edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Sepuloni CarmelPart 2 Amendments to Veterans' Support Act 2014Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I think perhaps this time I'll take a different tack and I will start out by explaining what Part 2 does. So Part 2 extends several of the policy changes applied to New Zealand superannuation by Part 1 to the veteran's pension. These changes are the closure of the non-qualifying partner provision with grandparenting of existing non-qualifying partners; expanding eligibility to single people in self-contained mobile homes; updating the calculation of the veterans pension rates to match the current practice; and a signpost has been included near the beginning of Part 6 of the Veterans' Support Act to indicate its relationship with the Social Security Act as well.Clause 29 closes the option for a veterans pension to include their non-qualifying partner. Accompanying the change in Part 1 clause 29 removes the election that allows a veterans pensioner to include their non-qualifying partner in their rate of veterans pension from the commencement date. People who are already included including their non-qualifying partner in their rate at that point have their entitlement to receive that rate continued by new Part 5 in Schedule 1 as inserted by clause 32. Many of the details about this grandparenting provision are linked to the equivalent provision in the actual Act.Clauses 24 and 26 remove an obsolete rate that applied to people who included a non-qualifying partner before October 1991. Clause 25 provides single people living alone in mobile homes with access to the single living alone rate to veterans pension. Mirroring the change to Part 1 clause 25 amends the definition of living alone for the veterans pension so that people can receive the living alone rate (LAR) while living alone in a self-contained mobile home.Clause 31 allows new types of accommodation where someone can receive the LAR to be set out in regulations. Clause 27 updates the calculation of veterans pension rates to match current practice. Clause 27 requires that the amount of veterans pension of a couple who both qualify must be no less than 66 percent of the net average ordinary time weekly wage reflecting what has been a longstanding practice. Supplementary Order Paper 508 also amends a reference to the commencement date so Supplementary Order Paper 508 updates a reference to the commencement date in clause 32 to 9 November 2020.
Mahuta Nanaia; Rurawhe AdrianHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Is there any member that wants to take a call? No? I'll go straight to the question then.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): I can answer that part of the question. It's no.
SpeechAGNES LOHENI (National): I just really want to ask the Minister a supplementary on the Hon Louise Upston's question around eligible charitable work just asking if workers like civil defence workers who might go overseas and work in areas of natural disaster in the Pacific—I don't believe that they are seen as a charity—would they be considered in particular on that part of the bill.
SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): In my previous contribution I raised concern with the fact that this matter was being dealt with under urgency. In her reply the Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni posed a question to us and effectively it was: why not? She then went on to say well this is a significant matter; therefore let's deal with it under urgency. Well my answer to that is that this is becoming an abuse of the parliamentary process. All Governments of whichever stripe from time to time use urgency but they should not be using it for run-of-the-mill legislation which should have been dealt with in the proper way particularly when—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I will comment on that. The House has agreed to urgency. We're now in the committee stage on a bill that has been to select committee. The member should actually under the new rules speak to Part 1 of the bill not to a disagreement that he has to part of the process.Hon TIM MACINDOE: I was seeking to answer the Minister's question.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's my ruling.Hon TIM MACINDOE: I'll leave it at that. I wanted to answer the Minister's question.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I'll speak to clauses 8 to 10 which had been put in place to provide more equitable treatment between missionaries and secular charitable volunteers and also fix a drafting error. People who serve overseas as missionaries have a broad provision allowing them to have periods of missionary service counted towards their New Zealand superannuation residence requirements to which there is no equivalent for people who volunteer overseas for secular charitable organisations other than the Voluntary Service Abroad. Clause 8 allows someone who volunteered overseas for an entity that is or is affiliated with a registered New Zealand charity to use that time toward the New Zealand superannuation residence requirements so long as they remained ordinarily resident in New Zealand. So the fact that they are registered New Zealand charities I think shows that we're not precluding secular organisations from being able to qualify here. Clause 9 amends the missionary provision to align better with the new approach for secular volunteers. People will need to carry out that missionary work for a New Zealand charitable entity affiliated with a religious body for it to count toward the requirements. But the current broader provision will apply if they begin their absence before the commencement date due to a savings provision in clause 5 of Schedule 