edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Ayes 63 New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 57 New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Bill read a third time.
Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 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.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.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.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith to Part 2 be agreed to: in the heading to Part 2 replace 1 July 2020" with "1 October 2020"A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brett Hudson to Part 2 be agreed to:delete clause 5.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 agreed to."
Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Budget Measures—Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I would like to take a call tonight mostly around Australians. I'm speaking specifically to new section 399A(3)(c). In my earlier speech—and in fact in a number of speeches—we noted the point that Australians are exempt from this levy. A lot of us have made the point that that's a considerable number of people—that's 40 percent of our tourist market.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Saturday)
Doocey Matt; Rurawhe AdrianMATT DOOCEY (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It would be helpful for me and other members if you could tell us the Standing Order that doesn't allow members to speak to an amendment that is yet to be tabled.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. I made the ruling at the time and if the member had a point of order he should've taken it at that time OK?
Davis KelvinHon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): Thank you Mr Chair. Just in regards to clause 6 I'd just like to ask the Minister a few questions as well. Can he tell us whether there is an app that's been developed that's going to be put out there to 60 countries? Can he confirm that all the languages of those countries will be part of this app? Can he confirm that the use of the app is as simple as opening it taking a photo of a passport then somebody taking a selfie then using the app to load their credit card payment details in then answering a few questions that the app asks them and basically submitting it? Can he also confirm that the use of this app can be done basically anywhere—anywhere at all—and that even if the person who was travelling to New Zealand had forgotten to do all of that had turned up to the counter and the person at the airline had said You haven't yet filled in your ETA for New Zealand." the person could do all that and fill out that electronic travel authority using that app right there and then and everything could be done and paid for at that time? Just wondering if the Minister of Immigration is aware of what a fantastic app has been developed by his ministry."
McClay Todd; Rurawhe AdrianHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the Standing Orders which say that when the Minister responsible for the bill is in the Chamber during the committee of the whole House stage either he must be in the chair or he must I suppose in this case leave. I don't mind if he goes in the chair because we'll get sensible answers.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member for bringing that to my attention.
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I just want to respond to some of the points raised by members since I last made a contribution. The Hon Todd McClay asked some very sensible questions actually around which departments would be responsible for various parts of the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill. The good news of course is that Immigration New Zealand and Tourism are both parts of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE). So the bill is correct in the way that it is drafted and it ultimately then will be a decision for Ministers and MBIE as to which parts of that organisation carry out the review which I think was the part that the member was most interested in.The other question that he asked was around the definition of tourism. There is a fair question to ask as to why tourism is not included when conservation is. The answer is that conservation" is already defined in legislation and that definition is required because the law needs to use consistent meanings. "Tourism" is not defined elsewhere in legislation and therefore it carries its ordinary meaning.The Hon James Shaw asked me to confirm a variety of things and I can confirm all of the things that he asked. There is no impending wave of destruction coming. Just like in other jurisdictions that have a similar levy we can expect our tourism industry to continue to thrive. Maureen Pugh asked about how criteria and thresholds will be set for those seeking funding available from the levy. That will be set out in the investment plan that will be written up by the Minister's advisory group. So I thank members for their questions and I hope that that information is helpful."
Lees-Galloway IainHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you Madam Chair. I've been listening closely to the debate and the questions raised by members opposite which I will attempt to address. The Hon Jacqui Dean asked—the only question I think she asked of me as the Minister in the chair is how well the various responsibilities of different Ministers would be allocated. There is a small number of Acts where there is responsibility held by more than one Minister and the allocation of that ministerial responsibility is carried out in the usual way. The Prime Minister allocates that responsibility and the register of assigned legislation appears on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website so it'll be clear which Minister is responsible for which parts of the Act. The Hon Scott Simpson asked for definitions of various words: contribute" "funding" "costs" and "conservation". I discovered that there's a dictionary up here. I was tempted to reach for it but the member is a capable fellow and I'm sure he'll be able to look those words up himself. But "conservation" is defined. He just needs to look down at clause 5(1) immediately below the clause he was referring to and "conservation has the meaning given to it in section 2(1) of the Conservation Act 1987". I listened closely to the contributions from Sarah Dowie and the Hon David Bennett and I did not detect any questions."
