edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
12. Community and Voluntary Sector Minister—Statements on NGOsJAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary SectorCommunity and Voluntary Sector Minister—Statements on NGOs12. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that it is not the way this Government works" in relation to his comments threatening funding cuts for organisations that spoke against the Government?Hon ALFRED NGARO (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Yes I do.James Shaw: Then will the Minister ensure that any NGOs that publicly critique Government policies and action are protected from the threat of having their funding cut?Hon ALFRED NGARO: All agencies are able to advocate to give advice and support to any of the strategies that Government has.James Shaw: Given that answer Victoria University research found that 15 percent of Government funding agreements "stated explicitly that they must not make public comment on government policies and action …" will he now advocate for the removal of such clauses in those contracts?Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have not seen that report so I cannot give any advice.James Shaw: Will the Minister consider altering clauses in the contract negotiations being concluded this June and July to ensure that NGOs such as those working with the homeless are able to critique Government policy?Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have no ministerial responsibility for the contracting of those particular services that the member is talking about.James Shaw: If he heard that senior officials had contacted NGOs to imply a threat to their funding following public statements critiquing the Government would he say that that was unacceptable behaviour and not how this Government works?Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have not heard of any of those reports that the member has relayed. I know and trust that in the front line of all our workers they do the best job possible.James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was whether he would say that that kind of behaviour was acceptable not whether he had heard of it or not.Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to refer to Speaker's ruling 180/3. Members can ask hypothetical questions but it is not required that the Minister responds to such a hypothesis—a very learned ruling given by Jonathan Hunt some years ago."
10. Refrigerant and Air Conditioning Industry—Environmental Impacts of Synthetic GasesJOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for the EnvironmentRefrigerant and Air Conditioning Industry—Environmental Impacts of Synthetic Gases10. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister for the Environment: What steps is the Government proposing to address the environmental impacts of synthetic gases used by the refrigerant and air conditioning industry?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Last week we announced a plan to reduce by 80 percent the importation of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) gases over 20 years. These gases have a global warming effect up to 15000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The plan will reduce New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions by over 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. The environmental benefit of this initiative is equivalent to shutting down the Huntly coal-fired power station or replacing half a million cars with electric vehicles. It is part of our plan for achieving the minus 30 by 2030 Paris target.Joanne Hayes: What portion of the global warming problem is attributable to the synthetic gases used by the refrigerating industry and what agreements have been reached globally to address the problem?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is estimated that these gases make up about 14 percent of the global greenhouse gas emission issue so they are about one-seventh of the problem internationally. Left unabated the use of these gases alone would raise global temperatures by about 0.5 degree Celsius. New Zealand played a very active role in securing the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase out these gases. The plan we have announced will have New Zealand exceed those obligations and be one of the first countries in the world to ratify the agreement.Joanne Hayes: Does the Minister have confidence that the industry will be able to reduce the use of HFCs so that these ambitious 80 percent reductions can be achieved?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I do. The industry has shown that it is up to the environmental challenge over the past 20 years in the way that it has responded to the problem of ozone-depleting chemicals and phased out their use. We have met our Montreal Protocol obligations and this treaty's success is seeing the ozone hole reduce. It is estimated that 2 million cases of skin cancer per year have been saved as a consequence of that agreement. It now makes good sense that internationally and domestically we are now employing those same tools that have been successful in addressing the ozone issue to now assist in addressing the problem of climate change.
