edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Xu-Nan Lawrence; McKee NicoleDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you so much Madam Chair. This is going to be really quick. Thank you so much Minister for responding to my questions. Just on the two points the first one is that the Minister is absolutely right that there has been consultation previously and I'm looking at page 6 of the supplementary analysis report—sorry it's not the regulatory impact statement. In the supplementary analysis report on page 6 right at the bottom it does say that No public consultation has been conducted on these proposals." and it mentions the views taken in 2020 and 2022 but it says that "these views may no longer be accurate". So I kind of wanted to check with the Minister to see if there has been anything other than that that has been updated recently. In terms of the second clarification what I'm trying to—and I'm really glad to hear from the Minister that there is a high level of consideration for migrant communities and particularly for our Muslim whānau. I guess what I'm trying to draw on is the fact that clause 7 talks about the firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) being in place or being issued once there is a conviction but in the cases we've seen previously—like in terms of the Christchurch massacre—what happens if a person is at risk of harming the public or is endangering public safety but has no prior criminal convictions? What are some of the considerations around that in terms of FPOs? So that's kind of what I was trying to ask. Thank you so much. Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Madam Chair thank you and thank you Dr Xu-Nan for clarifying your questions. In relation to question No. 1 I felt that I had answered it with the previous contribution but also we've just gone through a select committee process. That's part of consultation and that's getting the community to be aware. There were 40 written submissions there were 11 oral submissions we had 12 that supported the bill and a number of these—14—raised matters that were outside of the scope of the bill. There were also substantial submissions that were received from the Criminal Bar Association the New Zealand Law Society the Privacy Commissioner the New Zealand Police Association the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties and the Disabled Persons Assembly. With those submissions I feel that we will have captured a few of those ideas. In regard to a firearms prohibition order (FPO) being placed on conviction and the concerns that you might have about people who have not committed crimes we're not the mind police or the thought police. We have to act on what the criminals do at the time and the risk that they pose to society at that time and that's for a judge to decide whether or not an FPO fits within the criteria of being reasonable being necessary and of course being appropriate at the time on that individual. To actually say that we need to put FPOs on people who have never committed a crime—that would be a concern in itself in a democracy."
Willis ScottSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I certainly agree with the Associate Minister of Justice that we do need the space for rehabilitation and I think the five-year review is a sensible approach. The thing I'm interested in learning about is how we are going to really reduce risk with this bill. If I think about one of the worst examples that we've had in recent times—I'm thinking about an individual with white skin not brown skin the Christchurch shooter who would not I believe have been picked up through any other way. How is this firearm prohibition order going to diminish the risk from extremist political or racist—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No—that's not actually relevant to that particular piece of legislation that we've got in front of us.SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you Madam Chair—and I'm getting to my point. What we really do need to see is something that is going to be effective. So I have heard that it's not the intent to target gang members or their friends or family. And that's great but what if that is the actual result of this bill? In that regard I'm interested to hear about what the link might be—the link that the Minister sees between the firearm prohibition orders and housing for example. Because there was a leaflet that was distributed most recently that was put out by a member of the National Party that says I know the cost of housing is a key issue in our community and country. It has been for the past two decades. Materially improving housing supply is the only solution to this challenge."CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm struggling to understand where this actually fits with the bill.SCOTT WILLIS: Madam Chair I think if you'll allow me just to finish you'll see.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ask the question.SCOTT WILLIS: And it essentially says "Giving police tougher powers to disrupt gangs and get guns out of the hands of criminals is one of the solutions to our housing supply." So my question is: is this bill really going to make us safer or is it designed to do something completely other than that? Is it designed simply to target some of our most vulnerable to imprison some of our most vulnerable? Because—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is actually a repeat of the member's first speech so I'd ask the member—[Gestures for member to sit]."
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Minister how is this bill fundamentally stronger than the firearms prohibition legislation passed into law by the last Government? And are you confident Minister that this legislation will ensure firearms prohibition orders are complied with?
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Tamatha Paul's amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 82 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee—Amendment Paper 82 Part 1. Tamatha Paul's amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 83 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee—Amendment Paper 83 Part 1.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Part 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Minister's amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 52 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Schedule 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Amendments agreed to.CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. Madam Chair I just wonder if you could please clarify the exact part of the bill that we're up to because we didn't quite hear that.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We are on Part 1 and this is clauses 4 to 47A and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Tamatha Paul's amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 81 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul's amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 82 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Tracey McLellan's six tabled amendments to Part 1 are out of order as being the same in substance as amendments previously not agreed to in Amendment Paper 81. The question is that Tamatha Paul's amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 83 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.Part 1 agreed to.