1AA of the actual Act inserted by clause 21 of the bill.Clause 10 fixes a drafting error with the rewrite of social security legislation so that periods when a person or their partner was employed outside New Zealand and made income tax payments to New Zealand count toward the resident requirements for New Zealand superannuation. There is an accompanying validation provision in section 6 of Schedule 1AA of the Act inserted by clause 21 of the bill. The residence qualification for veterans pension depends on the Act so clauses 8 to 10 follow through to the veterans pension. I don't think there's much more that I can say that will add value to the answer that I've given for the member Louise Upston but hopefully the fact that I've clarified that it's clauses 8 to 10 that provide more equitable treatment actually between missionaries and secular charitable volunteers helps to respond to that question.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to move to another part of Part 1 which is around absence from New Zealand. Many people appreciated the change in the bill around those who were in clause 9 carrying out missionary work to be counted as if the person was ordinarily resident in New Zealand. A couple of the submitters including Age Concern who do great work in our communities questioned why that wasn't extended to secular organisations. So I'd like the Minister just to talk a little bit through clause 9 and the changes in clause 9 and why they weren't extended to secular organisations that were working overseas.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I'll respond to a couple of questions raised by the member Tim Macindoe. Just issues about why this particular piece of legislation would be brought through in urgency—why not actually? As has been mentioned by the Opposition and we agree there are some changes in here that have been long awaited by a group of New Zealanders. There's agreement across the House on this. New Zealanders expect us to move through legislative changes at pace where we can. So I think that we'd all agree that this is one of the least controversial pieces of legislation that will come through urgency and why would we not do that for those that are affected particularly when there's agreement and it's not controversial?The question about why I went through clause by clause at the beginning—I only did that because there were a couple of speeches that went before me that were touching on elements of the bill that are not in Part 1 so I thought it was important just to provide a brief overview of what actually is in Part 1. I'm quite content going through the bill by parts because actually there are distinct differences. It allows us to speak to the specific parts of the bill which I think are really important rather than just have a broad general discussion about the merits of getting rid of the non-qualifying partner provision changing the spousal deduction policy and a range of other things. I think we can do that adequately through the different parts if we debate it in that way. My colleague did do a closure motion—that surprised me too. But I'm quite happy to continue this debate where there are points to be made that are different and where there is a possibility through this debate that we might improve things. I thought I did respond to the honourable member Louise Upston's questions and if I haven't then perhaps let me know how because I covered off what was happening with the non-qualifying partner provision why we were grandparenting it and why we were getting rid of it. So if there are questions that were not answered then I'm more than happy to take those.
SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I just want to give the Government an assurance that it's not the National Party's intention to draw out discussion on this particular matter unnecessarily. We probably see that we can deal with the committee stage reasonably quickly. However I was appalled when the Government whip sought to take a closure motion a short time ago without even having had a single contribution from the Minister or any Government member.I make that point because I think it is very serious. We need to remind everybody who's listening that we're dealing with this bill under urgency. I don't think it is an urgent matter; it's certainly a significant matter and we support it particularly for those who are going to benefit from its provisions. But when the House is considering a matter under urgency it is surely doubly important for the Government to engage properly in the discussion.As I say we're not looking to drag it out unnecessarily. And I'm surprised actually that the Government didn't seek to consider the entire bill as one question; that would have dealt with it perhaps a bit more quickly. And I do take on board the fact that I raised the spousal deduction and possibly should have waited for Part 3. So I apologise for that but with respect to the Minister she's just made a five-minute contribution in which she's probably spent four minutes and 45 seconds literally just going through clause by clause what is in the bill when my colleague the Hon Louise Upston and I had actually asked questions so she could explain what her thinking was—in particular in responding to those submitters who had raised queries of unfairness. She may feel that she touched on it in the last five seconds literally of that contribution but I don't think that she gave considerable engagement.I would invite her to just in particular respond to the question therefore that the Hon Louise Upston raised. I hope she will do that and if the Government wish to consider the rest of the bill as one question I am sure that the National Party would have no objection to doing that.
SpeechAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm happy to make a contribution to this part of the committee stage of this New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. I'd also like the Minister in the chair Carmel Sepuloni just to echo in terms of some clarification around the non-qualifying partners. I note that of the 50 submissions in total to this bill 15 of the submissions commented on this particular part of the bill—the non-qualifying partners. One submitter supported this particular amendment—that was from Age Concern—and the remainder of those 15 did oppose this part. Largely the reasons given were due to the timing due to the adequacy of alternative support and also due to the availability of information about the changes. It was acknowledged during the select committee that definitely the information was really readily not accessible and it was very hard to know what you're looking for in that part.I'd also like to note in terms of the rate structure the single rate versus the partners there was an acknowledgment of course of the necessity to ensure that you are paying a higher rate to single superannuitants but I did note also during the select committee that it came to my knowledge that a disproportionate number of seniors who receive the single rate are Māori or Pasifika. I was almost wondering if you could elaborate on any of that information there. Also what came through was that in terms of the spousal deduction—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry Ms Loheni. I wonder if you could just ensure that your comments are addressing Part 1.AGNES LOHENI: Sorry. Also just in terms of the spousal deduction the numbers given were that it would affect approximately 450 superannuitants for the 2022-23 period. I just want to clarify if that number is correct—the number that will be affected by the spousal deduction on that particular amendment. Thank you Madam Chair.
SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Sorry Madam Chair I apologise for that delay but of course with this new system that we're trialling it's not always clear whether the Minister will be responding straight away.I too was going to ask the question that Hon Louise Upston has just made. I would also ask the Minister to give us a little bit more detail on the practical impact of removing the spousal deduction. When I spoke in the second reading of this bill last week I mentioned that this was the issue that probably as constituent MPs is most frequently raised with us. I also made the point that in my constituency of Hamilton West I have found that it's particularly Dutch constituents who have brought this issue to my attention over a long period of time. I'm not an expert on the specific arrangements of pensions in Holland but clearly it is something that has particularly rankled them. It's good to see Marja Lubeck here because she might also be able to take a call and give us a little bit more detail and I genuinely would welcome that.But I think for those who are watching who may not even understand what the spousal deduction refers to it's often easiest to understand when a specific example is given. Essentially it will be dealing with a longstanding grievance that many have felt when perhaps they've entered into a second or third relationship with a New Zealander but their qualifying pension from overseas is deducted in order to ensure that they're not receiving what was previously seen as perhaps a little bit of a windfall or an unfair advantage over those who are New Zealanders. And so as I say I'd be interested to hear from anyone who can give a little bit more of an illustration about the Dutch situation.But it is worth making the point that this was work that initially commenced under the previous National Government and I'm pleased to see that the current Government has picked it up. It did receive widespread support both at its first reading—I wasn't on the select committee unfortunately at the time that submissions were heard but I know that there were quite a number of submitters most of whom I understand spoke very strongly in favour of the spousal deduction issue. So it would be helpful in the committee of the whole House stage if the Minister could just help tease out a little bit about the practical implications of that what it will mean for people maybe giving us a few international examples; so there is that.As I say I'd be keen to hear the Minister's answer to the question that was asked a moment ago. There was also concern from some submitters about the unfairness of what is being proposed with the non-qualified partners' provision. So this would be the opportunity I think for the Minister if she feels that she can give a satisfactory answer to that to explain to those submitters and to anybody who's listening what the basis for that is. I would welcome an opportunity if the Minister chooses to take a call.
Upston LouiseNEW ZEALAND SUPERANNUATION AND VETERAN'S PENSION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): So this is of course the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill and one of the questions that I'd like the Minister to just address in this committee stage for those that are listening is the aspect around non-qualifying partners. I think that is the area as local members of Parliament that we have probably received the most questions on. So I would ask that the Minister start by answering questions around the non-qualifying partners and why this decision was made and also any transitional provisions given that this legislation was originally meant to come in on 1 July: what does it mean for those who may have been planning for that provision to be in place?