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Talofa lava. Quoting the Hon Kelvin Davis We need tourism to enrich New Zealand." Section 399A(2)(a) (b) and (c) will ensure this money will be ring-fenced for tourism. I commend this bill to the House."
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you. It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill. This bill does two things: it sets up a levy to ensure the environment and our infrastructure can support a very successful tourist industry and the bill also allows for the automatic electronic collection of fees when visitors pay for their visas. It's a wonderful bill. Everyone knows about the difficulty we have in this country around our conservation community and our conservation land that is absolutely being visited. We love visiting it but let's face it nobody wants to see toilet paper on the Tongariro track. I commend this bill to the House.
Lubeck Marja; Rurawhe AdrianMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a very short call because the bill really speaks for itself but a previous speaker mentioned the Dutch and the Germans who somehow seem to think that it is too expensive to spend their time here. Well actually it's absolutely incorrect. From all of the family and friends who quite frequently come all the way from the other side of the world every single one of them is always saying that they cannot believe how cheap it is or how little they have to pay to use our beautiful spots. So what this bill does is actually ensure our international visitors contribute their fair share to the infrastructure that they use. It's only fair. Tourists absolutely agree and if the Opposition would go out they would hear that feedback. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Harete Hipango—five minutes.
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you. The tourism sector is built on an ethos of manaakitanga of hospitality of New Zealanders welcoming visitors to our country. If we let that be undermined because of a feeling local communities have that the areas that they enjoy are being overwhelmed with visitors that they as local ratepayers and taxpayers are funding all of the facilities and the infrastructure from toilets to camping grounds from dump stations to camper vans then they feel burdened by tourism. It loses its social licence to operate. So far from being a handbrake as the National Opposition is portraying this bill—this levy—is about ensuring a sustainable future for tourism because it preserves the social licence by ensuring that there is a means of funding infrastructure and of funding the protection of the landscapes and biodiversity that visitors come to see.The Opposition has been quoting very selectively from the regulatory impact statement. As the regulatory impact statement says If these issues"—of loss of community support for the tourism sector a perception that locals are paying the financial burden and that there is overcrowding at visitor hotspots—"are not addressed the costs of tourism could potentially outweigh the benefits we enjoy as a result of a thriving tourism sector including employment amenities economic benefits and connections with our trade partners. The sector could also contract as a result of deterioration in the visitor experience or loss of local community support for the sector." That is why this levy is so critical because it's about visitors paying their fair share. I commend this bill to the House."
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you sir. It's a pleasure to rise for the second reading and acknowledge Karen back home and some of the friends I've been speaking to about this legislation. Basically the conversation was Well if it's so bad get Todd McClay to stand up on behalf of the National Party and commit to repealing it."—commit to repealing this legislation which they say is so bad which we on this side of the House say is going to go towards dealing with infrastructure stuff-ups and blockages in our environment and the conservation estate. That's what we're going to do over here. And with that I'll sit down."
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): In times past I hitchhiked on four continents around this world. As I stood sometimes for hours waiting for my next ride I swore I would never drive past another genuine hitchhiker again; and so I don't. As I drive around New Zealand I pick up hitchhikers and chat with them and invariably they say two things. First they can't believe how little they actually pay for in New Zealand; and secondly they also lament the lack of facilities in New Zealand. So here we have an excellent bill—the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill—which will solve both those issues one that all those members opposite will know is absolutely common sense and there's no way they will repeal it. Thank you.