Pugh MaureenCORRECTIONS AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 20 August.Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we now come to the Corrections Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 47A Amendments to principal Act and Schedules 1 and 2. Once again the question is that Part 1 stand part.The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 52 and tabled amendments to clause 43 be agreed to.
Pugh MaureenClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 Title" and "Commencement". The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part. Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently."
Pugh MaureenPart 2 Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 9 to 11 Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011". The question is that Part 2 stand part. Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to."
Cameron Mark; McKee NicoleMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Minister for joining us this afternoon. I've just got a couple of quick questions and maybe you could tease it out a little bit further as to the cost of attending courts and the member from the Greens illuminated that point just now about how some of the geographical distances that people that have to go to a hearing are substantial. How do you see this teasing out in terms of the cost savings that would be afforded to participants in this process and where do you see it landing in terms of accessing justice and natural justice both for the victim and the offender in this instance? I would ask what does that look like given that there's a significant backlog in the courts currently. Will this technology—the audio technology and the remote participation—expedite better outcomes and reduce the backlog in courts as well? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): Thank you for the question. This is going to make a huge difference to participants especially the victims. If they have to travel from Hokianga down to Auckland as an example that's a lot of travel and we have these huge backlogs in our courts at the moment. So not only are people on edge especially our victims about having to get to court but actually being in the same room at the same time with the perpetrators—the cost is more than financial. The cost to them actually goes straight to their hearts and their wellbeing. I believe that this is a way for those participants to be able to interact and feel like they are a part of the process without being revictimised. So the costs to them are definitely relieved—and I'm sorry to you but I've forgotten the rest of your question so I'll sit for now. Part 1 agreed to.
Pugh MaureenHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the House is in committee for consideration of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill further consideration of the Corrections Amendment Bill and consideration of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: There have been petitions delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Consumer NZ requesting that the House pass legislation requiring a product repairability label on large and small domestic appliances and electronic devicesPetition of Rochelle Zajko requesting that the House urge the Government to allow drivers to make right turns on to and off State Highway 2 between Ōmokoroa and Waihī and remove new median barriers that block access from State Highway 2.SPEAKER: Those petitions have been referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been presented. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Privileges Committee on the Question of privilege concerning investigations of possible breaches of court suppression orders in parliamentary proceedings. SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.
11. Question No. 11—TransportDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 11—Transport11. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on speed limits in Christchurch?Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I'm sure you will agree this is great news for Cantabrians. Yesterday I announced the New Zealand Transport Agency will soon begin consultation on the South Island's first 110-kilometre speed limit. This proposal of a new 110-kilometre speed limit on the safe Christchurch Southern Motorway of Rolleston one of National's first roads of national significance is—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Where's your Woodend bypass?Hon MATT DOOCEY: —great news for Cantabrians Duncan and will result in faster journey times for those travelling in and out of Christchurch on this critical South Island route. Dr Vanessa Weenink: What impact would the speed limit increase have on Cantabrians? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Good question. On behalf of the Minister of Transport and all Cantabrians boosting economic growth and productivity is a key part of the Government's plan to rebuild the economy. This proposal supports that outcome by reducing travel times and increasing efficiency on this key South Island route. Started by the previous National Government as a safe road of national significance the Christchurch Southern Motorway has reduced congestion improved safety and travel time reliability—Hon Dr Megan Woods: Until you get to Brougham Street.Hon MATT DOOCEY: —and luckily the last Government didn't have time to cancel it. Increasing its speed limit to 110-kilometres per hour will further enable Cantabrians to get where they want to go quickly and safely. Dr Vanessa Weenink: When can Cantabrians have their say on this proposal? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh good question. On behalf of the Minister of Transport I know Nicola Grigg will be interested that consultation on this important 110-kilometre per hour speed limit proposal opens on 3 December and will close four weeks later on 1 October. This Government recognises that roads of national significance improve safety—that's right Megan—which is why our new speed limit rule will enable new expressways built to safe standards to have 110-kilometre speed limits from the day they open without going through a separate consultation process.Dr Vanessa Weenink: How does this proposed 110-kilometre speed limit on the Christchurch Southern Motorway fit into the Government's plan to accelerate New Zealand? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well on behalf of the Minister of Transport this Government is getting New Zealand moving again through our Accelerate New Zealand plan. Kiwis overwhelmingly supported not only this Government but our plan to accelerate New Zealand by reversing blanket speed limit reductions delivering 110-kilometre speed limits on roads of national significance where it is safe to do so and cracking down on the excessive use of road cones and temporary traffic management.