7. Emissions Trading Scheme—EfficacyDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Prime MinisterEmissions Trading Scheme—Efficacy7. DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes.Denis O'Rourke: If he stands by his statement that the emissions trading system (ETS) tells us that if you pay the price for carbon that helps us find the most efficient means of changing the climate" can he cite any example anywhere where a tax has demonstrably helped to reduce the emissions causing climate change?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In answer to the first question yes; in answer to the second question the New Zealand electricity market.Denis O'Rourke: Is his Government's emissions trading scheme a reverse Robin Hood given that it has already transferred over $2.3 billion from hard-working families businesses and farmers to foreign carbon traders?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In the past we have welcomed New Zealand First's support for the carbon trading system. As I recall it the leader of New Zealand First was an advocate for the forestry industry which is one of the industries that have helped to contribute to the successful operation of the emissions trading system.Denis O'Rourke: Why is his Government still transferring $1.4 billion every year to enrich foreign traders operating in a failed and immeasurable ETS?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I just do not agree with the member's assertion.Denis O'Rourke: How can he falsely say that the emissions trading system has "multiparty … support" when New Zealand First would abolish it so that the $1.4 billion could be invested in a range of other actions including research and development insulating homes planting forests and implementing electrification in transport?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would say it has multiparty support because it has. New Zealand First did support it when it came in and in fact if the member wanted those things to happen and they were worthwhile then under the emissions trading system they will happen. In fact some of them are happening now because of the emissions trading system."
3. Budget 2017—Social Investment Health Spending and Government Medium-term Financial PositionMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of FinanceBudget 2017—Social Investment Health Spending and Government Medium-term Financial Position3. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2017 make a difference to New Zealanders most in need?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Improving public services is one of the key priorities of this Government and in this Budget to ensure all New Zealanders have the opportunity to lead successful independent lives. The Prime Minister announced the other day a $321 million social investment package that will form part of the Budget. This is an initiative that tackles our most challenging social issues by intervening early and using evidence and data to design the initiatives. The Government is focused on targeted investments in the areas where we can make the most difference. Too often past Governments have judged success only by what they spend rather than what difference the spending makes to people's lives.Matt Doocey: What investment has the Government made in the health sector?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As part of Budget 2017 the Government has made two announcements already: investing an extra $60 million over 4 years to enable Pharmac to provide more New Zealanders with access to new medicines. That will take Pharmac's total budget for next year to a record $870 million which is a $220 million increase in the annual budget since 2008. The Government is also investing an additional $59.2 million to ensure all road ambulance call-outs are double-crewed. This will create 375 new emergency medical and paramedic roles across the country over the next 4 years to ensure patients get the best ambulatory care possible.Matt Doocey: How will New Zealanders retain access to entitlements during unexpected shocks?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes have taught us all that shocks can come along at any time. That is why it is important to build fiscal resilience to ensure that when shocks do occur the Government can continue to support New Zealanders. The Government has a target to reduce net debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020 and will set a new medium-term fiscal target of reducing net debt to between 10 and 15 percent of GDP by 2025 to build that resiliency so we can respond if and when required.Matt Doocey: What risks does the Minister foresee to the Crown's financial position over the medium term?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The significant investments that I have already talked about and in fact Budget 2017 overall rely on a couple of key factors. The first is making sure the Government's books remain in surplus while restraining the State's spending requirements. The second is a growing economy. The Government does need to ensure that its strong economic plan continues to deliver stable growth and this momentum needs to be maintained to ensure that New Zealand is in the best position to weather future shocks.
2. Government Financial Position—Surplus Treasury Forecasts and Tax RatesDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of FinanceGovernment Financial Position—Surplus Treasury Forecasts and Tax Rates2. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: What are Treasury's forecast OBEGAL surpluses for each year to 2021 according to the December Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): According to the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) the Crown's operating balance before gains and losses surpluses rise from $473 million in the current financial year to $3.34 billion in 2017-18 $5.31 billion in 2018-19 $6.7 billion in 2019-20 and $8.5 billion in 2020-21. If the member would like me to read him the rest of HYEFU I am happy to do so.David Seymour: Does he agree with Prime Minister Bill English who said Lower personal tax rates reward [effort] and give people an increased incentive to up-skill develop new products and services and get ahead under their own steam. This has strong benefits for the economy."; and if he does not agree why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That sounds like an eminently sensible quote from the Prime Minister.Hon David Parker: Does the Minister of Finance have any advice for the questioner who is a member of Parliament earning more than $150000 who cannot afford to save to buy a house?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be minor ministerial responsibility does the Minister have any advice?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would say that my suggestion to anybody in that situation would be to first probably put some money in the bank. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting so can I get a bit less interjection from my left.David Seymour: Does he agree with former Prime Minister John Key who said "the argument will be 'why is the Government when debt is well and truly on track for its target of GDP to be below 20 per cent why is the Government building bigger and bigger surpluses?' "; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not recall that particular quote from the former Prime Minister but I was generally in agreement with most of the things that he said.David Seymour: Is it the case that the Minister really agrees with former Labour Minister of Finance Sir Michael Cullen who said "$8.5 billion surplus and still no tax cuts. So? What's the connection between the two? None."? If he does not agree with that quote from Sir Michael Cullen what exactly has changed in the last 9 years?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I find I generally do not agree with the quotes of the former Labour Minister of Finance Sir Michael Cullen and I do not see any particular reason to change my view on that quote.David Seymour: If Treasury is indeed forecasting surpluses that add to $24 billion over the next 4 years and he agrees that lower personal tax rates increase growth and productivity then would he like to visit and use ACT's tax plan to find out how much he could save if he adopted ACT's tax policy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I thank the member for his advice. I have indeed visited that website and one thing I found is that actually it had a lot more policy than the Labour Party website that I went to."
Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Genter Julie AnneJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Kia ora. Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. What I want to speak about in this bill has to do with the Government's spin on electric vehicles because it is very very clear that the Minister of Transport Simon Bridges would like to give the appearance of supporting a transition to electric vehicles. That is great. I applaud him for having the ambition to at least demonstrate that he is supportive of the idea of electric vehicles by showing up to all the photo opportunities every time a charger station is opened or announced. Of course his Government had nothing to do with funding them or investing in them.What is really sad about this bill is that it actually is not going to do anything to make electric vehicles more attractive to people who would like to purchase them. Treasury gave that advice to the Minister and to the Government. It said very clearly that the major barrier to people buying electric vehicles is the upfront purchase price and so unless we have a policy that does something to reduce the expense of buying a new electric vehicle people are not going to be able to do it. So I think it is a bit disingenuous and a bit hypocritical really for the Minister who is on a very high salary and can afford to buy an electric vehicle himself to go out there exhorting people and businesses to buy electric vehicles when he has not actually done anything to make it more affordable and realistic for them to make that purchase.Of course the worst part of this bill—the one part that we really do not support—is allowing electric vehicles to use bus lanes. That is actually going to be incredibly disruptive to the operation of public transport in our major towns and cities. That is completely counter-productive when we are trying to reduce carbon pollution from transport and we are trying to create cities that are more livable more affordable and easier to get around. The facts are that allowing electric vehicles to use bus lanes will make traffic worse for people in the bus lanes and people outside the bus lanes. We have the numbers to back that up. It is funny because Minister Simon Bridges said to me earlier that the reason Auckland Transport and all the transport planners did not support the policy was that they were left wing. I informed him that in fact—Hon Simon Bridges: And now you wonder why I can't be honest with you Julie Anne.JULIE ANNE GENTER: Geometry is not right or left wing Simon. It is not right or left wing; it is just geometry. And the geometry of it is that buses move many more people than cars do so buses are a far more efficient way of moving lots of people around towns and cities than individual cars are.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
O'Connor Simon; Tisch LindsaySIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I was a little bit concerned about that last speech by Tracey Martin. It was sort of like one of those early versions of electric vehicles. It sort of ran out of puff after 20 kilometres.I am very pleased to take this call on the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in this its second reading. It was a real pleasure to sit on the Commerce Committee. There was actually a lot of robust debate and you know the differences aside actually it was a very interesting set of discussions. A lot of it focused around probably those tangible elements that we as MPs can identify with which is cars how they are going to work in their special vehicle zones—a lot of discussion about how we might identify these things.Clare Curran: Bus lanes.SIMON O'CONNOR: Some person over there said bus lanes" but actually there are more than just bus lanes within the category of special vehicle lanes. In fact the member is very welcome to come to the great seat of Tāmaki to see some of those.A lot of the focus easily moves towards where the electric vehicles are going to drive but I think it is relatively important in this somewhat short contribution to note that the bill actually has four purposes. One certainly is around how we better encourage the use of electric vehicles but one really important one is actually around the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA). Most of you will know that the ads on the television—the very short 20- or 30-second ads that encourage us to think about energy conservation—are funded by a group called EECA. Many people probably do not know what that stands for. That is the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and this bill quite importantly is changing not only its focus if you will but really importantly how it seeks to get its levy. At the moment the levy for EECA is paid purely through electricity use and so this bill is expanding how that levy can be sought—importantly something like gas if someone is going to use that. So that is I think relatively important. As I said it is a chance to really spread across a variety of areas of how this levy is to be sought. It really is a way to introduce some flexibility and transparency into the sector. I think that is particularly—particularly positive—Kris Faafoi: Come on take us to 10.SIMON O'CONNOR: —particularly positive. Colleagues across the House are very keen that I keep talking for a while but you know this is about energy efficiency and conservation and so because of that interjection I am going to conserve some energy and allow my colleagues across the House to continue this debate.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Julie Anne Genter—5 minutes."
