government. We're putting things right.Angie Warren-Clark: How will this help mental health workers?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This agreement will benefit an estimated 5000 mental health and addiction support workers. Nearly half will get an increase of more than $3 an hour which means full-time workers will be paid approximately an extra $120 a week before tax. One in five workers will get an increase of more than $5 an hour or around an extra $200 a week for those working full-time.Angie Warren-Clark: Why has the Government taken this decision?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Extending the care and support workers settlement to include mental health and addiction workers is the right thing to do. People in this workforce support New Zealanders when they are most vulnerable and they deserve a fair go. By taking this decision we are further demonstrating our commitment to pay equity and lifting wages particularly of the lowest paid New Zealanders.
11. Sexual Harassment—Minister of Justice's CommentsHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of JusticeSexual Harassment—Minister of Justice's Comments11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement that My track record on issues of sexual harassment and sexual violence is very clear"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he stand by his comments in relation to sexual harassment claims at Russell McVeagh that private organisations have to conduct themselves or manage themselves in a way that they see fit and that it might not be right or appropriate for them to appoint their own independent reviewer?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he think trivialising serious indecent assaults as merely a pinch on the bottom will encourage members of Parliament who know about other sexual assaults to take them seriously and report them?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don't accept the premise of that question. I am not the one trivialising sexual assault in this country; it is that member.Hon Mark Mitchell: If issues of sexual harassment at Russell McVeagh were an outrage and totally unacceptable does his outrage extend to indecent assaults on young vulnerable victims being taken advantage of at unsupervised events?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That question sounds like an allusion to a matter that is in the media today that involves charges being laid against an individual and currently before the courts.Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It's just a very clear question; it doesn't—SPEAKER: No and it's been very clearly answered. Does the member have further supplementaries?Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very clear question.SPEAKER: Order! The member had a point of order. I've dealt with it. If he continues to argue the point he is going to be disorderly. Does he have a further supplementary?Hon Mark Mitchell: I do thank you Mr Speaker. Would the Minister on reflection change his characterisation of a serious indecent assault against a female corrections officer as a pinch on the bottom if given the opportunity?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I maintain my position that indecent assault sexual harassment any sexual offending is insidious and totally unacceptable."
9. School Buildings—New ClassroomsJAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of EducationSchool Buildings—New ClassroomsSPEAKER: I just want to say as a former teacher and Minister of Education this is a very unusual question.9. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made to deliver new classrooms for students in New Zealand?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Last week I announced that 58 new classrooms will be built across the country in 19 schools from Christchurch to Mangawhai. This $48 million investment is vital in meeting school roll growth and this announcement includes seven special school satellite units.Jamie Strange: How many students will benefit from the Government's announcement of new classrooms across the country this week?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Around 1000 students will benefit from the 58 new classrooms and 19 schools announced last week. Part of this announcement includes the expansion of Amesbury School in Wellington with around 200 additional student spaces. This year's budget increase of $332 million in new capital for roll growth and new schools over the next four years will deliver spaces for around 7400 students.
8. National Health Targets—RemovalHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of HealthNational Health Targets—Removal8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Why does the Government intend to dispense with the national health targets?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The previous Government's health target data has not been published since August 2017. I want a health system that has honest and transparent reporting.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was why and I didn't get an answer; that was not addressed.SPEAKER: Well I think the member did get an answer. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he stand by his statement that the targets create perverse incentives"; if so what is his definition of "perverse incentive"?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A good example of a perverse incentive is to recall what happened toward the end of the previous Government's tenure when the overall statistics showed that the number of electives was going up yet in centres like Northland Auckland Counties Manukau Bay of Plenty and Waikato if Avastin injections and skin lesion removals were taken out of those pumped-up statistics the actual number of surgeries was dropping. Despite a growing population the actual number of surgeries was dropping. That Government should hang its head in shame. That is the result of nine years of underfunding. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that is it his view that eye procedures designed to save the sight of patients with macular degeneration or skin procedures aimed at improving the prognosis of cancer patients are not worthy of undertaking or counting?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that skin lesion removals can be performed for roughly half the price in a primary care setting as compared to being performed in a hospital setting. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if you can afford to perform twice as many surgeries more lives will be saved.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it appropriate to describe the saving of more than 700 lives a year by implementing targets to improve emergency department waiting times as reported in the New Zealand Medical Journal last year as a perverse incentive?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don't think anyone is saying that about that target. We will continue to monitor a range of measures dozens of measures through the Ministry of Health and the district health boards will be held to account for improved performance.Hon Michael Woodhouse: What possible benefit to New Zealanders can come from the dispensing with of publicly stated targets that improve surgery throughput reduce waiting times improve health and quite literally save lives?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I disagree with the member's characterisation. What we know is that that set of targets was driving a set of behaviours which may have led to the public health dollar being more poorly spent with health consequences for New Zealanders. By defending a set of targets with perverse outcomes in it the actual fact is that that member and his former Government may well have been driving poorer health outcomes for New Zealanders."