Tuesday 27 August 2024 - Volume 777
Speaker's Rulings — Oral Questions—Admissibility of Question No. 10
Brownlee Gerry; Jones ShaneSPEAKER'S RULINGSOral Questions—Admissibility of Question No. 10SPEAKER: Members I've had a question raised to me today about the admissibility of question No. 10 which I want to take the opportunity to clarify. Speakers' ruling 230/4 by Speakers Wall and Smith: once a member has made a complaint to the Speaker about a matter of privilege it is not appropriate to raise that complaint in the House by way of notice of motion nor should the member seek to litigate the veracity through House proceedings. It is not inappropriate to ask questions in the House on the general subject of the complaint to prohibit that would unreasonably constrain Parliament's privilege of free speech. The question is in order.Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): Point of order. Sir on that ruling can I direct your attention to Speaker's ruling 231/3.SPEAKER: Well you can.Hon SHANE JONES: Thank you.SPEAKER: Thanks very much. What did you want to say about it?Hon SHANE JONES: The point is that everything that happens in public happens in Parliament. This matter that you refer to sir a matter of privilege that may or may not be before you—how can we possibly allow questions to take place that do not violate natural justice as reflected in 231/3?SPEAKER: Well if you've just listened to the ruling that I've just made it's quite clear. There's a difference between challenging the proceedings which is not open to Parliament but the idea that simply because there is a pending proceeding Parliament is somehow gagged is not acceptable. So there of course will be a great deal of discipline upon the person asking the question and the ultimate supplementaries when it comes to this to make sure that there is no transgression of that separation.Hon SHANE JONES (NZ First): I take your point sir but it also raises the importance of natural justice. Every question every remark said in this House is public and it's clearly stated there that no one should use the public to influence negatively or in a jaundiced way your consideration of such matters.SPEAKER: That is absolutely true. If there was a speech made about this matter a general debate comment made about this matter or a motion made on this matter they would all be out of order. But a question doesn't necessarily make any allegation. A question is a question. If it transgresses into that area then clearly we have a problem and it will be stopped.Hon SHANE JONES: Speaking to the point of order sir you make a very good point but a host of the questions to date have been riddled with falsehoods. That has the effect of acting as an echo chamber undermining fair consideration on the basis of natural justice at a time where a final decision has not been made.SPEAKER: Well that is true but I'd ask you to consider the opening lines of 231/3 which says It would be my preference". Now that is a former Speaker giving clear guidance to the House. I've just elucidated how that guidance might be considered by the House in the ruling I've just given."
7. Question No. 7—Internal AffairsLAURA TRASK (ACT) to the Minister of Internal AffairsQuestion No. 7—Internal Affairs7. LAURA TRASK (ACT) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about phase 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yesterday I announced the detailed terms of reference for phase 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. Phase 2 will run from November 2024 to February 2026 and will review matters that the public believe are not adequately addressed in phase 1 including vaccines lockdowns and other matters. I also announced that Grant Illingworth KC will chair the second phase supported by Judy Kavanagh and Anthony Hill as commissioners. Together they have experience in litigation economics and public health and I have great faith in them to lead the inquiry. SPEAKER: Thank you. Can I just say for the next answer can the member just sort of move a bit closer to that microphone.Hon Brooke van Velden: Yeah they've never given me one here. SPEAKER: Yeah. OK let's get that sorted. Is someone going to make a note of that? Carry on.Laura Trask: What other matters will phase 2 of the inquiry cover? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Phase 2 will cover the key decisions taken by the Government on the use of vaccines including mandates and safety and the use of lockdowns in particular the extended lockdowns in Auckland and Northland. The inquiry will assess whether key decisions struck a reasonable balance between minimising COVID-19 and social and economic disruption such as health and education outcomes as well as the impact on inflation business activity and social division. Laura Trask: Why is it important to have a second phase on the inquiry? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I've heard from many members of the public that the terms of reference for the first phase of the inquiry were too narrow and did not cover many issues of importance to New Zealand. We have listened. The purpose of the inquiry is to learn from the past so New Zealand is better prepared for any future pandemics. This expanded inquiry will help to address questions the public still have about how the Government handled the pandemic and will benefit both future Governments and the public in responding to a future pandemic. Laura Trask: Were the public able to contribute to the terms of reference? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yes. More than 13000 people submitted in February and March of this year to shape the terms of reference for phase 2 of the inquiry. New Zealanders have had their voices heard and the commitment in the ACT coalition agreement to broaden the terms of reference subject to public consultation has been met and delivered on.