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's great to be able to stand and speak in support of a bill that has flow-on benefits for our regional economies including increased employment opportunities. And I would actually like to say congratulations to the Environment Committee for the work that they did on this bill because having looked at the original bill and the bill that's come back to the House now I'm just amazed at the work that they've done. It's a great bill and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): New Zealanders wherever they drive whether they're going past wharves today they'll see great logs—piles of logs—on their local wharf. If they drive around New Zealand they'll see logging trucks. It will come as a huge surprise to them that there is no regulation around that. There are some 14000 to 15000 small-forest owners who'll contribute 40 percent of the annual harvest this decade up from 14 percent. This is a moving industry. It does need regulation and this is very good law. I commend this bill to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on this bill. Basically I sat on the Environment Committee and it was a good example of listening to submitters. As a result we've made a number of changes which have strengthened this bill. I want to just take you through quickly a couple of them.I think the first one has already been traversed well in the House but there were a number of people who raised the issues about our compliance with international trade obligations. As my colleague Duncan Webb has indicated on this side of the House we were quite satisfied that this was not the case. But what we did do is put an avoidance of doubt clause into the bill around when you're making rules for forestry practice standards that these rules may not impose any condition that is properly the matter of a commercial agreement between parties—so just making it very clear that that is the case.We also made another couple of changes around basically making sure that small-scale log traders Christmas tree operators and small-scale firewood operators were exempt if they were dealing with less than 2000 cubic metres per year and also looking at some of the ability of the forestry authority to have delegated powers to make rules looking for greater ministerial oversight. So in a number of places we have made changes which insert on recommendation of the Minister" so that the Minister has got oversight over those rule-making powers.So we are happy. We've made good changes to the bill strengthened the bill. I commend the bill to the House."
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I stand on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand in support of this Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill. The Hon Jacqui Dean will be stoked to know that I do have a copy of the legislation in front of me and on my desk. I was also a member of the Environment Committee alongside the Hon Jacqui Dean and other members in this House in consideration of this bill.I have just been reading through some of the notes as background to this legislation and I think just another fun fact to add to the mix is that this bill proposes to amend the Forests Act 1949. We're not often dealing with pieces of legislation or amendments to them that are that old and with that in mind I think that the commentary as espoused by the likes of my colleague Michael Wood around the opportunity that this bill presents to professionalise and to update this sector is something that is kind of long overdue. Ultimately what this does is present a registration system and it also enables greater transparency in the way that the sector operates. There's a registration system for forestry advisers and for log traders who buy trade and export logs.Throughout the 2017 election I was alongside members and candidates from a range of different political parties and I also found it interesting that one of the most common examples that we used of the flow of money offshore that we could better capture in our domestic market was around wood processing. Pretty much every single political party spoke about the potential to finish products here in Aotearoa New Zealand and that we needed to step up and implement processes to do that better. What this legislation does is enable a pathway to get to that so that we can capture greater value here in our domestic economy.So a lot of the points as to why this legislation has come to the House today have been thoroughly canvassed and I guarantee that you'll hear a rip-roaring speech from the member of the Opposition who's already preparing to launch up. But the Greens do support this Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill. It's pretty straightforward pretty common sense adds some transparency to the market and also regulation and professionalism. Kia ora.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Spoken by a member who didn't have a clue what he was talking about—a member who was nowhere near the truncated Environment Committee—Hon Scott Simpson: Usually the case with that member.Hon JACQUI DEAN: —yeah well usually the case with that member—he was nowhere near the truncated select committee which was so poor a piece of process but is regrettably becoming all the more common as we see in the dying days of this New Zealand First - Greens - Labour coalition Government. The fact that that member had not a copy of the bill anywhere near him when he spoke but merely thought of some words in support of his chair I think means that the House and the public of New Zealand who might be watching this debate can safely put that contribution to one side.This side of the House can't put any contribution off to one side because the implication of this Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill will have an impact on forestry and logging operation in New Zealand an impact on an industry that