Strange Jamie; Mallard TrevorJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call on this bill by a hard-working Government who are still here on Friday night passing legislation. There's no other way to say it: New Zealand is a very popular place. But the challenge is with the huge number of tourists coming to New Zealand that has put huge pressure on infrastructure and this Government is dealing with this issue through this bill. I commend it to the House.SPEAKER: Jacqui Dean.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Well after that riveting contribution from Erica Stanford somebody who I thought was a conservationist I'm just so perturbed by that anti-sentiment for our environment. I'm so pleased to endorse this absolutely incredible legislation by the extremely competent extremely smart and incredible duo of a team Minister Kelvin Davis and Minister Iain Lees-Galloway. With that said I absolutely commend this bill to the House.
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I'm disappointed with the other side of the House this evening. It seems like a whole lot of politicisation and empty words that don't mean nothing—they don't mean nothing. Sorry for my grammar; I'm getting a bit excited. I quote Mr McClay. He spoke about the officials and somehow this anticipated decrease in tourism numbers. I actually went out and spoke to tourist operators." The Minister went out and spoke to the tourism industry and asked the industry: what do you think this will do to tourism in New Zealand? And guess what they said? "Actually we don't have any or little to no concern with this levy." Actually what they were more worried about—Minister Parker you'll be interested to hear this. Minister Parker they were more worried about the exchange rate. And guess what's happening to the New Zealand exchange rate now?Hon David Parker: From 80 to 65.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: From 80 to 65—never has the New Zealand economy and the proposition of tourism in this country been better or not for the longest time. All of our exports are going up including tourism.Now there was made mention of the world trend of tourism slowing down. The world economy is slowing down but guess what? Tourism in New Zealand will continue and is projected to continue to grow in this country. They took this levy into their calculations when they made that number.Hon Jacqui Dean: What? That didn't make sense.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: So this is a sensible piece of legislation. Let me put it into perspective for the member opposite. It was all guns and glory the tourism industry for the last nine years. It's been great for New Zealand. World trend has been fantastic. But the members opposite did nothing in terms of infrastructure spend to cope with the huge pressures being put into our regions and the infrastructure in our economy—nothing. Well actually to be fair Mr McClay mentioned the Tourism Infrastructure Fund and that was about maybe 5½ toilet blocks a year around the entire country.Mr McClay lambasted us for not spending on tourism in New Zealand. I have the proud job of being the under-secretary for the Provincial Growth Fund or regional economic development and Mr McClay must have forgotten that Rotorua has received approximately $20 million this year alone from the Provincial Growth Fund for the waterfront upgrade the lakefront upgrade and a commitment to enhance the attractiveness and the appeal of our Whakarewarewa Forest to mountain bikers to New Zealanders and to international visitors and it is going to be incredible. I'm incredibly proud to be a part of that.This is what this Government is doing. This is what I'm proud to stand in support of and I will continue to do so and I think we will be doing it for a long time hence. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker."
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'd like to begin with a quote from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report that is relevant to this bill: A social contract between the Government and its citizens was established in New Zealand legislation with the Social Security Act 1938. Government would provide financial assistance for New Zealanders unable to achieve an adequate standard of living (which remains central to the social security system) alongside other critical support such as access to health care education housing and adequate employment. In return people receiving financial support would participate in training or other activities and seek employment when appropriate. This social contract is now out of balance." This bill takes significant steps towards rebalancing that social contract. I'd like to thank New Zealand First and the Green Party for their support on this bill and the Minister for her leadership. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you."
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Just following on from that stellar contribution about punctuation I would like to bring it back up to the bigger picture and just talk about what a pleasure it is to speak on this bill. What this bill does will make a significant contribution to many families. Basically what it does is it removes sanctions for sole parents who don't identify the other parent indexes benefits to the average wage and allows for regulations to be created to change abatement rates. It'll make a huge contribution to families' lives and I commend it to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I know we had a problem with light bulbs in here earlier today and I have to say that as I read this Budget I had a light bulb moment of my own. I understood what a Budget means where instead of just having a profit and loss account—dollars in dollars out—we actually had it in the Budget what we want to achieve and that was where I fully understood what this Budget actually means.Perhaps just again another one of those light bulb moments: the member opposite Jo Hayes talked about being on a grant and being able to move on out of there. Well that's actually probably pretty true but to move on I liken perhaps to trying to send a rocket to the moon—you won't do it with a Morris Minor engine. You need a decent engine and unfortunately with how things have ended up we've had people there trying to launch into real life trying to get their life back together—we've given them the equivalent of a Morris Minor to do it with. What we need to do is give them some power and what this Budget does is give them some power some opportunity and some fuel to do it with. So I recommend this bill to the House.
Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Contrary to what the National Party's just been saying this is a very very good bill. New Zealand First will support it. It helps to ensure that the robustness of the essential safety net is there constantly but it also allows the incentivisation of people getting into work. But most importantly it gets rid of a demonstrably failing provision which is the sanctions in section 192 of the Social Security Act.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for this opportunity to support this bill in the third reading. There's something in this bill for everyone one would say. From the twinkle to the wrinkle from our young people and babies to our families and to our veterans there's something in it for everybody. It's on that basis that I commend this bill to the House.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I think this debate has been very interesting because on the one hand we're being told we're doing too much and on the other hand we're told we're not doing enough. So there is much that is contradictory on that side of the Chamber. Anyway in response to the member Simon O'Connor can I just remind the member and the committee that the estimates in terms of how much people will benefit by indexation stretch out to April 2023 but actually the benefits will commence as of 1 April 2020. The difference is that it is cumulative so it continues to benefit them. So actually by 2023 the increase—taking into consideration that the Consumers Price Index (CPI) adjustment would have happened as well but this is far greater—will actually be $26 to $46 per week by 2023. That's also inclusive of what a CPI adjustment would be and I need to note that. It is appropriate that the date is 1 April 2020 and that is when the three provisions in here come into force. So the date is appropriate the title is appropriate.With respect to some of the questions we were asked around accuracy absolutely there are mistakes made in this House with errors in terms of drafting legislation. I'm responsible for one of them. It took us 18 months to fix that particular error that was spoken of earlier but I know there was a stand-down period one that took about 18 years to be corrected and that was made back in 1999 or something and it was only picked up by the previous Government in about 2016. So mistakes are made in this House—I recognise that—and that one made me much more cognisant of this particular bill as well so we have had those conversations. But I've been given an assurance that all of the dates that are in here are accurate and that there are no drafting errors.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I'll speak quickly to some of the points that have been raised by both the member Andrew Bayly and the member Christopher Penk. Just with respect to Andrew Bayly's comments there were some comments made about indexation. Indexation is not within the scope of Part 2 at all; so I won't respond to those. There were other questions though that were relevant to Part 2 that I can respond to. The question around whether or not this is a retrospective clause—the answer to that is no. It is prospective from the date the regulations come into effect. I can assure the member that there are no veterans who will be worse off as a result of the abatement changes.Then also to the member Christopher Penk—he asked earlier about what happens if the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) or Inland Revenue disagree on whether an exemption applies—I've had the assurance that both departments will have quite stringent operational guidelines so there will be consistency in any decision that will be made there.He also asked whether the clause will be delegated down to members in those organisations—the clause with respect to the commissioner. Yes clause 16 has been written consistently with the Child Support Act 1991. Therefore referral to the commissioner and the chief executive are defined under that Act and both are able to delegate those decisions as part of the State Sector Act.In asking if there is any intention to allow decision-making regarding child support exemptions to departments other than MSD and IRD—the answer is no.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I will respond to Simon O'Connor and maybe make some comments to Under-Secretary Jan Logie's comments as well. So Simon O'Connor asked Has any thought been given to the implications about abatement and the other changes to the Veterans' Support Act 2014 currently before select committee?" Can I just assure the committee that the Minister for Veterans is aware of the proposals. The abatement thresholds will apply to whoever meets the definition of veteran in the future.Can I respond to what Under-Secretary Jan Logie has just pointed out. I think they were very good comments and I would agree with the comments made by Under-Secretary Logie. I also want to point out that this issue around the abatement thresholds and the fact that they haven't been shifted for a number of years—since the 1990s except for one of the measures I think—has been raised with me as Minister for Disability Issues and even prior to that from disabled people who access the supported living payment who are able to take up a few hours of work but have been put off from taking up maybe two or three more because of the fact that they are actually punished for doing so. So I think this does provide a pathway for people to maintain the level of work that they are taking currently or if they're actually undertaking less work to pick up a little bit more. Moving forward we do need to continue to look at this because we've always seen—and I think the Greens and New Zealand First would agree—that part-time work provides a pathway to full-time work.For some people part-time work is more appropriate given their circumstances. Perhaps they can't work a full day because of their health condition or disability. Perhaps they can't work a full day because of their parenting obligations. Perhaps they have children with particular needs that mean they can't work a 40-hour-a-week job. However for those who are able part-time work does provide that pathway to full-time employment. So we support that and we see this as a very important measure to actually incentivise people to take up work and ensure that people aren't penalised for doing so."