6. KiwiBuild—Off-site ManufacturingPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentKiwiBuild—Off-site Manufacturing6. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will the Government increase the capacity of the construction sector to build 1000 KiwiBuild homes in 2018-19 5000 KiwiBuild homes in 2019-20 and 10000 KiwiBuild homes in 2020-21; if so how?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes. After nine years of neglect we can't go from zero homes to 10000 overnight but we are making solid progress in increasing the capacity of the construction industry. This includes our Skills Strategy and two years' fees free for apprentices and industry trainees and working with off-site manufacturing firms to boost the number of homes that we can build in factories with the latest technology.Paul Eagle: How is KiwiBuild proposing to work with the off-site manufacturing industry?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Shortly we will be offering the off-site manufacturing industry here and abroad the opportunity to present their ideas for delivering KiwiBuild homes and to suggest how we can give the industry the confidence and the certainty it needs to expand its capacity. For instance KiwiBuild could offer multi-year large-volume contracts to off-site manufacturers giving them the ability to invest in more plant and hire more staff.Paul Eagle: Is using off-site manufacturing as part of KiwiBuild a new idea?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No it's not a new idea. We've always known that off-site manufacturing would be crucial to expanding building capacity given workforce constraints. I was talking about its use in KiwiBuild as early as 2014. And when I became the Minister officials advised The KiwiBuild programme creates a unique opportunity to support transformative change in the construction sector by supporting off-site manufacturing which is quicker cheaper better quality and uses labour more efficiently." This formal approach to manufacturers is the next step."
1. Economy—Business InvestmentKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSEconomy—Business Investment1. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the level of business investment over the past year and how does this compare to the previous year?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): GDP figures released by Statistics New Zealand last week showed economic growth in New Zealand continuing in line with economists' expectations. In the March 2018 year 14 of 16 industries in our economy grew. I am pleased to note that the figures show business investment grew by 5.5 percent in the year to March 2018 compared to an annual growth rate of 3.9 percent in the year to March 2017.Kiritapu Allan: But what led the growth in business investment in the year to March 2018?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The 5.5 percent business investment growth over the past year was led by a 13.2 percent increase in investment in plant machinery and equipment compared to zero percent growth in the year to March 2017. This indicates that businesses are investing in capital to become more productive which will help them to lift the incomes of their workers. On this side of the House we welcome this as we help the economy transition to being more productive more sustainable and more inclusive.Kiritapu Allan: What other reports has he seen on business investment and how it is contributing to current economic conditions in New Zealand?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Business investment and GDP are components of the Business New Zealand overall economic conditions index which balances a number of economic indicators to give a measure of economic performance. Not only was the index positive in June but it has risen in each of the past three quarters in which this ambitious and transformative Government has been in place.