doesn't support it wasn't asking for it—in fact I'll go further than that—and have actively opposed the very foundation of this bill which was brought to the House by Shane Jones. The cornerstone for me is the imposition of the requirements of registration and compliance in an industry that is already heavily regulated by health and safety requirements. We heard in the development of the health and safety at work legislation three or four years ago now the imposition of those safety requirements on the logging and forestry industry and in our view the health and safety at work legislation was the proper way to regulate an industry that is well known to be ranked among the most dangerous industries in New Zealand. To be regulated now under this bill for no good reason does two things. It further ties up that industry and somebody made the quip that what we have now is that in every forest there'll be a man with a clipboard. Yes there will. But actually there will be a man or a woman in every forest and in every log trader's office with two clipboards and if we don't think that is a bit of overkill on behalf of this Government well I can tell the House that indeed it is.This is an industry that didn't want the legislation actively opposed the legislation. The Government could provide no real reason for the legislation. It has had one of the worst processes in terms of its democratic process through this House. Well I would've said that except that this process is becoming all too common under this New Zealand First - Greens - Labour coalition Government.Rt Hon David Carter: Not for much longer.Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yes—thank you to that member—not for much longer. National opposes this bill.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Like a stand of mature Pinus radiata the chair of the Environment Committee Dr Duncan Webb cut down every single spurious argument that was put forward by the Opposition in respect of this bill. Nothing that Dr Webb said in that respect was even addressed or refuted by the previous speaker Hon Scott Simpson. The reality is that this is a bill which brings a registration system and good professional standards of the kind that we have across many other sectors into one of New Zealand's most important economic sectors. It's a good bill which will bring a greater level of professionalism and certainty to the sector and I commend it to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I'm really surprised Mr Carter that you appear to have come to the House without the bill because pretty much everything you said there was addressed by the very robust select committee. Well if you're waving it around you should have read it.The very first thing I'll say—all this nonsense about price fixing. Now look the bill when it came to the Environment Committee had room for improvement and that's exactly what we did. And section 63ZZC(2A) in clause 7 now makes it abundantly clear that setting of prices is not something that can be done by regulations. No matter which is properly for commercial agreement can be set by regulations. So that is absolute nonsense and scaremongering and I'm frankly surprised that a member of that seniority would bring that kind of material to the House.This bill its purpose is set out very clearly as equity of access—making sure that the market is transparent and fair. Don't worry Mr Carter. I'm not quite sure how big your landholding is but unless you are logging 2000 cubic metres or more a year you are entirely exempt from this bill. This is not about small holdings. No—another bit that you forgot to look at.As for the World Trade Organization that shibboleth has been thrown up time and again and I have asked repeatedly: point me to the place where the breach occurs. I undertook some research and it's quite right that there are many provisions which talk about open markets including the elimination of quantitative restrictions. The fact is that you can't place restrictions on how much can be exported—whether it be beef logs or anything else. I read the bill—went through it with a fine-tooth comb. Nowhere in the bill is there any transgression of the quantitative restrictions provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It's just yet again the National Party throwing up nonsense scaremongering and pretending the bill does something it doesn't. This is a good piece of legislation. There are some ratbag traders out there. There are some poor-quality advisers out there and our logging industry needs to be done fairly properly with high-quality advice and robust trading. That's what this bill does. I'll commend it to the House.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Speaker. The Opposition opposes the shortened report-back date and just for the interest of the public who are watching this this morning the Minister has just stood up and talked about nine years and 12 years. The Minister's been in Government for nearly three years. Hon Kris Faafoi: We did more in three years than you did in nine.BARBARA KURIGER: He put up a bill yesterday—which is effectively today because we're in urgency; so in Parliament it's the same date as it was yesterday—and all of a sudden he realised that it's three sitting weeks until the election and the Minister says it's urgent. Hon Kris Faafoi: Nine years of mucking around and we did it in three.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister you've had your turn.BARBARA KURIGER: After three years of sitting around and not doing something all of a sudden it's urgent. So I suggest that the Government gets its act together. It's only got three more sitting weeks as a Government because we all know what's going to happen on 19 September and I suggest that rather than review the expenditure of everybody else this Government should review its own expenditure because it's spending up large and not measuring. Thank you.
