edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare PeeniPARTNERSHIP LAW BILLSecond ReadingHon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence) on behalf of the Attorney-General: I move That the Partnership Law Bill be now read a second time. This particular bill—sorry I'll just get my position right here; it always helps to stand on two feet when you speak. The bill re-enacts—SPEAKER: It could have been a case of severe loss if the member continued.Hon PEENI HENARE: The bill re-enacts the Partnership Act 1908 in contemporary language style and format to make the law more accessible without changing its substantive legal effect.We are making sure that this particular bill is fit for purpose. Its language of course is all important as it's a significant part of the way the bill is interpreted. The bill differs from an ordinary Government bill because as a revision bill it is subject to the revision requirements and powers in the Legislation Act 2012. It does not change the effect of the law except in very limited ways that are permitted under the revision powers and a streamlined parliamentary process applies under the House's Standing Orders. The Law Commission commented several years ago on the untidy state of our legislation which it said may be the most important part of our legal infrastructure. The commission recommended systematic revision to modernise our Acts and get them into a more coherent state. It noted that the last revision exercise had been undertaken in 1908. The previous Government adopted that recommendation and this Government has committed to continuing this work to maintain our Acts to make them more accessible. Updating the presentation of our older or heavily amended Acts by rewriting them in clear plain language will make them easier to understand and to follow. The New Zealand Productivity Commission has noted that revision will help reduce regulatory costs for business. An up-to-date Act also makes any future law reform work easier. The Partnership Act 1908 was an obvious choice for the revision programme because its language and style dated back to the 19th century. The 1908 Act is almost identical to the UK's Partnership Act 1890. The Act clearly needed updating. There are many small to large partnership businesses in New Zealand. A partnership is an attractive way to structure a business because the partnership form offers simplicity and flexibility. The UK Law Commission has noted that partnership is a form of great antiquity and to cite an academic Historically it has a traceable course from the ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia". I'll stop there. It's quite clear that this particular bill is important but we just want to make sure that as we embark on this important agenda to update our legislation we do so with this bill. I commend it to the House."
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill second reading. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Minister the Hon Aupito William Sio for the excellent work he has done here. As the previous speaker Chris Penk mentioned this is a non-controversial bill which is simply updating some of the key statutes. So it enables Parliament to make technical short and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts—for these people who are watching at home just to give that aspect of understanding.There certainly are a number of parts and some of the parts that are highlighted: one being the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 amended to ensure the wording of the new audit threshold more closely aligns with the Charities Act 2005. Another example would be the Coroners Act 2006 and a few aspects there have been changed.Part 33 I find particularly significant which is the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. There are some amendments there which talk about in new subsection (4A) there in clause 118(2) Despite subsection (1) if the application is uncontested the chair of the committee may make an order instead of the committee."—so just giving a little bit more authority there to the chair. But just to highlight the aspect of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act we had around 10 submissions to this bill and I was honoured to be on the Governance and Administration Committee at the time. Two of those submissions highlighted this Part 33. One of them came from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and they outlined the importance of improving alcohol licensing in New Zealand and they outlined some of the harm that alcohol can at times cause our society. So basically they highlighted the importance of ensuring around the aspect of the sale of alcohol that that legislation is robust it's up to date and it's clear. That's effectively one of the things that this bill does.The second submitter on the topic of the sale of supply of alcohol was Alcohol Healthwatch and they made similar arguments around the harm that alcohol can sometimes cause to society and just ensuring that we have accurate regulation that we have regulation that practically works on the ground and their words were around providing evidence-based information and advice on policy and planning. Now there's not really too much more to say about this bill; it is supported on both sides. But it's certainly very important that Parliament continues to have these statute amendment bills just to ensure that the legislation is always fit for purpose and completely up to date. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time."
