edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
10. Question No. 10—PoliceHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 10—Police10. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes.Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Prime Minister: [And so] there were conversations last night as you'd expect after Mark's remarks. And we spoke with Mark last night but that's our commitment."; if so who spoke with him?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes.Hon Ginny Andersen: Is it correct that as reported by Newsroom a meeting was held between coalition parties in December last year and it was agreed to change the delivery of 500 more police over two years to three years?Hon MARK MITCHELL: No.Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the Deputy Prime Minister correct that a meeting was held last night between the National Party's chief of staff and New Zealand First's chief of staff and at that meeting it was agreed that the Government would return to delivering 500 more police in two years?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I know where this question is going. It's based on an interview I just did on the way over and that's not what I said. I said I wasn't at the meeting. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Just one at a time. So is that the end of that? Thank you. I'm sure that the member has taken that statement to the House effectively on board.Hon James Shaw: To the point of order. That was one of a series of points of order that have been raised by the Deputy Prime Minister that have nothing to do with points of order or Standing Orders. I would ask if we could constrain points of order to points of order as relates to the Standing Orders as opposed to debating points.SPEAKER: Well I thank you very much for the advice to the Chair. I'll take it on board.Hon Ginny Andersen: Can I ask the question again?SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?Hon Ginny Andersen: Well I didn't get an answer to the question.SPEAKER: Start the question again because it was interrupted.Hon Ginny Andersen: Just speaking to the point of order. That—SPEAKER: Well are you speaking to the point of order or not?Hon Ginny Andersen: I'll just say the question again. Is the Deputy Prime Minister correct that a meeting was held last night between the National Party's chief of staff and New Zealand First's chief of staff and at that meeting it was agreed that the Government would return to delivering 500 more police within two years?Hon MARK MITCHELL: I've got no knowledge. You'd have to ask the Deputy Prime Minister.Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that "Mark could have expressed himself better" and if so is the reason he's struggling to express himself because a 6.5 percent cut to the police front line is unexplainable?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well I agree with what the Prime Minister said so yes to the first part; no to the second.SPEAKER: No that's it. The allocation is all over. [Interruption] Excuse me. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Like taking candy.SPEAKER: No don't push it. It's very difficult when a senior member like that puts me in a terrible position."
6. Question No. 6—Social Development and EmploymentHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development and EmploymentQuestion No. 6—Social Development and Employment6. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her decision to index benefits to inflation?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with her statement main benefits will be higher next year than they would have been if we had retained the current index to wage growth." and will she make the commitment to beneficiaries that they will be better off under her decision to index main benefits to inflation?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Beneficiaries will be better off under our Government because we will be dealing with the cost of living crisis. We will be growing the economy to support more job opportunities as well as improving health and education. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can she say beneficiaries will be better off when Treasury is forecasting annual wage growth to be 5.1 percent in June 2025 compared with the forecasted 2.5 percent rate of inflation in June 2025 where wage growth clearly outstrips inflation?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Forecasts are exactly that. We'll make decisions based on good data and we made a commitment ahead of the election that we will index increases to benefits to inflation. That protects the real purchasing power of those on welfare. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What advice has she received on the child poverty implications for reversing the indexation of benefits from wages to inflation and what is that advice?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I've received a large amount of advice around child poverty reduction including the need to reduce the number of children in benefit-dependent households and how we make sure that they are better off.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she think snatching money away from the most vulnerable New Zealanders to pay for tax cuts is morally acceptable?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That member is incorrect. What this Government is doing is providing certainty for all of those on welfare that benefit increases to inflation—which is the same way it's been done for 31 out of the last 35 years—will protect their purchasing power which is absolutely critical in a cost of living crisis that that member contributed to."
