edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): Just a short note to support this bill—we'll support it to select committee anyway. I understand that there was a review and that some of the functions with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) were found wanting. So this bill will address some of those issues if it goes through the process and if the job's done well.I do want to have a little plug for the NZTA because one of the big jobs that we gave them was building roads and bridges and they were doing that tremendously well. In the area of Northland they—so throughout the country the job was to build these roads of national significance. Along comes a new Government and basically pulls the rug out from under them. They had all these plans 20- 30- 50-year plans to build four-lane highways which is what the rest of the world are doing. It's the bare minimum. Before you worry about any other forms of transport you build four-lane highways especially in Northland; no point in having trains up there if you don't have a four-lane highway. I fly over that spindly little road that goes up North and I've driven up it hundreds of times in my lifetime and it's not fit for purpose. So a four-lane highway is a basic requirement. Before you move any port you've got to have that four-lane highway.So NZTA have been doing a great job on that side of things and along comes this Government and changes all the rules. I know for a fact having spoken to many of the NZTA staff that they are really frustrated with what's going on because this Government doesn't know where it's going.So next year they're going to announce some more road funding and I would like to hope that they would give the green light to some of our four-lane highways. I hope that they don't do what I'm guessing they might do and that is build another two-lane road next to the existing one at two-thirds the price of a four-lane highway—a totally separate four-lane highway. From Whangarei out to Northport they built a two-lane road next to the existing two-lane road at two-thirds of the price; it makes no sense. So we hope that they see sense and that they start four-laning with that big surplus that they've supposedly got. So if they do I hope they really consider Northland—I'm thinking a bit of pressure will come on from New Zealand First. So they may end up spending a bit of money on roads up North. If they do kudos to them—somehow I doubt it though. I commend this bill to the House.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. New Zealand First also rises to support this bill and of course reinforce the messages that we've heard already about the importance of road safety—far too many tragedies. As we head into the holiday season we hope that people will drive safely around the country but what we've had—and it was interesting Chris Bishop in his contribution sort of kicking for touch. I mean the MartinJenkins report was scathing of the New Zealand Transport Agency and its oversight of the regulatory functions and warrants of fitness. Quite how that can be glossed over I'm not sure. It's a bit like in the agriculture space with the Mycoplasma bovis outbreak—the NAIT system was similarly exposed to having no oversight and we paid the price for that as well.So this bill does a couple of things—re-establishing the Director of Land Transport role so there's someone for whom the buck stops and that can have proper oversight of this. It does a few other things: I note there's some stuff around a central registry for speed limit changes speed management plans and the like. I'm sure the Transport and Infrastructure Committee will go through that under the wise guidance of chairman Darroch Ball with his Mensa-level intelligence. He will guide that through wisely I am sure. The other stuff is around the regulatory functions just strengthening those and refreshing them a little bit to make them fit for purpose.So this is a good bill. I'm pleased it's getting cross-party support and we look forward to seeing it through to select committee. Thank you.