Williams Poto; Ngaro AlfredPart 2 Amendments to other Acts CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We come to the Part 2 debate; the debate on clauses 15 to 21 and the Schedule.Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I took a previous point of order because my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 243 that was submitted to the Table—I did not have a chance. I did seek the call previously prior to you sitting in the Chair. Also it was not referred to by the Minister in regards to this Supplementary Order Paper hence the reason why I wanted to take the call so that I could refer to my Supplementary Order Paper and at least have a response from the Minister.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just in relation to that—I thank the member for your point of order—the Minister had answered several questions. She may not have come to yours specifically but she did spend a lot of time answering questions put to her. It's unfortunate that you didn't get a chance to speak to your SOP. You did actually have a call I think during the debate. You could have spoken to your SOP at that point.Hon Alfred Ngaro: A point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We have moved on to Part 2 I'm afraid so we cannot go back.Hon Alfred Ngaro: Madam Chair I did seek to take that call. I had spoken in the first reading and the second reading and you'll notice that there but I did try to seek the call. I wasn't successful inside of that hence the reason I wanted to take a point of order to be able to speak to this. The Minister may have referred to other SOPs that were there but she did not refer to this which was tabled on the Table.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Unfortunately we have moved on—Hon Louise Upston: Speaking to the point of order—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No I'm not taking any more speaking to the points of order. I'm making a ruling. Thank you. I thank the member. Thank you. We've moved on now to Part 2 and I apologise to the member that you didn't have an opportunity to do that. You did actually have a call during the committee of the whole House debate on Part 1. You could have spoken about your SOP at that point; you did not. I'm not taking it—are you seeking the call?Hon Louise Upston: No it's a new point of order. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Point of order the Hon Louise Upston.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chairperson. In the debate on the first part the Minister referred to a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) including ones that were not in Part 1 which meant the debate that we had stretched beyond Part 1—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is not a point of order and we've moved on to Part 2 now. Please I ask the member to resume her seat.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I'm just trying to work through some of the comments that were made by the speaker who has just sat down Stuart Smith with regards to what he's seeking. If he is seeking the Cabinet paper with regards to our response to the Welfare Expert Advisory Group that is online. That has been online for quite some time. I've got the website here. I can even get him a copy of the paper if he'd like it.With respect to Budget-related advice that is released by Treasury and so that is not a Ministry of Social Development (MSD) release of information. And we've only just announced the Budget.Can I speak to an amendment that I have been given and that is from the member Maureen Pugh. I'll speak to this amendment. It is another one that we won't want to support because it actually duplicates an existing obligation. The member has asked us to require beneficiaries to disclose to MSD any arrangement where they are receiving financial support from the child's relations. There's actually an obligation already to declare if they are receiving financial support from another source so we won't be implementing that one.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Thank you. About an hour ago I requested that the two official documents that the Minister was referring to be tabled—and according to Standing Order 377 documents tabled by leave must be done within a reasonable period. Madam Chair given that we are in urgency this is the only time for scrutiny of this legislation. I want to know if—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I have been advised that they have been tabled. They're just being copied; they're on their way into—Hon LOUISE UPSTON: They're just not available for members. This is urgency—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): They will be here very shortly—they will be here shortly. I can't make it happen any faster than that; they're just about here.Hon Louise Upston: So—Madam Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have ruled on that point of order. They are being copied—Hon Louise Upston: So the Opposition doesn't have the chance to look at two documents the Minister has offered—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I have told the member