Mallard Trevor; Penk ChrisSTATUTES AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 20 August.SPEAKER: When we were last considering this bill Chris Penk had the call. And if he really wants it he's got nine minutes and 30 seconds left.CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I do really want it Mr Speaker but I don't know if you and the rest of the House do but we shall see.This is a bill that in its spirit—and indeed by design—contains matters that are minor technical and non-controversial. For the sake of folks at home I can confirm on the latter point that it is non-controversial by virtue of having been circulated to the parties in advance and I understand certainly on the National side of things I can confirm that we don't find it controversial and notwithstanding the considerable detail in there—some 42 Acts being amended thereby—that we're happy with the way that it updates clarifies and becomes more user-friendly for the sake of a little local colour.I'll just note in relation to the Armed Forces Discipline Act which is one of the statutes that is going to be amended there is a little point about a person who is subject to the Act in that it sort of implies that it will be a uniformed member of the armed forces but in fact it might often be the case that someone working in the Defence Force is no such person. So that's just by way of example—there's a little update there to reflect modern times.I thought I'd be fast and furious and indeed I see that I am gone in 60 seconds. Thank you.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): I'd just like to round off my contribution too and speak very briefly to Part 2 and endorse the words of my colleague— CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We're doing clauses 1 to 3. MAUREEN PUGH: Excuse me—clause 2 not Part 2. I endorse the contribution of my colleague Sarah Dowie who as I mentioned before is highly qualified to make a contribution to this bill based on her previous experience in a legal capacity within the Department of Conservation and now as a spokesperson for conservation. We have heard very little from the Government's side tonight to give us any confidence that we are on the right track with this piece of legislation. We have heard very little or nothing in the way of science that supports the need for this bill. In fact we are unsure about what it is that we are trying to protect and save when actually we have no evidence that there is a need to protect or save and I have made that really clear in my contributions which have been based on the scientific evidence. So what we have done is put whitebait into the same category in terms of risk as the North Island brown kiwi which takes four years to mature and might produce four to six eggs a year whereas at least 20000 īnanga that live for just a year exist in the smallest of small streams or creeks on the West Coast with equal numbers of male and female produce up to 6000 eggs each. So as I've said in this House before we are never going to catch the last whitebait. We do not believe that there is a need to reserve all of the power in a person who has reserved the right through this piece of legislation to bring in regulation that will in effect create a ban on whitebaiting and that will in effect determine that private property rights are at risk. Chlöe Swarbrick: Oh come on Maureen. MAUREEN PUGH: We hear from the Greens—you know the Greens sigh and moan because we produce evidence that supports our argument. But—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): This is actually a really narrow debate on clauses 1 2 and 3 and the member has gone way off clauses 1 2 and 3 so come back. MAUREEN PUGH: I appreciate that Mr Chair. At the moment I am disheartened by the process and I have no pleasure in watching this bill progress through the House.
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): I move that the motion now be put.
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Absolute pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First and take a call on the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill in its committee stage. It is my pleasure to take this call and I would just like to say: good news—good news—the whitebait patty is not off the menu. There will be no blanket ban on whitebaiting so let's get that absolutely clear. That is the good news not the fake news that we're hearing from the other side of the House. There is a whakataukī which reads—and I'll do it in the English language—Fish for the future and there will always be more". That is about conservation. That is about taking care of the stock of our fish. If you want fish for the future then you need to make sure you plan for it by taking care of the habitat and by taking care of the species. We have a number of species in New Zealand which are threatened—our indigenous fish are threatened—and that's why on this side of the House this piece of legislation is so important. I would like to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the Minister SOP 360. I would like to acknowledge the work that has been done between New Zealand First and Minister Sage for ensuring that any new authorisation process for whitebaiting on conservation areas would not come into force any earlier than two years after the bill is in place. That will give ample time for consultation to happen. It will give time for the processes that need to go through discussions between iwi discussions with fishers and looking at how the habitat and these species can be managed so that in the future there is plenty of stock. I'd like to acknowledge the Minister for taking part in the conversations with New Zealand First there. On that I would like to take a very short call and thank the Minister on our behalf."