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): As our transport spokesman Chris Bishop has mentioned we intend to support this bill through to the select committee. I certainly hope that as we look at progressing an improved regulatory system as the Minister describes it it will be matched alongside of investment into infrastructure and roading. There is a great concern that in order to make our roads safer instead of making them better roads we slow down the traffic and there would be some concerns around that.There are a number of organisations that utilise the roads not just for their livelihood but also to supply logistically our cities and regions. Of course I'm speaking about the Road Transport Forum. They said their view is that road safety is about more than just a strong regulatory approach; you need infrastructure and investment to ensure safe roads in the first place. So we certainly hope that part of that $6.8 billion that the Government has set aside to go into transport is going to do that. We are concerned along with the Road Transport Forum that they don't put all their eggs into the regulatory basket. It's imperative to have equal weighting given to infrastructure and investment.In fact the Minister was up in my region probably a year ago and he made an announcement that I think all the people of North Taranaki appreciated about some infrastructure improvements between Bell Block and Waitara. We have been waiting a considerable period of time and we still wait—still wait. We're into our third public consultation and I'm sure that the Minister wants to put that project in as part of the $6.8 billion spend. Certainly I will be putting the pressure on him that he needs to do that because that piece of highway has cost 12 lives in the last little while and it's certainly very very important.We do feel that transport ought to be something that we can support and we are prepared to do so but we will be looking very very carefully at what the Minister is proposing and we look forward to the submissions that come to the select committee. We do want ample time for those submissions to be adequately reviewed and certainly we want to have a system of transport in our country that offers the very best of safety and that is not just around regulation; it's around the construction the camber the quality of the roads which New Zealanders and particularly heavy transport operators drive on. So I'm happy sir at this point in time to commend this bill to the House.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak to the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill. As a member of the hard-working heavy agenda - ridden Transport and Infrastructure Committee I'm certainly proud to speak on two bills on the same day. Can I just acknowledge the Minister for the hard work around really fixing up a bit of a mess that was inherited just to be frank. I will just say that on the quiet because what we've got here is a coalition Government that's putting people and transport first and we see that here with safety at the top of the agenda.One of my many constituents came into the office last week in fact and he said that—no it was yesterday. I was in the office yesterday and he said that they'd actually read the document put out by those on the other side and he said it just mentions the word transport" nine times. He felt there was a spelling mistake on page 22. I said I had a tonne of other things to read much more high-quality documents coming out of this side of the House. So I said "Look I won't verify that but I'll certainly make mention of it in the House next time I talk on a transport bill." So that's what we've got here today. That's the context.It's about time that the statutory Director of Land Transport role was established. We heard how there's one in place already with maritime and aviation. And what this does is put the steel behind ensuring that an agency a Crown entity like the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has the absolute reinforcement to deliver on that regulatory function. Despite calls that the agenda has been light can I say that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee has had many a debate around these entities. We've often politely asked NZTA the Ministry of Transport and the regional council including the city to come in and explain themselves around a whole range of things. This fixes and helps them to do their job properly and I'm proud that the Minister had prioritised this.We see that it supports the implementation of the Tackling Unsafe Speeds programme. This will just put the icing on the cake. It fixes up the mess that we quietly inherited but as the humble hard workers we are on this side of the House we're getting on with the job fixing those long-term challenges and making a decent run at the transport sector. I commend this bill to the House."
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I move That the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 24 April 2020.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Mr Speaker and it's a pleasure to talk about this rail bill. Can I just acknowledge the Minister of Transport for his work but also the fundamental objective of this bill and that's to integrate rail with all the other modes so we can get transport sorted once and for all and all those challenges because they are long term. We're here for the long term and this is all part of that programme.I was in Whanganui myself reflecting on the previous speaker's words. I was walking along the river line and got to Aramoho I think it was called and there's a rail bridge there and walked back down the rail line past Cullinane College and back into the city centre. I thought At least there's a Government here that will ignite and activate that line and make sure that it gets used even more than it currently does."The other piece I like about this is that those in the metro cities with urban rail networks Auckland and Wellington those KiwiRail public servants—Hon Phil Twyford: You're making Jamie jealous.PAUL EAGLE: —ha ha!—will certainly now be part of that regional land transport planning that's vital. They've been left out of the loop not on purpose. I know public servants are all willing in the transport sector but this just formalises the arrangement and makes sure now that that statutory three-year rail network investment can proceed. I am proud to commend this bill to the House."
