edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Foster-Bell Paul: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10927. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Can I thank the member who has just resumed his seat Major Ron Mark for his contribution and his gracious comments on this bill the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill. Can I also congratulate the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Scott Simpson from the Coromandel who stewarded it through the committee process as well as the Minister the Hon Dr Nick Smith.This is a very important bill for us here in the capital. One of the figures that has stuck in my head which we heard during the course of submissions on this bill was the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment estimate of 240 fatalities over a 100-year period just for Wellington—240 earthquake-related fatalities. So it does mean that it is very important that we advance this legislation particularly in light of the Christchurch earthquakes and the Canterbury earthquakes.There are some challenges. It will be a stretch for some people to meet the requirements that are provided for under this legislation. Buildings that are not identified as being on strategic routes—those in high-risk areas such as Wellington—will have 5 years to be identified and a further 15 years to be strengthened. I hope to see in the regulations provision made and actually policy direction to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment so that good advice and good advocacy can be provided for people who are going through those strengthening exercises. This is a very necessary measure and I welcome the cross-party cooperation that has broken out in the House this afternoon. I commend this bill to the House.
Dowie Sarah: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDowie Sarah: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10923. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise to take a short call in support of this bill the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill in this third reading. Although I am a very new member to the Local Government and Environment Committee I note from the contributions of this side of the House and the opposite side of the House that obviously this was a very good select committee process and that this was a process taken seriously which has resulted in a bill that is very well-received and based on good science. It is putting in place a very pragmatic system to strike a balance between protecting people from harm in earthquakes in respect of earthquake-prone buildings but also being pragmatic about managing the costs of strengthening or demolishing buildings. So I would like to extend my congratulations to the select committee for this piece of work and to the Hon Nick Smith for shepherding this through the House.As we are aware this bill came out of the result of recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes in 2012—those awful events in Canterbury where there was a significant cost to life first and foremost and then of course a significant cost to property. I guess as has been mentioned throughout this House New Zealand really was not prepared. We did not realise that our buildings were in such a state that when such a significant event as the Christchurch earthquakes hit such devastation could occur. Therefore we set out to look at putting in place a pragmatic system to manage this: to protect life to manage the harm and to manage the costs of strengthening and demolishing any buildings that could pose risk to human life.So it is a stepped system—one again that is based on good science looking to stratify the seismic risk profiles of New Zealand by stratifying them into low- medium- and high seismic risk zones. As such as part of that it is looking at time frames—stepped time frames again—of 5 10 and 15 years to look at strengthening buildings across those time frames. Obviously the bill prioritises the identification of strengthening earthquake-prone buildings that do pose quite a significant risk to people such as education buildings and of strengthening emergency buildings that house people not only in civil defence situations but in normal everyday life. To prioritise so that if those buildings are located in medium- to high-risk zones they too need to be upgraded in a timely manner.This is a very pragmatic bill. The stepped system works well. It is supported on both sides of the House. Again I congratulate the select committee under the able chairmanship of Mr Scott Simpson and therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Smith Nick: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10918. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I do want to note that in the third reading speech when I was interrupted I noted the huge gains in seismic resistance of our building stock in the intervening 80 years between the Napier earthquake and the Christchurch earthquake which amount to a 95 percent improvement in survivability.I would conclude by saying that this bill is about improving that safety margin again so that fewer families face the loss of a loved one while also being realistic about the costs and the impacts on heritage. The very substantive change in this bill is that for 85 years our regulation around earthquake-prone buildings has been focused on the standard of new buildings whereas this bill provides for national regulation around buildings that are older—and obviously there are substantive changes that go with the profession of engineering in being able to upgrade those. This bill is going to be challenging to implement but I think that if every member of this House reflected on the tragedies associated with the Christchurch earthquake they would know that this Parliament needs to do everything it can to manage the seismic risks that are so significant for our country. On that basis I thank all those who have been involved in the development of this bill. It is a sensible approach that strikes the balance in an appropriate place and I commend it to the House.
Tolley Anne: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTolley Anne: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10918. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I move That the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill be reported to the House by 15 September 2016.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I put that motion I will make it clear to the House that I have an amendment that has been proposed by Carmel Sepuloni to replace “15 September 2016” with “10 November 2016”. I will refer the member to—and the best reference I can find is McGeethird edition page 217 where it says “an amendment must not be a direct negative of the motion before the House. The proper course of action for a member directly opposed to a motion is to vote against it not to try to amend it”. Therefore I will rule that amendment out of order.