5. Question No. 5—FinanceSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 5—Finance5. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on business confidence?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Earlier this month the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) released its latest quarterly survey of business opinion. This survey showed a sharp pick-up in business confidence in the final quarter of 2023. NZIER says that while a net 10 percent of firms are expecting a worsening in general economic conditions over the coming months this is a significant decrease from a net 49 percent in the previous quarter and a net 79 percent a year ago.Stuart Smith: What sorts of areas are firms feeling more confident in?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The survey shows that firms are feeling positive about hiring and positive about investing in plant and machinery. The report says that With a new Government formed in late November 2023 it appears that firms are now looking to invest."Stuart Smith: What is Treasury's outlook for the economy?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I'm advised that the economy is at or near the bottom of the economic cycle and the outlook is for a slow and relatively subdued recovery at least initially. In the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update Treasury forecast real GDP growth of 1.5 percent in the year to June 2024 and again in the year to June 2025. However that is lower than expected population growth so Treasury expects per person per capita GDP to decline in each of these years. The unemployment rate is also expected to rise to around 5 percent before beginning to fall again. Inflation will continue to fall and as the NZIER survey shows business confidence is increasing off a very low base.Stuart Smith: What is the Government doing to help build and improve the business environment?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government's 100-day plan contains a number of measures to improve the business environment. For example the Government introduced legislation last year which the House passed to restore 90-day trial periods for all businesses. This provides much-needed flexibility in the workplace that benefits both workers and employers. The Government also introduced legislation again which this House passed to end Labour's workplace bargaining regime that would have forced the views of some union workers on to all workers and all businesses in an industry. No wonder business confidence has risen."
Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Foster Andy; O'Connor GregANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I'm really pleased to see the wide support for this piece of legislation. I think it's a very very sensible amendment bill. I think there's a very clear direction of travel which is to say that we want our social workers to be more highly qualified. As I read it the qualification that's being required right across the country is a bachelor-level degree and of course it takes a little bit of time to get one of those. However it's equally clear that we are short of social workers at the moment and if this legislation is not passed we're going to have a group of social workers—and I hear it is 3 percent of the social workers who are practising at the moment—who are no longer going to be able to practise as of four weeks from today so I think there is some incumbency on us to get this job done fast. If we did not do that that would mean that there will be a number of people who would no longer be able to work. We've heard that many of those may well be in the Māori and Pasifika community. That would be wrong. Secondly it will break some existing relationships between social workers and their clients and of course it will penalise those staff members.I think we should also recognise that there are a lot of great people who are doing great work and they just don't necessarily have qualifications. I must say I was interested to hear the Minister saying they have 10 to 15 years of experience in some of these some cases and you say Well 10 to 15 years of experience—how does that stack up against a qualification learning about experience for three years?" Now we all love university degrees but is that the right way of travel? Of course you've got the safeguard there which is the safeguard of the registration board. If the registration board says "Hey look you've been doing this for 10 to 15 years. We don't think you're safe. We don't think you're any good at doing it. No you're not going to be registered any more." well so be it. But if after 10 to 15 years they're doing a great job why would you do that to them?So I think it makes complete sense to give them as long as possible time to at least do the retraining. If it's a three-year process and they're only just starting on that journey now and you cut them off for two years how's that going to work out? We will just lose some people and penalise some people and I wonder whether we need to do that.As I said the safeguard is there. I think this is a very sensible piece of legislation. I'm not going to take any more time over this one but I'm pleased to see the bipartisan support and I hope that what we are going to do is we're going to give those people who are doing a great job for our community—for some of the people who really need that social work support—the time to do whatever qualification they need to do to be able to carry on with the job that they clearly love doing. Thank you Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is a split call: Te Pāti Māori and Green.Hon Marama Davidson: Oh Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Ah the Hon—Hon Marama Davidson: Marama Davidson.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): —Marama Davidson."
Trask LauraLAURA TRASK (ACT): OK great—no worries. Social workers improve our lives and support our communities. The current workforce is wearing the burden of their lack of staff and increasing demand. I know our party did have some concerns initially about this bill mainly because the programme has been open for some time and the gold standard is now to have a Bachelor of Social Work. We don't believe that this pathway is actually the answer to this shortage mainly because only 3 percent of social worker registrations are actually using this pathway. An extension from two years instead of the four seems more practical to address some of the industry shortages that we do have currently but we must focus on providing more social workers and this is something the industry has to address. I'm actually really happy that I heard from this Government that they will be addressing this. We can't just have solutions that have no real answers to the problem and there is this dire shortage that has gone on for far too long. With that our party supports this bill. Thank you.
Trask Laura; O'Connor GregLAURA TRASK (ACT): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the question be—actually I'm just reminded because no one else took a call we'll go straight into the vote.