Yang Jian; Williams PotoDr JIAN YANG (National): This omnibus bill is an attempt to improve and maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory system established by principal local government Acts. A well-functioning Government needs an updated and well-informed and practical regulatory system. Outdated and impractical regulatory systems would increase substantial costs and of course would reduce efficiency. Like taxation and Government spending regulation touches the lives of all New Zealanders in different ways. After all the proper functioning of our society of our economy is dependent on a well sound regulatory system. It is believed that regulation when implemented well underpins markets protects the rights and safety of citizens and their property and assists the efficient and equitable delivery of goods and services. So we can argue that regulation is an important tool for preserving and advancing the public interest. Poorly designed regulatory arrangements could reduce efficiency and substantially increase costs while well-designed regulatory arrangements would do otherwise. So it is important—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō marie.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to stand in support of this Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Bill in its first reading. First of all I would like to congratulate Minister Nanaia Mahuta for picking up this bill and the speech given on her behalf by the Hon Jenny Salesa shows that the work done by the previous Government is being acknowledged.I was listening to the speech of the member Paul Eagle. He was passionately speaking because he has been part of local government and I can see members from this side—Simeon Brown Denise Lee Lawrence Yule and Ian McKelvie—who all have been part of local government. They are very passionate about this bill because they know there are minor technical changes in this bill but they are very important and this is because of the report by the Productivity Commission in July 2014 which recommended these changes. The Productivity Commission found that it can be difficult to find time on the parliamentary calendar for repair and maintenance of existing legislation. As a result regulatory agencies often have to work with legislation that is out of date not fit for purpose. This can create unnecessary cost complexity and ambiguity for the regulators and regulated parties. It means that the regulatory regime may not keep up with the public or political expectation.We also see as Paul Eagle mentioned some of the modernisation which has taken place as we see in the Parliament also—we are becoming paperless and so are councils. So these technical changes can really help to improve the working of overall local government.The local government legislative framework is a complex arrangement of multiple Acts and regulations. Over time amendments to local government regulations have been introduced and errors and inconsistencies have been fixed. That is why this bill was a part of the previous Government which wanted to reduce the paperwork and bureaucracy and to improvise the regulatory system so that people can have the advantage of that. Those are the things which were in the minds of the previous Government members and which this regulation was for.I would like to touch upon some of the issues which are being addressed in this legislation. Local Electoral Act 2001: The purpose of the changes to the Local Electoral Act … is to empower councils to improve [the] representative and [the] substantial participation in local elections and to clarify when a successful candidate in a by-election may come into office." "A candidate who is declared to be elected comes into office on the day after the day on which the official result of the election is declared by public notice under section 86."So this legislation is going to improve a lot of local government legislation problems and it will fix the errors which are present there. With these words I commend this bill to the House."
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. It's a wonderful opportunity to stand here in support of this bill. I'm absolutely delighted because this bill will mean a lot for New Zealanders—New Zealanders that I have worked with every day—Kieran McAnulty: The people we serve.JAN TINETTI: —the people that we work with. That's right Mr McAnulty—the people that we are here to serve: our New Zealanders. Tonight we have heard the Opposition when we said that they said this bill couldn't be done say No no no we never said that. We said it shouldn't." But the reality is they wouldn't—couldn't shouldn't wouldn't—do this.That is the reality because that Opposition is on the side of the foreign buyers. They believe that they are there to support them. Well we as a Government are here to support New Zealanders into homeownership. We believe in New Zealanders buying their homes. The reality is that the Opposition said this bill will mean that there can be no winners. Well I challenge the Opposition to look in the faces of those people who have been hurt by those overseas buyers over the last few years and tell them that there can be no winners out of this bill. There are winners out of this.The reality is that you can—sorry Madam Assistant Speaker; the Opposition can—quote statistics and twist statistics as much as they like. But the reality is the faces of those people who have been put out of homeownership because of foreign buyers coming in. I have worked closely with those people over many years. You ask any teacher now starting out the reality of owning a home right now. They don't believe in that dream any more. They don't have that dream because it is not reality for them.One story that I would actually like to finish with is the story of families that I have worked very closely with in the past few years who were quite excited actually—just bear with me please Government members but they were quite excited to start with—when they heard that an overseas buyer was buying a number of the houses that they were renting because they felt that that meant they would be able to stay in their rentals and stay in the community that they'd called their community for many years. Two weeks after those sales went through for houses—two weeks after that sale went through—they all got eviction notices. Eighteen months after that sale had gone through those houses are still lying empty and one of those families at least is still living in a van in a car park every single night. That is what the reality of foreign buyers coming in and buying up our homes means and that is what the Opposition is completely failing to acknowledge yet they're on the side of those people who will leave those houses empty and leave our families living in vans. Shame—I think it's a big shame. I believe this is a great bill and I commend it to the House."