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Mr Speaker I have three simple points to make about the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill. The first is—and the member's opposite know it—that this bill represents a broken promise. The members on the opposite side of the House went into the election campaign telling the mums and dads of New Zealand children that they would be ending school donations and this bill does not do that. This bill fails to do that and represents yet another broken promise.The second point that I want to make is that if as some members opposite have claimed the way this bill has been structured is designed to target funds at those children in most need then it fails by its own test because actually just recently we've had the education Minister himself admit that the decile funding system is a poor way of targeting funds at our most at-risk children and our most in-need communities. It is to be replaced by an equity index—something that National developed and supports—but instead we have this bill which will be funding additional funds to schools based on deciles. So it's clearly not getting at the kids in the most need and leaving many out.The third point I want to make is that having ill-defined ideas of what is and isn't a donation is going to be highly problematic in the future because schools don't actually want to be grappling with the existential question of when a school camp is on the curriculum and when it's not. Those kinds of questions that require legal advice and definitional debate are a waste of school's time and I predict that this bill will create many problems to come. Thank you.
Brown Simeon; Rurawhe AdrianSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party and my colleagues to oppose the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill in its third reading. I'd like to just refute a couple of the points which were made. Chlöe Swarbrick talked a lot about how we want to take the politics out of this issue. Well I'm sorry but this is an issue which is here because of a political promise made at the last election that this Government would bring an end to school donations. Well this bill is a broken promise because it does not do that. What it does is it tries to create some system whereby some schools will be given some money on the promise that they will not be taking money for some things. Now that sounds a little bit more complicated than what the Government's promise was when they made it while they were in Opposition. The second point I'd like to make is that this is not even reaching all schools. Only 30 percent of schools are taking this up. That means a huge number of the schools which even qualify for it are not even taking this up. I can talk directly to Pakuranga College in my electorate which will be up to $300000 worse off because of this policy if it were to take this policy on than if they were to continue with their current regime because they won't be able to use this money for some of the key activities. They won't be able to charge donations for some of the key activities that they provide in their school. So this is a bad piece of legislation. Of course we want to see the costs to parents reduced where we can but at the same time this is not the legislation to fix it. We need to push ahead with the decile system changes. Removing the decile systems changing the funding for our schools—work that was begun under the last National Government stalled and only now is it getting anywhere. That's the work which needs to be done and that's the work which National does support. Thank you Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Jo Luxton—five minutes.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I would like to acknowledge as the second member of the Justice Committee who was there from the beginning along with Greg O'Connor that I had the privilege of listening to the officials' information and also the submissions that we heard on this piece of legislation. It's an interesting point to make. I would like to just quickly explain just in case there's one or two people sitting at home wondering what we're all talking about the difference between primary and secondary legislation because I think that's an important distinction to make.All Acts of Parliament all things passed by this House are considered to be primary legislation but there are many other forms. Some of those are drafted by our Parliamentary Counsel Office but there are many other regulations and forms of types of law that are not passed by this House and that is what is known as secondary legislation. Underpinning the importance of what this bill is doing is making sure that access to law is fundamental. Accessing law is so important to having a democratic society and it goes right to those principles of openness open government and also the rule of law.Often as parliamentarians we will go and look at the primary legislation look at the New Zealand Legislation website to find a piece of law that we're interested in finding out—a particular section or item in there. That cannot be currently done with secondary legislation as it sits in many different parts of different areas and so bringing all of those parts together is a huge task. So I take my hat off and commend those officials that are undertaking—and I think Parliamentary Counsel Office have a significant task in front of them—to bring together all of those forms of secondary legislation and it's really important that we are able to do that to make sure that people can access pieces of law and can do that whenever they wish to do so.I won't continue on for much longer. We've had a great discussion on this good piece of legislation that was indeed started by the former Minister Chris Finlayson under the last Government and continued. It's one of those good pieces of legislation that just keeps New Zealand ticking over and I commend it to the House.Bill read a second time.
