edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Kia ora Mr Speaker and thank you for this opportunity to contribute this afternoon. The Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee last year and I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the organisations the individuals and NGOs who made submissions on this bill. I'd also like to acknowledge the right honourable Speaker who was a member of that very collegial select committee. Most of the 322 submissions that were received were opposed to this bill; in fact only four of the submissions were in favour of the bill. We are committed to an immigration system that serves our refugees and asylum seekers with dignity and with respect and adheres to New Zealand's obligations under international law. Many of the refugee and human rights organisations that made very strong submissions at select committee opposing this bill I would like to actually say that we hear your concerns. We also heard concerns from people with lived experience and they were very convincing in the reasons why they were not supporting this bill.There are a number of reasons why so many of the submissions received were opposed and I want to state for the record—especially for new members to the House—that the National Party was also in opposition to this bill last year. Submissions that were received were concerned about the increase in detention time without warrant. Some noted that the refugee convention and its protocol which New Zealand ratified allows refugees rights and entitlements. Some submitters pointed out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which New Zealand seeks to uphold states that everyone has the right to seek asylum in other countries. The previous speakers have already covered in some detail the 96 hours and said that it's not adequate time so I'm not going to cover that again. But there is also the challenge of not having enough refugee immigration and law practitioners. Labour has been very concerned about asylum seekers' processes and procedures for a while and so we commissioned a review. In 2022 the Government at the time received the independent review by Victoria Casey KC which found significant difficulties in asylum seekers being able to access and obtain legal representation. Many asylum seekers arrive in New Zealand with not many resources and in a lot of cases are reliant on our legal aid system. Unfortunately she found that there were only 30 refugee and immigration law practitioners across Aotearoa New Zealand.We are supporting this bill at second reading. However this is conditional support because we would like additional safeguards in response to the many submissions that were received. We would like to bring additional amendments that we hope the Government would be agreeable to at the committee of the whole House stage. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Meager James; Brownlee GerryJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'd like to seek your guidance. I don't know whether this is the right time to raise it and I don't want to interrupt the member Tākuta Ferris but I understand that he did refer to matters in his contribution which are currently before the Justice Committee and which are confidential to the committee. I just want to get some guidance from you as to what the correct course of action would be. SPEAKER: The correct course of action is that—I'm sorry I don't know everything that's going on at all select committees but if there are matters before a select committee that the member has raised in his speech that is a breach of privilege of the House. While it's not you know a terminal offence in any way I'd certainly counsel him not to refer to matters that are part of the decision making of the select committee. Matters that are before the select committee like the name of a bill etc.—yes they can be mentioned but the deliberations considerations of a select committee until they are reported to the House remain private to the select committee.
Annual Review Debate — Transport (Continued)
Simpson Scott; Kuriger BarbaraHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): I move That the committee report progress. Motion agreed to.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Kuriger Barbara; Foster AndyANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Transport (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK I'm just going to explain because we've actually spent a little bit of time focusing on the issue that's just occurred. The Minister has indicated that he can stay here up until 20 to 9 so we will continue the committee stage for a couple more questions and then we'll carry on back into the House business after that.ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I have a question—actually it arose out of the comments Minister you made about coastal shipping and innovative thinking. The circumstances I want to draw to your attention—and this is a South Island question Rachel. You will all be aware of the damage that was done to the Marlborough Sounds roads in the big floods at the end of 2022. We're now in the circumstance where there's a huge amount of putting them back together again and resilience work that's needed to be done; I've actually been had a look at some of it. Particularly in the more extreme Sounds area the cost of the roading solution is actually a really really large cost but it gets a subsidy. So that may for the local council be the cheapest option. However the coastal option doesn't get a subsidy but may be a cheaper option overall for New Zealand Inc." so the combination of ratepayer and taxpayer.So I'm drawing that to your attention and asking if that is something that you could give consideration to and the agency could give consideration to as a lateral way of trying to deliver the outcome at the least possible cost for the best possible benefit."
