edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Kuriger Barbara; Tisch LindsayBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to speak on the third reading of this Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. It is a pleasure to be part of the Health Committee and we had some really good discussion as we were going through this debate and the submissions. I also want to thank the officials for their efforts during this process.Good health is hugely important to New Zealanders and the contact tracing part of this bill is hugely important in maintaining that because we have to improve the tracing of people who may have an infectious disease or may have been exposed to one. So we are amending an Act that was written in 1956. For a change we are doing a bill that is actually older than me which I am quite pleased to say. This is really about streamlining our legislation also. To me sometimes we have so many bills relating to the same thing that the more we can simplify this for the public and those people who are deemed to be affected by it the better. It is also streamlining to include tuberculosis as a notifiable disease under the Act. The consequence of this is repealing the Tuberculosis Act which was actually made in 1948. It just makes sense to roll that all into one.It is important I think for people to note that when we talk about contact tracing and notifiable disease the first option under this piece of legislation is always about people voluntarily consenting to come forward. This is not about chasing people this is not about witch hunting but this is about protecting the vulnerable people who are likely to be around a person who is carrying a notifiable and infectious disease. If voluntary consent is not gained then it introduces a duty on a person who may have an infectious disease first of all but if they do not consent then it is up to the practitioners to be able to notify. It is important to note that clause 5(3C)(a) allows the sex date of birth and National Health Index number of a person with a notifiable disease to be disclosed. So it actually gives the medical officer access to the valuable information.I will make note here of Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman which is about the identifying information. It means the person's name address place of work and any other information specified in the regulations under the Act would not be disclosed. That is important I think as a protection. We want privacy to come out to protect people but not to actually expose people. It is my pleasure in supporting this piece of legislation. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Jan Logie—5 minutes.
Dean JacquiHEALTH (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed from 9 June.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge my fellow members of the Health Committee who tussled our way through this bill. On most aspects of the bill we were in agreement. A number of measures were discussed; in fact generally three areas of measures to further protect the public from risks associated with the spread of infectious diseases of concern to the public health system and with artificial UV tanning. You might well wonder what those things have got in common but they were put together in the bill.With regard to protecting the public from the risks associated with infectious diseases the bill amends the Health Act of 1956. What it does is it improves the tracing of people who may have an infectious disease or have been exposed to one. Why is that important? Because with a number of highly contagious infectious diseases that enter into our population such as measles it is very important that health officials where necessary have the ability to trace those people who have been infected and those people with whom they have had contact or been exposed to. The bill increases the range of infectious diseases that are notifiable and provides options for the management of individuals with significant infectious diseases whose behaviour puts other people at risk of contracting a disease. Not all people who have been exposed to a disease wish perhaps to have that notified so there is discretion now. There is the ability to show some pragmatic discretion to maintain people's sense of privacy and safety but also to make sure that any highly infectious disease they may have been exposed to is not going to be further transmitted through the population.Finally just a few words on artificial UV tanning. The Government settled on and it is proposed in this bill the age restriction of 18 years and over for people to be able to use UV tanning. Some members of the select committee and other parties wanted to go for a blanket ban. Not so for our Government and I in the readings in this Parliament have cited each time the fact that there are a number of people who use UV tanning salons or UV tanning beds to help treat diseases like psoriasis and they get a benefit. Those people get a benefit out of that type of UV tanning use. We also believe that people should be able to make an informed choice about whether when they are over the age of 18 they choose to use a sunbed or a tanning device. With that said—and I know I will find disagreement around the House over that one caution only—this is a good bill. It does provide protection for the New Zealand population. I commend it to the House
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I would like to join on behalf of the ACT Party with other members who are commending Mr Donnelly's appointment in supporting this motion. A free society requires an open Government which in turn requires an honest broker sometimes to adjudicate between the competing prerogatives of an efficient operation of Government—between the public interest and the privacy of the many people who interact with Government. I would like to offer our warm wishes to Mr Donnelly as he embarks on this year doing this all-important job that we know he is very well-qualified to do. Thank you.