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in its second reading. It was actually a very good bill to sit on the Commerce Committee for. I think we are all on both sides of the House looking for a good means to provide incentives for people to increase uptake of electric vehicles. The measures were first proposed obviously by the Government and agreed to after some discussion by the committee. If you look at what we are doing in modern economics parlance they call it behavioural economics. Of course this is one of the most egregious tautologies ever to disgrace the English language but setting that aside for a moment it is based on this idea of nudges—gentle ways of steering people into decisions that are good for them and good for our society.This legislation or proposed change is an example I think of nudging at its best where we are offering some small but tangible incentives where people might decide that buying an electric vehicle is obviously not only good for the environment through a reduction in emissions but is good and sensible in New Zealand because the very next watt of power we generate is going to be renewable energy. Unlike perhaps in the United States where their electric vehicles are actually coal-powered in New Zealand it is most likely that the next watt generated will be renewable and therefore you are in fact reducing emissions not only in the vehicle propulsion system but also in the electricity that it takes to charge it. This just provides some small incentives that give people further reasons to move in that direction. So the idea of using a special vehicle lane or at least giving councils the ability to permit electric cars and electric vehicles in special vehicle lanes is just a small but meaningful way that might help people to say: I'll make this investment instead of another form of a fossil fuel - powered vehicle."We had some really good discussions about how we could be sure if we were going to do something as simple as permit the potential use of these lanes that only the right vehicles were using them. Ultimately you know the future is technology-based and ultimately we have suggested that permitting the use of technology to monitor that compliance is the way to go. Stickers or even coloured number plates might have given a visual reference but that in some respects is possibly the way of the past not the way of the future. So I think we have returned a very positive bill to the House.I think the other "little nudge" aspect that I quite like is the exemption from road-user charges for these vehicles—both passenger vehicles which we did some time ago and also heavy electric vehicles. Again it is just another small but tangible incentive that might help people to make a decision now to move to a vehicle propulsion system that is probably going to be our predominant propulsion system in just a few years' time. So I commend this bill to the House."