Legislation Bill — Second Reading
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Aligned with the previous speaker addressing the House I too support this bill to the House and although I don't sit on the Justice Committee I do sit on the Regulations Review Committee. As members of that committee we are aware of the work that has been undertaken by the Parliamentary Counsel Office and also the Office of the Clerk in terms of amalgamating and bringing together a system where all the legislation and secondary legislation is archived and readily accessible.As is well known and has been canvassed in the House this afternoon this bill rewrites and replaces the Legislation Act 2012 implementing publication and other reforms relating to production of high-quality legislation that's easy to find. So it's so important the accessibility of having the legislation in one place and space particularly for members of the public who would be seeking to source where particular laws are as is impacting on them. So the access to secondary legislation the general policy objective of this bill when it does come into law is to ensure that there is one single place where individuals and businesses can see all of New Zealand's legislation. A brief call—everybody this afternoon on this bill is aligned and it is supported.
Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Speaker. I just want to take a short call on this legislation. It's had full support and to get that secondary legislation being accessible to New Zealanders alongside the website is something that will be to the benefit of those that may be wishing to access that information. So it's in good accordance with this House that it passes through.
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh; Rurawhe AdrianKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to stand in support of this Legislation Bill which was introduced by the National Government and continued by this coalition Government. This bill improves the access to legislation in New Zealand by providing that all the secondary legislation other than that made by the local authorities must be published on the New Zealand Legislation website. That will ensure that individuals and businesses can access this legislation which is not all available at one portal. They will have one access point where they can look into these issues. It's important because we need to make sure that the businesses and individuals have ease of doing business and that is the intention of this legislation also. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Clare Curran—five minutes.
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. As others have said this is a law about the law. But it is incredibly important because of course the right to justice encompasses also the right to know the law and for that to happen and for us to fulfil our obligations as a Government we have to make sure that the law is knowable and accessible to those outside of this House and to those without legal expertise. So this is a bill that aims to do a little bit of that by bringing together the Legislation Act and the Interpretation Act as well and it makes sense to say that the mechanism by which law is made and defined should be accessible together with the mechanisms by which we interpret the law for ordinary people. This particular piece of legislation aims to make more knowable to the public the secondary legislation or regulations as we have already said which are laws just as enforceable as primary legislation and much more likely to affect the everyday lives and dealings of New Zealanders and everyone in New Zealand. So it makes sense that we would make access to secondary legislation easier. It surprises me and probably most of us here that secondary legislation—though it is so all-encompassing of our lives in New Zealand—wasn't required to be published online in any way and wasn't until now easily defined in the law so people weren't able to easily find out what regulations affected them and where they were and how they were interpreted. This in part brings into law recommendations of the Regulations Review Committee in 2014. I note that the reform is really overdue so I do commend the move. Although of course it is technical it will have huge implications for the clarity and accessibility of New Zealand law. Thank you.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Legislation Bill at this the second reading. I love a good bit of tautology: Legislation Bill—a law about a law. Other speakers have already made points about the purpose of this item that is before us now on the agenda that is the parliamentary Order Paper. I would just emphasise its value as an item that promotes accessibility—laws being easy to find as well as easy to understand and to find one's way around. So it's a valuable addition to the law of the land.Secondary legislation as it's known—otherwise known as regulations—is secondary only in that sense not in terms of its importance to the lives of ordinary New Zealanders in the way that they conduct their personal lives their business lives and other dealings. The closer that one gets to one's life in terms of laws that have effect the easier they should be to understand—unlike impressionist paintings. So I'll just leave you with that impression: that it's a positive move that this piece of legislation will enable New Zealanders to see more clearly the laws that affect them through regulations in this bill. Thank you.