Seymour DavidHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I just listened to that spewing of bile and all I thought is I hope they make her the next co-leader for the good of New Zealand."!I want to turn to the question from Grant Robertson in relation to those staff. What I will say is that when we decided to go down the track of disestablishing the commission my initial and first instructions to the officials is that we would deal in a way that was respectful and accommodated the needs of staff and our obligations to them as a priority. I can understand people want to say "Well how has that gone?" I think it would be wrong for me to comment further when people are still undergoing or may still be undergoing negotiations and the like.But I can assure the committee and the member that the way that we've gone about this is that some of my first words to the officials responsible for this policy process has been to accommodate those staff and their rights and the obligations to them. Those obligations the member asked will be passed over to the Treasury. Of course if the Treasury indicates that it needs support in order to honour that commitment to those staff then then we'll ensure that we do that.However I also just make the point that if they're very talented people—and I agree that they are—then I think they're going to be just fine. I also want to use one of the last opportunities in the debate to thank those people for the excellent work that they've done to date and remind people that that work will be available in perpetuity. I think it's time for Governments to implement a bit more of it rather than commission more of it."
O'Connor Greg; Luxton CameronCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Cameron Brewer.Hon Grant Robertson: Luxton.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Luxton sorry.CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Ha ha! Thank you Mr Robertson. I move That debate on this question now close.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): I just want to focus and ask the Minister a couple of questions about clause 2 the commencement clause. Noting that the Act comes into force on 29 February 2024—and it is a serious matter I want to raise with the Minister because he—Hon David Seymour: You shouldn't really say that.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well no because the Minister hasn't responded to any of my other questions. So you know I was trying to give him a guide to the fact I might want one after this—which is that he himself spoke about staff of the Productivity Commission in either the first or second reading speech last night. There is a group of highly specialised expert researchers who produce incredibly interesting and important work at the commission who go on 29 February under clause 2 and as a result of clause 11 that was within Part 2. So just to be clear for members clause 11(2)—which we've already passed—says: All employment and appointment positions with the Commission are terminated."I want some assurance from the Minister today about the process that is being used to work through with those staff. What then happens in clause 11(3) is that all responsibilities in relation to employment or appointment matters become the liability or the responsibility of the ministry—which is we've learnt the Treasury.So my questions for the Minister are: what arrangements are in place to support those people to stay within the Public Service? And what support has been given to the Treasury who will now take responsibility for all of the outstanding matters? I would not be at all surprised if in the course of just on a month they may not be able to resolve all of the issues that exist around staffing or employment. These people have had their jobs ended unceremoniously through this Act of Parliament and I think the Minister should stand up and tell us what is being done to support them and what is being done to work and support the Treasury in order for them to fulfil the roles that are given them in clause 11."
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I wonder if I might talk a little bit about this because we know—and the Minister for Regulation has been quite clear—that the Productivity Commission will be replaced by a ministry which he will be in charge of in respect of regulation which he thinks will have some impact on productivity. I wonder if he might comment on the suggestion that he would much prefer to have a ministry which he can direct rather than an independent commission over which he can't control the opinions of. It's on the record that Mr Seymour has said that the Productivity Commission he thinks has been hijacked and he said that on 5 September 2023. So it strikes me Minister that the real reason you're abolishing the commission is because you don't like its independent views and what's more the chair of the commission—you were unkind enough to say that you would not have appointed him. You said that on the same date. Now the Hon Grant Robertson has already pointed out that it's open to you to make your own appointments to the commission. But I would ask you to respond to the fact that what you want is a little department all of your own where you can make sure you can control the opinions that come out of it rather than have a thoughtful and independent organisation which can give genuinely independent insight into productivity in New Zealand.
White Helen; Seymour DavidHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to just graft on to what was said there by the previous speaker Grant Robertson because I years ago worked for the Law Commission which is an independent organisation and those kinds of independent organisations are really rich in having a focus and a capacity for people to engage with them. We heard speakers yesterday talk about how people did engage in a different way with the Productivity Commission and they said that they could do a much longer-term piece of work and they could do a much more specialist piece of work. Now I can see the Minister for Regulation raising his eyebrows at one of the organisations which I have great respect for—from what I can see—so I would like to know how he intends to continue that tradition of independence if in fact when people say things he doesn't like to hear and that don't go along with his ideology he is prepared to dismantle them.Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I would like to respond to some of the contributions. I would answer Dan Bidois' question. However he gave such a lengthy answer himself it hardly seems necessary. In response to Grant Robertson clause 9 is there to give effect to the policies that were agreed on in Part 2 and as he says it's a very simple clause. It says The Commission is disestablished." so he should be able to work that out. As for a number of other comments that he made I could engage with him on that but it doesn't really seem worth it. I could make similar comments about some of the characterisation and attacks from Helen White but I don't think that's really necessary."