Doocey Matt; Simpson Scott; Kuriger Barbara; Utikere TangiHon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Transport): Oh thank you—good choice Madam Chair. Look I've got a question to the Minister about the very important motorway proposed from Belfast to Pegasus including the Woodend Bypass and if he had any understanding of the original cost that was proposed when it was first announced by the last National Government in 2017 and what is that increased cost now through six years of inactivity with that road being cancelled under the last Government? And potentially his views on whether the increased costs now—that could have actually funded other stuff in New Zealand; other roads and maintenance. And if Rachel Boyack from Nelson believes there should have been a lot more roading projects on your list why do you think they weren't built in the last six years under her Government?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): Point of order. Madam Chair I just wanted to make it clear that my earlier intervention was a request to recall the Speaker.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ah apologies. So I've just had that question from the Clerks as to whether you said report to the Speaker" so you've clarified that?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): Yes I'm sorry. I may have—it was—TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. Just speaking to that briefly and really it's a matter of process because I think Mr Simpson was asking for a course of action but the presiding officer hasn't ruled on any course of action. So I'm just not quite—the attempt to recall the—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well my understanding to Mr Simpson's point of order that I would—because the situation is now under control that I would report what happened back to the Speaker and then come back to the House as to what was resolved. But I now understand that Mr Simpson was asking for something further.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): Well it was an unprecedented incident in my experience Madam Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I understand the point of order.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —and so I'm a little bit in the hands of the committee. But I think that the incident warranted an intervention and I understand that the process of the House requires intervention to occur as soon as is practical after an incident.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK yep.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: It was a serious intimidatory physical attack upon another member in this Chamber and that's unacceptable.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So I have got advice here from the clerk just on that point of order that if a member wants to recall the Speaker by convention that the Speaker can be recalled. So at this point we would ask for the Speaker to be recalled please. Sorry to Mr Simpson I misunderstood what you said.Debate interrupted."
O'Connor Greg; Brown SimeonGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Madam Chair. The Minister spoke of the range of activities in his purview as Minister. One of them of course is under the Civil Aviation Authority and air traffic. Is he aware that where there are changes to flight paths notified under what's called a DMAP system which is divergent missed approach protection system that there are obligations which must be met by the agencies particularly around consultation and notification? Has he been briefed on where those obligations have not been met particularly in relation to changes at Wellington Airport and proposed changes which are about to take place at Auckland Airport?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yes I'm aware of those obligations. I'm not 100 percent sure right now whether—I don't think I've been briefed on those specific changes recently but I'll certainly go and ask for one. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Well perhaps if I can clarify: have you been briefed on breaches to those obligations to notify and to consult?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Not that I'm aware of but I'll go and double-check.
McCallum Grant; Brown SimeonGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd just like to address to the Minister the opportunity cost that's arisen from the lack of the roads of national significance programme after the last few years. We recently had a study done in Northland which showed that in excess of $2 billion of benefits potentially could come to the Northland economy with a four-lane highway to the North and we've recently seen the Brynderwyns which were going to be opened in a couple of weeks suffer a significant collapse. So what would be the impact of a decent roads of national significance programme for this country and for the provinces like Northland?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well I thank the member for the question. I acknowledge that it is tough for Northlanders right now with the Brynderwyns closed. That is a really important part of our State highway network but I also acknowledge that the Mangamukas are also closed due to resilience issues. The New Zealand Transport Agency chose to close it on the basis that that was the most efficient and cost-effective and safe way to be able to make critical improvements to extend the life of that roading project by somewhere up to seven to 10 years. So I have 100 percent support for the agency's decision on that yet I also accept that it's had a huge impact on Northland and the impact of having to go on those detours. The news we heard today that that is going to be closed for longer is not great but ultimately that is why we have as a Government outlined Whangārei to Auckland as a road of national significance which is really really important for resilience but also for economic growth and productivity. We've seen the benefits that the Waikato Expressway has brought to the Waikato and to Auckland and the economic growth and productivity opportunities that that has presented and we see those opportunities for Northland as well. So the agency is working at pace around that looking at funding and financing options what that may look like but ultimately it is critically important that we work at pace on that route due to the serious resilience issues of that existing road as well.