Graham KennedyDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party is pleased to be able to give its support to the Government motion appointing Leo Donnelly as Ombudsman and we give our thanks and gratitude to departing Ombudsman Ron Paterson as well. We wish to commend Mr Donnelly for his long service in the office and to congratulate him on the new appointment.The role of the Ombudsman is a crucial one in ensuring that our democracy functions appropriately and that the public can have confidence in the honest workings of the executive and the Public Service. One of the crucial roles of the Ombudsman is oversight of the Official Information Act (OIA) and as my colleagues and I have noted many times we remain concerned about the potential impact of underfunding on the Ombudsmen's ability to cope with the portfolio of work. We have observed a growing and indeed quite concerning trend in which the executive and a number of Government departments are failing to comply with OIA requests undermining the crucial function of that Act. It is of vital importance that the Ombudsmen's office receives adequate resources to carry out its watchdog role and we encourage the Chief Ombudsman to consider what steps could be taken to ensure that their office is properly supported. The creep of non-accountability is something that should concern every party. We wish Mr Donnelly well in his efforts to hold those in power to account for their actions.
Mallard TrevorHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to just speak briefly in support of the appointment motion to say that in my opinion the Officers of Parliament Committee has worked well on this appointment and on other appointments. It is a committee that is very well chaired and the chair is excellent at building consensus around the group.This proposal is one of the Chief Ombudsman's and I think it is worth placing on record the fact that a new approach was indicated. Without going into details of what the applicant said in the Chief Ombudsman's application during the interviews we had a course of action set out to us. This is being actioned now. There is a very definite indication from the Chief Ombudsman that he wants to get into the backlog and he is using a pile of technology that has been available since the 1980s but not used within the office before now in order to speed up processes—things like electronic files and even sending things to Ministers and complainants by email something that was not the previous practice—so there is a very real attempt to shorten time frames and to reduce the backlog.The use of Mr Donnelly whose adjudication skills on these matters are well renowned—this is an area of his expertise and if he can focus on that and on the backlog I am sure we will make some progress. It will not necessarily be comfortable for the Government while that occurs but I think the thing that we know about Mr Donnelly is that it does not matter who is in Government he does not mind making people's lives uncomfortable.
Bridges SimonAPPOINTMENTSOmbudsmanHon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move That pursuant to sections 3 and 8 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommend to the Governor-General that Leo Michael Donnelly be appointed as an Ombudsman for a term of 1 year commencing on 1 August 2016. Today I rise to move a motion that recommends the appointment of Leo Michael Donnelly as an Ombudsman for a term of 1 year commencing on 1 August 2016. Mr Donnelly has held the position of Deputy Ombudsman since its establishment in September 2004 and therefore has significant experience in the role and familiarity with the services of the Office of the Ombudsmen that the Ombudsman provides. Mr Donnelly joined the Office of the Ombudsmen in 1985 as an investigating officer and has held various positions since then. In his role as Deputy Ombudsman Investigations and Inspections Mr Donnelly has assisted the New Zealand Ombudsmen in carrying out their statutory investigation and review functions. I would like to recognise Mr Donnelly's substantial contribution to the Office of the Ombudsmen for more than 30 years.The Office of the Ombudsmen is an organisation that is able to conduct free of charge examinations into all manner of requests from the public that relate to the activities of governance in this country. The organisation therefore has to have people of the highest standard and highest integrity working within its office. Section 8(1) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 provides for the Governor-General to appoint a temporary Ombudsman … at any time during the illness or absence of any Ombudsman or for any other temporary purpose whatsoever…" if the Chief Ombudsman considers such an appointment necessary. The Officers of Parliament Committee considered the Chief Ombudsman's proposal and unanimously supported the considered appointment of Mr Donnelly as a temporary Ombudsman for 12 months. I wish Mr Donnelly all the best for his term as Ombudsman."