12. Question No. 12—Local GovernmentDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 12—Local Government12. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made on getting councils back to basics?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Last week the Prime Minister and I announced new measures to ensure councils get back to basics reduce the pressure on rates delivering core services and infrastructure and improving decision-making efficiency. We are committed to ensuring that ratepayers' money is spent wisely with councils focusing on essential services that matter most to their communities.Dan Bidois: What measures has the Government taken to get councils back to basics?Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are implementing several key measures including refocusing the Local Government Act to ensure councils concentrate on core services such as picking up the rubbish fixing the pipes filling the potholes. This involves scrapping the four wellbeings which have distracted councils with nice-to-have pet projects instead of focusing on the must-haves. Our goal is to ensure councils are delivering the essential services and infrastructure their communities need.Dan Bidois: Why is the Government considering an introduction of a rate cap for councils?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well we want to protect ratepayers from excessive rate hikes and prevent councils from wasting money on nice-to-have pet projects like rain gardens on top of bus stops and $490000 speed bumps by implementing a rate cap similar to those in some Australian states. We aim to balance the financial need of councils with the interests of ratepayers ensuring funds are directed towards essential infrastructure and services.Dan Bidois: What reactions has he seen in response to these announcements?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well the public response has been overwhelmingly positive. Ratepayers who are facing an average rate hike of over 15 percent this year have welcomed our call for councils to tighten their belts and focus on core services. The New Zealand Herald editorial described our announcement as timely" resonating with those frustrated by wasteful spending. Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger supported the move viewing it as a much-needed war on waste. This feedback confirms that New Zealanders want their money spent wisely aligning with the Prime Minister's strong emphasis on fiscal responsibility."
7. Question No. 7—EnergyMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for EnergyQuestion No. 7—Energy7. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Energy: What steps is the Government taking to bolster New Zealand's energy security?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Cabinet has agreed quickly to approve a raft of immediate actions to address the serious risk to New Zealand's energy security and affordability including urgently reversing the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration and cutting red and green tape to allow for liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports so we have the supply of gas required to be able to firm renewable sources. New Zealand has an energy shortage. We're facing the driest hydrological year since 1992 with less wind generation than forecast and a 25.8 percent downgrade in gas production this year following a 12 percent downgrade last year. The Government is acting urgently to bolster our energy security.Mike Butterick: What actions is the Government taking?Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government is taking a number of actions: firstly acting with urgency to reverse the decision to ban offshore oil and gas exploration led by my colleague the Hon Shane Jones; secondly removing regulatory barriers to the construction of critically needed facilities to import liquefied natural gas; third easing restrictions on electricity lines companies owning generation; fourth ensuring the rules for access of hydro contingency are fit for purpose; and fifth reviewing the electricity market regulations to ensure that New Zealanders have an affordable electricity system.Mike Butterick: Why is the Government removing regulatory barriers to allow the importation of liquefied natural gas?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well we don't have enough gas in New Zealand to firm our electricity system. We need more to be able to enable intermittent renewables so that we can firm these sources of energy and provide secure and affordable energy to New Zealanders. We know that around 50 countries around the world already import LNG including Japan and the UK with Australia set to open its first terminal this year. New Zealand needs abundant affordable energy. That's why we're taking immediate action to cut red and green tape to allow for these liquefied natural gas imports so we can restore much needed confidence in our energy sector.Mike Butterick: What other actions are being taken to increase generation of electricity?Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are taking the energy shortage incredibly seriously. Electrifying New Zealand's economy is a key part of our Government's plan to grow our economy and reduce emissions. To make it easier and cheaper to electrify our economy my colleague the Hon Chris Bishop and I are working on a package of policies which will enable this including establishing a one-stop shop fast-track approval and permitting regime amending the Resource Management Act to speed up resource consenting delivering stronger national direction for renewable energy enabling a new regime for offshore wind and updating the regulatory settings for electricity network and new connections.