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this the second reading of the Legislation Bill. I want to acknowledge the previous speaker Greg O'Connor. As a past detective he seems confident that he knew a lot about the Crimes Act and the Summary Offences Act but the best thing—the best thing about his speech—is that he's supporting a great piece of National Party Government legislation. That's great. I want to acknowledge him for that. It is a very good bill. It's a bill that will make it easier to find and access secondary legislation by requiring that it is published on the New Zealand Legislation website alongside the Acts of Parliament creating a single official public source for New Zealand legislation. I think often legislation and legal speak can sometimes feel like a foreign language to people that aren't always engaged in the process and so to make it easier to actually find the information and access that is a very good idea. It's a very good bill and I recommend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Kia ora mai tātou everyone. It's a pleasure to speak to this bill to take a very brief call as the last speaker for the National Party and I'd like to make a few acknowledgments first of all and echo some of the words of my colleagues. I'd like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson and the substantial contribution that he made to this piece of work in the last Parliament. I recall him talking about it how probably three to four years ago—probably five years now—he went to the Prime Minister who was John Key at the time and said I want a crack at the ture whenua Māori bill." The Prime Minister at the time said "You know that's a big piece of work?" and Chris said "Yep but I'm up for that. I think we could make some real changes make some real differences." And so Prime Minister John Key said "Yep go on then." So he did and I think it became a real passion for him. I think if we look at the fingerprints of Chris Finlayson through his parliamentary career a large number of people would point to ture whenua as being a piece of work that really does have his fingerprints. Yes we weren't able to reach it to a conclusion as we've heard from some of my colleagues here tonight but I do want to acknowledge the in-depth work that Chris did on that.I also want to acknowledge Nuk Korako the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament who also had an important role in leading this bill or the bill in its previous iteration through to as far as we were able to take it.Now you've heard from my colleagues that we'll be supporting this to the next stage. There are parts of this—and we can claim attribution or we can say it was the Labour - New Zealand First Government; it sort of doesn't matter to some degree because there's good parts of this that are going to benefit Māori. In particular I think the improvements in efficiencies to the Māori Land Court that increasing in scope that the Māori Land Court registrar will be able to do and some of the extra actions that Māori Land Court judges can undertake—the issuing of injunctions to compel and granting equity relief—are really good steps in productivity for the Māori Land Court.We've heard from our colleagues some of the issues around succession. That ability for succession to be immediate and yet still retain the rights of the spouse or partner is a nice piece of work and whāngai—for the court to be an arbiter working in collaboration with tikanga hapū tikanga iwi I think are also nice pieces of work.So again this is a short call to wrap up the National Party contribution to this part of today's proceedings. You've heard from my colleagues Jo Hayes Nicky Wagner Matt King Dan Bidois and Harete Hipango. They've described the history of the bill to this point where it was in our hands and what the contribution from the Government of the day is here now and our plan is to support this to the first reading. We look forward to it going to select committee. Kia ora mai tātou."
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you Mr Speaker. Carrying on from the previous speaker Willie Jackson and colleagues around the House this afternoon it's been well-traversed—the stories of each party in terms of this bill. I take a brief call this afternoon and importantly it's one to say that the National Party we stand and we speak in support of this bill to the first reading.There's been much talk around the demise of previous members of this House. I think it's really important to look at how we rebuild how we reframe this kōrero this conversation and particularly reframe the bill to make it somewhat better than what is proposed at the moment. Although I do not sit on the Māori Affairs Committee I will be seeking leave to be able to do so so that I'm able to contribute in a constructive manner which is the tone and the tenor of that select committee so we can seek to construct and improve what is proposed in this bill. There's been much said about the previous Government and the efforts that have been made there. I consider that my role and duty as a member of this House and as a member of Parliament for my electorate is to contribute in a constructive way.I will just briefly traverse the history of the Māori Land Court. We all know that the purpose and the intent of the original Native Land Court was to divide and to rule. The purpose and the intent of my contribution to this House and hopefully to the select committee is about how we can reframe and reconstruct and strengthen what's proposed.There's so much detail around this bill. It is a complex one. It has been fraught in terms of the complexity of the divide and rule and the monopoly and domination of Māori land. The ownership issues have been talked about in terms of percentages of Māori freehold land which are very minimal. It is about seizing the potential to whakamana the opportunity the people and the land. So I leave it at that because this is a brief call and I will seek to contribute in a constructive way for the benefit of our Māori communities and our Māori land owners. Tēnā tātou katoa.