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you for taking my call this afternoon and it will be a brief one. It's abundantly clear that National opposes this bill. As the last speaker for the National Party it's just signalling that KiwiBuild has been derailed so is this on the same track for a similar destination? In this instance the puns aside the case for change has not been made out for the Government. The status quo is satisfactory.We've heard that the road users pay for the new roads and accordingly users of rail ought to pay for the use of the rail network. My colleagues have made it very clear what the party position is on this and I'm just going to defer back to memory lane just track there a little bit to the association that of course yourself Mr Speaker and I have to Taihape which is a railway town and family land associated with my family the whenua there at Turangaarere Omoti was a railway settlement and the land was claimed under the Public Works Act back in the early 1900s and known as a railway settlement.The tracking of those stories also for many of us the histories associated with the railways and the reference to the ghost roads and the ghost housing this afternoon with the questions that had been posed in this House—I also allude to up in Taihape through to Waiōuru our defence lands. Many of our members from families waited at the railway stations farewelling our ancestors as they went off to war. There's a hauntingly sad image many of us may recollect particularly during Anzac Day and it's about our soldiers the forgotten ones and the fallen ones who were waiting to return home. That waiting place is at the railway station beside the railway track.The reason I mention that is that they are sad memories that are conjured up and what this bill is purporting to do and it will be railroaded through is that it may become a sad memory in relation to the fact that the State-owned enterprise which is the operational entity for KiwiRail ought to be and remain running and focused as a commercially run entity. This bill is purporting to change the framework for that so that heavy rail track network owned by KiwiRail is now framed under and placed under and supported by the road users paying for the new roads. So the National Party opposes this bill.The references that I have made whenever I do stand to speak it's drawing it back to those personal connections. The railways for many of us as families have tracked through our lives and we do have certain memories and they are poignant ones.May this bill become a distant memory in the course of time as it will show that it does not operate in the commercial entity that it was proposed and set up to do. The National Party does not commend this bill to the House.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First for this Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill. Of course New Zealand First are huge supporters of our rail network—and the shameful state of disarray that we have inherited it in and the billion dollars allocated in the last Budget is long overdue. I was just up in Matt King's neck of the woods on Friday actually doing his job for him and I know they are really excited up there to get their new port and the rail link up there and really get Northland cranking. But this is a much wider issue. It's integrating our transport systems. And just coming at this from a farming issue we're looking at emissions and the methane and all the debates around methane and flow gases. What we've actually got to do is drop our carbon dioxide emissions. How are we going to do that? We've actually got to do something and one of those things is to get our freight primarily and in our urban centres our commuters into public transport and on to trains—the logs that are damaging our roads and the like. So this is an absolutely appropriate response. These ghost roads that the Opposition are pining for that would cost billions and billions of dollars—I mean just to put a four-lane bridge over the Rākaia River Andrew Falloon would be astronomical costs that we could be actually investing into our rail network to take some of those big logging trucks and freight off the road. And of course there are the safety elements of that as well.So without further ado New Zealand First absolutely support this measure and commend it to the House. Thank you.
Swarbrick Chlöe; Rurawhe AdrianCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I apologise to my colleague Mark Patterson who I seem to have accidentally nicked the call from but we have got somewhat out of order this afternoon. I needed to on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa respond to a few of the points made by former speakers contributing to this piece of legislation particularly my colleagues Tim van de Molen and Matt King—King of the North". When we're talking about re-diverting transport funding into something like trains into something like rail networks Mr van de Molen I'm not quite sure if there is cognisance or understanding of the fact that trains or rail are actually a mode of transport.But on top of that there is a really crucial role for rail in particular when we're speaking to the potential to reduce our carbon emissions. There's currently a very live conversation actually about potentially moving our port—my port as an Aucklander—which I mean it'd be awesome to see the coast at the front of Auckland CBD opened up for all Aucklanders to use but one of the conversations that we haven't yet cracked into properly I don't believe is whether we are going to be investing in meaningful transport solutions to get that freight back into Auckland where it is predominantly redistributed around.I also want to raise with the National Party who seems to think that roads are all paying for themselves by virtue of road-user charges and fuel that they perhaps need to look into how Government spending actually operates in the transport area because that's absolutely not the case as they should know with their obsession with roads which they have liked to dub the roads of national significance. It's definitely the case that I myself as a taxpayer but not as somebody who actually owns a car am helping through my taxes to pay for roading projects literally right now as we speak. I think that New Zealanders on balance expect transport choice particularly in our urban centres and for many of them it is about enabling that transport choice.I'm only contributing briefly to this piece of legislation given that it is part of a three-bill package from this Government about reorienting towards a far brighter future our transport solutions in this country. The Green Party is proud to support the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Just for members we're on call No. 9 which is usually a split call so I'm going to call it as a split call unless—the whips are telling me it won't be?Kiritapu Allan: No you're good. It's call No. 9. The Greens took the Labour call; you're taking the National call and he's got No. 10.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): OK—OK."