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): It's always a delight to have the last call on such a very good piece of legislation. You would think listening to the other side that they were very confused about their arguments on this particular bill—Yes we'll take it to select committee."; "Oh we like competition but actually we're a bit anti-competition." I was actually starting to lose where they were going in their arguments.This is a great piece of legislation and I commend the Minister of Energy and Resources for this because the changes proposed in this bill are expected to increase competition across the wholesale market and that over time will lead to lower fuel prices for consumers. So on that I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee."
Fuel Industry Bill — First Reading
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker; a pleasure to take a short call on the first reading of the Fuel Industry Bill.Hon Nathan Guy: Take a long call!MARJA LUBECK: No I don't need to take a long call because it's fairly clear that this is a very longstanding issue. When the previous speaker Maureen Pugh spoke about a rushed process it was rather disingenuous because this is a problem that had been known by the previous Government for a very long time. Judith Collins had the same information available as what we are acting on. The report of the Commerce Commission clearly states that consumers are being fleeced at the pumps and so we are addressing it because this is a Government that is addressing those longstanding issues where the previous Government was too shy to. So I commend this bill to the House.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand in support of this bill. This is an important bill because many many families' fuel costs are a significant chunk of their budget I think particularly in large rural areas where people have got to travel significant distances to get to work or even in big urban centres like Auckland where you've got to go across town. I think in the context of post-COVID recovery many families are going to be—every single dollar will count in their budgets. They're going to be looking at where they can cuts costs.I think anything that's going to improve transparency competition and the fuel market is going to be incredibly important because it's ultimately going to benefit consumers. So I'm very happy to stand in support of this bill and commend it to the House.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I really appreciate it when the Opposition members of the House continue to talk about the Green Party. Please keep talking about us. I figure that they don't have too much to talk about when it comes to talking about themselves.The Greens are supporting this the Fuel Industry Bill. Essentially it incorporates a lot of what the Commerce Commission's study into fuel pricing in New Zealand put forward as a way to benefit consumers and that is the provision that we are supporting in this bill today in the House. I wanted to put a short call on the Hansard record to be very clear about the Greens' position. We absolutely support this strengthened consumer protection legislation and measures to support consumers exercising their rights at low cost and that is the core principle that is at play here essentially through introducing a terminal gate pricing regime which is similar to that in operation in Australia at this time. So the Greens can and do support initiatives to make sure consumers are not further subject to unreasonable and unfair treatment by fuel companies.Of course—and it's not the biggest issue in this bill for the Greens—we overall are going to continue to want to push for and see helpful just transition alternative fuel provisions and that's across all of the legislative and policy work of the Government. However in this bill we are very happy to stand and support benefits for consumers benefits for our communities and our peoples who are just trying to get by day to day and live their lives and so we are happy to support the Fuel Industry Bill. Thank you.
SpeechTUESDAY 30 JUNE 2020(continued on Wednesday 1 July 2020)FUEL INDUSTRY BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a very brief call on this Fuel Industry Bill which is a bit of a saving grace really to try and bring—not try; in actual fact to bring—better pricing for New Zealand customers and start holding the feet to the fire for the big fuel companies. In fact it's there to drive—excuse the pun by using the word drive—better pricing throughout. It does create some transparency which is much needed and some pricing methodology which can be seen by the retailers when they're dealing with those large fuel companies. New Zealand First absolutely 100 percent commends this bill to the House to see it progress. Thank you.