Parmar Parmjeet: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParmar Parmjeet: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10914. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill. The purpose of this bill is to rewrite the Social Security Act 1964 as implied by the name of this bill. This is intended to rewrite the legislation which means to tidy it up reorganise it and make it simpler and clearer to understand. Why is this required? This is required because when the original Act was passed there were 135 sections in it and now bit by bit it has grown to 491 sections. Most of the original sections have been amended and some of those sections have been amended several times. With those changes and additions the Act is very difficult to understand and very difficult to follow. It is a very important Act for the country and if people are finding it difficult to understand if people are finding it disjointed it definitely needs attention. It needs fixing and that is why we are rewriting this Act.The main social security measures—that is the main benefits and things related to the main benefits which are the entitlement obligations and sanctions assessment and the right to appeal—will continue to be part of the primary legislation. A number of small policy changes are being included in this bill and these changes are only to support modern service delivery and improve administrative efficiencies. The member from the Greens Marama Davidson used the words “sneaky reform”. This bill is not intended to reform the welfare system; it is just intended to rewrite the Social Security Act for the reasons that I have already spoken about. Yes this is a rewrite not a reform of the Act. It is rewriting the existing policy to make it clearer and easier to understand.One thing I have noticed is that when people get used to one kind of document any change will be confusing for them and it will take longer for them to understand the document. This bill is really good for new users but for existing users it is again very good because it makes it clear when provisions continue existing policy. It also identifies the corresponding sections in the 1964 Act in each case so that people can compare it see where the changes are and see what that section was in the original Act. Also clause 9 is about any confusion that can come up about the meaning of a word and for that this bill makes it clear that the old law—that is the law as set out in the existing legislation—should be used to determine the meaning of that word. So this bill is good for new users as it will make it simpler and clearer and it is also good for existing users.I look forward to working on this bill in the select committee process. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Mallard Trevor: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10913. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just to make it clear to the member generally in a 5-minute call the bell does not ring. I did wave my finger at the member to give her a 1-minute warning.
Borrows Chester: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10901. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member but her time has expired.
Simpson Scott: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10896. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to stand and rise as the last speaker in the debate on this bill. I will be commending the bill to the House because I think it is a very good piece of pragmatic legislation. I am delighted to hear that the Labour Opposition is supporting it. The bill has four main proposals in it and perhaps the most important of them is the introduction of a residential land withholding tax about which there has been an awful lot said in recent days weeks and months.The statistics by Land Information New Zealand that have come out this afternoon put to bed once and for all the mischief-making that the Labour Party has been harping on about for months in terms of people with Asian-sounding names. Those statistics are damning and they are a sad indictment on the current position of the Labour Party and its thinking on these matters. This is a good bill. It is a pragmatic piece of legislation it covers off a number of areas and I commend it to the House.
Ross Jami-Lee: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10893. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I take this opportunity to speak briefly on this bill and commend it to the House. As Meka Whaitiri has mentioned it has a number of measures around GST and online services and also around residential land withholding tax. Those who have been following tax bills for some time will know that the residential land withholding tax changes are the third of three series of changes we have made around tax with regard to property.The first thing that we required was an IRD number to be provided when property was sold and purchased by an overseas buyer or seller. Second was the brightline test which required tax to be paid if the property had been bought and sold within 2 years and it was not a main home. The third change here is around residential land withholding tax for those who are offshore people.It is interesting that we are talking about offshore buyers and sellers at the moment because those who follow Twitter as I do will see that Land Information New Zealand has just released some data around foreign buyers. Of course the Labour Party has been beating this up for many many months. Apparently there are tens of thousands of people from overseas buying all our houses and Labour is claiming—Hon Dr Nick Smith: 36 percent.JAMI-LEE ROSS: —as Dr Smith said—that 36 percent of people from overseas are buying our houses and that it is a huge number and it is a huge problem and something that we should all be crying about in our beds at night. The information from Land Information New Zealand that has just been released which is now online shows what number? What percentage of people who are overseas foreignersare buying houses? It is 3 percent.Scott Simpson: How many?JAMI-LEE ROSS: It is 3 percent. So the number of people buying houses in this country that this bill actually targets quite rightly is nowhere near as high as what the Labour Party claims it is. It has been beating this up for months probably years in fact. In fact it is opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) because of foreign buyers. Three percent of our houses in this country are being sold to foreigners. In Auckland where we have got all the problems apparently it is 4 percent. So Labour is opposing the TPP because of 4 percent of houses being bought by foreigners. It has been claiming for months that foreigners are wrecking New Zealand in its anti-foreigner attacks. Labour is absolutely wrong. The data does not back it up. But quite rightly where people are buying and selling houses within 2 years and they are foreigners we should be taxing them appropriately and that is what this bill targets today.