that they have been tabled they have been copied and they are on their way into the Chamber. She will just wait for a few moments and they will be here for her scrutiny—Hon Louise Upston: So we will have a longer period of time to discuss this under urgency?CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): You're answering me back; I'm making a ruling. I'm saying they'll be here shortly. You've asked a question; I have answered it. I call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Just before I put the House into committee I want to remind especially the Government whip that when we're having a vote and I've declared a result she only calls out if she disagrees with the way that I've called it. It's not a volume competition; it's an indication from one side or the other that they have a difference of opinion from me. So while I generally appreciate her support not in those circumstances.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare and talofa lava Mr Speaker. The Opposition has stated several times Is this bill sending the wrong message?" They asked us "Is this the message that we should be giving?" Of course they would too because the leader of their party has one message which is going out in memes all over the place and that is: "What's in it for me?" That is so different to the values that this Government holds dear: manaakitanga the greater good. This is a bill that will support New Zealanders who have to access the welfare system—very different from the examples we've heard across the House. For example Simon O'Connor the member who just sat down told us that he has a little bit of concern that he may have to work a little bit harder so that other families can feed their children—beyond me. In sharp contrast this Government is committed to lifting children out of poverty and improving child wellbeing. I'd like to congratulate the Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for bringing such wonderful legislation to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well in contrast to the previous speaker Jo Hayes I actually think that this bill is historically significant because one of the most enduring things it's going to do is it's going to index benefits to the average wage. In my previous role monitoring child health we used to see thousands of kids coming into hospital for poverty-related conditions and what surprised me the most actually when I look back is just how many of our children were reliant on benefits in terms of the sole source of their family income. But the second thing that actually surprised me the most is just how far behind the incomes of those families on benefits have fallen over the last couple of decades compared to the average wage so a little bit each year—gradual gradual—but when you add that up over 25 years it's a massive massive gap between the two and it's a massive gap in the living standards of those children. So what this bill does is it stops people falling further and further behind and what it will do when you take it across the other measures that are coming in under this Budget is it will start to reduce child poverty in a significant way. I therefore commit this bill to the House.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Talofa e Te Mana Whakawā. What we've heard from the other side about section 192 about removing sanctions is worthy of a window being opened in this House—full of hot air. Research tells us that there is no proof that those sanctions actually encourage liable parents to pay the liable parent contribution. We have heard the Hon Louise Upston calling people deadbeat dads. Actually they are called DNA fathers. I commend this bill to the House.
Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): I covered my main positions and visions in my first reading speech. I'll take a short call on this the second reading debate of the Social Assistance Legislation (Budget 2019 Welfare Package) Amendment Bill. I wanted to pick up in a little bit more detail—already since my first reading speech I've had some feedback from members of the public wanting to make sure that when we uphold that the majority of people want to be supported into paid employment we are making sure that we value the contributions of people who for different reasons are unable to be in paid employment and that simply wanting to be in paid employment should not be upheld as the most virtuous quality. We should understand that we also value the contribution of all types of voluntary work. Simply just being able to—say for example if you have a disability or a mental disability—live without a struggle is in itself a contribution to our communities. I did mention that but I thought I would dig down given some of the feedback from members of the public.Other than that I did want to pick up that this would normally be a second reading speech for a bill that had gone through a select committee. I want to use again the expert panel report mentioning that the Greens are very clear that we also need to ensure not just indexing increases in benefits to increases in average wages but that the income levels for the core base levels have been so exceedingly low and difficult and inhumane. Those need to be increased—this is what we heard from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. They outlined for example that an adequate income for a sole parent with one child would be $802. The shortfall is currently at $112. What on earth would you do if you had to look for an extra $112 every week? This is how poverty becomes incredibly expensive over the long term making it very clear here in the second reading debate that we'd like to signal our support for that part of the expert advice. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I think that Alfred Ngaro has made it quite clear that he's very confused about what he's talking about in regards to the removal of the sanction under section 192 of the Social Security Act 2018. I think most importantly if people go and have a look back at a few of the speeches in the first reading debate—and I assume the future speeches from the National Party in the further readings of this bill—they will see that actually National's arguments against the removal of that sanction are quite inconsistent within themselves. I'll point out why I say that.I'll start with something that Alfred Ngaro said and I'll end with it as well. He said that sanctions are good in so far as the right time the right place and the right cause. But there is a lack of logic in the National Party's argument. So we've got some members who stand up and say and Alfred Ngaro—their main message is that they want to hold deadbeat dads to account. They want to hold deadbeat dads to account.Now what they're saying is that there are irresponsible fathers out there who aren't paying for their children—the responsibility for their children—and therefore it comes back on the taxpayer. That's what their argument is—they want to hold those fathers to account. But then you've got the likes of Maureen Pugh who stand up and say that these mothers take money under the table from the fathers and are committing fraud. That's what she said: they're committing fraud. So which one is it? Do you have fathers that aren't paying anything that aren't taking responsibility for their children or are the fathers paying under the table and the mothers are committing fraud? Which one is it? Which one is it? There is inconsistency in their arguments. You see like I said in my first speech they're taking a very one-dimensional view on what the problem is and what the statistics show and they're basing all of their ideological arguments on that. What falls out of that are the inconsistencies in their arguments. I also asked a question in the first reading and no one has yet answered it—no one has yet answered it. I'm going to ask it again and I'm going to ask them to answer this question in the few speeches they've got left in this second reading. If the sanction that currently exists is from what they're saying to hold the deadbeat father to account then why does that sanction punish the mother—Hon Member: And the children.DARROCH BALL: —and in turn the children? How can one hold the father to account with a sanction when there is no result or consequence for the father? The consequence is directed solely at the mother and therefore the children. This is where I'm going to go back to what Alfred Ngaro said right at the start: sanctions are good at the right time the right place the right cause and this is not one of them.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Outside of the Wellington bubble there are thousands and thousands of families out there who are applauding this Government for this particular bill. I want to commend it to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It may reflect the sadness of my life but I've read every Budget document for the last 21 years and with most of those Budget documents you go to the profit and loss and you look at where the money's being spent where it's going to go—where shall we say the paper clips are going to be bought. This year I got it. As I sat in the lock-up and read the document I saw that actually it went beyond that. It actually told us why we're spending the money. It told us what we're trying to achieve and I actually got what a wellbeing Budget was about. It's actually more than measuring the paper clips. It is about working out what we want to achieve.I've sat here this morning and listened to speeches from across the House as I have in the past. People have talked about solo motherhood. People have talked about growing up in State houses. Actually do you know what I heard? I heard Pull up the ladder. We did all right. Now to hell with everyone else." I go back to the document—this is what I'm seeing: we now know what we want to achieve. We are not going to pull up the ladder. We're going to make sure the ladder remains in place so that those who haven't had the advantages—some of them have talked about that this morning—won't suffer from the stigma of being solo mothers and won't suffer from the stigma of living in State houses and will have the same opportunities that some have spoken about here. I commend this bill."