Tuesday 30 June 2020 - Volume 747
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
VoteHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'm not sure that's necessary. This Government has invested heavily in new valves for the website that carries the legislation so they're very fast and efficient. They'll warm up very quickly and they're able to convey the information instantaneously. Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) without amendment. Report adopted.
Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 2
VotePart 2 Amendment relating to the removal of names from the rollA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 agreed to.
Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.
Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading
12. Question No. 12—ConservationHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 12—Conservation12. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Conservation: What is her response if any to the comments made by the chairman of the New Zealand Game Animal Council that the Department of Conservation's tahr control plan was not founded on adequate science and is a departure from plans previously supported by the hunting sector"?Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): It is public knowledge that the Department of Conservation's (DOC's) operational plan to control Himalayan tahr is subject to court action in the High Court with Forest & Bird seeking a declaration on the one hand and the Tahr Foundation seeking an urgent injunction against the draft plan being implemented on the other. I understand the matter has been set down for a hearing next week. As the matter is before the courts it would be inappropriate for me to comment.Hon Jacqui Dean: What is the estimated cost of the Department of Conservation's tahr cull for the current period?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: As the matter is before the courts and this goes to the matter before the courts it is inappropriate for me to comment.Hon Jacqui Dean: Why should taxpayers have to pay for DOC's tahr control plan when there is a large group of recreational hunters in New Zealand who have already reduced herd numbers by 1800 over the last three years and who wish to make a further contribution in this year?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The matter is before the courts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment.Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree with the New Zealand Deerstalkers' Association who say that DOC has conducted a rushed process this year with a lack of the usual consultation? Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The matter is before the courts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment.Hon Jacqui Dean: Why was the tahr plan implementation liaison group only given two days before feedback was required from them?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The matter is before the courts. This is part of that matter. It's inappropriate for me to comment."
10. Question No. 10—EducationJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 10—Education10. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to bridge the pay gap between teachers working in ECE centres and those working in our kindergartens and schools?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): This year's Budget provided a funding boost for early learning centres up and down the country to help bridge the gap between the pay of early childhood education centre teachers and teachers in schools and kindergartens. As a consequence pay boosts for up to 17000 qualified teachers working in education and care services kick in from tomorrow. Jo Luxton: Will these changes fully bridge the pay gap? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Unfortunately no they won't. While this funding will go some way towards levelling the playing field fully closing the gap between education and care services and kindergartens will be a challenge to be addressed over a number of Budgets and it requires more than just additional funding. Jo Luxton: Why has it been important to start on tackling the pay gap now? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As we respond to the impact of COVID-19 on our economy and on our society the Government remains committed to fair pay for low-paid workers especially the workers who have helped to get the country moving again. A significant pay gap had built up over time between these teachers and those in schools and kindergartens following the decision nearly 10 years ago to stop passing on to education and care services the funding rate increases that kindergartens got to meet the cost of pay settlements.
8. Question No. 8—Regional Economic DevelopmentJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 8—Regional Economic Development8. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements have been made?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Over the last week or so the leader Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters under-secretary of regional development and myself have been incredibly busy in the vineyard of economic development. [Interruption] SPEAKER: It's better than the tobacco plantation.Hon SHANE JONES: Initially we made announcements in Whakatāne and Rotorua which reflected the desire of the Government to accelerate developments in association with established leaders from local government not the least of which is former parliamentarian the Hon Steve Chadwick who is the mayor who is driving the redevelopment of Rotorua through a refurbished museum programme and a host of new tourism options for domestic tourism in the Whakarewarewa forest. In addition to that Whakatāne an area that has suffered some bad news recently they also received high-quality political attention through the arrival of the Deputy Prime Minister and the allocation of money to accelerate those projects. And with a small level of modesty I announced the kauri dieback sanctuary in the area of Northland which will get the nephs off the couch and futureproof the existence of kauri in a historic part of New Zealand that has cried out for attention and suffered after the nine years of neglect under the former regime. But as they—SPEAKER: Order! That's enough.Jenny Marcroft: What announcements has he made regarding Taranaki?Hon SHANE JONES: Following on from the former Treaty of Waitangi settlements Minister Minister Finlayson we have allocated some pūtea to Parihaka to add substance to the apology the Crown made under the former Treaty Minister. These announcements were shared between myself and the current Treaty of Waitangi settlements Minister and it is to futureproof the infrastructure of that iconic site. It has been widely supported—much to my surprise—by every single mayor and civic leader in Taranaki as they want to see even-handed development fair development and they realise that such iconic sites have much to contribute to the future of Taranaki.Jenny Marcroft: How have these recent announcements been received across the regions?Hon SHANE JONES: Whakatāne Mayor Judy Turner has identified that these infrastructure projects will develop and create momentum and jobs and will lead to the growth of Whakatāne an area sadly written out of the script under the last economic model. More importantly Steve Chadwick has described my announcement as icing on the cake" aided no doubt by the arrival of the Deputy Prime Minister and the man to my left Fletcher Tabuteau."