8. Accident Compensation Corporation—LeviesJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for ACCAccident Compensation Corporation—Levies8. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for ACC: What reports has she received regarding reductions to ACC levies?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): I am advised that from tomorrow about 3.4 million motor vehicle owners will benefit this coming year from significant levy cuts. The average ACC motor vehicle levy will reduce again from around $195 to around $130. The 33 percent reduction means levies are now at historically low levels. I can also confirm that the annual ACC licence fee component for every single petrol car will be less than $100. The Government has also reduced the motorcycle safety levy from $30 to $25. Since 2014 this Government has saved New Zealanders an average of $200 from their ACC motor vehicle levy. That is more money in the pockets of hard-working Kiwis. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am now getting too much noise from the New Zealand First quarter.Jonathan Young: Thank you Mr Speaker. What reports has she seen regarding the impact of other ACC levy reductions?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am advised that an estimated 400000 businesses have started benefiting from the over $171 million in levy reductions this year. I am also advised that approximately 2.1 million Kiwi earners during this levy year have received and will continue to receive a reduction in their levies. Approximately 300000 self-employed New Zealanders will also see a levy reduction in their invoices this year. I am also pleased to advise the House that the feedback that I have received from these levy cuts has been hugely positive. In my view the recent improvements in public confidence in ACC are in part because of the more than $2.1 billion worth of levy cuts under this Government.Jonathan Young: Why are these reductions possible?Hon NIKKI KAYE: These reductions are possible because of good financial management and a good National Government. I am advised that assets and investments in ACC have grown from $10 billion in 2009 to $35 billion this month. Under the levy reforms announced last year we were able to better demonstrate to New Zealanders that we are collecting just enough to be able to support injured people for their lifetime and withstand economic shocks that occur.
5. Housing Rental—Legislative Changes and ComplianceDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Building and HousingHousing Rental—Legislative Changes and Compliance5. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Building and Housing: What estimates has he received on the number of lives that will be saved as a consequence of the new smoke alarm and insulation requirements that take effect tomorrow?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I am advised that these measures taking effect tomorrow will save a thousand lives over the next 10 years. These estimates are based on 120000 homes having smoke alarms installed and 180000 homes being insulated. To achieve those we need to ensure that there is both compliance and an information campaign and that is why in this year's Budget there were substantial contributions to ensure that we do achieve those gains.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What steps has the Government taken to ensure improved compliance with the minimum housing standards?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new law taking effect tomorrow provides for improved enforcement. It will enable the ministry for the first time to directly prosecute landlords for properties that pose a health and safety risk. A new tenancy compliance and investigation team of 10 people has been established and begins its work tomorrow. They will be focusing on the most vulnerable tenants and landlords with multiple substandard properties. Tenants still have the right to and should take cases directly to the Tenancy Tribunal on substandard cases and the new law that takes effect tomorrow strengthens their protections to ensure that there are not retaliatory eviction notices from landlords when they do stand for those rights of properly standard buildings.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What steps is the Government taking to ensure that tenants and landlords are aware of these changes in noting they are the most significant reforms in 30 years to a tenancy law and affect over—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Budget provided for $3 million for an information campaign. I would encourage all MPs particularly in their constituency work to draw to the attention of both tenants and landlords their additional responsibilities and rights with the new law. The Budget also provided for $14 million for the new compliance and investigation team at the ministry. That Budget also provided $18 million for the Warm Up New Zealand insulation programme which is providing a carrot for landlords to get support to get the insulation done and which sits aligned effectively to the stick that is provided in the regulatory requirements.
Bridges SimonTHURSDAY 30 JUNE 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon SIMON BRIDGES (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 5 July the Government will look to complete first readings of the Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill and the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Wednesday and Thursday will be devoted to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2016/17 Estimates) Bill.
Wednesday 29 June 2016 - Volume 715
Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.The House adjourned at 9.52 p.m.
Keep Kiwibank Bill — Second Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Keep Kiwibank Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.Noes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a third time.
Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
10. Offenders—Employment SupportKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of CorrectionsOffenders—Employment Support10. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Corrections: What initiatives has corrections undertaken to support offenders into employment?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Oh thanks for that excellent question. The department is partnering with Horticulture New Zealand in the lower north region to develop an industry-specific employment package for prisoners. This programme will see prisoners trained behind the wire in horticultural skills that will then lead directly to employment upon release. A number of Horticulture New Zealand members already employ prisoners released from Hawke's Bay Regional Prison on a Release to Work scheme and this kind of continuity that transitions prisoners from training behind the wire to employment on release has the potential to assist in offenders' transition back into the community. This initiative will be piloted at Hawke's Bay Regional Prison and expanded to other sites around the country if successful.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What else is the department doing to get offenders into work?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Corrections currently has signed 53 memoranda of understanding with employers which provide 429 job placement opportunities to offenders annually. These jobs range from construction to traffic control to meat processing. The department also works with a number of employers informally who take on ex-offenders with suitable jobs post-release. Corrections is continually working with the private sector to expand the number and range of employment opportunities for ex-offenders. Programmes that provide prisoners with the kinds of skills that meet industry needs and target labour shortages in the community benefit both ex-offenders and the community.