Curran ClareHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'm going to resist the urge to respond because 18 months ago this Government—the coalition Government led by Jacinda Ardern—promised New Zealand a new kind of leadership a leadership as responsible stewards of the economy but advocating for a new kind of values that have been missing in this country: compassion dignity fairness and kindness. We faced huge issues—huge issues—and we know we've had to ask people to be patient and that's been difficult for them. But we needed a new kind of leadership that demonstrated deep change and wellbeing—the Wellbeing Budget—is at the very heart of that deep change and this bill is a real indication of that. I want to commend the Minister Carmel Sepuloni for a real demonstration of deep change in the culture of change that's happening in Work and Income.What is contained in this bill—the indexing to the average wage the raising of abatement and the no-naming part of the bill—is a real indication of deep change in our country where we treat people with dignity no matter what their circumstances. We are not a punitive Government; we are a responsible Government and I commend this bill to the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): If there was ever a reason why the New Zealand public needed to know why I could never ever support the National Party they only need to listen to their speeches today. They are trying their hardest to paint themselves as a compassionate party talking about stories of people pulling themselves up—and good on them for doing it—and then in the same breath complaining that any increases in benefits and linking it to the average wage is a waste of taxpayers' money. They crow that they were the Government that increased benefits and yet they've got an opportunity to support a mechanism which will help people out of poverty and they are choosing not to because they'd rather grandstand and talk about hard-working New Zealanders while neglecting the fact that at any point There but for the grace of God go I". So I say shame on the National Party. It is an absolute privilege and I stand here with pride to lend my support to this bill which will go and help 339000 families in this country. This is long overdue and I'm proud to be a part of it."
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to begin by challenging some of the comments that the previous speaker who resumed her seat Louise Upston made because they completely missed the point. Firstly in terms of repealing section 192 the member claims that members on this side of the House don't want to hold deadbeat dads"—she says—accountable for their children. That is absolutely untrue. Why? The reason we're repealing section 192 is firstly because we choose not to penalise women who choose not to name the fathers of their children.Secondly we don't see the point in continuing a policy that does not work. Move to the future the Hon Louise Upston. Thirdly the member asks "Is this it?" It is not. Although this is a significant bill this is not it because there are at least 20 recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report where work is under way. So I say the Hon Louise Upston this bill is significant because it contributes to improving child wellbeing to reducing child poverty and to ensuring that everyone regardless of their circumstance can live with dignity and participate in their communities in a meaningful way. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker."
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'm speaker No. 12 of 12. This is it and I'm the only speech standing in between transformation and—that's it. It's my pleasure to thank the Minister of Transport for this transformational plan. It will save lives and I'm really looking forward to it. I commend this bill to the House.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): It's about time we had a modern efficient and safe transport system in New Zealand and this bill will go a long way to ensuring that we get there. Can I commend this coalition Government for its vision for a transport system that offers choice. I'd also like to thank the Minister of Transport the Hon Phil Twyford for his leadership to get us to a place where we implement that vision. I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Mr Speaker thank you. That's it"—if that's a King-hit God help us. Poor Northland hung out to dry by the leader of the National Party. What happened to Bridges' 10 bridges? Still there one-way—"One-way Bridges"—and Judith Collins is coming the other way. This bill this 3.5c excise tax is nothing more than a "no free ride tax". All of this money is hypothecated to go back into the roading network—simply a pay as you go. This Government is tired of decent hard-working New Zealanders subsidising a roading network. What we need is a framework where the money that is gathered on taxes goes straight back into those roads and is self-sufficient. That's what this fantastic Minister of Transport is aiming for that's what this bill does and I commend it to the House."
Russell Deborah; Mallard TrevorDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This bill provides choice for people: choice and options about how they move about their cities choice and options about how they get from point A to point B. It provides safety for people: safety on our roads which desperately need safety improvements. I commend the far-sighted Minister of Transport for bringing this bill to the House—the Minister who has the courage to say that if we want choice if we want options and if we want safety then we need to find a way to pay for it. This is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House. SPEAKER: Jonathan Young—a five-minute call.
Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. What I'd like to do is thank the previous speaker Mr Goldsmith and just summarise his stuttered and confused 10-minute contribution to the House and take out some of the key points he made. The first point he made was that National when they were in Government increased the excise themselves at least six times from my own recollection on petrol—when they were in Government. He acknowledged they did it themselves. He then also acknowledged that road safety is incredibly important—in fact for the National Party road safety is incredibly important. So here I am right now on this side of the House thanking him for that contribution from the member and I say I agree with him. I thank him for his support. I'm upset about the way they're going to vote but I agree with him. I also recommend it to the House and with that I commend it to the House. Thank you sir.