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): This is a sensible piece of legislation. It's a privilege to be able to speak on the land transport legislation amendment bill. In summary this is a bill that is about safety. It is about strengthening the regulatory functions of the New Zealand Transport Agency and it implements measures as part of the Tackling Unsafe Speeds programme. Therefore without hesitation I have no qualms in commending this bill to the House.
King MattLAND TRANSPORT (RAIL) LEGISLATION BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 12 December.MATT KING (National—Northland): I'll just take a brief call on this Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill. We oppose the bill. We think that the system doesn't need to change; it isn't broken. The status quo is fundamentally satisfactory. Road users pay for new roads and maintenance through their fuel taxes and road-user charges and it's fair and it works. Users of rail pay for the use of the rail network through a commercially focused State-owned enterprise.In Northland rail has never paid its way. It was built back in the days when trucking was heavily regulated and very inefficient and even back then it didn't compete—it couldn't compete. So rail in Northland has never made any money. It's never paid its way but successive Governments have poured money into rail in an attempt to keep it going. It's been a black hole. I'm not saying that rail anywhere else in other parts of the country is not viable but in Northland it's not. The National Land Transport Fund is for roads paid for by motorists but this Government they've cancelled the motorway up north and they intend to plough millions if not billions into rail in Northland.This bill shows the Government's love affair with rail. They would love to have National's four-laning project on their side but we got there first so they've had to satisfy themselves with a few scattered safety projects and pouring money into rail. They made a song and dance about spending about safety on our existing roads but up north all we've got is plastic sticks instead of lanes. They've ignored our road-building programme which was building the safest roads in the country. Up north we've got a few roads that have been slightly widened but nothing like four-laning.The reality is they can't even spend the money that the New Zealand Transport Agency have available for roads. They can't even spend the existing money that they have now. They can't even do that right. It's a disgrace and we will not be supporting this bill.
Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
Lees-Galloway IainREMUNERATION AUTHORITY (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT REMUNERATION) AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)Third ReadingHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move That the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. The Government has been clear that the recent increases to member of Parliament salaries have been unacceptably high and that there is an urgent need to improve the system and restore the ability of the Remuneration Authority to adjust MPs' salaries. This bill is the Government's response. It amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 and the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013 to establish a new process for how the authority sets the salaries of members of Parliament.I would like to thank colleagues from across the House for their support of this bill at all stages and I'd also like to recognise the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for the speedy and efficient way in which they dealt with the bill and the small number of submitters that we had on the bill and thank the members of the committee for returning the bill to the House with no proposed amendments.This bill will ensure that MPs' future salary increases are reasonable and justified. It enables the Remuneration Authority to use their discretion in setting MPs' pay and strikes an appropriate balance with the use of public moneys. I commend this bill to the House.
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4) — Third Reading
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4) — Second Reading
Bills for Introduction — Leave for First Reading Declined
Speaker's Ruling — Privilege—Select Committee Proceedings
Obituary — Sir Peter Snell
Hipkins ChrisThird ReadingHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. Bill read a third time.
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorFAIR TRADING AMENDMENT BILLFINANCIAL MARKET INFRASTRUCTURES BILLIntroduction and Setting Down for First Reading—Leave DeclinedHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Noting the incredibly fast progress that the House has been making in working its way through the Order Paper over the last week I seek leave for the Fair Trading Amendment Bill and the Financial Market Infrastructures Bill to be set down for first reading presently after Government order of the day No. 9 despite Standing Order 286(1)(a). SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process being followed? There is. Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh he wants to go home early. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Disorganised Government—terrible. SPEAKER: Yes I think we'd better move on.
Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Can I take a moment on behalf of the New Zealand National Party to acknowledge Sir Peter Snell and his family. The reality is that he was a great New Zealander.Much has been said about his humility and his character but the facts are these: he won three gold medals and also went on to win other medals at the Commonwealth Games he is the only man since 1920 to have won the 800 metres and the 1500 metres in the same Olympics and he's been honoured as New Zealand's greatest athlete in the 20th century. But also his contribution has been much wider than that. Not only has he been seen as one of the greatest middle-distance runners of all time he has also gone on to inspire a group of young people. We were recently the Minister for Sport and Recreation and I at the Olympic gala dinner acknowledging those young athletes that are off to Tokyo and when we saw Maurice Gimel and we heard her story of the track successes that we've had I think we were reminded that there are many stories of people like Sir Peter Snell but also those athletes that are more unknown that have achieved great things for New Zealand.So we acknowledge his family Miki; and we acknowledge his contribution to New Zealand; and we acknowledge the fact that he has been one of our greatest athletes in New Zealand's history.Motion agreed to.