9. Police Minister—Statements on Crime Reduction StatisticsDARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of PolicePolice Minister—Statements on Crime Reduction Statistics9. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her statements?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes.Darroch Ball: How can the Minister publicly claim that the Government has reduced crime by 16 percent when the complete data set simply does not exist to back this claim up?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because those are the statistics provided by Statistics New Zealand.Darroch Ball: How can the Minister advise Bill English with any accuracy credibility or validity that crime is reduced by 16 percent when it is based on piecemeal cherry-picked data and the Minister herself has admitted: No single data source is able to provide a complete picture of offending in New Zealand."?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sorry but the member needs to go to the website for Statistics New Zealand.Darroch Ball: Is the Minister aware that of the three sources of data that she quoted to me in answer to a written question as needs for her "fuller picture of crime" the Crime and Safety Survey was conducted in 2014 and is not scheduled again for another 2 more years; her recorded crime victim statistics actually show an increase in victims of crimes for the year ending April; and her recorded crime offender statistics also show an increase in offences for the year ending April?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As I think I have made pretty clear to that member the official site for all statistics of this nature is Statistics New Zealand. In fact if the member wants to ask me about information that we have he is going to get those answers which I have provided to him.Darroch Ball: How can the Minister say that since 2012 crime has dropped by 16 percent when in 2014 the entire system of crime recording changed and offence and apprehension statistics were discontinued meaning that the total number of criminal offences is now not recorded; resolution rates are now not recorded; victimisation data does not include every type of offence; and if an offender has not been identified at an incident it is not even recorded as an offence?Mr SPEAKER: A very long two questions—the Hon Judith Collins.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Speaker I think there are probably about four in there somewhere. But I think that I have made this pretty clear: Statistics New Zealand is the official provider of statistics and I suggest that that member finds its website. It is quite easy really."
8. Corrections Department—Electronic Monitoring BraceletsKELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of CorrectionsCorrections Department—Electronic Monitoring Bracelets8. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she stand by her statement in regards to corrections' new electronic monitoring bracelets that they are almost impossible for offenders to remove without taking off their leg so they have a choice leg or no leg"?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Yes.Kelvin Davis: Given her previous confidence in the new bracelets saying that they would need a chainsaw to cut them off how were they cut through on TV with blunt scissors by Billy Weepu?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As any competent teacher could tell that member almost is not the same as definitely.Kelvin Davis: Why will corrections still be using 1000 of the new bracelets rather than asking for a refund from the provider given they have been shown to be a complete failure?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course they are not what the member has described. In fact Dan Parker that very wiry reporter from NewsHub could not cut through and nor could I but instead NewsHub brought in a brother of an All Black and he eventually got it through.Kelvin Davis: Given that answer can the Minister then assure the public that no offender many of whom have nothing to do in prison but work out has the strength of the mighty Billy Weepu?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member might not realise that most people who go into prison or who have one of these community sentences do not in fact get any sort of electronic monitoring and he should know that.Kelvin Davis: How much has the Department of Corrections spent to date on the thousand new bracelets and does she think that it is an appropriate amount considering they failed to stand up to the ordinary kitchen scissors test.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure if that member really thought about it he would realise that these bracelets are simply one of the tools that corrections uses to monitor offenders in the community and in fact the cost of these is significantly less than the cost of putting people in prison. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order!Kelvin Davis: So is the Minister saying that the choice New Zealand faces is (a) to acquire sturdier bracelets or (b) for the Warehouse to sell blunt scissors?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No not at all."