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): I wasn't going to take a call on this part of this silly and sad piece of legislation but I've been inspired by the contribution from the member Dab Bidois who's just resumed his seat. So my question on Part 2 is with respect to clause 9. It's a relatively simple question for the Minister for Regulation and that's Why?" because this is an organisation that was created at the behest of the ACT Party and that the Minister in his first and his second reading speeches last night told us had done good and excellent work and yet he brings a bill to the House to disestablish it. I still haven't had an answer from the Minister that satisfactorily answers why clause 9 exists and I guess that there's a subpart. If "Why?" is not a simple enough question for the Minister there is a subpart to this which is to ask the Minister what other options he might have considered. For example if his concern was as he has publicly stated in the media that the Productivity Commission had gone off-piste from where ACT would like it to be—obviously I disagree with the premise behind that. But if that is the Minister's concern why did he not reappoint people that he considered would bring the commission back to where he felt it should be? As everybody has said in the House over the last night and tonight productivity and the challenge to New Zealand on productivity is decades long very complex and something that we all agree we need to do more about and having an organisation whose job it is to take the big-picture view and to produce the reports that we can learn from is presumably a good thing. The Hon James Shaw last night offered the Minister a couple of other ways and pathways that he might be able to do this including changing the legislation around how the Government needs to respond to a report of the Productivity Commission thinking again about the kinds of inquiries it can do who it can work with and indeed as I say who is appointed as commissioners.So it is a fairly simple question for me. This is an absurd piece of legislation and the best we've been able to get—Carl Bates: That's why we're repealing it.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No no no this—this—is an absurd piece of legislation and it does strike me that the only credible thing that we've heard is that the Minister wants his vanity project with the ministry of regulation and the only way he could get that through was to sacrifice the Productivity Commission. If that is the case—and it does appear to be so—then that is why this is a very very sad bill. So that's my quite simple question for the Minister. Why is clause 9 here and what else did he consider that he could have done to achieve the goals he has whilst keeping in place a commission that works on the issue that virtually everyone in this House agrees we need to work on?"
Webb Duncan; Seymour DavidHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. I think I can probably be a little more concise than the last speaker James Meager. In clause 10(5) it talks about the completion of reports. Now yesterday the Minister for Regulation was very flattering of the work of the commission and it's pretty much obvious that there's going to be a number of reports under way. The clause says that the Ministry is not under any obligation to complete … reports" but given that there will be reports in train is it the case that the ministry will complete the work that the commission has under way?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Thank you Madam Chair. I say to the member James Meager from the Government benches that I'm happy to answer any questions he has but in the meantime he'd probably be better to go and knock on the office door of Simon Court and get some advice on how to filibuster imaginatively.In response to Dr Duncan Webb if he was listening yesterday he would have heard me say in answer to funnily enough Simon Court's question that we expect the commission to wind up on 29 February. If you may recall I pointed out that that was an interesting point because it's a leap year and that the report that's outstanding would be completed by 15 February."
O'Connor Greg; McClay ToddASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is That the report be noted.Motion agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question now is That the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is That the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.Instruction to Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade CommitteeHon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): I move That the European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill report to the House before 4 April 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time when the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and 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 of the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.The European Union have completed their process for the ratification of the free-trade agreement. Now it remains for this House to move through its obligation to do the same thing so that it can enter it into force. We believe that this should be done as quickly as possible although are mindful that it is important that through the select committee process the public and those of interest have the opportunity to submit on the legislation and to appear before the committee.The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has already given the public an opportunity to consider the free-trade agreement itself in as far as a treaty examination is concerned. At this time there are goods exported from New Zealand that are on the water on their way to Europe. If we're able to move through this process in a slightly faster time period than might normally be the case those New Zealand exporters will benefit quickly from the tariff reductions that the free-trade agreement has. To give an example there are probably tens of millions of dollars' worth of tariff savings that New Zealand exporters would benefit from through the legislation being passed more quickly. Of course New Zealand kiwifruit exporters to the European market are not far away from having to make decisions about sending their product to market. I think it would be a good thing for this House to be able to pass the legislation so it can enter into force.Finally there are elections coming up in Europe in the European Parliament. Whilst they have completed their part of the process for entry into force we would like to do that before the European Parliament elections take place as it would mean procedurally implementation may be delayed. Thank you.Motion agreed to.