Thursday 12 December 2019 - Volume 743
Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Bill read a third time.
11. Question No. 11—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of HealthQuestion No. 11—Health11. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding measles?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Yes in the context they were given.Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm her health officials declined multiple requests from Auckland DHBs for a national measles catch-up campaign going back to October 2017 despite her repeated statements urging people to be vaccinated against measles?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It's well known that it had been recommended to run a national catch-up campaign since 2014 which the previous Government did not do. Our Government has in the past year administered more than twice as many vaccines as the next highest year in the last decade and we're actively looking to address the under-immunisation that exists in our country. Dr Shane Reti: Did the refusal to support a national measles catch-up campaign two years ago contribute to the current measles outbreak? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No. Dr Shane Reti: Why did no health officials undertake any form of contact tracing including notifying airlines following a young female passenger with measles who flew with Air New Zealand from the Bay of Plenty in March this year as stated in answers to written questions? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think that question is best put down in writing but it's my understanding that contact tracing is not usually undertaken for people who are travelling by air. Dr Shane Reti: Has she addressed that question already in answers to written questions? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It is entirely possible that I have. I have received over 400 written questions from that member in the past two months; unfortunately I cannot retain to memory the answer to every single one of those. Dr Shane Reti: Is she satisfied her management of the measles outbreak is up to standard when Official Information Act documents show that contact tracing of the young passenger with measles on Air New Zealand was undertaken by the backpackers' grapevine"?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: What I can stand by is our Government's absolute commitment to addressing the measles outbreak. There's been an enormous effort undertaken at DHB level to contain the outbreak and the Government is actively looking at doing everything we can to ensure this never happens again in New Zealand."
9. Question No. 9—Ethnic CommunitiesPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Ethnic CommunitiesQuestion No. 9—Ethnic Communities9. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Ethnic Communities: What recent announcements has she made about community initiatives in ethnic communities?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Ethnic Communities: This Government is backing our ethnically diverse and multi-faith communities to plan and deliver more community initiatives and to ensure New Zealand is welcoming and inclusive for everyone. Last week Minister Salesa announced an increase for the Ethnic Communities Development Fund from $520000 to $4.2 million a year. This represents an eightfold increase to the fund the most significant lift in its history. This Government is delivering for all New Zealanders and this funding increase will help our ethnic communities to thrive through the practise and celebration of their cultures.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What has the fund been used for in the past and what will this expansion mean for the 800000 New Zealanders who identify with ethnic communities?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This fund helps support much of the good work being done at the grassroots by ethnic communities. In the past this fund has supported ethnic communities' sport and youth initiatives multicultural events ethnic women's centres refugee and migrant services and language initiatives. With this funding boost more work can be done by ethnic communities to include and welcome ethnic diversity promote understanding educate New Zealanders about the contribution of our ethnic communities and support the participation of our ethnic communities in employment and society more generally.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What changes are being made to how the fund is accessed?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The changes we are making to the Ethnic Communities Development Fund are not just about this record investment; we are also providing more support for groups to apply and be recognised. Community advisers are available to walk side by side with groups that go through the application process including support for those with English as a second language. The fund will also now operate on a rolling basis with application decisions made throughout the year rather than just once annually.