7. Road Safety—Funding and ImprovementsMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of TransportRoad Safety—Funding and Improvements7. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government's commitment to funding improved road safety across New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Last week the Associate Minister of Transport and I announced a $600 million nationwide road safety programme to help bring down the country's road toll. The programme of work will see safety improvements made to more than 90 high-risk sites on rural State highways including nearly all high-risk roads where there have been five or more fatalities in the last 5 years. It is forecast that the Government's investment will result in 900 fewer deaths and serious injuries on our roads over the next 10 years. This investment is a significant step up in road safety investment by the Government and reinforces our commitment to reducing death and serious injury crashes on New Zealand's roads.Matt Doocey: What road safety improvements are planned for State Highway 1 north of Christchurch?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Waimakariri is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country and we know that many of those living there are commuting in and out of the area on a daily basis. However the stretch of State Highway 1 between Ashley and Belfast to the north of Christchurch has been identified as one of the country's 90 high-risk sites. That is why as part of the Government's safer roads and roadsides programme announced last week we are going to make this stretch of road safer through a range of improvements. Planning for the project will start later this year and construction is likely to begin next year.Ian McKelvie: What road safety improvements are planned for the rural State highways of the lower North Island?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: There is a significant range of improvements that are going to be made to the State highway network in the lower North Island to make it safer for road users. One such project is the stretch of road between State Highway 1 and State Highway 57 in Shannon. Ten million dollars will be spent on a series of improvements that may include side barriers at high-risk spots along the road as well as improved road markings and signage. These improvements will make the road more forgiving of human error helping to reduce the occurrence of crashes in the first place and limiting the severity quite significantly when they do.
5. Overseas Investment—Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Properties and Consent ProcessingRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime MinisterOverseas Investment—Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Properties and Consent Processing5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the statements he made at the Chinese Business Summit on 9 November 2015?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. Xiexie.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he reconcile his Overseas Investment Office statement that the length of time it is taking to make a decision is far too long." with a statement he made a month earlier that "we do not want to see excessive rural land sold to overseas buyers."?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because both are correct. It is not about what is being purchased; it is about the amount of time investors are having to wait. I think if they had a speedier process it would not affect the amount of land that is either approved or not approved but it would be a more predictable process for people. Rt Hon Winston Peters: If his Government's proposal for "less screening less consent processing" and a quicker turn-round is a direct result of consultation with foreign applicants how is that working for all New Zealanders?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly if New Zealand wants to have higher levels of economic growth and job opportunities than we currently have—and in fact that we have had over the last decade or so—then we will need foreign investment to supplement that. Secondly the changes that the Government is proposing have been quite clear when it comes to the Overseas Investment Office and that has been an increase in resourcing to allow it to make its decisions in a faster manner but also to make sure that those who make commitments to the Overseas Investment Office honour those commitments.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he does not want New Zealanders to become "tenants in their own country" then why is he altering the laws of this country to serve the needs of wealthy foreign buyers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the 25 June report of an interview with him suggesting "Local government's infrastructure-building monopoly could be removed and Chinese contractors could potentially take the lead." really mean that he is utterly selling the country down the drain?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I know the member is trying to outdo Nigel Farage at the moment but even his best attempts are going to have to improve from what I saw on TV this morning. Simply having investment in horizontal infrastructure by others rather than just local government may well actually speed up developments and therefore the opportunity for New Zealanders to get houses. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Ron Mark!"
Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is my pleasure to take a call on this the Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill. National does not support this bill. We do believe that it is a supply issue.Maybe I will just talk specifically to Auckland and maybe even my own electorate and say that what we do have to do is build more homes and we are doing that. I can certainly attest that in my own electorate in a subdivision called Millwater—if anyone wants to come up and visit; Phil you are welcome to come and have a look—we have got houses 10 20 30 houses coming online each week and that is mixed housing.But one thing that we do have to get better at—and something that I believe has held us back particularly in Auckland—is that we have to accept the fact that we have to realise that we need intensification. We have to be able to provide high-density housing we have to provide medium-density and low-density housing and certainly in my own electorate of Rodney there has been some resistance around high-density and apartment living. But I can tell you that I had a visit down here a couple of weeks ago from a year 13 class from Ōrewa College and they want to stay in the area. They want to have different options and actually they are very happy to have access to an apartment to get themselves on to the property ladder.I remember myself when I was a young 21-year-old in Auckland just having recently graduated as a new policeman and wanting to get into my first home. Actually I had grown up in East Coast Bays a fairly nice area close to the beach.Phil Twyford: You couldn't do it now Mark.MARK MITCHELL: Well I had to move. I had to move into an area that was Helicon Place which was called Nappy Valley". It was called "Nappy Valley" because they were all low-cost houses and that was the way I actually got myself into the housing market. So we just have to be more clever and more open to the fact that we have got to deliver different forms of housing so that our young people especially have got access and can actually get on to the property ladder. Thank you."