4. Question No. 4—RMA ReformNANCY LU (National) to the Minister responsible for RMA ReformQuestion No. 4—RMA Reform4. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What recent announcements has he made about the Government's one-stop-shop fast-track legislation?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well over the weekend I was pleased to announce alongside my colleague the Hon Shane Jones the huge interest there has been in this Government's one-stop-shop fast-track process: 384 projects have applied to be listed in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill. These applicants come from every corner of the country and almost every major sector. There have been multiple applications. I can give you the breakdown: 40 percent of the applicants are housing and urban development 20 percent—over 70—are renewable energy projects 25 percent infrastructure projects 8 percent primary industries and 5 percent each are quarrying and mining.Nancy Lu: What recently announced changes to the Fast-track Approvals Bill has Cabinet recommended be made to the Environment Committee?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The positive feedback we've had so far confirms what we've been hearing around the country: New Zealanders want to see progress in their towns and cities. However we've always said we're open to sensible changes as a Government. We have listened to the concerns of submitters to the committee and there have been two major changes to the bill I'll highlight to the House. The first is that projects we've recommended will be referred to an expert panel by the Minister for Infrastructure rather than the three Ministers who will be required to consult with the Minister for the Environment and other relevant portfolio Ministers. And final decisions on projects will sit not with Ministers but with the expert panel which is the same process adopted by the previous Labour Government.Nancy Lu: How does the Fast-track Approvals Bill align with this Government's priorities?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well we are determined as a Government to cut through the red and green tape holding this country back to make it clear we're open for business and build a pipeline of projects around the country. Here are the simple facts: we have an infrastructure deficit we have a housing shortage and we have an energy shortage and very ambitious climate targets. Our planning system does not have a hope of allowing us to meet those challenges without serious reform. That's why we have the fast-track bill.Nancy Lu: What are the next steps for the Fast-track Approvals Bill?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: As I've laid out Cabinet has recommended a series of changes to the Environment Committee. It will be over to the committee as to whether or not they accept those recommendations. The bill is due to come back to the House by 18 October and it is the Government's intention to pass it into law by the end of the year so we can get on and rebuild this economy.
3. Question No. 3—FinanceHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement On this side of the House we take economic management extremely seriously"; if so have her decisions since the Budget exemplified that? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes and yes. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she give the tobacco industry a $216 million tax break when the Treasury was already warning that there will be difficult funding trade-offs with other areas of the health system and suggested any extra investment "could be prioritised in areas such as primary care or acute mental health"? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well Cabinet made a decision on the possible funding source for cancer medicines. Treasury provided advice on possible funding sources for those medicines. They included taking money from a tagged contingency for bowel screening taking money from a tagged contingency for the Well Child / Tamariki Ora programme taking money from the extension of breast-screening eligibility taking money from emergency department security taking money from Gumboot Friday and taking money from a tagged contingency for heated tobacco products. The Government decided to do none of these things. It decided to keep funding intact for these initiatives and increased the combined pharmaceutical budget and charged this against the Budget 2025 operating allowance. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why has she prioritised the $216 million tax break for the tobacco industry instead of ongoing operational funding to deliver the new drugs ongoing? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the characterisation at the beginning of the member's question. Hon Barbara Edmonds: How did she get Budget 2024 so wrong that she had to rewrite it weeks after and has spent 74 percent of Budget 2025 nine months before it is due? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well again I reject the characterisations in the member's question and I'd point out the following things: tax relief out the door fiscally neutrally; inflation down; interest rates down; stable ratings from the ratings agencies—the Budget was pretty good."