European Union Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. As the Hon Todd McClay has already mentioned this bill is of the utmost importance. The EU is New Zealand's fourth-largest trading partner and one of our most important markets. Under this bill New Zealand's conditions of access will be significantly improved hence this piece of legislation is incredibly valuable to our market. Now being of Croatian descent myself we are not one to keep quiet and not say many words but on this occasion I will and less is more. On that note I would like to say that New Zealand First supports and commends this bill to the House.
Valedictory Statements — Hon Kelvin Davis
Simpson Scott; Willis NicolaHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I move that Mr Speaker accompanied by the mover and seconder and other members of the House present—SPEAKER: Just a moment one moment. This is a motion that needs to be moved by a Minister so I'll call upon the Hon Nicola Willis.Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move That Mr Speaker accompanied by the mover and seconder and other members of the House present the Address to Her Excellency the Governor-General at a place and time to be appointed by Her Excellency.Motion agreed to.SPEAKER: We come now to a valedictory statement. I'll just say that the House will suspend for the dinner break at the conclusion of the valedictory speech and resume at 7.30 p.m. So in accordance with the determination of the Business Committee I call upon the Hon Kelvin Davis.
Brownlee GerryPresentation to Governor-GeneralSPEAKER: The Address from the House of Representatives to Her Excellency The Right Honourable Dame Cindy Kiro Chancellor and Principal Dame Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit Principal Companion of The Queen's Service Order Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over the Realm of New Zealand reads:YOUR EXCELLENCYWE the House of Representatives thank you for the speech addressed to us when you opened this Fifty-Fourth Parliament.We assure you that the matters referred to in your speech will receive our careful consideration.Ko te tūmanako nei kia mahi tahi tātou katoa.[Our hope is that we will work together.]Address agreed to.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4
Luxon ChristopherAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 4 to MinisterRt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): I seek leave to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question during oral question No. 4 today.SPEAKER: That's to give a personal explanation?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I said that there wasn't a plausible risk. What I should have said is that the court was not required to determine whether Israel had actually breached its obligations under the genocide convention. Therefore the court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct. However the court found that there is a plausible case that Israel's conduct in Gaza may breach its obligations under the genocide convention. That will be the subject of a full and substantive hearing in the International Court of Justice.
Address in Reply Debate (continued)
Upston LouiseAMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 7 to MinisterHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer in oral question time today. SPEAKER: I think you can just do that. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you. So in question No. 7 today—SPEAKER: No sorry—just a minute. OK you need to seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct it. I thought you were able to correct answers but however. Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the answer to question No. 7 today. I referred to a nearly 90000 increase on the number on jobseeker benefit. That is the increase in the number of people on main benefit. The number on the jobseeker increase is 66753. SPEAKER: Thank you.
Business of the House — Government Orders of the Day Variation to—Leave Declined
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEGovernment Orders of the Day Variation to—Leave DeclinedRt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave for Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2 to proceed immediately to a vote on the third reading with no debate immediately following question time.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Mitchell MarkQuestion No. 11 to Minister 30 January—Amended AnswerHon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct answers given during question time yesterday.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Please go ahead.Hon MARK MITCHELL: In answer to supplementary questions on question No. 11 I stated that the Government's policy was for the 500 additional police to be delivered over the course of the term which is three years. I should have been clearer: the Government's policy is to deliver 500 new police in the first two years of the term. I was reflecting the significant challenges that Police face to drive that recruitment but the Government is firmly committed to delivering on this target.Hon David Parker: Point of order. Mr Speaker I would ask you to reflect on whether corrections of answers are to correct misinformation that is given to the House or to reflect a change of position taken by a Minister. That was not an appropriate use of a correction of an answer.SPEAKER: That's quite right but it was a correction of an answer. I was here for those questions and heard the answers given yesterday and that's quite a different position; that's a different answer that's given. I don't think it's the right place right now to discuss the concept the member's talking about but the Standing Orders Committee might be.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Papers have been reported.CLERK:2022-23 annual reports of the:Queen Elizabeth II National Trust andCadastral Surveyors Licensing Board of New Zealand2024-26 statement of intent for Animal Control Products Ltd.SPEAKER: There are select committee reports?CLERK: No.SPEAKER: None today. Introduction of bills—none today. We come now to—Hon James Shaw: Point of order Mr Speaker—Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Sorry?Hon James Shaw: Sorry just both when the prayer was being read out and then with the Clerk's notes—I'm not sure that the sound system is operating because we didn't pick up any of that through your mikes.SPEAKER: OK can our techs please just check on that? And just for clarity can those papers be read again?CLERK:2022-23 annual reports of the:Queen Elizabeth II National Trust andCadastral Surveyors Licensing Board of New Zealand2024-26 statement of intent for Animal Control Products Ltd.