Seymour DavidOVERSEAS INVESTMENT (PROTECTION OF NEW ZEALAND HOMEBUYERS) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 25 May.DAVID SEYMOUR (ACT—Epsom): In the first part of this contribution I was making the point that the price of housing in a market like any other market is set at the margin. It is the price of new homes that is the strongest determinant of what the average price level across the market is going to be and if it is true that there is excessive demand from overseas buyers—if we accept that just for a moment—then concentrating all of that demand on new homes and pushing up the price of new homes is going to push up the price of housing across the market. So the bill simply will not work the way it is designed for very simple economic reasons.Can I conclude by saying that this is part of a worrying trend that came out in the earlier debate this evening—and it is implicit in this bill as well—and that is that there is a rising tide of intolerance of foreigners and xenophobia in many of the bills and much of the debate that we have heard tonight. I think that as we look around the world it is actually a worrying sign that the once-proud liberal Labour Party is bringing in bills such as this and such as the Keep Kiwibank Bill to the House in part because it shows that it has no other imagination but in part because of the quite ugly underlying sentiment that is implicit in the bill. I oppose this bill proudly. Thank you.
Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I find myself following Mr Nash for the second time in 2 days. I want to invite him again to come to the right side of the House where I know his heart lies and I know that his real interest in politics lies. He would probably enjoy the opportunity.I do not believe that this bill is necessary because no one is suggesting that Kiwibank is going to be anything other than 100 percent Crown-owned. In fact the Hon Sir Dr Michael Cullen has spoken publicly and said as chairman of New Zealand Post and as a former Deputy Prime Minister in a Labour Government that it is prepared to look at other opportunities with other Crown-owned organisations. Those opportunities will allow Kiwibank to expand. They will allow Kiwibank to have greater capital and expertise brought into Kiwibank. But that is not a reason for us to be looking at this bill. No one is suggesting—certainly not from the Government side—that Kiwibank should be anything other than Crown-owned.This bill is also an anathema to the normal constitutional issues that were used for a 75 percent majority threshold to vote in this House.Hon David Parker: Keep up. Read the Supplementary Order Paper.JAMI-LEE ROSS: I understand that Mr Parker—yes I have been reading Supplementary Order Paper 185. He may or may not get an opportunity to—Hon David Parker: You blocked it at select committee.JAMI-LEE ROSS: —discuss it in Committee stage. No we did not block it at the select committee. The bill that Clayton Cosgrove drafted which was so appalling did not come with this somewhat more sensible but unnecessary wording attached. Clayton Cosgrove brought us a bill which he was very unenthusiastic about supporting in select committee that would have said that the Parliament of New Zealand would have to vote by a 75 percent threshold if a company owned by a State-owned enterprise should ever be sold. Has that ever been done before? No. Should that ever be done? No. It is not something that we should be doing with our State-owned enterprises.This bill is unnecessary. The select committee by a majority did not support it. It did get through a first reading; we will find out in a minute or two whether it gets through a second reading. But the National Party does not believe it is necessary. There are good controls that are in place through the executive. When it comes to State-owned enterprises they have the ability to get on with the job and do their work but there is still oversight from the executive and that is all that is necessary. The National Party does not support this bill.