Bidois Dan; Rurawhe AdrianDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It's a pleasure to rise and take a very brief contribution to the first reading of Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. I certainly want to acknowledge the significance of the issue: 1.4 million hectares roughly 5 to 7 percent of New Zealand's land mass and roughly $8 billion in economic opportunity for Māori in New Zealand. So it's a really important issue and National absolutely supports the kaupapa of this bill that we have before us today.But what I have as a question to the other side is why reinvent the wheel? Why is it that we are here discussing a new bill when we had another bill that we brought into Government in the last Parliament? The arguments that I've heard from the opposite side have not been satisfactory to me. We've heard from a number of people about the succession of trusts and that process but this Government could have proposed amendments to that bill. I think that what they've been talking about is actually very sensible but they could have proposed amendments to that bill instead of bringing a new bill to Parliament.The dispute resolution and making that a user-friendly process—well that was already addressed in the bill that we put forward in the last Government. That bill—may I remind the House—had already been through a robust process of consultation. That robust process began with the Minister at the time getting a panel together. We're not going to call it a working group; we're going to call it a panel. Through that panel they made a whole bunch of recommendations that led to the formation of the original bill. That bill then subsequently went through Parliament. It went through the select committee process as far as the stage of the committee of the whole House but unfortunately the Labour Party did not support that bill. It's just such a shame because we're back here now having to go through this process once again when we could have actually just not reinvented the wheel—taken a bill that was already in good formation made slight amendments to it to address the issues that the other side has raised today and move forward.So it is with that reservation that National is supporting the bill. We support the kaupapa but we're just disappointed that we're here again and that we could have actually taken another bill that we were discussing in the last thing. So that is the brief contribution that I have today. As I said we support this bill. I commend this bill to the House in its first reading. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call the Hon Willie Jackson—five minutes.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): Tēnā koutou katoa. Look it's a pleasure to speak on behalf of Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. We support this bill. It's a 25-year-old Act and it's well in need of updating but they took our bill and they gutted it and then they gave the remnants back and they put it forward as their bill. It's rather like taking a substantial steak meal and giving us back burnt two-minute noodles. So they could have taken our bill—100-plus hui consultation run and headed by the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell and a far superior bill. They said ambitious"; I'd say "comprehensive"—yes ambitious comprehensive a thorough bill. But do you know what's happened? It was politically hijacked opposed by Labour at every turn and so some of the blame for it not getting through has to be laid at the feet of Labour. And they stalled it all the way. So at every stage they were working through the committee stages and it just got stalled and held back. So we could've had that bill through and I can tell you no doubt it would have been beneficial for Māoridom if we'd got that bill through. So those are the facts. I do note that they've pulled out some parts of our bill. The alternative dispute resolution that's plucked straight from our bill. And I know that in Northland—it says here from a Ministry for Primary Industries study in 2014 that Māori land 85 percent of Māori land is under- or undeveloped and in Northland I would say almost more than any other part of the country we would benefit from legislation that improves Māori land. It would unlock economic potential worth billions of dollars in Northland. A third of our land in Northland is Māori land—roughly a third. Large parts of it are landlocked and I note that this bill does nothing to address that. So I look forward to the select committee process. I look forward to there being significant improvements at the select committee process to address some of these matters. I think that this legislation with significant improvements could be massive for Northland. So I support it. Nō reira tēnā koutou katoa."
Thursday 26 September 2019 - Volume 741
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee — Part 2
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee — Part 1
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Environment Committee.
Resource Management Amendment Bill — First Reading
12. Question No. 12—ImmigrationMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 12—Immigration12. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What announcements has he made today regarding the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you Mr Speaker. More good news. Today I announced that the Government will lift the cap on the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme by 1550 to 14400 in 2019-20 and a conditional increase of 1600 to 16000 in 2020-21. These are respectively the fourth- and third-largest cap increases in the history of the scheme. This is the second-earliest cap increase announcement and the first to cover two years. These increases will allow our horticulture and viticulture industries to plan and build for the future.Marja Lubeck: What are the benefits of the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The RSE scheme is recognised as one of the world's most successful circular migration schemes. It provides more than $50 million in economic contributions to our Pacific neighbours. It has also enabled our horticulture industry to go from strength to strength. New Zealand's horticulture export revenue jumped by 13.7 percent to $6.1 billion in the year to 30 June 2019 and it's expected to grow by another 3.8 percent to $6.3 billion in the current financial year.Marja Lubeck: What challenges has the Minister set RSE employers?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Last year I set out four challenges to the industry and employers to take a more cohesive and planned approach to growth by paying workers more employing more New Zealanders building new accommodation for RSE workers and taking responsibility for supply chains. The industry has made reasonable progress on these challenges but I believe more can be done. This year's cap increase will prioritise those employers who are building new accommodation for RSE workers rather than adding to existing housing pressures. Next year's cap increase is conditional on serious progress towards these challenges.Stuart Smith: Supplementary.SPEAKER: No the member doesn't have any supplementaries left. That concludes oral questions. I will say to Mr Lees-Galloway as I have said to him once before it would be very good if he took the recess to have some lozenges and to get rid of the germs which he has been spreading for most of the winter.