Kuriger BarbaraWEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSBARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand noting the mark of respect that some members have put in place for the rural community today. Amen.
Boyack Rachel; Brownlee GerryRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. I really appreciate the opportunity to take a call on what is a really important local issue for my electorate of Nelson. I want to take the short time I have available to talk about Maitai School.Maitai School is a school for students with significant learning disabilities students with intellectual disabilities but also many of them have significant physical disabilities and they need specialist education provision. The school has been working on a rebuild for nearly 10 years. When I visited the school you could see exactly why the rebuild of the school was just so necessary. There was a point a few years ago where the school had to build an off-site toilet block because there wasn't actually a proper toilet block for students who used a wheelchair. This is the severe nature of the state of the buildings.The school has three satellites where they actually provide the education provision to their students but within a mainstream environment. It's such a fantastic way of the students being able to wear a local school uniform participate in local activities but still receive the specialist education that they need. They have three satellites: one is at Henley Primary School in Richmond; one a new one which we opened in Tāhunanui School last year; and the other is due to be worked on at Nayland high school but that rebuild is currently at risk—so too is the full rebuild of the school on another site at Salisbury School location which is also due for a rebuild.So in 2019 the Labour Government announced a rebuild of Salisbury School and Maitai School on the site of Salisbury School. What happened though was we had some massive challenges around the schools co-locating and which part of the site they would be on. So the school came to me as the local MP in 2022 pleading for support. So myself and the then Minister Jan Tinetti visited the school and engaged heavily with the Ministry of Education and we actually got that rebuild back on track. It had gone off the rails a little bit.Hon Members: Back on track.RACHEL BOYACK: We got it—the Labour Party got it back on track.We have been working for the last two years. In November last year the school submitted a Budget bid. That rebuild is now on hold. That's appalling. It is about the Government's choices. Now you can say what you like about whether we do a review of the rebuild of all the schools that we need to do but there should have been ring-fencing for students with severe intellectual and physical disabilities. So I'm calling on the Minister to come to the meeting on Thursday in Nelson so that we instead of tax cuts for landlords can rebuild Maitai School.SPEAKER: The time for this debate has concluded. The House will suspend for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Brownlee GerryPAPERS PETITIONS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Te Rito Maioha requesting that the House implement a 1:4 ratio for under-threes supported by realistic funding.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Reports of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee on the:2022-23 annual review of Callaghan Innovation and the2022-23 annual reviews of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the New Zealand Tourism Boardreport of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2022-23 annual reviews of the education sectorreport of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General Observations from our central government work in 2022/23report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2022-23 annual reviews of the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Servicereports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the:2022-23 annual reviews of Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori (Māori Television Service) Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi (Māori Broadcasting Funding Agency) Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori (Māori Language Commission) and the Ngāpuhi Investment Fund Limited (trading as Tupu Tonu) and theNgāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill 218-2report of the Primary Production Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of Quotable Value Limitedreports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:2022-23 annual review of the Ministry of Social Development2022-23 annual review of the New Zealand Lotteries Commission2022-23 annual reviews of the housing sector and thebriefing on the 2022-23 financial performance of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the 2022-23 annual review of KiwiRail Holdings Limited. SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The briefings and the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill. CLERK: Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Bishop Chris; McAnulty Kieran; Brownlee GerryBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday 9 April and can I wish everyone a happy Easter. In that week the House will consider the first reading of Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill the second reading of the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill and the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill.On Tuesday there will be a 90-minute debate on local issues. Wednesday will be a members' day and on Thursday we will have all remaining stages of the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill as per a determination of the Business Committee.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Given the Minister's previous enthusiasm on the progress of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill does he have any plans to introduce a replacement now that the Government has scrapped it?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): If the member reads the Order Paper he will see that the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is no longer on the Order Paper. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Mr Speaker perhaps I can repeat my question? SPEAKER: Well you can but you're supposed to be asking questions about what's on the Order Paper not what's off it; however go ahead. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: This has never been that type of process Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Oh I know but I'm a bit of a stickler for the rules as you require of me so often. So please ask your question. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: OK no worries. In regards to the Order Paper and what might soon be on it will there be a replacement for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well as the member knows from his time in Government the Government intention to progress bills is announced in due course and when they make their way on to the Order Paper they get reflected on the Order Paper.