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is a pleasure to take a brief call in this Land Transport Amendment Bill second reading debate. It will be brief because whilst I do not normally sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I did have the pleasure of sitting in on the now notorious session of public hearings where unfortunately the media did mischaracterise—and I think it was a mischaracterisation—the level of understanding that the members in this House have of ride sharing. Whilst I was very pleased not to be one of those members who was mischaracterised as being ignorant of how an app or a modern ride-sharing system would work I think it was rather unfair. I do not think the questioning by Ms Moroney was quite as atrocious as was made out in the press.I want to respond to a couple of things that were said by a member in a previous speech Denis O'Rourke. I want to respond to his comments about the modern ride-sharing systems. I appreciate the member Mr O'Rourke probably does not recognise a mode of transport unless it is steam powered or piston driven but the reality is that the changes that have been brought in are very balanced and I think they do present a balanced approach to reconciling the need for public safety with enabling and underpinning modern technologically driven services such as Uber.So for instance when it comes to cameras in taxis—Mr O'Rourke referred to the safety aspect around cameras—I think if you go into an accommodation provider in the country or if you go into a backpackers you can make some informed decisions around whether they have cameras in the lobbies whether they have card access and whether they have lift controls and these sorts of things. This is something that the consumer can make an informed decision on. And actually given the person booking an Uber or equivalent ride-sharing ride with their smartphone has access to an emergency call that they can make directly from their smartphone—their smartphone does contain a camera and this Government it should be remembered is bringing in a 111-equivalent system to enable people to access the emergency services via their smartphones—I think the argument made by Mr O'Rourke was completely specious and it should be dismissed as the piffle that it was.So I think this is a good bill. It does many other worthwhile things. It does crack down on drivers who flee police—the committee made a sensible amendment so that it does so using existing powers already in existence under sections 7 and 21 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990. There were some concerns about introducing new powers.I think taken as a whole this is a sensible measure and it does go some way to really underpinning and enabling those new technologies which I am pretty convinced will be only the start of the transformation of our transport systems in New Zealand. Thank you.
Yang Jian; Borrows ChesterDr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to support this bill. This bill aims to promote safety. First let us say that it will strengthen the regulations relating to alcohol interlocks to make the alcohol-interlock programme mandatory for repeat and very serious first-time drink-driving offenders. Also it will increase the penalties for drivers who flee police and for those who provide false information or refuse to provide information that may lead to the identification of the fleeing drivers.I am particularly concerned about road safety because we do have a large number of vehicle crashes in New Zealand. I had a look at the 2015 calendar year: we had 291 fatal road crashes 9446 injury crashes 319 deaths and 12270 people injured. So these numbers are quite high. Of course each death and each injury will cause huge emotional and financial harm to families and also broadly to societies. We have here the Social cost of road crashes and injuries. Basically: Road crashes impose intangible financial and economic costs to society. These costs include reduced quality of life; reduced productivity; medical and other resource costs." So if you convert this into the actual dollars the numbers are very high. For example here the updated value of statistical life is $4.14 million per fatality at June 2016. So it is particularly important for us to strengthen our regulations to promote road safety.This bill also aims to promote greater economic growth and also productivity by introducing a new regulatory framework for small passenger services. It will enable innovative small passenger services to deliver benefits to consumers while managing safety risks. It is important for us to make changes to accommodate the advance of modern technology. Smartphones have been so popular and it is so easy for us to use for example Uber so it is important for us to have an updated regulatory regime for small passenger services. A better management of small passenger services would potentially have the benefit of managing congestion and therefore has the potential to improve the productivity of our economy. So I commend the bill to the House.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: David Clendon—a 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party."
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18 Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading
O'Connor Simon; Mallard TrevorSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am not sure how long this will last.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner adjournment.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18 Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill—and that is quite a mouthful. It has been said time and again that the two things that none of us can escape are death and taxes. That is why it is so important that we continue to focus on getting taxation matters treatment and processes right here in New Zealand. I have only just had the recent fortune of joining the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I am actually very much looking forward to going over this bill in the select committee.It is amazing—I think members probably from across the House will have seen this but we are all pretty much involved in our electorates with particularly party members. One thing that is for certain is that as soon as you hold a policy discussion on matters pertaining to taxation everyone comes out of the woodwork with ideas as to how we can run our system more efficiently how we can use it to generate the sorts of behaviours we would like to see from people and how we can make their lives simpler through the application of taxation compliance collection and processes.I am particularly interested in looking—as we go through the PAYE changes that will see business employers having to submit electronically the details around their employees in a more timely way at the time of the pay runs. I am interested to see whether that can help us to help those employees who may have more than one job and who often have issues or have had issues in the past with secondary tax payments at the end of the year causing a large balloon payment and causing them some angst. I just wonder whether we might be able to use this change while it might not have been intended for that purpose in a way that helps those employees with that obligation in being able to meet it in a way that is much easier for them to manage in their lives.I am also very pleased to see the work that we are doing around employee share schemes and the way that these would be treated as income both from the employee's perspective but also for what it means from the employer's perspective. So I am very much looking forward to this bill progressing through select committee and I commend it to the House.