Bindra Mahesh: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBindra Mahesh: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10892. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in the Department of Corrections’ ability to keep both staff and prisoners safe?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Corrections): Yes.Mahesh Bindra: Is she aware that a vicious prisoner-on-prisoner assault took place just last week at Christchurch Men’s Prison resulting in the victim nearly dying; if so does she believe this could just as easily happen to staff?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes the Minister is aware of an incident that took place at the Christchurch prison on 4 May. The corrections officer was apparently able to get assistance very quickly by using his personal alarm. I am advised that although one prisoner did receive serious injuries they are not life-threatening.Mahesh Bindra: Why has she allowed the staffing levels to drop to the extent where it has become impossible for staff to safely do their job of supervising prisoners and managing violent situations within prisons?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I dispute the premise of that question. The current vacancy rate for Christchurch Men’s Prison for example at the moment is 2.7 percent so I do not know where the member is getting his figures from. He is wrong.Mahesh Bindra: Why have public prisons been left short-staffed while staff from these prisons have been seconded to supervise the Serco-run Mt Eden Corrections Facility?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Again I dispute the underlying premise of that question. There is no issue of short-staffing as the member has represented it in his question.
Kuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKuriger Barbara: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on Communities of Learning?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Good afternoon Mr Speaker—it is New Zealand Sign Language Week this week across New Zealand. I was pleased to announce that a significant milestone has been reached in our Investing in Educational Success initiative with more than 1000 schools now participating. Today’s announcement that another 21 Communities of Learning have been formed takes the total number to 117 and more than 320000 of our young people are now involved. The 21 additional communities approved are in Auckland Waikato Bay of Plenty Waiariki Taranaki Wanganui-Manawatū Wellington Nelson Marlborough West Coast Canterbury and Otago-Southland. In Taranaki - King Country there are two new communities one centred around Waitomo and the other in Stratford. Of the Communities of Learning that have already been established 19 have had their achievement challenges endorsed 10 have appointed their Communities of Learning leaders and in addition just over 200 teachers have been appointed to new teaching roles within the Communities of Learning.Barbara Kuriger: How will these Communities of Learning drive educational success across rural and regional New Zealand?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Research and the direct experience of parents show that within schools the quality of teaching has the biggest influence on whether students will be successful. Investing in Educational Success promotes best practice by making it easier for teachers and principals to share expertise and resources. This is especially important in rural and regional areas where distance presents some challenges to collaboration. In Inglewood for instance the Community of Learning is making great strides along the whole learning pathway of their schools and is one of the first in the country to involve early childhood education.
Pugh Maureen: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePugh Maureen: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10888. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for Communications: What recent announcements has she made on progress of the Government’s Ultra-Fast Broadband programme?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications): Today I announced that as at 31 March more than 900000 households businesses and schools can connect to the ultra-fast broadband network. Uptake has increased to 21.3 percent with almost 200000 connections and the build in 16 regional towns is complete. We are connecting 1.3 properties every minute of every working day and the project is on budget and ahead of schedule.Maureen Pugh: How are rural New Zealanders benefiting from the Government’s Rural Broadband Initiative?Hon AMY ADAMS: Improved connectivity is critical for our rural communities. The Rural Broadband Initiative continues to extend coverage to rural areas across New Zealand and uptake of these services by both residential and business customers has now reached more than 37 percent. We have 142 new and 338 upgraded rural broadband towers in operation and in the last 3 months over 2 million individual mobile devices were able to access services from these towers. Combined with 1200 cabinet upgrades this means that around 285000 rural New Zealanders can now access faster broadband as a result of the National-led Government’s Rural Broadband Initiative.