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I too oppose this bill. If we can even agree that the Government should maintain ownership of Kiwibank—and I am not sure we do—it is a lazy attempt at ensuring Government ownership. There is no thought about the Companies Act. There is no thought about the consequences of good governance practice. It cuts right across the interests of the shareholders because you are hamstringing the guys who are managing the company. You are hamstringing the board of governors. They are there to do their job to ensure that the company prospers and to act in the best interests of that company. So to bring any action of that governing body into Parliament completely contradicts the purpose of Mr Parker which I assume is to maintain a prosperous and healthy business. For that reason alone I oppose this bill.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking to this Keep Kiwibank Bill. I feel sorry for David Parker I really do. I just cannot understand how he ended up having to front this bill—I think you must have been out of the room when someone was looking around to take it over. Mr Clayton Cosgrove is a very lucky man because this bill has been prepared by someone who does not understand anything about banking or financial arrangements. The best thing I want to say about this bill is that he clearly has no understanding around governance structures and governance arrangements and that previous speaker just demonstrated it.As most people understand State-owned enterprises (SOEs) have a clear governance structure as do all corporations in New Zealand. This bill cuts right across it. No Minister is entitled to tell any SOE what it should be doing at an operational level and I think at a principled level this bill falls over at the first hurdle. The second reason why I think this bill is an absolute nonsense is that it does not say what constitutes a sale—no one has actually addressed what a sale means in this bill.So I will give you four examples—four examples missing in this bill. Firstly if you raise some cash to fund an expansion does that constitute a sale? Secondly if you raise equity to meet increased prudential requirements—as happens with banks all the time—does that constitute a sale? Thirdly what about issuing quasi-debt such as convertible debt instruments as some of my colleagues will understand—does that constitute a sale? Fourthly if you are seeking to sell part of the business which may or may not constitute a majority of the bank's asset does that constitute a sale under the terms of this bill? The clear example of this was that when I looked at the annual report of Kiwibank just the other day I noted in the recent profit announcement it reported $143 million in profit $46 million of which came from the sale of its Australian business for $95 million. What this proposes here is that members of this Parliament should by majority be telling banks what they should be doing and I just think it is fundamentally wrong.
Ross Jami-Lee; Mallard TrevorSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to rise at the conclusion of members' order of the day No. 4 the Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill or 10 p.m. whichever is earlier.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Keep Kiwibank Bill — Second Reading
Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): I rise to take a short call in this Keep Kiwibank Bill second reading. Obviously as a member of the National caucus I oppose this bill. Even the title of the Keep Kiwibank Bill seems a little bit redundant to me. Although I was not part of the select committee that actually looked at this bill the Government has committed to retaining 100 percent ownership of Kiwibank and so to actually debate this in this Chamber seems a little redundant.But before I actually go on to the bill I just want to address some of the comments that the member who just took her seat Julie Anne Genter actually mentioned about wanting to sell off Kiwibank. I just recently—actually last week—was part of a Māori business delegation that went to Korea and Japan to look at businesses and look at the markets over there so that Māori businesses could potentially look for bigger markets overseas. Some of them were even looking for business partnerships—they were looking for investors. Sometimes when businesses are actually running and want to expand to grow their markets having investors can actually build their business so they can take their products and their business to bigger markets. Actually if that member cannot see the benefit of that I just do not know what we can help her with. This is currently a proposal for New Zealand Post—the fact that we are going to keep 100 percent ownership of Kiwibank. We will sell part of Kiwibank to ACC and to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. This will see Kiwibank remain 100 percent Government-owned. Although Kiwibank will not be 100 percent owned by New Zealand Post it will be wholly Government-owned. The proposal will give Kiwibank access to extra sources of capital for future growth and will broaden its exposure to commercial expertise. The bill as it is currently drafted would prevent this transaction from happening.The New Zealand Post proposal includes a right of refusal to ensure that should ACC and the Superannuation Fund ever want to actually sell part of their Kiwibank ownership they will then have to give their first right of refusal to the Government. So to me this bill is actually redundant and unneeded. I oppose this bill.Debate interrupted.