Bayly AndrewTAXATION (ANNUAL RATES FOR 2017-18 EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT INCOME AND REMEDIAL MATTERS) BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 23 May.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on this Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18 Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill. This bill is another in a long continuum of bills that we have brought to the House in terms of modernising and improving the settings for the administration of our tax system—which as we all know is one of the best in the world—and improving the current tax settings within a broad based - low rate framework. What I just want to highlight is three areas of the bill. The first one is around employment share schemes. What the bill seeks to do is better align the tax treatment around these with other forms of employment income tax. One of the key changes now is that employees will be taxed on the value of their shares at the time when they meet all the necessary conditions to earn them rather than when they are initially granted and put in trust. It is common practice that when employment share schemes are set up they are put into a trust and then over time the employee gets a benefit once they have met preconditions. In essence what we are seeking to do is address the concerns that employment share schemes can be used to give employees basically tax-free remuneration. The other area is in employment income. What we are trying to do is reduce the compliance costs for employers by making them at the time they file their PAYE on a monthly basis ensure that all the details are then supplied to the IRD at that point which is a more regular threshold. It reduces the threshold at which companies must on a mandatory basis file using electronic means from a threshold of $100000 down to $50000. These are a couple of really good measures. I am really looking forward to debating and discussing this bill at the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I was not on the Commerce Committee during this process and so I am a fresh set of eyes. I find it quite an interesting bill and one that is extremely commendable—commendable—to the House. It has a new piece with regard to public interest and that is what we do with everything we pass through this House. We should always have public interest in mind. The original Act the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act does not have that aspect which is being introduced with this bill so for that reason alone that is a good thing. The example of the peach-grower or the orchardist was painted by the Opposition and it was a little bit of a scaremongering example. It was like you know you bring in some cheap peaches and the whole peach industry is going to collapse. Well that is not in the public's best interests to have the peach industry of New Zealand collapse. So of course that would not be an example where tariffs would be removed or allowed to be dumped if the result was that the peach industry would collapse.Of course the price of the domestic product is considered. The resilience of the industry and how it might affect that industry is considered as part of the public interest. It is not just about getting cheaper goods in here. You can imagine talking about a product—it does not really matter where it is from; coming in from China has been given as the example—that is going to be cheaper. The question is should we tariff it or should we not. Is it in the public interest to allow that stuff to come in? It may compete with other product from say Australia or say from America. Why should it not be in the public interest to allow the Chinese product to come in and compete aggressively with say the American product or the other product? It is an excellent bill. It considers public interest and I commend it to the House.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am always struck by how those on the other side of the House have to sort of get their pre-set political lines out at the end to keep manufacturing a crisis. In fact this bill is nothing to do with any crises in the sectors.What we are dealing with here is actually a piece of legislation that is dealing with exceptions. This is why it has been designed—it is to deal with exceptions and to allow a Minister obviously working with advice and with prudence to make some decisions when exceptional circumstances are required. And so that is particularly to do with duties obviously as we have heard from a number of speakers. The long and the short is that discretion has been given in this bill to a Minister in this case the Hon Jacqui Dean to make a decision about whether a duty is or is not required through the use of a public interest test. It is something that is not in play at the moment.And yes we have heard from various people and organisations that are concerned it might impact their business. The important thing is that their voices still remain. There is still that opportunity to raise those issues and the Minister will act accordingly.I view this bill particularly coming out of what has happened in our natural environment—those various disasters that have hit New Zealand. We saw particularly in Canterbury that part of the response was to remove duties in some areas to make sure that we could get the goods required particularly in the building sector into the country quickly and at a lower price so that we could develop the rebuild.So several members of the House have sort of asked: Well why is this being done? What's the point of it? It's just nonsensical." In fact it arises out of a very particular situation. And so while the bill on one hand is talking about the public interest test the bill is also strengthening or learning for want of a better word from what happened in Canterbury as to how we better handle duties around natural disasters. I will not bore the House for want of a better word by going through some of the particular details but those who know the bill well know that we are also looking through this Act—or rather Act-to-be if that is not overly presumptuous of myself—to extend the suspension of anti-dumping duties for a couple more years. Again it is coming out of the natural disasters that New Zealand has faced. We understand how we acted then and we see that this is a bill that puts the mechanisms in place whether there are further disasters or just simply a need that is in the public interest so that the Government can act. So I heartily commend this bill to the House."