2. Question No. 2—FinanceTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Thank you Mr Speaker. Last week Fitch Ratings announced it was maintaining New Zealand's long-term foreign currency debt rating at AA+ with a stable outlook. AA+ is a very strong rating being only one notch below the highest possible rating of AAA. Fitch is one of the big three credit rating agencies; of the other two on foreign currency debt New Zealand is rated AA+ by S&P and AAA by Moody's.Tim Costley: What reasons did Fitch give for this decision?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In its press release Fitch said that the AA+ rating reflects its view that the Government's commitment to return to surplus will stabilise and then reduce Government debt to GDP in the medium term. It noted that tax relief has been offset by spending cuts and future operating allowances have been tightened with the aim of reducing core Crown expenses to 30 percent of GDP over time. And it praised New Zealand's strong policy institutions and sound macroeconomic policy framework which enhance its resilience to economic and financial shocks.Tim Costley: Can the Minister tell us what Fitch said about the fiscal outlook?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said Fitch expects Government debt to stabilise as a percentage of GDP and then start to reduce. It noted that the Government's return to surplus had been delayed until 2027-28 as a result of worse than expected economic performance. It also pointed the finger at large spending increases by the previous Government during the COVID period that had not been reversed. This Government is working hard to get Government spending down.Tim Costley: What factors could lead Fitch to re-evaluate its rating of New Zealand?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Fitch points to a few factors. One could be a build-up of external vulnerabilities—for instance from continued high current account deficits. Another could be a severe housing market correction or difficulties in household debt servicing. And importantly Fitch also points to the risk of insufficient fiscal consolidation. To my knowledge ratings agencies don't do counterfactual analyses. If they did I think they would be horrified to find that in the current economic circumstances if we continued with the future Budget operating allowances which were set by the previous Government there would not be a surplus posted in New Zealand until at least 2030-31.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Thank you Mr Speaker—are these ratings by Fitch higher lower—or the same—than what the previous Government left them?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well that's precisely my point. Despite all of those cries of wolf they are the same.
Brownlee GerryWEDNESDAY 28 AUGUST 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 28 May 2024 - Volume 776
Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill —Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 15Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's useful to be talking about a bill about planning in a sense and planning for something that nobody wants to happen with it being a mass arrival by a craft which of course could be a plane or a boat. We're very proud of the fact that we can now settle 1500 refugees in New Zealand and we have a very wonderful facility. People work helping refugees in Auckland learn about what it is to live in New Zealand and all the benefits that come with that.I'm also happy to be talking about a bill that has been amended in the committee of the whole House stage and there have been some very useful amendments at that stage. My colleague Camilla Belich touched on many of those. One that I'll just note in clause 12 is the amendment to section 330 which is Approval of premises for purpose of immigration detention". At the moment in the Immigration Act it says that "The chief executive may approve any premises for the purpose of detention under this Act." Then what happened? One of the changes in the committee of the whole House was that it now says "Despite subsection (1) the chief executive may not approve a police station or prison as a place that may be used to detain 1 or more members of a mass arrival group". So that's an important change. Perhaps it should say "must not approve" but it's clear in the context of the legislation that police stations and prisons are not to be used and that's an important change. I commend the bill to the House."
Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading
Henare PeeniNGĀTI TARA TOKANUI CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 7 May.Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare; thank you for this opportunity. When we discuss the Treaty bills we always look towards the second reading which is always considered after the considerations of the committee; the good work that's done by the committee to make sure that members across the tribe and those impacted by the settlement—and in this case the settlement for te Pire Whakataunga Kerēme a Ngāti Tara Tokanui—it's a good opportunity to cover some of the issues to discuss some of the matters in the bill but more importantly how they relate to those that it affects the most.We saw most recently of course in the Whakatōhea settlement bill which passed through its third reading this afternoon expressions from hapū about some of the dissatisfaction with their particular claims with respect to the bill. But there was a guarantee in there that the Waitangi Tribunal will continue the work it's doing.In the case of Ngāti Tara Tokanui there's an opportunity here to support the claimants and those who are looking towards addressing the past but also making sure that Ngāti Tara Tokanui puts itself in a good position into the future through settlements. It speaks of a number of protocols in the bill that will allow Ngāti Tara Tokanui to be able to progress their interests into the future. It was made clear through the submissions and of course in the bill here this evening that the hard work has been done. The negotiations have all but been completed. Of course it's now up to this House to make sure that it progresses in a timely manner to allow Ngāti Tara Tokanui to get on with what they need to get on with. So it's my honour to have a short second reading call on this bill here this evening and commend it to the House.