Rutherford Tom; Brown SimeonTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Chair. It's been a great debate so far looking back. I'm keen to hear from the Minister of Transport around the Auckland regional fuel tax. I'm keen to know how much was collected by the previous Government on it what it was spent on and how much was unspent. I'm keen to know really did it achieve what it was set up to achieve or did it just punish more Aucklanders at the pump?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I thank the member for that question. That was a fuel tax put in place by the last Government effectively charging Aucklanders an extra 11.5c per litre every time they filled up their car. Ultimately when the fuel tax was put in place Aucklanders were told this was going to build Mill Road—major infrastructure projects like that. Well it raised I think something like $700 million or $750 million and it spent about $450 million. There was about $300 million unspent when we came into Government. So about $300 million actually raised from Aucklanders—about two years' worth of Auckland regional fuel tax had been collected off Aucklanders but hadn't actually been spent. So that's one problem with the regional fuel tax.Instead of people getting Mill Road every time they filled up their car they thought they were filling up their car and they'd get Mill Road built a bit faster actually they get a speed bump. And not just one but dozens and dozens of them across Auckland which were of course costing—and I know my colleague from the Green Party doesn't like me saying this but one of them costing $490000.Tom Rutherford: How much?Hon SIMEON BROWN: $490000. So the reality is Aucklanders were being taxed more to be slowed down rather than to get actual infrastructure delivered. And so of course on coming to Government we passed legislation. The tax will end on 1 July—two months from today.
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Lu NancyNANCY LU (National): I stand before you to take this to take this split call to support the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill at its second reading. This bill in my opinion is an essential step forward in the evolution of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund because it aims to repeal and replace the current restrictions that limit the fund's ability to take a controlling interest in entities. At its core when I read this amendment it seeks to empower the fund by removing these limitations thereby granting the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation the ability to take a controlling interest in a variety of entities. This change is not merely administrative; it is a transformative shift that aligns our Superannuation Fund with global best practices and that essentially positions it to capitalise on significant investment opportunities here in New Zealand and also around the world. The landscape of global investment is rapidly evolving. Internationally sovereign wealth funds are increasingly directly engaged with markets exerting influence to steer business towards a more sustainable ethical and responsible practice. So by allowing the Guardians to take a controlling interest we are actually aligning ourselves with progressive trends around the world to ensure that our fund is not a passive spectator but a proactive participant in shaping the future of our investment.Moreover this amendment bill is about enhancing the economic opportunities for New Zealand. So by expanding the scope of our potential investments the Guardians will have access to a broader array of partnership opportunities that bring not only financial returns but a strategic benefit for our economy. Whether it's in technology renewable energy rural land infrastructure or healthcare having the ability to take a controlling stake ensures that the fund can secure a meaningful influence in these major key sectors fostering innovation and growth. So ultimately I believe we are providing a better future for all New Zealanders and their superannuation. This bill also champions really the integration of ESG—environmental social and governance—criteria in investment decisions because it enables the Guardians to hold a controlling interest as they equip them with the leverage needed to encourage companies to invest in more sustainable practices. This is an approach that aligns with global standards and it also resonates very strongly with the values of our society. I support this bill because we are endorsing a vision—a vision of having a more dynamic influential and responsible fund that would only bring our fund in line with the best practices in the world. So I commend this bill to the House.
Privacy Amendment Bill — First Reading
Garcia Paulo; Brownlee GerryPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): We live in a very rapidly digitising world with artificial intelligence (AI) assisting a lot of technology. We have AI chat boxes popping up on our screens all the time. Our information is held on our phones. We probably have our passports our bank accounts everything on our phones. Everything is online and it's moving really quickly. This is a fantastic thing and we are happy that in New Zealand we have an adequacy status from the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It is one of those rare moments when we are happy to be considered adequate having this status of adequacy but what it really means is that New Zealand is a fantastic place to be. It is a good place in the world to do business. In fact the adequacy status that we have is not enjoyed by many countries around the world and having lived and worked in other countries myself the enjoyment and the privilege of having a high level of privacy protection in New Zealand is indeed something to be proud of.We enjoy a lot of trade relations with other countries and New Zealand boasts a high level of technological business in the digital economy including our video and gaming industries which are all online. With this it is important to note that the adequacy status that we have is the fruit of a privacy regulation that was established quite a while ago with the adequacy status being provided us in 2013—over a decade ago. And looking at the rapid escalation of AI and biometrics and the risks that come along with these developments—risks that have not been accounted for; for example risks to children and the privacy of children—we have to look forward and the EU's GDPR has been closely working with our Privacy Commissioner ensuring that we are looking ahead and making sure that we are continuing to meet our international obligations.There has been a loophole in our Privacy Act which this Privacy Amendment Bill seeks to remedy and that is in information privacy principle 3 when agencies acquire our personal information. That personal information would be our names and our addresses and the purposes for the information being collected and the rights of our access to and correction of that record when directly requested of us by agencies is already protected. However there is that loophole which this bill seeks to amend which is when other agencies take our information from what is already out in the digital world. What this bill seeks to do is to ensure that we are notified and made aware when our information is taken from outside in the digital world and not directly from us.So this is an amendment that keeps our own Privacy Act in tempo with the rest of the world. We commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.SPEAKER: The question is That the Privacy Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Mr Speaker thank you. Oh gosh what's left to say about the Privacy Amendment Bill at this time on a Thursday early evening? The Privacy Amendment Bill is well known to us. It was one of those things that we were doing the work on in the last Government so we're very pleased to see that the coalition Government has decided to carry that on and bring it to the House. I suspect that there's not been an awful lot of competition for new bills and pieces of legislation to make their way to this House so we are the benefactors of that by being able to get this one done. It's an excellent bill. It improves transparency and strengthens the individual privacy rights as almost everybody has commented on today. But I do want to also take the chance to reiterate that it's almost a little bit ironic that it's yet another example of those really important things that we take for granted—and shouldn't take for granted—and we all value when we get the opportunity to talk about the importance of these things and they're done by those very important people who sometimes get referred to as back-office staff". So that's a little bit ironic. But certainly today Labour supports this bill and I commend it to the House."