7. Question No. 7—FinanceDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 7—FinanceDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A point of order David Bennett.DAVID SEYMOUR: Seymour.SPEAKER: Right. There are too many Davids in this place—fewer than there used to be—DAVID SEYMOUR: I agree.SPEAKER: —and that's good.DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker I note that this year you've punished the Government by giving a hundred or more additional supplementary questions to the National Party. Well here in ACT we're also hurt by the Government's bad behaviour and in the interests of proportionality I wonder if you'd consider giving a couple of extra supplementaries to ACT.SPEAKER: You can discuss that with the National Party whips. David Seymour.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well actually I'm asking on behalf of a different party.SPEAKER: I will consider giving you an extra supplementary in the new year sometime.DAVID SEYMOUR: The new year! All right—Jesus.SPEAKER: Consider it a Christmas present on a promise.DAVID SEYMOUR: A rather late Christmas present I have to say but we've never needed that many anyhow.SPEAKER: Well the member's about to lose one if he doesn't get on with it.DAVID SEYMOUR: Ha ha! It's a hard row to hoe.7. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the OECD that New Zealand is the most highly taxed country in the Asia-Pacific region when measured according to the tax-to-GDP ratio?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): No.David Seymour: Why does the Minister of Finance disagree with figures produced by the OECD which show that New Zealanders as a percentage of GDP pay more tax than Japan Korea—SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Right. Well the member didn't stop when I called him to order so he won't have his second supplementary. Answer that one.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because I don't agree with the premise in the member's question about the definition of highly taxed and nor do I agree with the selective geographical definition that the OECD used.David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It won't make any difference but the way you just treated me is grossly unfair and the fact that I can't even give examples to make a question intelligible is completely ridiculous.SPEAKER: Well I note the member's comment. I think he's probably asking me for an early trip home to Auckland that's not going to be granted.
2. Question No. 2—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 2—Transport2. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: What proportion if any of the $6.8 billion for new transport projects" announced yesterday will be spent on the 12 projects that were re-evaluated following the publication of the 2018 Government Policy Statement on transport?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): This package shows that the Government is serious about fixing up the neglected infrastructure that we were left with. The final details of the package have yet to be fully decided so the member will have to wait for further announcements for information on those projects.Chris Bishop: Has the Government settled on the final package of transport projects to be funded through the package?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There's just a few i's to dot and t's to cross.Chris Bishop: Can he confirm what New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) chair Sir Brian Roche said this morning at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee which is that while the transport agency has provided advice the decisions as to what projects are funded and which ones are not is up to Ministers?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: This is not an unprecedented approach and in general—let me make it clear—the vast majority of transport spending under any Government happens through the National Land Transport Programme with NZTA making those decisions at arm's length from Ministers under the guidance of the Government policy statement. But from time to time Governments choose to invest more in transport infrastructure as is the case with this infrastructure package and as was the case when the former Government announced the package of State highway improvements—exactly the same process.Chris Bishop: Will all the projects funded in the $6.8 billion package be shovel- ready?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The projects in this infrastructure package in the transport part of it are being selected on the basis of the transport value that they deliver to move people and freight more efficiently around the country. The package will be a valuable and much welcomed economic stimulus and it's very important that those projects are ready to be delivered as soon as possible.Chris Bishop: Does the Minister still stand by his previous statement that the 12 re-evaluated roads are of very low economic value?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No the member is quite wrong. What I said was that the former Government's so-called roads of national significance—that were in fact ghost roads—were of very low value and that's why our Government put them through a re-evaluation process so that they would deliver because this side of the House stands for value for money.Chris Bishop: Has the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter expressed concern to him about the increased funding for State highways; if so when?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No."
Hudson Brett; Rurawhe AdrianBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well that previous member—why why was he so relentlessly putting the boot in to his own team? He talked about Michael Cullen. Well Michael Cullen's philosophy was sell low buy high" and over that side they call that investment. Well we can guess where it's going to lead to if that's their approach. He talked about the model that KiwiRail operates under now and he spent minutes telling us how poor it was but who set it up? It was the Hon Dame Annette King and he's just told us how rubbish she is. That's absolutely terrible. Look I've got more respect for Dame Annette than that and certainly a lot more than Mr Wood does. But I want to talk about the three elements that are really behind this bill but that aren't explicit in the words though they are the true reasons behind it. The first is they are blinded by ideology—particularly two of the three governing parties—where they have this romantic love for rail often couched in terms of emissions reductions but this is one of the few items that the three governing parties can actually agree on. Labour and the Greens just see it as this ideological bent they have for "If it's rail it must be good." but for New Zealand First as long as it is reminiscent of the 1970s they are into it. I mean you only need to look at their economic policy to see the truth behind that statement. So what we have is them trying to say "We're going to do whatever it takes to have more rail." and they try to claim that if only the public would agree to investment in rail it would shine through and everyone would see it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Well here's the reality: New Zealand's had a rail network for 100-odd years and people have been able to shift themselves or their goods on that rail network. If it was the optimal choice then passengers and companies moving goods would be using it and here's the thing: if they were using it then it would generate revenue and profit and it would have been able to reinvest that in its stock and its tracks and it could have done the renewal they are talking about. It's the failure of rail to meet customers' needs which drives the problem here. All they are saying is "Let's take some of the taxpayer money and make a bad situation even worse." because as far as they're concerned if it's rail it must be good which brings us—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m."