Bakshi Kanwaljit Singh; Tisch LindsayKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I stand in support of the Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill. This bill is in accordance to a World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement and New Zealand is ratified according to the WTO agreement. This bill will introduce the test of an anti-dumping regime which will be a better balance for consumers' interests and those of manufacturers threatened by unfairly priced imports. We have to understand that we want to ensure that the consumers benefit from healthy competition and this will create healthy competition for them. As we have seen in many areas particularly in the construction area competition has been unfair. We can import products on a cheaper base so that we can have healthy competition for the manufacturers over here and this will go a long way. I hope that this bill will benefit not only the consumers but also others. This bill introduces the public interest regime which considers whether consumers are benefiting from the lower price more choice availability and quality and whether this outweighs the effects on industry. There are checks and balances available in this bill that will help both industry and consumers. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Mojo Mathers—5 minutes.
Points of Order — Estimates—Editing of Questions Submitted by Opposition Members
SpeechMr SPEAKER: I will certainly have a look at the point the member is raising—very seriously in fact—but my initial reaction to the comments about amendments occurring to questions by a select committee is that it becomes a select committee decision and therefore if the majority of a select committee votes in one particular way that is it. But I would be very worried if the mechanism then became an attempt to subvert the obtaining of the right information by all members of Parliament. So I will look at the matter and come back to the member.
Hipkins ChrisWEDNESDAY 24 MAY 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.POINTS OF ORDEREstimates Debate—Editing of Questions Submitted by Opposition MembersCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to raise an issue with you which I would like you to take away and give some further consideration to. It has come to my attention that a number of select committees have by majority voted to edit or amend questions that were submitted by members of the Opposition for the forthcoming Estimates hearings. The committee can of course by majority determine which questions it wishes to lodge. However the only recourse that an Opposition member then has to get that information is to lodge a written parliamentary question. Ministers have in the past used the written parliamentary question and answer system to refer members to the Estimates or the annual review question and answer process.The thing that I would like you to give some consideration to is the situation where members are blocked from asking a question or from asking the totality of the question they wish to ask by majority at a select committee and subsequently ask that question as a written parliamentary question. I would like to seek some reassurance from you that there is an obligation on the Minister to answer that question fully and not simply refer the member back to the Estimates or the annual review process.
Tuesday 23 May 2017 - Volume 722
Point England Development Enabling Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Point England Development Enabling Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 62New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 43New Zealand Labour 31; New Zealand First 12.Abstentions 14Green Party 14.Bill read a second time.
VoteSchedule 1 RepealsThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of Chris Hipkins to schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 59New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 60New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 in the name of David Clendon to schedule 1 Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 47New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Noes 72New Zealand National 58; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): David Clendon's amendments to schedule 1 Part 2 are out of order as they are consequential to a previous amendment negatived by the Committee. The Hon David Parker's tabled amendment to schedule 1 is out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.