4. Question No. 4—FinanceDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—FinanceDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was submitted to the Prime Minister not the Minister of Finance. I seek leave to have it transferred back and addressed by the Prime Minister.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Yes there is. 4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Why is the Government planning to increase petrol excise duty road-user charges and alcohol excise duty tomorrow at the same time as New Zealand enters a recession?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The member knows that the petrol excise duty and road-user charges are hypothecated levies where every cent goes towards investing in transport which we need right now to help stimulate the economy and to create jobs. As with alcohol excise these are the subject of regular calculations and changes as was done by the previous Government.David Seymour: Why is it that the Government needs to raise road-user charges petrol excise tax and alcohol excise tax but it can afford to give a $10 million package to a millionaire named AJ Hackett?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I've heard members on the other side of the House cry foul about the fact that we're not giving enough money to tourism so it's a confused picture on the other side of the House. What we're doing there is supporting strategic assets in the tourism industry and I repeat the primary answer: the petrol excise duty and the road-user charges are hypothecated levies. The money goes to transport.David Seymour: How can the Government stand by the adulation it gave to truckies and the whole logistics sector when the increase in road-user charges will push up their costs and by extension the costs to families of every single good they carry?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Those users of our transport network are the very people who want to make sure we have well-maintained roads and that we build new roads and that we build public transport to reduce congestion. These are the very people who want to see us improve those roads.Hon James Shaw: Once the excise increase of 3.5c takes place tomorrow will prices at the pump be higher or lower than they were in January?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: They will indeed be lower because I believe that we've seen a pretty significant drop in tax in the price of fuel over this period of time. But the good news that all motorists know is that money goes directly to improving the roads in the transport network that we all use.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): The National Party has never found a significant vested commercial interest that it won't stand up and defend against the needs of the people of this country. Sometimes it goes to a position of high farce because I remember actually at the end of the last Parliament when the former Minister Judith Collins who Mr Young quoted—even she had to admit that the fuel market in New Zealand was not competitive that it was illogical" and that it was "not functioning properly". That was after under the limp-wristed competition laws that that Government oversaw they put in place a study that some of the fuel companies refused to participate in.So it took this Government this coalition Government to actually step up to the plate put in place a proper market studies regime—and I acknowledge the Minister Kris Faafoi who led that work as the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—which really lifted the lid on the way in which New Zealand consumers are being fleeced in this market. Unlike previous Governments which have just kicked this can down the road which have kissed up to the industry we're going to do something about that on behalf of Kiwi consumers.It's not just the Government which is saying these things; it is the Commerce Commission which took a significant amount of time which consulted with the industry which consulted with the community which engaged in a substantial market study and which came to conclusions that this market was not functioning properly. So that is why we have this piece of legislation before us and it's why we will take action with this bill.I do welcome the fact that the Opposition is supporting this bill to select committee but I would encourage them to engage seriously in it because Kiwi consumers out there expect to have functional markets that give them a fair deal and that don't see them being fleeced by very large corporations. That's the approach this Government will take and I hope it's the approach that the House takes over the course of this bill. I commend the bill to the House."