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): As you walk down the street in South Dunedin there are a range of lending organisations which charge high rates interest rates. If you drive around in the suburbs in some of the hill suburbs in Dunedin at certain times of the week you'll see the pay-day loan buses driving around. They're all a reminder of the exploitative practices that happen in our country still that exploit people on low incomes who find that they get into these debt traps. And despite several attempts—and thank you to Gareth Hughes for outlining some of the previous attempts—to change the legislation in this space we still hadn't got it right. So I commend the work that Kris Faafoi has done on this in particular to introduce an interest rate cap of 0.8 percent a day and the cost of credit cap on high-cost loans to 100 percent of the original loan which means that one can never be charged more than 100 percent on any additional fees or charges.When I sat on the Commerce Committee several years ago the previous Government never went that far and thankfully this one has. So I commend the bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill — Third Reading
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I had the pleasure of sitting on the select committee. We heard some terrible stories. It was summed up by one submitter who said No one can afford their last loan." This legislation is about ensuring that that last loan that does drag people into that downward spiral when all the indicators would say they should never get it doesn't occur. So this is good legislation. I commend it to the House."
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I'd just like to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Credit Contracts Legislation Amendment Bill and I just would endorse the words of the previous contribution of Gareth Hughes. This will make a difference for actually some of our poorest and most vulnerable New Zealanders who maybe through no fault of their own or actually in some cases just through a lack of financial literacy get themselves into some of these high interest-bearing loans at exorbitant rates—up to 800 percent at times. So putting this 0.8 percent per day cap and I think importantly a total of 100 percent of the original principal is a really good move. It's not to say that these loans aren't in some cases necessary and a part of the lending ecosystem. There are times when people are caught a bit short and we don't want to stifle the ability of that part of the lending spectrum to be taken out. But we do want to make sure that it is fair and equitable. And I think we've seen any amount of examples of people getting taken for a ride and usury interest rates and getting into a debt spiral that just simply is impossible to get out of and the wider social consequences that come with that. So anything that can address that—and Minister Faafoi is to be commended for bringing this to the House and getting it through and bringing us up to speed with where so many of the other jurisdictions that we would consider our comparators are already at and have been for a long time in some cases.I won't draw this out any longer except to reiterate New Zealand First's strong support for this bill. Thank you.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): It heartens me to hear the words from Mr Hudson who has spoken just now that on balance the Opposition will support this bill. I hear the concerns of the Opposition. Nevertheless the interest rate cap was introduced for good reason. It was introduced not out of the blue but because so many of the people working in this sector in the financial advisers sector came to us and said Good work everyone good work—but actually we need a bit more in this space. We need an interest rate cap."In fact people who came to us wanted straight out 50 percent cap a very flat cap on interest rates. In the end we settled on a slightly different model a cap of 0.8 percent per day. This is based on what is happening in the United Kingdom so it hasn't just come out of the blue as though it was dreamed up de novo. It is actually a model that is working elsewhere.As Mr Hudson has said for further reassurance there is a review of the workings of this Act scheduled for three years' time. Should there be problems with people being unable to obtain finance should there be problems with people perhaps seeking black market finance or getting into worse trouble then that should come to light in the review and changes can be made as necessary. So on the whole this is good legislation and it came through what I thought was a good robust select committee process.I don't wish to speak for long but I wish to quote some amazing women who came to present to us some radical nuns from Gisborne. Sisters Carmel Adrienne and Marie talked to us about debt and what it did to people's lives. In their written submission they concluded with a quote that "Debt is the Slavery of the Free". From there they said people who get into horrendous debt are in effect enslaved. They are no longer free; they cannot order their lives as they will. Their daily behaviour is threatened by the spectre of outrageous debt hanging over them.Now of course we all need debt to smooth the way from time to time and it's typically used for mortgages and the like. Debt can be a very effective tool but it can also enslave us. This bill seeks to strike the balance between debt as a tool and debt that enslaves us. I think we've struck the right balance and I am proud to commend this bill to the House."