Kuriger BarbaraTHURSDAY 28 MARCH 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSBARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 26 March 2024 - Volume 774
Taxation (Annual Rates 2023-24 Multinational Tax and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams' tabled amendment to Part 1 is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation. A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to. Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.
Sittings of the House (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 21Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.
Penk ChrisHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I think that deserved an answer and I'm happy to give it but as efficiently as the Hon Dr Deborah Russell would want me to do in relation to tax matters I don't think with all due respect it's fair to describe the Government's motivations in debating this now as a mechanism to avoid scrutiny as compared with having a debate following the Budget. Following the Budget famously debates are rushed through under urgency. It would be usual in that process for debates to take place with one stage after another where this is a relatively sedated pedestrian process so with all due respect I don't think I can allow that accusation to stand without at least some refuting thereof.As to whether this is then the appropriate time for discussion well it is because the changes are contemplated to take effect—for reasons that we've been discussing at some length—on 1 April and that date not having yet come about we have the opportunity to make those changes in time.
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I wanted to take the opportunity to ask the Minister about the rationale for debating this Amendment Paper now given as many have pointed out and asked relevant questions around that—although I'm not sure the rationale is that clear to the House and to those watching given the changes that are made here. Is it to avoid the scrutiny that comes with such a debate around the Budget time? Now the Minister may think that's a facetious question but it's not; it's a serious one because when we consider the measures that are taken up during a Budget period—all expenditure all revenue coming in—that would seem the appropriate time. But the Government has chosen to do this now and do it alongside the other aspects of this bill. There's some pretty crucial elements in this paper and I won't go into them in detail because that's Part 2 and we are committed on this side of the House to remain relevant to the debate in question. But it is fair I think to get an understanding as to why now under this rushed process. We're not actually criticising the rushed process—we get it; it's got to be passed—and we're not going to delay things more than they need to be. But this didn't have to happen now. In fact if it wasn't here then we could have had more opportunities to debate the substantive parts of this bill; the parts of the bill that do need to be passed by a certain date. This side of the House has worked constructively with the Government and Business Committee. We've agreed to things to ensure that public servants are not unnecessarily burdened with work over the Easter break and that is why the House is debating things in the manner in which it is outside normal processes. So it's not like we're opposing the processes just for the sake of it but I think we deserve an answer to that at least.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Look in the spirit of helping out the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Penk and helping out members in the House seeing as we are debating tax rates and for the benefit of people at home—I'm sure there are many of them listening; it'll be Hi dad" from my point of view. But look the point is that the tax rates we are debating so enthusiastically on the income tax scale the first $0 to $14000 the tax rate is 10.5 percent; from $14001 to $48000 the tax rate is 17.5 percent; from $48000 to $70000 the tax rate is 30 percent; from $70000 to $180000 the tax rate is 33 percent; and for income over $180000 the tax rate is 39 percent. In addition to that the numbers that are sitting in the schedule—that we're obviously debating—the trustee tax rate is 33 percent and the company tax rate is 28 percent. Now some people might be wondering why I'm not including the GST rate in this and that's because GST is not part of income tax. So I've just given the Minister for his benefit—and perhaps a quiz later Minister on those numbers. So I hope the Minister finds that helpful.I do just want to go back to one further issue which we haven't quite addressed yet and that's to do with the efficiency of the tax system and the efficiency of how we collect tax at those particular rates. "Efficiency" is usually taken to mean from the point of view of the tax collecting authority all right—how much money they spend collecting the tax. Ideally obviously we'd hope to have a highly efficient tax system that we spend as little as possible in collecting the tax—that money doesn't go in that direction instead the money that is collected is available for all the other things that Government wants to do. Now of course having that variety of tax rates—the more tax rates probably the less efficient the system. So that does invite the Government to think about whether or not that particular tax scale that I've just quoted is actually appropriate in terms of efficiency.The other thing that sits in that efficiency space and we have talked about a little bit is of course compliance costs. The more tax rates the more complicated for individuals. But we have discussed that a little already so I do want to think about it in terms of the Government's point of view as to whether the different tax rates provide for an efficient system. I just invite the Minister to make some comments on that."