Prime Willow-JeanChildren Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a number of questions for the Minister about this year's Estimates. Time and time again the Minister states that child safety is a priority for her. So why then when her chief executive states that there is not enough money to meet the needs that we see every day—there just isn't—did she not seek to be excluded from the 6.5 percent savings exercise required by the Minister of Finance? That is my over-arching question to these Estimates as we ask further questions around the specifics that make up that 6.5 percent savings cut.So my question to the Minister is why when her CEO acknowledged that there is not enough money to meet the current needs of the children—there just isn't—did she not go back as their advocate to the Minister of Finance and ask the Minister of Finance to be excluded from the 6.5 percent savings exercise? Further to that I want to ask can the Minister explain why people should trust her to make the best decisions for our children and whānau when her Budget 2024 decisions have led to cuts to key staff at Oranga Tamariki cuts to prevention cuts to early support and transition services in communities and funding boot camps that have been proven not to work?I also want to start off by traversing the issue around the restructure. The Minister said at our Estimates select committee that this is a 9 percent reduction in the back office which I believe is not in fact correct. So my question to the Minister is in the final restructured decisions what percentage of the back office have been cut as a result of the restructuring proposals?Then I want to ask the question what total amount of savings has been made through the Oranga Tamariki restructure and how much of that restructure contributed to the 6.5 percent savings reduction target as prescribed by the Minister of Finance? That is a number of questions to start with. I'm keen to hear the Minister's response.
Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill — Third ReadingDocument for deletingA document for getting rid of other documents by having its document id replaced with that of the document to be deleted. Then the date role=removed" field takes over to ensure the document is retired.Content:some content"
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call in this third reading. Much has been said. I think it's pretty clear that Labour (a) opposes and (b) why it is that we cannot support this bill. What we heard from the speaker that has just taken his seat Stuart Smith I think exemplifies so much that the Government has got wrong with this piece of legislation. We heard this great—I wouldn't say great speech—we heard some words from the member that's just taken his seat about how this represented a giving back the power to locals and community decision making and doing away with centralisation.I think if members actually read this bill—and something that has been traversed to every stage of this legislation—is that we can see that there is lots of mandatory consultation contained in this legislation but none of it is directed at communities having a say in the development and the preparation of their local plans. There can be a whole lot of talk about localism but when it comes to putting pen to paper and drafting legislation what we see is a Government that will retain the whip hand when it comes to the preparation and delivery of these water plans. Ministers can appoint Crown facilitators to councils that don't toe the line and I think we need to be very clear on that: this is not doing what members taking calls are purporting to do.We've also heard a great deal from the member that sat down about what happened at the local government conference where we saw the Prime Minister turn up and berate councils about only spending on nice-to-haves at a time when this Government is imposing a regime onto councils that will only cause rates to rise. I think that's something that every New Zealander needs to understand: the fact that ratepayers are going to bear the burden of these reforms through their rates. So when they see those rates rises think about the fact that this is a Government that scrapped three waters.What we have not heard from Ministers—and they've been pressed but they have not been able to give an answer since the announcements were made—there was no clear answer on what the credit rating agencies thought about the plan and whether there is enough balance sheet separation. So much of what is in this legislation comes down to that fundamental question: the $185 billion that is estimated that is required around the country to upgrade our waters infrastructure; the Ministers cannot give clear answers on whether or not the rating agencies see enough separation there in terms of their lending.I'm only taking a short call here but I do want to finish with: I think that the contribution that we heard from the member talking about co-governance and criticising the contribution another member has given in the House around that really shows the attitude of this Government. It fails to understand that in the course of delivering this there has to be that fundamental Te Tiriti partnership. It is the basis of how we must approach so much of this and that we must do this in the spirit of partnership not the kind of contribution we saw from the member Stuart Smith who has just taken his seat. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill — Third Reading
Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 18Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 3.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 102 Noes 21.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): With no notes I commend this bill to the House.
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much Madam Speaker and I stand in support of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill and I commend it to the House.
Costley TimTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): This is a great bill isn't it? I love this and I do want to acknowledge the support across the House from my colleague on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee as we should because you know forestry is our fourth largest exporter in New Zealand. We have to be supporting them to power them up to get the best competitive advantage that we can. This bill is about getting rid of red tape for our forestry sector. Whatever the intentions may have been a few years ago when it first came in ultimately the end result was more red tape for forestry. We are a Government as this Parliament should be that listens that learns and that can improve and ultimately will get rid of the red tape to get New Zealanders ahead. It's about restoring autonomy to those that provide essential services to our forestry. It is signalling I think the wider intent of this Government to support our forestry sector to grow investment in forestry in fact to grow our economy and for good measure to get New Zealand back on track. I commend it to the House.