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It is a privilege to stand here and make a contribution in the third reading of the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill. Currently operators are only required to hold insurance worth $27 million. This level of coverage is far too low to cover the clean-up and compensation cost of significant oil spills. As we've seen in the Rena oil spill for example it cost the taxpayer $47 million to clean up. So this will rectify that. Before I sit down it's my sister's birthday today. So I'd just like to wish Evanjica Kanongata'a a happy birthday and that's my gift. Ka kite. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Twyford PhilMARITIME TRANSPORT (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Transport: I move That the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. It's my pleasure to stand on behalf of the Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter to speak to this third reading of the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill. I want to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to the development of the bill in its passage through the House including the officials in the Ministry of Transport of course the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and all of the submitters who have helped us refine the bill. The Maritime Transport Act basically operates a user-pays or I should say polluter-pays regime. In simple terms this means that the owner of offshore installations like those at the Maui and Pohokura oil and gas fields have an unlimited liability for the costs of any pollution damage from their installation. So if something goes wrong particularly with deep-sea installation it can go really wrong and the consequences can be catastrophic for New Zealand's marine environment. That's why the Government has taken this issue so seriously. The owner's liability in this sort of situation is extensive. It includes the costs of any clean-up and importantly reinstatement and the impairment of damages to the environment. The main objective of this bill is to clarify and strengthen the requirements that are placed on the owners of offshore oil and gas installations to hold insurance or equivalent cover for their liabilities in the event of an oil spill. There's not much point in having that liability if companies are not required to hold insurance to the level that would allow them to properly respond to the damage and the consequences of a spill in an offshore installation. This bill doesn't change the legal situation at all regarding the owner's liability. However what it does do is it makes a trade-off between the current regime which requires third-party assurance for all pollution risks but subject to what we believe is a totally inadequate amount of around $27 million and the regime proposed in this bill and the associated rules which will require third-party assurance for the key risks and costs to a level that can be expected to cover those risks up to $1.2 billion. The key risks and costs covered will include costs arising from pollution damage the costs of clean-up and the costs of reinstatement arising from an out-of-control well. If we are going to continue to allow oil and gas exploration under the current permits and to continue to extract oil and gas from fields like Maui and Pohokura we owe it to New Zealanders now and in the future to ensure that we require the best cover that we can get. I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I can only admire that previous speaker's ability to feign indignation and to feign sincerity because I know as anyone sitting over there knows this is good legislation. This is legislation that has to go through. It's not the first time New Zealanders have gone and fought overseas. The Spanish Civil War—many New Zealanders went there but the difference is that when they came back they didn't bring a philosophy back that was dangerous to this country. The modern fighter who goes to fight in the places we're talking about—the Middle East—brings back a philosophy that is dangerous to this country. It needs to be dealt with. They need to be monitored. We need the ability to deal with them. This Government has put together legislation which will enable us to deal with it and I have no hesitation in recommending this very good legislation this very effective legislation this well-thought-out legislation—and most importantly this legislation will allow us to address the changing evolving world of law and order the changing evolving world of terrorism. So I have no hesitation in recommending this to the House.
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thanks Madam Speaker. Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill third reading—succinct and to the point. The Government has acted where the Opposition has failed to. I acknowledge the Minister of Justice for acting and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and members of the coalition for working well on this legislation which does what it says it will do to protect the public from terrorism to prevent engagement in terrorism-related activities and to support the relevant person's reintegration into New Zealand and/or rehabilitation.Terrorism is a threat that we take seriously but we will not remove human rights for if we do that we descend into chaos. I commend this bill to the House.