Genter Julie Anne: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10888. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his statement “these are the facts: there is no tax avoidance or evasion in New Zealand in respect of foreign trusts … There is no wealth hidden in New Zealand with these foreign trusts”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): Yes in the context in which that statement was provided.Julie Anne Genter: So would he tell the House today—would he guarantee—that of the 61000 references to New Zealand in the Mossack Fonseca papers and the 12000 New Zealand foreign trusts approximately that are registered in this country there is not a single case of tax evasion?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No but the key words in the statement that informs the primary question are “in New Zealand”. A foreign trust is just that: it has foreign settlors with foreign assets foreign income and foreign tax obligations. There is no tax evasion or obligation in New Zealand.Julie Anne Genter: So is he admitting that people from offshore are using New Zealand foreign trusts in some cases for tax evasion?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: What I am saying is that people sometimes do exploit differences between their country’s tax laws and ours in order to minimise their tax obligations. This is the heart of the issue: to the degree that tax avoidance and tax evasion is a problem it is a global problem which is why we are working with the OECD in harmony with those other countries to fix it.Julie Anne Genter: Given that it is a problem will he then support my Supplementary Order Paper 173 on his Taxation (Transformation: First Phase Simplification and Other Measures) Bill in the Committee later today which would require New Zealand foreign trusts to disclose more information on the registration to the Inland Revenue Department?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I note that information includes things like address details and passport numbers which one commentator has described as “barking mad”. I agree with that commentary and the answer is no.Julie Anne Genter: Given that that Supplementary Order Paper does not require the publication—in fact it explicitly precludes the publication—of that information how could it possibly hurt for the Inland Revenue Department to have more information on the beneficial owners of New Zealand foreign trusts?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The kindest thing I can say about that question is that it is naive. The whole point about the issues that have been raised is the challenging of the disclosure to other tax jurisdictions of certain important information. I think that Supplementary Order Paper goes too far. I am also confident that the John Shewan inquiry will provide sensible and sage advice to the Government on what disclosure requirement changes may be necessary and I am going to wait for that.
Ngaro Alfred: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10886. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister for Social Housing: What support will Budget 2016 provide for people in need of emergency housing?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Yesterday I announced that Budget 2016 will include $41.1 million to fund 3000 emergency housing places per year for people and families in urgent need of a roof over their heads. This is the first time that any Government has set up direct ongoing funding for emergency housing. It will mean that there is an essential safety net for people in crisis around New Zealand. As part of our review of the sector providers told us that accessing funding was difficult and ad hoc and we have fixed that.Alfred Ngaro: How will the funding work?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The new 3000 places will be for anyone—individuals or families—who has a genuine need for emergency accommodation. They will be provided by a range of organisations around the country. There will also be a new special-needs grant available through Work and Income for people who cannot access one of the contracted places. Unlike the grants available now people will not have to pay them back. We think that has been unfair and so we have fixed it.Alfred Ngaro: Which regions will benefit from the emergency housing funding?Hon PAULA BENNETT: In the past funding has been directed mainly at places like Auckland where there is the biggest need. Although Auckland will still get a decent chunk of these new places there is need elsewhere and as such they will be available throughout the country. Regions such as the Bay of Plenty the East Coast Waikato and Wellington will get around 240 places each year and places like Northland Taranaki and Nelson will get around 80 a year.Phil Twyford: How many extra homeless people could the Government be helping now if it had not sold or demolished 2676 State houses in the last 5 years?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Adding to that of course is the more than 1000 places that have been rebuilt the more than 1400 that are already in stream to do that the more than 600 that are now housed with community housing providers and actually us providing more houses in the right place of the right size and not just accepting any old houses anywhere that were not being filled anyway.
Scott Alastair: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10884. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the state of the Crown accounts ahead of Budget 2016?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The accounts for the 9 months to 31 March this year show a surplus of $167 million around $330 million better than forecast. Crown revenue was higher than forecast largely due to tax revenue being $700 million higher than forecast by Treasury in December partially offset by lower Crown interest in dividend income. Sustained and moderate growth in the economy is underpinning Crown accounts which are in good order ahead of Budget 2016 later this month.Alastair Scott: How have the Government’s books improved in recent years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The largest deficit during the term of this Government was $18.4 billion in 2011 and we are now on track to maintain the surplus that was achieved last year. Over the last seven Budgets the annual cost of new initiatives has averaged around $600 million compared with the average cost of the seven Budgets of the previous Government of around $3 billion—around five times more new spending each year than under this Government—and under this Government we are achieving better results for public services.Alastair Scott: What are the Government’s fiscal priorities now that it has delivered on its election promise and made a surplus in 2014-15?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The focus is now on reducing debt. The Government has borrowed significant amounts of money over the last 6 or 7 years. We have been able to get on top of debt from tax revenue windfalls in the past. To pay down debt we need to continue with tight management of our spending and the Government will outline its plans for that in the Budget.Alastair Scott: How is the Government using a focus on better public services as a way to keep control of Government spending?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is focused on substantial improvements to public services because that is what the consumers of those services deserve first of all and secondly it is what taxpayers who fund the services deserve. It turns out that spending more and more money on public services does not necessarily mean that they are better. The Government has set out to reduce the demand for public services—that is reduce benefit dependency for instance—and results show that there were 7245 fewer benefit recipients in the past year because more people are getting into work and gaining independence.