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Labour is in support of this bill. It's something that we brought in when in Government. It's an important bill that goes a long way to addressing strengthening the privacy framework in New Zealand to make sure that people are well informed when any particular agency is gathering their personal information. It also introduces a new obligation on those agencies to inform when their information is collected and in doing this it brings New Zealand's laws in line with international best practice—and in an increasingly connected world we need to make sure that that is in line. It improves the real way that transparency of Government works in New Zealand which is a good thing. We have according to Transparency International some of the world's lowest perceived corruptions in ensuring people understand what is going on and where their information is being used and this bill will go a long way in strengthening it.I guess I'd just like to wrap up with a word of warning that a lot of this work that is critical would be classified by those members opposite as back of office. This is exactly the type of work that is well in line for cuts in the Public Service. If we want to be best practice in the world if we want high-quality privacy practices and we want this bill to be implemented then we will be calling upon people whose desks will soon be vacant. As we cut and cull the Public Service those opposite will slowly learn that the papers and the information that they rely on upon to pass their laws and have their policy made are less likely to occur as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): I just want to thank the previous speaker Celia Wade-Brown for pointing out that we do live in a multi-party world. Isn't it wonderful that we have a coalition Government made up of three parties who are taking New Zealand forward?Today I'm speaking on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Privacy Amendment Bill. It's going to significantly increase the transparency of data handling practices by mandating that public agencies inform individuals when their personal information is collected from third parties. Transparency is absolutely crucial for our compliance with international norms and best practices such as those outlined in the European Union's general data protection regulations. Aligning New Zealand's privacy standards with such rigorous international frameworks will enhance domestic data protection and actually set New Zealand up well to operate on the global stage when our businesses are using data that is acquired in the EU for example.This bill does address a significant loophole in legislation by introducing a requirement for indirect data collection notifications. Now I'm assuming that what that will mean for many of us is that our inboxes will fill up with notifications from agencies every time they acquire a piece of data about us. But if Kiwis get sick of that at least they can be confident that they know who knows what about them as well as all of the other services they're already subscribed to and of course every time they click I accept cookies" when they go online.We are intending to safeguard the country's data while ensuring that New Zealand remains an attractive location for international business and tech innovation here by aligning New Zealand's privacy and data collection laws with those of our trading partners. That is why ACT will be supporting this bill and we trust that it will get a good hearing at the Justice Committee and that parties across the House will continue to support it until it's passed into law. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Wade-Brown CeliaCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I stand to support this Privacy Amendment Bill. I'm here for the Green Party to support that. We have a strong commitment to scrutinising intrusive personal surveillance monitoring of electronic communications and the storage and exchange of personal data which is covered by this amendment.Controls on privacy of personal information the aggregation of information and the exchange between both Government agencies and private agencies are critical to transparency and individual privacy rights. The key purpose of the bill is to improve transparency for individuals about the collection of their personal information. It will better enable them to exercise their privacy rights whether that information is held by a private or a public agency.The new notification obligation will update our privacy laws to be in line with international best practice. As James Meager said in the initial consultation certain private agencies did express concern about compliance costs but the right to know who holds data about you trumps in my view and our view that cost. Now the detail of balancing the sovereignty of personal data with the costs the detail of the exemptions to the information privacy principle (IPP) 3A for public safety security and international relations—that's pretty broad. I'm sure that those will be teased out at select committee and be subject to the Privacy Commissioner's input and I'm pleased to see that the Privacy Commissioner has been involved at all stages of the development of this bill.So in conclusion we support this bill at its first reading and it is a pleasure to see multi-partisan—and I would like just to take a moment to remind the legacy parties that it's a little bit out of date to talk about bipartisan in an MMP Parliament. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. We support the Privacy Amendment Bill. I must say it sounded very technical when the Minister the Hon Nicole McKee was introducing it there but in fact if you think about it it's just about knowing who holds your information.The prior bill that we were talking about the Contracts of Insurance Bill is actually a really good example. Insurers will often gather information from credit reporting agencies financial institutions like banks health information from your doctor and so on and so they become a repository of a significant amount of personal information that they've got from third parties. Ordinary folk don't necessarily appreciate that they're holding that information and of course we know that under the Privacy Act and the principles you are entitled both to know that information is held and to see it and to correct it if it's inaccurate. Of course if you don't know it's held all of the other things kind of fall apart.So it's actually a very straightforward addition to the Privacy Act to say that when third parties collect information unless there is really good reason not to they've got to let you know that they hold it. And when they do it then triggers—essentially gives power to—all of those other privacy rights. So it's a key plank of an effective privacy law. As the Minister says it aligns us with privacy law in other jurisdictions and that's important as well.There's not really a lot more to say about this bill. It's a good bill it enhances our privacy law and it makes sure that people who do collect information from third parties do right and let individuals know that they hold that information. So it does that main thing which is give autonomy to individuals in respect of personal information held about them. That's the guts of it. We commend it to the House.
Xu-Nan Lawrence; Seymour David; Bates Carl; Tuiono TeanauDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): So a follow-up question from that: considering that the before-profit early childhood education (ECE) companies take a huge amount of money from taxpayer funding how would the Minister expect to ensure that the early learning action plan is still upheld from the perspective of accountability and sustainability and ensure that there is transparency of the taxpayer funding being delivered to for-profit companies and that taxes are being paid properly and are not being funnelled into offshore areas?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Oh no we've gone from anti-business sentiment to outright xenophobia. There's now totally unfounded accusations that early childhood education centres are actually funnelling money that they should have paid tax on into foreign corporations. Now I'm just going to give the member an opportunity to say if he's got any evidence to substantiate that. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you Mr Chair—Hon David Seymour: He's had a chance—are you calling me Mr Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yes we'll have Hon David Seymour then we'll come to you Carl. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): So he had an opportunity to stand up and say if he had any basis for accusing the early childhood education centre of funnelling money that they should have paid tax on into foreign corporations. There we have xenophobia and false accusations of tax evasion by the early childhood sector. That's what the Green Party offers the early childhood sector here in New Zealand. Well to address the other questions apart from the unfounded accusations of tax evasion and the xenophobia there's actually no reason that any of those things are true and when it comes to the quality here's the question: who is best to judge the quality of an early childhood education centre? Someone called parents"—parents who love their kids parents who can see how their kids are being looked after that they're safe that they're being well looked after and that they're learning valuable lessons at the centre. That is the primary way that people understand the quality.Secondly there is also the Education Review Office and there is also the Ministry of Education in their licensing capacity. It has to be said that all of these things are now being reviewed because as we heard from the unions—or at least their members—overwhelmingly they are concerned by the excessive regulation put on the early childhood education sector. So we will have a much better set of measures over time that evaluate the outcomes that we're getting for around $2.7 billion worth of taxpayer money going into ECE and if the member does know of any tax evasion by anyone in the sector I would advise him to ring the 0800 hotline at the IRD."
12. Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer AffairsCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs12. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has he made regarding regulations in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): The coalition Government recently announced two important but related announcements relating to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) which has plagued personal and mortgage lending over recent years. Firstly we are removing 11 pages of overly prescriptive affordability regulations to consumer and mortgage lending so people can more easily borrow money when and if they need it. And secondly we're streamlining and enhancing dispute-resolution services so Kiwis are properly protected if they are subject to poor lending practices.Cameron Brewer: Why were these reforms a priority for the coalition Government?Hon ANDREW BAYLY: First of all these changes were part of the National-ACT coalition agreement but secondly they were a priority because the regulations introduced by the previous Government were so bad that they harmed the very people they were meant to protect. This coalition Government is committed to cutting red tape and these regulations were a handbrake and did more harm than good.Cameron Brewer: How will removing 11 pages of regulations from the CCCFA help people get a mortgage or personal loan?Hon ANDREW BAYLY: By removing these regulations it will bring back more balance to the need to properly assess affordability with the need for Kiwis to access finance when they need it. At the moment many reputable lenders simply do not offer small personal loans because of the overbearing compliance cost. It is families who have worked hard to buy a house who can't actually get a mortgage because they have to jump through unnecessary hoops.Cameron Brewer: Does the Minister have any further plans regarding the CCCFA?Hon ANDREW BAYLY: In the coming weeks we'll begin consulting on the legislative changes to the CCCFA reforms. But I'll just say this is just the beginning of reforms that will help improve Kiwis' access to finance cut red tape and help rebuild the economy.
9. Question No. 9—Disability IssuesPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for Disability IssuesQuestion No. 9—Disability Issues9. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What recent announcements if any has the Minister made?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Thank you Mr Speaker. This morning I announced an independent review of Disability Support Services. Our Government is committed to improving the lives of disabled New Zealanders. This review aims to ensure that support services enhance the lives of disabled people in the long term. We've already committed additional funding this financial year to ensure disabled people get the services they need.Paulo Garcia: Why is the independent review of Disability Support Services needed?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Substantial challenges have been encountered delivering support services. Despite the hard work of many the current track is unsustainable. Something has to be done. The review aims to ensure that support services enhance the lives of disabled people and gives them certainty about access to support. Whaikaha - the Ministry of Disabled People welcomes this review and I look forward to working with them.Paulo Garcia: How long will the review take?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I should review recommendations within four months. Once the review is complete I will consult the disability community seeking their feedback. I'm committed to listening to the views of disabled people their families and their carers before making changes.SPEAKER: Supplementary question the Hon—oh sorry—Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Priyanca.SPEAKER: Sorry?Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Priyanca.SPEAKER: Priyanca Radhakrishnan. I was going to call you Krishna—Radha—Priyanca. Sorry apologies.Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Can I go now?SPEAKER: Yeah OK.Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Will this review which was already announced on 26 March this year include the option of reversing the changes to disability support funding that were announced and implemented on 18 March?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The terms of reference of the review are now public. We want to ensure that we understand the issues that were created when the ministry was set up; to understand the issues they face today; but more importantly what we need to do to fix these challenges so that disabled New Zealanders get access to the support they need.Paulo Garcia: Is this the first time in recent years Disability Support Services have been reviewed?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. The ministry was created to improve Disability Support Services and it was established quickly which meant longstanding challenges weren't addressed. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: We get things done on this side!Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The latest Government's implementation unit—you might want to listen to this. The last Government's implementation unit raised red flags in 2023 about the viability of Disability Support Services. Clearly challenges were always known and the last Government did not address them. Our Government will confront these challenges so disabled people are assured that there is ongoing support for years to come.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: Has she seen any recent reports on tax?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. I have seen a report from the OECD on fiscal drag and indexation of personal taxes. It explains how in a progressive tax system nominal wage growth leads to larger tax burdens. This includes wage growth that simply reflects inflation. If personal income tax thresholds are not adjusted over time workers end up paying more and more of their income in tax.Stuart Smith: Can the Minister give an example of fiscal drag in New Zealand?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The example I like to use in New Zealand is the median full-time wage and salary earner. In 2011 that person earned $48000 a year and paid 15.5 percent of their income in tax. Today they earn $73400—Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: John Key's fault.Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and pay 20.6 percent of their income in tax. This is the consequence of not adjusting tax thresholds for 14 years. The average tax rate for someone who is by definition right in the middle of the income distribution has gone up by more than 5 percentage points. The Leader of the Opposition seems very concerned about the lack of adjustment to tax thresholds. Well he had six years and he ignored working people and made no adjustment.Stuart Smith: How do other countries deal with fiscal drag?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: More than half of OECD countries index their personal income tax thresholds. The report I referred to in my primary answer shows that of the 38 OECD countries around 17 automatically adjust thresholds for inflation or some other index. Those countries include Canada the United States Denmark France Norway and Sweden.Stuart Smith: What do other OECD countries do about fiscal drag?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said most OECD countries index tax thresholds. Of the rest most have decided on a discretionary basis to adjust thresholds and/or rates over the last decade or so to provide tax relief including Australia the United Kingdom and Germany. Only a very small minority of OECD countries have decided not to provide personal income tax relief since 2010 and in fact have raised taxes. Those countries include Portugal Greece and New Zealand.