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia orana e Te Mana Whakawā. It is always a privilege to contribute in the House and in particular to this important bill the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill the second reading.But before I do that since we are talking about overseas I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Jason Taumalolo and the Mate Ma'a Tonga rugby league team for their leadership in utilising expat Tongans to sing the Tongan national anthem. Maybe our national Kiwi team might learn a lesson from that. So I just want to acknowledge the Mate Ma'a Tonga team for utilising Club Fofo'anga to sing the national anthem.Let me get back to the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill and I refer to the Finance and Expenditure Committee report to the House. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the chairmanship of Michael Wood. I've always found as a regular sub into the committee I find him very respectful and with due diligence and of course the rest of the members of the select committee thank you very much for your hard work.As with the previous speakers on this side I want to echo our acknowledgments of all the submitters. When I think about this bill the whakataukī Whatungarongaro he tangata toitū he whenua"—man disappears but the land remains—comes to mind because in reality we are talking about the land and our role as lawmakers to ensure the landowners of this land are ordinary residents of Aotearoa New Zealand. As we all disappear whether we're in ashes or whether we go in a box in the ground we all at the end whether we are a billion trees or whatever you call it become compost to belong to the land—just a reminder. Then reading the select committee's report I just want to finish because I know that many of this side have actually said a lot that needs to be said. I just want to alert members to three points—three points. This bill actually—the words that stood out to me are that it ensures the investment in New Zealand by overseas persons will benefit New Zealand. It also ensures that the overseas people who are not ordinary New Zealand residents would generally be not able to purchase existing houses on land classed as residential under this bill. Lastly the member from across the road was worried about enforcement. I want to refer that member the member from Papakura to Part 3. It actually talks about enhanced information-gathering and enforcement powers of the Overseas Investment Office—more than just monitoring. All that has been said has been said. I want to commend this bill to the House. Malo."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The usual scaremongering from over there but let's start at the beginning. Let's ask a pretty fundamental question: who should be able to own a home in New Zealand? It's a pretty simple question.Hon Ruth Dyson: I think New Zealanders.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh New Zealanders the member for Port Hills says—brilliant brilliant. And that's exactly right. We don't want 10 percent or 20 percent of our market to be held by people who don't live there who have simply invested from overseas never laid a foot in New Zealand. They don't even have to lay a foot in New Zealand under what we've got at the moment; they can simply buy that on the knowledge that the market's going silly because of the panic buying that's created.Now this shibboleth of supply and demand was coming from the member over there before. Well I'll tell you what there is some fictitious demand happening and that's what this bill puts a stop to. There are 1.8 million dwellings in New Zealand and you know what? For all of the talk for all of the sniping from the other side those dwellings are now going to be for New Zealanders.And being a New Zealander doesn't mean that you have to have been here for five generations. We're not going to ask the impossible. All it means is you have to hold a residence class visa you know and what's more is there's a whole lot of other frameworks in there which look after the need to generate houses. The apartment framework which says Yes you can buy and develop an apartment complex and own up to 60 percent of those apartments on a continuing basis." And you know what? If that doesn't work the Minister can tweak those settings as well. So if we need apartments—as the member Judith Collins was going on and on about—well we can allow that.This legislation doesn't need to stand still but the core fact of this legislation is that Minister Parker has done something that the National Government did nothing about. He has said "I'm putting a stop to overseas owners speculating in the New Zealand housing market." And that is going to create a whole lot more homes for New Zealanders. It's a comprehensive bill. It's well thought through and it's something that should have been done a long time ago. I commend this bill to the House."
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker for this opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill. This is a bill to avoid tax avoidance by multinational companies but before I do speak on this bill I would like to acknowledge the work that the previous Government did on this legislation. They started this work. I want to especially acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins who then handed it on and I want to thank and acknowledge the Hon Stuart Nash who finalised this work.One of the things that was stated earlier on this evening which I really agree with is the fact that there is love and peace in this House and Parliament as we're talking about this bill. It's not very often that we have unanimous agreement to a bill but to have love and peace on a taxation bill is indeed unique.This bill has been designed to ensure equity of taxation where multinational enterprises are concerned. We welcome the operation of multinational corporations and companies in Aotearoa New Zealand. They often bring goods and services to our country but when these multinationals come and they operate here in Aotearoa they do benefit from a lot of our public services—our public roads our telecommunications our infrastructure—and with that it is only fair that they pay their fair share of tax whilst operating here in our country.On 6 December last year this bill was introduced by our Government and one of the main purposes of this particular bill as I said following on from the work of the previous Government is to protect Aotearoa New Zealand's tax base from erosion through abuse of the tax system. There is a concern around the world about the aggressive tax practices often used by multinationals either to pay no taxes at all or to pay as little tax as possible anywhere around the world. Now many of these multinationals are operating in New Zealand and they are compliant with our legislation. However for those that are not compliant the reason why we are introducing this particular bill is to ensure that these strategies that minimise their obligations for tax purposes are actually addressed.This bill is designed to ensure fairness for New Zealanders in terms of multinational tax corporations. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a third time.
Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Bill — Third Reading