Lee Melissa: Motions — Human Rights—Democratic People’s Republic of KoreaText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLee Melissa: Motions — Human Rights—Democratic People’s Republic of Korea[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MELISSA LEE (National): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the human rights record of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.MELISSA LEE: I move That this House condemn the human rights record of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea which is detailed in the United Nations 2014 commission of inquiry into both systematic abuse and repression and that this House call on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to give access to human rights bodies and international agencies to improve the lives of the North Korean people.Motion agreed to.
Carter David: Visitors — Turkey—Delegation Grand National AssemblyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCarter David: Visitors — Turkey—Delegation Grand National Assembly[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Grand National Assembly of Turkey led by the Speaker His Excellency Ismail Kahraman is present in the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure members will wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the delegation in the Speaker’s gallery be welcomed.
Motions — Human Rights—Democratic People’s Republic of KoreaText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMotions — Human Rights—Democratic People’s Republic of Korea[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MotionsHuman Rights—Democratic People’s Republic of KoreaMELISSA LEE (National): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the human rights record of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.MELISSA LEE: I move That this House condemn the human rights record of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea which is detailed in the United Nations 2014 commission of inquiry into both systematic abuse and repression and that this House call on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to give access to human rights bodies and international agencies to improve the lives of the North Korean people.Motion agreed to.
Visitors — Turkey—Delegation Grand National AssemblyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVisitors — Turkey—Delegation Grand National Assembly[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 10 May 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsTurkey—Delegation Grand National AssemblyMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Grand National Assembly of Turkey led by the Speaker His Excellency Ismail Kahraman is present in the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure members will wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the delegation in the Speaker’s gallery be welcomed.
Vote: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11042. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.
Vote: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11042. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the amendmentsto the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 12New Zealand First 12.Noes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to.
Vote: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11030. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 14Green Party 14.Bill read a second time.
Vote: Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVote: Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11012. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]A party vote was called for on the question That Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.
Borrows Chester: Sittings of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Sittings of the House[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11043. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Ross Jami-Lee: Sittings of the HouseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Sittings of the House[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11043. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to adjourn until the next sitting day.
Mallard Trevor: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11042. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? I will report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill with amendment and no progress on the Coroners Amendment Bill.Report adopted.
Ross Jami-Lee: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoss Jami-Lee: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11042. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the Committee report progress.
Mallard Trevor: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11042. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Annette King’s proposed amendment to clause 2 is now ruled out because of the loss of her Supplementary Order Paper.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Progress to be reported presently.
King Annette: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11040. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I will take just a brief call because I think Ria Bond deserves a response to her amendments to my Supplementary Order Paper 80. I have spoken to Ria Bond to say that I think she has made a very good suggestion. In fact Simon O’Connor said that he thought she had as well but that it was not possible to support it and this is the reason. With a change like that if the Government did vote for it—which obviously it probably will not—we would not have given the public an opportunity to make a submission on it. It would not have gone through a process; it would have been totally out of the blue. There would have been no opportunity for the public to make a submission and what we want to do is to ensure that they do have the opportunity to make a submission on something that changes a whole industry. I did suggest to Ria Bond that maybe it is something that New Zealand First might like to submit as a member’s bill at some stage. So I thank her for her thoughtfulness and also for her ability to put forward a very practical approach to this whole bill from her experience as a businesswoman in this area.There are just a couple of other things. I was a little disappointed in the Minister of Health’s response I have to say in that he believes the way that we will get rid of sunbeds is by having a lot of bureaucracy and that in the end everybody will get sick of the bureaucracy and they will finally pull out. I would have thought that the Minister could man up—you know he once told me that I should man up—and take the final step which is to ban these sunbeds. As much as I respect the chairman of our Health Committee I do not accept his argument that allowing it to continue is a philosophical issue. It is a health issue—it is a health issue—which we were trying to address here tonight.So those are the few comments I wanted to make. It does not look hopeful that my Supplementary Order Paper is going to pass but at least we can go out—New Zealand First the Greens and Labour—hold our heads up high and say that we did our best to try to prevent the unnecessary deaths of young New Zealanders in particular who are attracted to sunbeds because as Ria Bond said they want to look beautiful because they are brown. So we have done our best. We have put our best foot forward. If it does not succeed then it certainly does rest on the Government’s shoulders.