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill — Instruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee
Utikere Tangi; Brownlee GerryTANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you. This is a important and serious issue and I listened intently to you. I was surprised to hear the Government seek a closure motion because at the time when this issue was being raised with you you said all members will have a say on this. So I've been seated here gathering my thoughts given the undertaking that I was going to take a call—wanting to clarify that that is still the undertaking; that all members will be given an opportunity given the seriousness of this given that that is what you had said at the time.SPEAKER: Well I think when it comes to the House of course you know there's a degree of organisation around it for a debate like this and I think the key word is could"."
Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Rutherford Tom; O'Connor GregTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Mr Speaker the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill is a superb piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7 p.m.
Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
Kuriger Barbara; McAnulty Kieran; Utikere TangiClause 3 Principal Act CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to clause 3. This is the debate on the Principal Act. It's a very narrow clause.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Could you please inform the committee which of the brief number of contributions in the previous clause were repetitive and irrelevant. Because whilst I do not intend to challenge the ruling it did come as some surprise. We do want to contribute alongside—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): There were not irrelevant calls. It was that the Minister had answered a very important question about why this needed to be done urgently and clarified those questions. I don't believe anything that was asked was irrelevant but the Minister did answer them.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): On that basis then it surely would be in order to meet the criteria or qualify for a closure that contributions were no longer meeting what is required. If it was simply a case that in your view you felt the Minister had answered the questions then it is impossible for both the Chair or the committee to determine whether those that were seeking the call would not be able to introduce new material which up to this point has been the requirement.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah it was based on my judgment of the urgency around the question that particularly Ms Boyack was asking. And it was my judgment that that had been satisfied. It was urgent and the Minister took a lot of advice and answered the question. So we'll move on to clause 3.TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you Madam Chair—thank you for elucidating on that. I guess the struggle that some members on this side of the House might then have is that there were members who were seeking the call but without being granted the ability to take the call the committee was then not in a position to adjudicate as to what that member was going to say which would be considered repetitive or anything else. So I guess we're trying to seek some guidance that yes we understand the House is in urgency but at the same time it's very difficult to understand what calls might be repetitive or not if they haven't been given an opportunity to seek that.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. So I made a decision. And under Standing Order 137(3) The Speaker may accept a closure motion if in the Speaker's opinion it is reasonable to do so." And I've made that decision that it was reasonable under the circumstances of what was being asked.So the question is that clause 3 stand part."
Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
Kuriger Barbara; Doocey MattClause 2 Commencement CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to clause 2 and this is the debate on commencement.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I just want to respond to Rachel Boyack who asked the question about numbers impacted. I've been advised we don't have specific numbers impacted but half of the money paid into the work account gets paid by instalments. Just be mindful that's not only the 10-month instalment where a debit interest charge is applied that will also be the three- and six-month instalments. And I'd also like to say that when we think about people impacted charging debit interest ensures that offering instalment plans does not disadvantage levy payers who are actually paying in a lump sum on the due date. And that's why I believe this to be prudent and reasonable practice.
Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Accident Compensation (Interest on Instalment Plans) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill — Instruction to the Primary Production Committee
Goldsmith Paul; Brownlee GerryInstruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move That the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill be reported to the House by 18 July 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196 and that the committee's powers be extended under Standing Order 295(1)(b) to consider out-of-scope amendments set out on Amendment Paper No 41 in the name of the Hon Simeon Brown. SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill — First Reading
Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Pugh MaureenIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we are in committee on the Waste Minimisation (Waste Disposal Levy) Amendment Bill and we are starting with Part 1 which is the debate on clauses 4 to 12—amendments to the principal Act—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Stuart Smith: Point of order Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68 Noes 47.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Tracey McLellan's tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace (Collection Costs—Budget Measures)" with "(Making Money on Debt Collection)" is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace "(Collection Costs—Budget Measures)" with "(Increase of Charges for Local Body Debt Collection)" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 1 agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on the question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 15Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 3 agreed to.