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): This is an embarrassing bill for the Parliament to consider. It was an embarrassing bill when it was put up by Clayton Cosgrove as a political stunt. It is a slightly less embarrassing bill for the Labour Party now with David Parker in control of it who has clearly realised that the idea that Parliament would put the ownership of Kiwibank on the same level as the entrenched provisions in the Electoral Act and the Constitution Act 1986—he has clearly realised that is a silly idea and has moderated the bill somewhat or at least has indicated that at the Committee of the whole House stage if it gets there he will moderate the bill somewhat. But it is still an embarrassing bill.This bill was put up as a political stunt. We just had the admission essentially by Mr Robertson that it was done so. It is a seven-clause bill. At the select committee Mr Cosgrove could barely bring himself to defend it. He did so with a smirk on his face knowing the entire time the bill was put into the ballot as a stunt. It had the good fortune to be voted on at first reading and sent to the select committee. The Finance and Expenditure Committee received 15 submissions seven of which were form submissions. So having put the bill into the ballot and having had the good fortune to have it drawn and having had it sent to the select committee the Labour Party cared so little about this hugely important constitutional issue of public ownership of Kiwibank that it could not even be bothered to organise form submissions through a website to blockade—well not blockade but at least bombard—the Finance and Expenditure Committee with a lot of submissions. It could not even be bothered to do that.This bill was an embarrassment when it was drawn it was an embarrassment when it was debated at first reading and it remains an embarrassment today. It is actually to the credit of Mr Parker that he has realised that and he had the misfortune to inherit this bill. Clearly a ballot went round the caucus at some point when Mr Cosgrove decided he was going to indicate he would shuffle off the political mortal coil at some point and he could not take command of the bill any more and David Parker drew the short straw. David Parker drew the short straw and the bill went in his name. To his credit he has put forward a slightly less constitutionally dubious and outrageous Supplementary Order Paper but the bill is still a silly bill. The National Party remains opposed to this piece of political chicanery and we will continue to vote against it at second reading.
Bennett David; Tisch LindsayDAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): National does not support this bill and that was a particularly weak speech from a member who had no interest in this bill and who has taken no interest in it through the select committee process. That really shows that he and the Labour Party intend to butcher what was Clayton Cosgrove's baby and turn it into something that is a weak form of the Keep Kiwibank Bill. Such a watered-down version of the bill really reflects the nature of the Labour Party in that last speaker at this time.Grant Robertson: Do you want a stronger bill?DAVID BENNETT: Well bring on the strong bill. Why has the Labour Party reduced it from 75 percent to a bare majority of 51 percent? Well it has not actually yet. That is subject to Supplementary Order Paper 185 coming to this House. The bill as it stands is still 75 percent and the arguments against that are well-tracked in this House and are very obvious. Why is it 75 percent for this organisation and not for any other Government-owned organisation? What makes Kiwibank special compared with KiwiRail or any other organisation? Why has the Labour Party got a special interest in Kiwibank? The board actually effectively makes the decision not the Government because it is not owned by the Government. It is owned by a State-owned enterprise which would make the decision.Take the scenario that Kiwibank actually gets into trouble. If Kiwibank was in trouble and something like what happened to the BNZ in the mid-1980s happened and there was a decision to sell it then this legislation would effectively stop that sale going through and that could be to the detrimental position of many New Zealand households that could lose out in a time of negative gearing for that bank. This bill does not make sense in any way shape or form. The Labour Party members know that. They have watered it down through a Supplementary Order Paper process. They do not actually stand behind what they believe. If they really believed in entrenching it by 75 percent why do they not stand behind that and take it all the way through the House? No they had to water it down and it is still a pathetic bill and does not deserve to go through this House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Can I just have some quiet please. I am calling Grant Robertson but I would like to hear what he has to say.
Macindoe TimTIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I join others in congratulating the member Adrian Rurawhe on having his bill progress to this point. It is a very significant achievement for an Opposition member and it is no doubt something in which he takes a lot of pride. So I congratulate him and I also support the bill.
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): Just to reiterate what my colleague Simon O'Connor said: no harm can come from this bill. I just want to thank—Hon Christopher Finlayson: A fan of Latin.JOANNE HAYES: Ha ha!Iain Lees-Galloway: Say it in the way he said it.JOANNE HAYES: Say it in Latin! Ha ha! I just want to thank Adrian for bringing it to the House and I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise to support this the Official Information (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Bill. Mr Seymour has made many comments about how the bill will not actually achieve any real purpose because he is so open with information in the work he does and in his office. That is very very true. If there is one positive we could say about this bill and the passage of this bill it is that at least the New Zealand public can take confidence that the openness that Mr Seymour has been exhibiting now in this term of Parliament is now going to be enshrined in a piece of legislation. They do not get anything more out of it except the good warm feeling and confidence that comes from seeing some words in the Act. I commend this bill to the House.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Primum non nocere. This bill does no harm.