Mallard Trevor: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11035. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Dr the—no. The Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman.
Mallard Trevor: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11031. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Hon Annette King again.
Naylor Jono: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNaylor Jono: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11029. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONO NAYLOR (National): As the last speaker in this debate I feel it is beholden on me to actually get a little bit more truth out there and talk about what exactly this bill is going to achieve.This bill will save lives. At the moment in New Zealand 75 percent of house-fire deaths are as a result of houses not having smoke alarms. What we know is that a huge number of those places are rental properties so we are going to save lives with this bill simply by the smoke alarm provisions alone.The thing that has concerned me most and what I have been hearing in terms of the rhetoric this evening from the other side of the House has been this infatuation with saying that the Government is settling for 1978 standards of insulation. In fact what the Opposition keeps forgetting is that if a house was built before 1978 it will have to be insulated up to the 2008 standard. If a house was built pre-1978 it will have to have 2008 standard insulation put in which is going to increase the warmth of those older houses particularly and ensure that they are going to be healthier and warm.Over the last few years I have lived in two different houses. One was built in 1982.Its insulation was adequate but not necessarily that great. But I also lived in another house which was built in 2006. With the kind of talk that has been going on here this evening you would think that insulation has not changed at all between 1978 and 2008. What we do know is that in houses that have been built over that time insulation has been improving over the years. What we have said in this bill is that the minimum standard is—if a house was built from 1978 onwards its insulation is the minimum standard it can be. If it is older than that it must be brought up to the 2008 standard.This is a good bill. It is going to save lives it is going to improve the health and well-being of people who are living in substandard rental accommodation across New Zealand and I commend it to the House.Amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority agreed to.
Pugh Maureen: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePugh Maureen: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11027. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MAUREEN PUGH (National): I will do my best Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure for me to stand and talk to this Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill in its second reading. Although it was first discussed before my time as a member of the Social Services Committee I am pleased to note the widespread support for this bill. There are two very basic reasons for that support: insulation and smoke alarm requirements.The link between good health and a warm home is at the heart of this bill. This Government has taken a very practical view on the issue of insulation. The measures that are implemented will be transparent around the extent to which rental properties are insulated and the emphasis will be on the landlords to insulate or reinsulate their properties that are currently occupied and are in a substandard form.I would also like to touch briefly on the number of unsafe rental properties that are in breach of the current regulations and in need of addressing. I am pleased that this bill sets out to remedy this. The Hon Nick Smith’s policy of better enforcement as opposed to having more rules is a very practical way of addressing this issue. This ensures that the worst rental properties are brought into line with the 2008 building code. It will become the responsibility of landlords to meet their requirements under this legislation and it will be enforced by new powers for the chief executive officer ofthe Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. He or she will be able to take direct action against those landlords who are in breach with those residential properties that are rented out in a substandard form.This is a very good sensible and practical bill. It focuses on the 450000 households that are in rental properties which represents 30 percent of households in this country. We do care about those people in those rental properties. I commend this bill to the House.
Borrows Chester: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11027. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Next call. [Interruption]Order! Let us see whether we can lift the level of debate.
Bennett David: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11027. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I withdraw and apologise.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just stand withdraw and apologise please.DAVID BENNETT: I did. I withdraw and apologise.
Borrows Chester: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11027. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment. If the member made such comment and obviously the Hon Ruth Dyson has taken offence he should stand withdraw and apologise.
Dyson Ruth: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11027. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the last minutes of my colleague’s speech the member David Bennett made an offensive remark in relation to a comment that Poto Williams made to which I took offence. It was about me. It was offensive. I took offence and I ask you to require him now to withdraw and apologise.
Borrows Chester: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11026. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call Poto Williams.
Borrows Chester: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:11025. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party Marama Davidson.