Oral Questions - Questions to Ministers
9. Question No. 9—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements policies and actions regarding vaccine supply for the measles outbreak including her statement 100000 are going to be arriving presently"?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: Yes in their full context.Dr Shane Reti: On what date will the 100000 additional measles vaccines she has spoken about arrive in New Zealand?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Pharmac and the Ministry of Health are currently working to confirm the delivery date of the 100000 vaccines which will be within a matter of weeks.Dr Shane Reti: Can she commit then to all of the 100000 measles vaccines she has spoken about arriving in New Zealand before the end of the year?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I said they're working to confirm the delivery date of the 100000 vaccines which is expected to be within a matter of weeks.Dr Shane Reti: How many of the 52000 measles vaccines she has spoken about are left given reports 82500 vaccines have been distributed so far in September?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Director-General of Health has assured me there will be sufficient supply. I can't give the member the exact answer to that question without—if he'd like to put it in writing I'm very very happy to get back to him.Dr Shane Reti: When she says there is no shortage of vaccine supply are some Auckland DHBs communicating that due to vaccine shortages there will be no measles vaccines for adults until 2020?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh if that has been communicated at all that would be an error. The prioritisation group is of course children under five. It's incredibly important that children and the most vulnerable are prioritised to receive their vaccine since they are the ones that are most at risk. The director-general has assured me there will be sufficient vaccine. We will be prioritising though those children who have not had an immunisation."
8. Question No. 8—ACCHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for ACCQuestion No. 8—ACC8. Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for ACC: Is he confident ACC levies will not increase in light of yesterday's announcement of an $8.7 billion deficit at ACC?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): What I am confident of is that this Government will not be using an accounting deficit as an excuse to cut entitlements overcharge working Kiwis and businesses and generate large unnecessary surpluses which was the course of action taken by the Hon Nick Smith when he was a Minister in a National Party Government facing the same situation.SPEAKER: Answer the question please.Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: There's no immediate need to lift levies. We will consider levies as we normally do next year and take into consideration all the relevant matters.Hon Tim Macindoe: Has the Minister seen reports that when ACC reported deficits of just over half this year's amount 10 years ago levies for the average wage earner increased by $150 and does he believe that is a proxy for what will occur next year?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes I have. And of course what we saw when Nick Smith generated those huge levy increases was that two years later he was having to do a U-turn because he'd been dramatically overcharging everyday Kiwis and businesses and workers. I will not be using Nick Smith's example. Nick Smith panicked; I won't.Hon Tim Macindoe: Does the Minister accept that notwithstanding the drop in interest rates a material contributor to the current deficit is the marked reduction in rehabilitation performance and claim exit rates?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Given that the deficit is $8.7 billion and the interest rates alone contributed over $10 billion of that actually ACC's performance is astounding. They've generated $5.1 billion on their investments they had a cash surplus of $570 million and they invested a record $75 million in injury prevention programmes which generate $1.81 of cost savings for every dollar invested. I have confidence in ACC. Unlike Nick Smith no one on this side of the House is panicking.Hon Tim Macindoe: Was the Minister even aware that entitlement claims have increased 19 percent and long-term weekly compensation claims have increased 12 percent on his watch?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes and this is a function of a strong economy when more people are at work. And when more people are working more people get injured at work and more people need compensation for loss of income because they're earning more at work. This is all a good thing and it demonstrates that under this Government's watch more people are working and they're earning more.Hon Tim Macindoe: So what does the Minister say to New Zealanders who will rightly be worried about the prospect of increased ACC levies due in large part to increases in serious injury and a drop in rehabilitation rates under this Government? Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I can say don't worry; no one in this Government is going to overreact—Nick Smith's not in charge any more.