Statutes Repeal Bill — In Committee
Trade (Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties) Amendment Bill — In Committee
12. Teachers—Supply and QualityDr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of EducationTeachers—Supply and Quality12. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made to address teacher supply?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): As I referred to in my previous answer last week I announced that Budget 2017 will commit $5.2 million of funding over the next 4 years to expand the innovative teacher training programme Teach First NZ. There will of course be a process to work through. However Teach First NZ graduates have proved hugely influential on the students they teach during their training making a real difference to young people. It was great to personally receive feedback from Onehunga High School. The funding will provide two further cohorts of 45 participants each starting in 2018. The emphasis continues to be on science technology and maths and graduates will be trained to teach in schools with a high proportion of Māori and Pasifika students and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds.Dr Jian Yang: What other measures is the Government taking to address teacher supply and quality?Hon NIKKI KAYE: As I said in my previous answer the number of registered teachers with practising certificates has gone from 90000 to 100000 but this Government is doing more. This Government is also committing $2 million to the Education Council to create an induction and mentoring programme for eligible provisionally certified teachers to convert up to 700 teachers to gain full registration. There will of course be a focus on hard-to-staff areas including core subjects and geographical locations. The new mentoring programme follows recommendations made by the joint working group on secondary teacher supply in its 2016 report. Having listened to principals the Education Council and those on the front line of recruitment we are working hard to support more teachers to stay in the profession as well as encourage more high calibre graduates. This is a Government that is investing heavily in education. We have gone from $8 billion to $11 billion. We are investing more.
9. Roading Taranaki—State Highway 3BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of TransportRoading Taranaki—State Highway 3BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): My question is to the Minister of Transport and asks: what roading projects is the—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. I am going to ask her to start the question again.9. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Transport: What roading projects is the Government delivering in Taranaki to support the region's growth?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): It was my pleasure last week to start the construction of the $135 million Awakino Gorge to Mount Messenger programme of State highway projects. State Highway 3 between Mount Messenger and the Awakino Gorge in Taranaki is a key freight link with the Waikato and indeed the wider upper North Island but it has become increasingly unsafe and prone to unpredictable travel times and periodic closures. That is why the Government is investing so much to build a bypass of Mount Messenger and another bypass of the Awakino Gorge tunnel as well as a series of safety improvements along this very important stretch of highway.Jonathan Young: How will the improvements being made to State Highway 3 in Taranaki benefit the region and support its economic growth?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Supporting Taranaki's growth is a top priority for the Government. That is why we are investing in the two bypasses and a series of safety improvements on Taranaki's State Highway 3 to better connect the region with the Waikato and the whole upper North Island. When completed there will be travel-time savings for motorists and freight companies and the new road will see fewer deaths and serious injuries from crashes. Following the recent replacement of the Normanby Overbridge these most recent projects are further evidence of how this Government is delivering quality roading infrastructure in Taranaki to support the region's growth.
5. Tourism—Infrastructure InvestmentSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of TourismTourism—Infrastructure Investment5. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has she made about increased support for tourism infrastructure?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Tourism): As part of Budget 2017 the Minister of Conservation and I have announced a $178 million tourism infrastructure package. It is a lot. The package includes a new $100 million tourism infrastructure fund that will help councils with low ratepayer bases and high numbers of tourists to cope with and benefit from increasing numbers of tourists.Sarah Dowie: What kinds of projects will be funded?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Last year through our $3 million mid-size facilities fund we were able to fund 14 projects around the country. This new $100 million fund will mean of course that we can do a lot more—funding upwards of over 40 projects per year. We will be looking to co-fund infrastructure with local councils such as toilets car parks and camping facilities but we are also prepared to consider projects like visitor information centres and feasibility studies for infrastructure projects on a case by case basis.Sarah Dowie: Why is it so important to support the tourism industry?Hon PAULA BENNETT: When there are nearly 300000 jobs that benefit from tourism and when international visitors spent more than $10 billion in New Zealand just last year alone—and recent forecasts show that we are on track for more visitors coming creating more jobs not just in our main centres but also in our regions—we think it is vital that we have the infrastructure to support this growth.Kris Faafoi: Does she agree with Tourism Export Council New Zealand chief executive Lesley Immink who called the Government's announcement underwhelming" and said that the Government talks "about having a commitment but I'm not sure I'm seeing any evidence of it"; if so will she take a tip from the Labour Party and introduce a levy on international visitors to better support the tourism industry?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I was surprised that Lesley Immink was still there because she had resigned to be a candidate for a parliamentary—blah-blah; what was it? For a political party. She had actually left to go and meet with a political party so I am not surprised that she was not keen on my announcement. But we are really really focused on supporting tourism infrastructure. It is going to make a huge difference in the vicinities that we need and that is it."