7. Question No. 7—EducationJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 7—Education7. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What actions is the Government taking so that young people have the core skills and knowledge they need for when they leave school?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday I launched the first phase of the School Leavers' Toolkit. The toolkit reflects our Government's commitment to make sure that school-leavers have the skills and knowledge that they need to get on in life and avoid the common mistakes that can set them back early on. Students are able to access information on the student-facing toolkit website which is a one-stop shop for the key resources that they'll need and we've also developed a site for the teachers so that they'll have access to the tools they need to integrate the toolkit into their curriculum.Jo Luxton: What skills does the School Leavers' Toolkit provide?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The toolkit will support students to learn key workplace competencies including financial literacy how to maintain their personal wellbeing and civics both before they leave school and during their first steps into adult life. The student-facing website will enable young people to access information including basic things like how to set up a bank account learning about compound interest rates and debt how to prepare their CV how to prepare for a job interview options for enrolling in future study and the support that's available for that their rights when they go flatting and their obligations when it comes to tenancy agreements and of course things like civics education.Jo Luxton: Who has been involved in developing the resources for the School Leavers' Toolkit so that it meets the needs of the students?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Very importantly we engaged with a wide range of students who told us what they wanted to see in the toolkit which is why we also added the information around personal wellbeing. To develop the resources we've worked with the Bankers' Association the Commission for Financial Capability WorkSafe the New Zealand Electoral Commission and the Drug Foundation. Students were able to road-test the information and provide feedback so that we could get the content right and make it useful for them. It provides all schools and kura with the resources aligned to the New Zealand Curriculum so that it supports teachers to include things like financial literacy and civics education into their classes.Jo Luxton: What are the next steps for the School Leavers' Toolkit?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The next steps are developing the resources further particularly further resources in Te Reo Māori. And of course we're taking further steps to ensure that drivers' education is more widely available. As well as this work is under way for students to be able to show on their records of learning some of the skills that might not be captured by their qualifications so that future employers can see clearly what they have learned in these fundamental skill areas.
6. Question No. 6—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 6—Transport6. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: What was discussed with Patrick Reynolds at his 25 July meeting with Hon Julie Anne Genter and was the Associate Minister of Transport Hon Shane Jones invited to the meeting?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Given that we were having dinner we discussed a range of food options and also some transport issues; and no.Chris Bishop: Did he and the Hon Julie Anne Genter discuss the board of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) at his meeting with Mr Reynolds on 25 July at Ortega Fish Shack just seven weeks ago?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.Chris Bishop: On what date did the appointment process to refresh the board of the New Zealand Transport Agency commence?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: If the member wants to put that question down in writing I'm happy to supply it but it was some considerable time before the meeting in question. Chris Bishop: Did he take a paper to Cabinet's appointment and honours committee regarding the appointment of Mr Reynolds to the NZTA board; if so when was that paper discussed?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes I did and I'd be happy to get the date for that member subsequent to this question.Chris Bishop: Who paid for the meal at Ortega Fish Shack and if it was him—SPEAKER: Order! The member does not need to give the detail of or advertisements for particular restaurants.Chris Bishop: Oh well—SPEAKER: It is unnecessary for the question.Chris Bishop: Well Mr Speaker the—SPEAKER: No. We're not having an argument. The member will ask the question properly or he won't ask it at all.Chris Bishop: Who paid for the meal on 25 July; and if it was him did he use his ministerial credit card?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don't have a ministerial credit card and we all paid for ourselves. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! Chris Bishop: Has he seen the comments by Patrick Reynolds about decolonising the transport system by giving people freedom from forced and crippling multi-car ownership for every household" and was that discussed at his 25 July meeting with Mr Reynolds?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No and no."